Catalytic steam gasification of food waste using Ni-loaded rice husk derived biochar for hydrogen production

Chemosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 130671
Author(s):  
Abid Farooq ◽  
Seong-Ho Jang ◽  
See Hoon Lee ◽  
Sang-Chul Jung ◽  
Gwang Hoon Rhee ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Rajesh Kempegowda ◽  
Suttichai Assabumrungrat ◽  
Navadol Laosiripojana

Thermodynamic analysis of gasification with air, steam, and mixed air-steam was performed over rice husk to determine the optimum conditions (i.e., equivalence ratio (ER), steam to biomass ratio (SBR) and operating temperature) that can maximize the yield of hydrogen production with low energy consumption. It was found that for air gasification, H2 production is always less than CO production and considerably decreased with increasing ER. For steam gasification, the simulation revealed that H2 production is greater than CO, particularly at high SBR and low temperature; furthermore, H2 yield increased steadily with increasing temperature and SBR until reaching SBR of 3.5-4.0, then the effect of steam on H2 yield becomes less pronounced. As for the mixed steam/air gasification, H2 production yield increased with increasing SBR, but decreased dramatically with increasing ER (up to 0.4). Among these three operations, the highest H2 production yield can be achieved from the steam gasification with SBR of 4.0. Nevertheless, by considering the system efficiency, the combined air-steam gasification provided significant higher hydrogen production efficiency than the other two operations. The optimum condition for combined air-steam gasification can be achieved at 900°C with ER of 0.1 and SBR of 2.5, which provided the efficiency up to 66.5 percent.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (29) ◽  
pp. 14744-14755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Su ◽  
Changqing Cai ◽  
Ping Liu ◽  
Wei Lin ◽  
Baorui Liang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 1034 (1) ◽  
pp. 012075
Author(s):  
Purnami ◽  
ING. Wardana ◽  
Sudjito ◽  
Denny Widhiyanuriyawan ◽  
Nurkholis Hamidi

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (28) ◽  
pp. 14290-14302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaning Zhang ◽  
Pingfei Xu ◽  
Shuang Liang ◽  
Bingxu Liu ◽  
Yong Shuai ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. 69-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A. Salbidegoitia ◽  
E.G. Fuentes-Ordóñez ◽  
M.P. González-Marcos ◽  
J.R. González-Velasco ◽  
T. Bhaskar ◽  
...  

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.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Shimizu ◽  
A. Fujisawa ◽  
O. Mizuno ◽  
T. Kameda ◽  
T. Yoshioka ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document