4.8 Article

Energy recovery from pyrolysis and gasification of mangrove

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 173-179

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.028

关键词

Mangrove gasification; Gasification; Syngas from biomass; Energy from biomass; Energy recovery

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research (ONR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mangrove is a biomass material that grows in wetland sea waters and is often used to produce charcoal due to its unique characteristics of long and sustained burning and negligible residue. High temperature pyrolysis has been conducted for mangrove biomass in a laboratory scale semi-batch reactor. The effect of reactor temperature on syngas yield and syngas characteristics has been investigated. Reactor temperature was varied from 600 to 900 degrees C in 100 degrees C intervals. The increase in reactor temperature resulted in increased syngas yield, hydrogen yield and energy yield. Evolutionary behavior of the syngas characteristics has also been investigated. The increase in reactor temperature increased the peak value of syngas flow rate, hydrogen flow rate and output power. The increase in reactor temperature decreased the time duration of pyrolysis. Cumulative yield of syngas, hydrogen and energy was calculated based on the time dependent relationship. Higher reactor temperatures shortened the time duration required for 99% release of syngas, hydrogen and energy. For example, time duration required for 99% yield of hydrogen was approximately 73 min at 600 degrees C and only about 26 min at 900 degrees C. Required time duration for 99% yield of energy was similar to 62 min at 600 degrees C and similar to 15 min at 900 degrees C. The gasification of the same material at 900 degrees C has been carried out to determine the role of gasifying agent on the fate of material and resulting syngas properties. The results showed gasification yielded more syngas, hydrogen and energy than that obtained from pyrolysis. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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