Untitled

Conversion of liquid and gaseous fuels in fluidized bed combustion and gasification

“…The authors measured 6 ppm of SO 3 and 2,640 ppm of SO 2 in combustion tests without addition of limestone, while they did not detect any SO 3 in tests with limestone. In these combustion tests, similarly to the findings of Enyakin et al (1985), SO 2 did not show a remarkable tendency to SO 3 conversion at standard FBC temperature and with excess air of 20%. Barker and Beacham (1980) noticed that the inert bed material of the fluidized bed during combustion of petroleum-based liquid fuel retained 'a large proportion of the ash from liquid fuel'.…”

“…The advantage of the layer is avoiding catalytic effects of vanadium in the stream of flue gases, in combination with SO 3 , with extreme corrosion of the heat exchange surfaces. Furthermore, it was noticed by Barker and Beacham (1980), Enyakin et al (1985), and Brereton et al (1995) that the presence of limestone has positive effects and significantly lowers the SO 3 concentrations.…”

“…In this case, high combustion efficiency was accomplished at the optimal bed temperature for sulfur retention (850°C). Enyakin et al (1980) carried out combustion tests with heavy fuel oil in a pilot bubbling fluidized bed boiler, with the cross section of 0.5 m 2 . The bed was relatively tall, i.e., 0.9 m, and as a consequence 90% of the fuel was able to burn within the bed, 6% in the splash zone and the rest in the convective sections of the freeboard.…”

“…About 95% So 2 retention was achieved at the expense of a Ca/S ratio as high as 5.3. Enyakin et al (1980Enyakin et al ( , 1985 performed combustion tests with commercial heavy fuel oil (mazut) containing 2.1% sulfur in a pilot plant with the fluidized bed cross section of 0.5 m 2 . They made three trials, the first with dolomite, the second with limestone, and the third without adding any sorbent.…”

Fluidized bed combustion of a diesel fuel: A modeling interpretation for micro-explosions

“…A few authors [2][3][4] reported the difficulties experienced during operation, namely fuel cracking, bed agglomeration, injector blocking, post-burning in freeboard, non-uniform temperature distribution, unacceptable combustion and desulphurisation efficiencies. Nevertheless, encouraging experiences on liquid 1540 fuel FB combustion with high process efficiency were reported for several kind of fuels like acid tar, diesel, heavy fuel oil, kerosene, pyrolysis oil, bitumen-based emulsion, bio-diesel and mazut [5][6][7][8][9][10][11].…”