4.7 Article

Gasification improvement of a poor quality solid recovered fuel (SRF). Effect of using natural minerals and biomass wastes blends

期刊

FUEL
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 1034-1044

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.10.015

关键词

Co-gasification; Solid recovered fuel (SRF); Biomass wastes; Tar; H2S and NH3 abatement

资金

  1. 7th Framework Programme of the Project ENER/FP7/249804-GASBIOREF-GASification of BIOfuels and REcovered Fuels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The need to produce energy from poor quality carbonaceous materials has increased, in order to reduce European dependency on imported fuels, diversify the use of new and alternative fuels and to guarantee secure energy production routes. The valorisation of a poor quality solid residual fuel (SRF), with high content of ash and volatile matter, through its conversion into fuel gas was studied. The rise of gasification temperature and equivalent ratio (ER) led to higher gas yields and to lower undesirable gaseous components, though higher ER values led to a gas with lower energetic content. To reduce the negative effect of SRF unfavourable characteristics and to diversify the feedstocks used, SRF blended with three different types of biomass wastes: forestry pine, almond shells and olive bagasse was co-gasified. The use of biomass wastes tested was valuable for SRF gasification, as there was an increase in the overall reactivity and in H-2 production and a reduction of about 55% in tar released, without great changes in gas yield and in its HHV. The use of natural minerals mixed with silica sand was also studied with the aim of improving SRF gasification performance and fuel gas quality. The best results were obtained in presence of dolomite, as the lowest tar and H2S contents were obtained, while an increase in gas yield was observed. Co-gasification of this poor quality SRF blended with biomass wastes in presence of dolomite increased gas yield by 25% while tar contents decreased by 55%. (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