...
首页> 外文期刊>Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy >Energy recovery in China from solid wastes by the moving grate and circulating fluidized bed technologies
【24h】

Energy recovery in China from solid wastes by the moving grate and circulating fluidized bed technologies

机译:通过移动的炉排和循环流化的床技术从固体废物中从固体废物中恢复能量

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

In recent years, the Chinese waste-to-energy (WTE) industry is growing at the rate of about thirty new plants each year. The municipal solid waste (MSW) fuel has a low heating value of 4-7 MJ/kg, in comparison to about 11 MJ/kg in U.S. and 8-11 MJ/kg in EU. Combustion of the low heating value fuel on a moving grate (MG), the dominant combustion technology worldwide, is difficult to control and measures have to be taken to remove some moisture prior to combustion. For this and other reasons, an alternative technology, the circulating fluid bed (CFB) has been implemented in China. This paper is a comparative study of the two technologies and was carried out by Columbia University and two senior engineers, representing the MG and CFB technologies of China. Data were derived from industrial operating plants and from the literature. The fuel to MG furnaces is as-received MSW, while the MSW to CFB reactors is pre-shredded using high-torque low-speed shredders. The availability of MG plants, over a 1-year period, is 90% +, while that of CFB facilities is 80% +. Also, the in-plant electricity consumption of MG plants is slightly lower than the consumption of CFB plants. The MG furnace is less compact, than that of a CFB combustion chamber, with a heat flux range from 0.5 to 0.6 MW/m2 of grate surface area, while that of CFB furnace was about 1.7 MW/m2 of furnace cross-section. The bottom ash in a MG process is typically wet-discharged and the recovery of metals is less efficient. A drawback of the CFB process is that the fly ash generated is 5-10% of the weight of MSW combusted, as compared to 1-3% for moving grate plants in China.
机译:近年来,中国废物对能源(WTE)行业每年以大约三十个新工厂的速度增长。市政固体废物(MSW)燃料的供暖价值低4-7 mJ/kg,相比之下,在美国约为11 mJ/kg,在欧盟为8-11 MJ/kg。在全球范围内的主要燃烧技术(MG)上低加热价值燃料(MG)上的燃烧很难控制,并且必须采取措施以在燃烧之前去除一些水分。由于这个和其他原因,在中国已经实施了循环液床(CFB)的替代技术。本文是两种技术的比较研究,由哥伦比亚大学和两位高级工程师进行,代表中国的MG和CFB技术。数据源自工业运营工厂和文献。 MG熔炉的燃料是接收的MSW,而使用高扭矩的低速切碎机预先缩短了CFB反应器。在1年内,MG工厂的可用性为90% +,而CFB设施的可用性为80% +。同样,MG植物的植入式电力消耗略低于CFB植物的消耗。与CFB燃烧室的MG炉相比,热通量的炉排表面积为0.5至0.6 mW/m2,而CFB炉的含量为0.5至0.6 mw/m2。毫克工艺中的底部灰分通常是湿的,金属的恢复效率较低。 CFB过程的缺点是,产生的粉煤灰是MSW燃烧的重量的5-10%,而中国移动的炉排植物为1-3%。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号