| 1. |
- Biollaz, S., et al.
(author)
-
Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste : Guideline report: Document 1
- 2018
-
Reports (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Gasification is generally acknowledged as one of the technologies that will enable the large-scale production of biofuels and chemicals from biomass and waste. One of the main technical challenges associated to the deployment of biomass gasification as a commercial technology is the cleaning and upgrading of the product gas. The contaminants of product gas from biomass/waste gasification include dust, tars, alkali metals, BTX, sulphur-, nitrogen- and chlorine compounds, and heavy metals. Proper measurement of the components and contaminants of the product gas is essential for the monitoring of gasification-based plants (efficiency, product quality, by-products), as well as for the proper design of the downstream gas cleaning train (for example, scrubbers, sorbents, etc.). In practice, a trade-off between reliability, accuracy and cost has to be reached when selecting the proper analysis technique for a specific application. The deployment and implementation of inexpensive yet accurate gas analysis techniques to monitor the fate of gas contaminants might play an important role in the commercialization of biomass and waste gasification processes.This special report commissioned by the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 group compiles a representative part of the extensive work developed in the last years by relevant actors in the field of gas analysis applied to(biomass and waste) gasification. The approach of this report has been based on the creation of a team of contributing partners who have supplied material to the report. This networking approach has been complemented with a literature review. The report is composed of a set of 2 documents. Document 1(the present report) describes the available analysis techniques (both commercial and underdevelopment) for the measurement of different compounds of interest present in gasification gas. The objective is to help the reader to properly select the analysis technique most suitable to the target compounds and the intended application. Document 1 also describes some examples of application of gas analysis at commercial-, pilot- and research gasification plants, as well as examples of recent and current joint research activities in the field. The information contained in Document 1 is complemented with a book of factsheets on gas analysis techniques in Document 2, and a collection of video blogs which illustrate some of the analysis techniques described in Documents 1 and 2.This guideline report would like to become a platform for the reinforcement of the network of partners working on the development and application of gas analysis, thus fostering collaboration and exchange of knowledge. As such, this report should become a living document which incorporates in future coming progress and developments in the field.
|
|
| 2. |
- Biollaz, S., et al.
(author)
-
Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste : Guideline report: Document 2 - Factsheets on gas analysis techniques
- 2018
-
Reports (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Gasification is generally acknowledged as one of the technologies that will enable the large-scale production of biofuels and chemicals from biomass and waste. One of the main technical challenges associated to the deployment of biomass gasification as a commercial technology is the cleaning and upgrading of the product gas. The contaminants of product gas from biomass/waste gasification include dust, tars, alkali metals, BTX, sulphur-, nitrogen- and chlorine compounds, and heavy metals. Proper measurement of the components and contaminants of the product gas is essential for the monitoring of gasification-based plants (efficiency, product quality, by-products), as well as for the proper design of the downstream gas cleaning train (for example, scrubbers, sorbents, etc.). The deployment and implementation of inexpensive yet accurate gas analysis techniques to monitor the fate of gas contaminants might play an important role in the commercialization of biomass and waste gasification processes.This special report commissioned by the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 group compiles a representative part of the extensive work developed in the last years by relevant actors in the field of gas analysis applied to (biomass and waste) gasification. The approach of this report has been based on the creation of a team of contributing partners who have supplied material to the report. This networking approach has been complemented with a literature review. This guideline report would like to become a platform for the reinforcement of the network of partners working on the development and application of gas analysis, thus fostering collaboration and exchange of knowledge. As such, this report should become a living document which incorporates in future coming progress and developments in the field.
|
|
| 3. |
- Michelsen, H. A., et al.
(author)
-
Modeling laser-induced incandescence of soot: a summary and comparison of LII models
- 2007
-
In: Applied Physics B. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0946-2171 .- 1432-0649. ; 87:3, s. 503-521
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We have performed a comparison of ten models that predict the temporal behavior of laser-induced incandescence (LII) of soot. In this paper we present a summary of the models and comparisons of calculated temperatures, diameters, signals, and energy-balance terms. The models were run assuming laser heating at 532 nm at fluences of 0.05 and 0.70 J/cm(2) with a laser temporal profile provided. Calculations were performed for a single primary particle with a diameter of 30 nm at an ambient temperature of 1800 K and a pressure of 1 bar. Preliminary calculations were performed with a fully constrained model. The comparison of unconstrained models demonstrates a wide spread in calculated LII signals. Many of the differences can be attributed to the values of a few important parameters, such as the refractive-index function E(m) and thermal and mass accommodation coefficients. Constraining these parameters brings most of the models into much better agreement with each other, particularly for the low-fluence case. Agreement among models is not as good for the high-fluence case, even when selected parameters are constrained. The reason for greater variability in model results at high fluence appears to be related to solution approaches to mass and heat loss by sublimation.
|
|
