4.7 Article

Effect of temperature and dolomite on tar formation during gasification of torrefied biomass in a pressurized fluidized bed

期刊

ENERGY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 849-859

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.035

关键词

Biomass; Torrefaction; Fluidized bed reactor; Tar; Steam/O-2 gasification

资金

  1. European Regional Development Funds (ERDF, FEDER Programa de Competitivitat de Catalunya)
  2. Spanish Government [CTQ2011-22767]
  3. ERDF program
  4. Norwegian Research Council
  5. RENERGI Programme (Gasbio: Gasification for Biofuels) [199902/S60]
  6. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity [RYC-2011-09202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work investigates the effect of temperature and bed material on the yields and composition of gas and tar produced from gasification of two types of biomass feedstock previously torrefied at 275 degrees C. Special attention was devoted to the evolution of tar composition under the different experimental conditions. Experiments were conducted in a fluidized bed reactor using two different types of bed material (sand and dolomite) under a constant pressure of 0.5 MPa and at two temperature levels (750 and 850 degrees C). Tar destruction reactions promoted by the catalyst (dolomite) enhanced the production of some of the gas components (H-2, CO2, CO and CH4) whereas C-2 hydrocarbons decreased, this effect being slightly more relevant at 850 C. Comparable trends were observed with increasing temperature, which had a positive effect on cracking reactions and tar destruction. For both feedstocks, the increase in temperature resulted in (i) higher gas yields, and (ii) enhanced char gasification rate. On the other hand the evolution of tar yield and composition revealed a possible competition between two tar reaction pathways during gasification, (i) tar polymerization, and (ii) de-alkylation, dehydration and cracking of tars, depending on the experimental conditions and feedstock used. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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