2020
DOI: 10.1002/jctb.6609
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biorefineries at poultry farms: a perspective for sustainable development

Abstract: Poultry litter (PL) is one of the drier and bulkier manures produced in intensive agriculture. Land spreading is considered the most common treatment option for PL; however, this causes large atmospheric greenhouse emissions and consequently a high negative environmental impact. PL has several factors that limit its sustainable use as an energy source, and thus there is still a need for more studies about sustainable waste management. The paper aims at: (i) proposing sustainable pathways in order to maximise t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 115 publications
(326 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…33 FB gasifiers (in either bubbling or circulating mode) permit the use of various distributions of particle size (generally, lower than 6 mm; while EF systems require particles finer than 0.1 mm), with a wide possible range in terms of quality of the input solid fuel (biomass), a feature not presented by EF gasifiers; the FB gasifier operating temperature falls in the range 700-1200 °C (for EF, up to 1600 °C), with fast heating and good carbon conversion efficiency (ca 95%; in EF gasifiers it can reach almost 100%); the mean residence time of solid particles is in the range 10-100 s, about an order of magnitude longer than that found in EF gasifiers; FB gasifiers of capacity from 20 up to 700 MW th have been conceived, values in line with the thermal capacity of EF reactors; finally, dry ash is collected from FB installations, while in EF systems we have a molten ash slag (due to the higher operating temperature) that may have high corrosion potential. [19][20][21][34][35][36] Of course, the issues inherent in the use of FB gasifiers must not be omitted and must be carefully controlled: possible bed agglomeration, particle attrition/fragmentation/elutriation, corrosion/erosion of internal parts, to name a few.…”
Section: Fluidised Bed Gasification General Concepts and Plant Charac...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33 FB gasifiers (in either bubbling or circulating mode) permit the use of various distributions of particle size (generally, lower than 6 mm; while EF systems require particles finer than 0.1 mm), with a wide possible range in terms of quality of the input solid fuel (biomass), a feature not presented by EF gasifiers; the FB gasifier operating temperature falls in the range 700-1200 °C (for EF, up to 1600 °C), with fast heating and good carbon conversion efficiency (ca 95%; in EF gasifiers it can reach almost 100%); the mean residence time of solid particles is in the range 10-100 s, about an order of magnitude longer than that found in EF gasifiers; FB gasifiers of capacity from 20 up to 700 MW th have been conceived, values in line with the thermal capacity of EF reactors; finally, dry ash is collected from FB installations, while in EF systems we have a molten ash slag (due to the higher operating temperature) that may have high corrosion potential. [19][20][21][34][35][36] Of course, the issues inherent in the use of FB gasifiers must not be omitted and must be carefully controlled: possible bed agglomeration, particle attrition/fragmentation/elutriation, corrosion/erosion of internal parts, to name a few.…”
Section: Fluidised Bed Gasification General Concepts and Plant Charac...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 For instance, fossil fuel consumption emits CO 2 , SO 2 , and NO x simultaneously, while animals generate methane (CH 4 ) and ammonia (NH 3 ). 4,5 Thus, co-controlling GHGs and pollutants may offset mitigation costs substantially. 6 The key to cocontrolling these is discerning their common driving forces, which this study intends to do.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jeswani [14] found out through a Life Cycle Assessment analysis that PL gasification had a lower impact in 14 out of 16 categories considered when comparing to fossil fuel alternatives, and Perondi [15] researched the potential of natural catalysts to increase gas yields. Other thermochemical conversion methods for PL researched include pyrolysis [16] and hydrothermal carbonisation and anaerobic digestion [17]. However, as discussed in [18] there is potential in using small scale (< 250 kW) gasification units for onsite heat and electricity production in poultry farms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%