4.7 Article

Steam gasification of biochar derived from elephant grass pyrolysis in a screw reactor

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 163-174

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.006

关键词

Steam gasification; Elephant grass; Biochar; Gasification kinetics

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [161524/2015-0]
  2. Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steam gasification of biochar has emerged as a promising method for generating bioenergy. In this study was investigated the steam gasification of biochar derived from the elephant grass pyrolysis and evaluated regarding the influence of biochar properties on the steam gasification process. Firstly, elephant grass pyrolysis experiments were performed at 400, 500 and 600 degrees C in a screw reactor in order to obtain biochar. The biochars were characterized according to FTIR, surface area (BET), and alkali and alkaline earth metals. For biochar produced at 500 degrees C, steam gasification experiments were conducted at 800, 850, 900 and 950 degrees C in a fixed-bed reactor, while others biochars were subjected the steam gasification at 900 degrees C. The maximum reaction rate (dX/dt) of the biochar occurred during the reaction's initial time (t < 3 min), while at 950 degrees C the reaction rate rose again during the interval time 12-15 min. Likewise, the H-2 maximum reaction rate was observed during the interval between 0 and 3 min (approximate to 4.6 mmolH(2)/min.gbiochar). Results also show that as gasification temperature (800-950 degrees C) increased, H-2 yield significantly escalated (52.00-82.02 mmol.gbiochar(-1)), the same was true for dry gas yield (1.54-2.67 N m(3).kg(-1)). In addition, the Arrhenius parameters and the reaction model of the steam gasification of biochar derived from elephant grass have been estimated from some kinetics models available in the literature (VM/GM/RPM).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据