4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Co-gasification of wastewater sludge and different feedstock: Feasibility study

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 201-209

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.003

Keywords

Co-gasification; Wastewater sludge; Waste-to energy; Pollutants release; Ash slagging and fouling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gasification experiments were performed for several feedstocks alone (wastewater sludge, waste wood, reeds, olive pomace, solid recovered fuel, paper labels and plastic labels) using a fixed bed reactor operating in semi-batch conditions. In order to combine them in an optimal gasifying blend, the gasification behavior of each feedstock was compared with that of wastewater sludge through the following criteria: the raw feedstock proximate and ultimate composition, the solid conversion, the gas heating value, the pollutants release and the ashes melting. Operated alone, the conversion rate of the feedstocks after 58 min of solid residence time was over 77% of initial mass. The Syngas low heating value produced at 1123 K was in the range of 9.0 to 11.9 MJ m(-3). The major concerns regarding the wastewater sludge were the pollutants precursors' release (NH3, COS...) and the ash slagging and fouling. The calculated slagging and fouling indexes were high also for olive pomace and for waste wood. Finally, among the possible blends studied the paper labels and plastic labels can be co-gasified with secondary and digested wastewater sludge without any restriction, reeds and solid recovered fuel can be blinded with secondary wastewater sludge without any restriction, a specific attention have to be taken to fouling when they are blended with digested wastewater sludge. The blend based on waste wood and olives pomace should be avoided for instance due to their ash slagging and fouling tendency. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available