scholarly journals Aspen plus simulation to predict steady state performance of biomass-CO 2 gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narendra Sadhwani ◽  
Sushil Adhikari ◽  
Mario R. Eden ◽  
Pengcheng Li
Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 2006
Author(s):  
Diamantis Almpantis ◽  
Anastasia Zabaniotou

This study explored the suitability of simulation tools for accurately predicting fluidized bed gasification in various scenarios without disturbing the operational system, and dedicating time to experimentation, in the aim of benefiting the decision makers and investors of the low-carbon waste-based bioenergy sector, in accelerating circular bioeconomy solutions. More specifically, this study aimed to offer a customized circular bioeconomy solution for a rice processing residue. The objectives were the simulation and economic assessment of an air atmospheric fluidized bed gasification system fueled with rice husk, for combined heat and power generation, by using the tools of Aspen Plus V9, and the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer. The simulation model was based on the Gibbs energy minimization concept. The technological configurations of the SMARt-CHP technology were used. A parametric study was conducted to understand the influence of process variables on product yield, while three different scenarios were compared: (1) air gasification; (2) steam gasification; and (3) oxygen-steam gasification-based scenario. Simulated results show good accuracy for the prediction of H2 in syngas from air gasification, but not for the other gas components, especially regarding CO and CH4 content. It seems that the RGIBBS and Gibbs free minimization concept is far from simulating the operation of a fluidized bed gasifier. The air gasification scenario for a capacity of 25.000 t/y rice husk was assessed for its economic viability. The economic assessment resulted in net annual earnings of EUR 5.1 million and a positive annual revenue of EUR 168/(t/y), an excellent pay out time (POT = 0.21) and return of investment (ROI = 2.8). The results are dependent on the choices and assumptions made.


2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 1237-1245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheyu Liu ◽  
Yitian Fang ◽  
Shuping Deng ◽  
Jiejie Huang ◽  
Jiantao Zhao ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tantular Nurtono ◽  
Fransiskus Budi Kurnia Agung ◽  
Magistra Dwinovia Indriani ◽  
Hendiyansa Dwi Nanda ◽  
Indita Rizky Jayanti ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (17-18) ◽  
pp. 1530-1533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiuying Yang ◽  
Amir Hamidzadeh ◽  
Mohammad Ilkhani ◽  
Amin Foroughi ◽  
Mohammad Javad Esfahani ◽  
...  

10.2514/3.895 ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 306-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin H. Olmstead ◽  
Edward S. Taylor ◽  
Meng Wang ◽  
Parviz Moin ◽  
Scott K. Thomas ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document