4.7 Article

Plasma fixed bed gasification using an Eulerian model

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 44, Issue 54, Pages 28668-28684

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.035

Keywords

Municipal solid wastes; Plasma gasification; Fixed bed; Euler-Euler approach

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/110787/2015]
  2. European Union [818012]
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [818012] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gasification of solid waste is considered as a green and sustainable solution to perform energy recovery from several waste streams. This work aims to adapt an Euler-Euler multiphase mathematical model to understand the effects of physical and chemical factors, i.e. equivalence ratio (ER), steam to fuel ratio (SFR), and input plasma power of municipal solid waste (MSW) fixed bed gasification. The model is capable of simulating temperature and velocity fields, as well as gas and solid composition variations inside the reactor. A two-step pyrolysis model is used considering the pyrolysis mechanism of cellulose and plastic components. Drying, pyrolysis, homogeneous gas reactions, and heterogeneous combustion/gasification reactions were also included in the model. It was shown that the proposed model could provide accurate predictions against experimental data with a deviation generally lesser than 10%. Conclusion could be drawn that an ER of 0.3 and an SRF of 0.5 seems to be the most favourable conditions in order to obtain a high- quality syngas. Higher plasma power is favourable to obtain a high-quality syngas. However, the high electric power required penalizes the process efficiency and may compromise the economic viability of a plasma gasification project. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by 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