Simulation study of improved biomass drying efficiency for biomass gasification plants by integration of the water gas shift section in the drying process

Haarlemmer, Geert

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.06.002

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The maximum conversion was 25% at feed molar ratio of 4. The analysis results were in agreement with the work by Haarlemmer [32] which indicate that pressure play a minor role in the reaction and compare to steam ratio which significantly increase the CO conversion. WGS simulation involves two stage which is high temperature WGS (HWGS) and low temperature WGS (LWGS).…”

Section: Model Validation and Sensitivity Analysissupporting

confidence: 89%

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Othman

Amran

Ahmad

2019

JEST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrogen is an interesting energy source alternative to fossil fuel which commonly produced from a non-renewable resource such as methane. Alternatively, ethanol is an attractive resource option for producing hydrogen because of its renewability. Assessing both alternatives is important for selection of better and sustainable option. In this work, we perform an environmental and economic assessment of both hydrogen production pathways and compare its performance. In doing that, both processes were modelled and simulated in Aspen Plus V8.6. Sensitivity analysis were performed as well. Life cycle assessment (LCA) ReciPe method was performed to evaluate the environmental performance using GaBi sotware. Overall, 16 categories impact assessment were evaluated. Economic assessment was based on capital expenditure (CAPEX) of all main equipment and operating expenditure (OPEX) of utilities. From LCA results, three categories were identified as highly significant namely climate change, fossil depletion and water depletion. Methane shows a higher impact on climate change. In contrary, ethanol shows a higher impact on fossil fuel resource depletion and water resources. Economic assessment shows that in term of capital expenditure (CAPEX) methane is 5.2% less compared to ethanol. Whereas, for operating expenditure (OPEX) methane is 12.8% less compared to ethanol. Overall, our findings show that methane outwit ethanol despite the latter uses a renewable source for hydrogen production.

show abstract

Section: Model Validation and Sensitivity Analysissupporting

confidence: 89%

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Othman

Amran

Ahmad

2019

JEST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides cleaner electrochemical processes, numerous production methods have been studied to look for a more sustainable production system such as thermochemical processes using biomass, gasification, and pyrolysis and biological processes by dark and photofermentation using bacteria and microalgae. If we consider solar energy as a front‐running clean, abundant, and secure energy source, some researchers have faced the increasing demand for energy by proposing a photocatalytic hydrogen production process as a way to store solar energy as chemical energy …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one of the barriers to the expansion of the use of hydrogen is its current unsustainable production process,w hich is mainly based on fossil fuels;t he steam reforming of methane and the gasification of coal share 96 %o fthe world market. [1] Besides cleaner electrochemical processes, [2][3][4][5][6] numerous productionm ethods have been studied to look for am ore sustainable productions ystem such as thermochemical processes using biomass,g asification, [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and pyrolysis [14][15][16][17][18] and biological processesb yd ark [19][20][21][22][23] and photofermentation [20,[24][25][26][27] using bacteria and microalgae.I fw ec onsider solar energy as af ront-running clean, abundant, and secure energy source,s omer esearchers have faced the increasing demand for energy by proposing ap hotocatalytic hydrogen productionp rocess [28][29][30] as aw ay to store solar energya s chemical energy. [31] Factors affecting photocatalytic hydrogen generation Most studies in the field of photocatalysis are focusedo nt he synthesis,c haracterization of properties,a nd testing of nanomaterials able to catalyze the degradation of pollutants, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]…”

Section: Introduction Hydrogen Role In Energy Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational Conditions Affecting Hydrogen Production by the Photoreforming of Organic Compounds using Titania Nanoparticles with Gold

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several factors affect photocatalytic hydrogen productivity from the photoreforming of organic compounds, which makes it difficult to optimize operational conditions in photoreactors. To prioritize these factors, we focused on the quantification of the effect of five of them on hydrogen production. Photocatalytic experiments were performed on 67 mL batch photoreactors under UV‐LED lamps (λ=375 nm) using a suspension of TiO2–Au nanoparticles synthesized by a sol–gel approach. The analyzed factors were: (A) presence of Au as a cocatalyst, (B) type of alcohol as the electron donor, (C) intensity of UV light, (D) electron donor concentration, and (E) nanoparticle concentration. A main and interaction effects analysis is presented with reduced fixed effect models for three responses: total hydrogen generation, catalyst productivity, and electron donor productivity. The presence of Au as a cocatalyst (A), the intensity of UV light (C), and their interaction (AC) were the factors with the highest effect. The best configuration allowed us to reach a catalyst productivity of 2925 μmolnormalH2 g−1 h−1.

show abstract

“…A number of investigations on glucose gasification indicate that long reaction times are necessary for achieving reasonable amounts of hydrogen or syngas per unit mole of glucose in batch reactors. , The riser simulator favors high yield of gaseous products at atmospheric pressure with concentrated or dilute biomass feedstock, and within short time intervals. This offers an overall low operational cost, considering the high energy implication of biomass drying in conventional gasifiers. , Moreover, the fluidized bed configuration makes provision for easy catalyst regeneration and reuse over several cycles. This is, in fact, a significant advantage over the batch and fixed bed reactors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This offers an overall low operational cost, considering the high energy implication of biomass drying in conventional gasifiers. 14,15 Moreover, the fluidized bed configuration makes provision for easy catalyst regeneration and reuse over several cycles. This is, in fact, a significant advantage over the batch and fixed bed reactors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinetics of Steam Gasification of Glucose as a Biomass Surrogate over Ni/Ce–Mesoporous Al₂O₃ in a Fluidized Bed Reactor

Adamu

Hossain

2018

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports the kinetics of steam gasification of glucose as a biomass surrogate over a new Ni(x)/Ce-doped Al 2 O 3 (x = 5, 10, 15, and 20 wt %) catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor. The presence of ceria plus successive nickel impregnation helped in conserving the catalyst's high surface area (i.e., 102 m 2 /g at 20 wt % nickel loading). Incorporation of ceria dopant suppressed coke formation during steam gasification of 15 wt % glucose in the fluidized bed reactor at 650 °C and 1 atm in the order Ni(20) < Ni(15) < Ni(10) < Ni(5)/Ce-doped Al 2 O 3 . The detailed kinetic model comprises reactant adsorption, surface reaction, and product desorption steps, involving the water gas shift reaction (WGS), steam reforming of methane (SRM), and reverse dry reforming of methane (RDRM). Ni(20)/Ce-doped Al 2 O 3 with the best performance in terms of syngas production, and the least tendency for coking, was used for the kinetic studies (for T = 550− 700 °C and t = 5−25 s). The results of the model simulation indicate that the rate of water gas shift was the highest (7.76 × 10 −2 mmol/g of cat.•s•bar 2 ) followed by steam reforming of methane (4.13 × 10 −2 mmol/g of cat.•s•bar 2 ) and then reverse dry reforming of methane (3.57 × 10 −2 mmol/g of cat.•s•bar 2 ). The high reaction rates signify the suitability of the new Ni(x)/Ce− mesoporous Al 2 O 3 catalytic system applied in this work. The modeling procedure could be applied conveniently for a different catalytic system in a similar reactor to obtain the necessary kinetic parameters.

show abstract

Simulation study of improved biomass drying efficiency for biomass gasification plants by integration of the water gas shift section in the drying process

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Operational Conditions Affecting Hydrogen Production by the Photoreforming of Organic Compounds using Titania Nanoparticles with Gold

Kinetics of Steam Gasification of Glucose as a Biomass Surrogate over Ni/Ce–Mesoporous Al₂O₃ in a Fluidized Bed Reactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Simulation study of improved biomass drying efficiency for biomass gasification plants by integration of the water gas shift section in the drying process

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Environment and Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Methane and Ethanol

Operational Conditions Affecting Hydrogen Production by the Photoreforming of Organic Compounds using Titania Nanoparticles with Gold

Kinetics of Steam Gasification of Glucose as a Biomass Surrogate over Ni/Ce–Mesoporous Al2O3 in a Fluidized Bed Reactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Kinetics of Steam Gasification of Glucose as a Biomass Surrogate over Ni/Ce–Mesoporous Al₂O₃ in a Fluidized Bed Reactor