4.7 Article

Direct catalytic methanation of biogas - Part I: New insights into biomethane production using rate-based modelling and detailed process analysis

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 750-768

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.056

关键词

Bubbling fluidised bed; Fixed bed; Catalytic methanation; Biomethane; Biogas; Rate-based modelling; Power-to-gas

资金

  1. Competence Center for Energy and Mobility
  2. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE)
  3. FOGA
  4. Swiss Innovation Agency lnnosuisse
  5. Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research SCCER BIOSWEET
  6. European Commission
  7. European Social Fund
  8. Calabria Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct methanation of biogas is a promising application of the Power-to-Gas concept, since up to 80% more methane can be produced in comparison to conventional biogas upgrading methods. Six different processes, in which a bubbling fluidized bed or a fixed bed technology serves as the main reactor, were designed, simulated in detail and evaluated in terms of technical feasibility and product gas quality. Both reactor types showed the same chemical performance, since they are both restricted by kinetic and thermodynamic effects. However, the cooled fixed bed reactor requires about three times more catalyst mass than the bubbling fluidized bed. Both methanation technologies did not reach Swiss or German high calorific gas grid requirements in one step. Further upgrading units are necessary which were often not considered in previous literature. Hence, the technological effort for biogas upgrading is higher than often stated in literature. With a subsequent second-stage fixed bed or a gas separation membrane, every process considered reaches the required product gas quality. It is more challenging to fall below the maximum limit of hydrogen (2 vol-%) than to reach the mandatory methane content for grid injection. The electrolysis clearly dominates the power consumption in all processes.

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