KMITL

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://dspace.kmitl.ac.th/handle/123456789/1

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Bioresources and biofuels—From classical to perspectives and trends
(2022-01-01)
Kiatkittipong, Worapon
;
Pongsiriyakul, Kanokthip
;
Lim, Jun Wei
;
Kiatkittipong, Kunlanan
;
Wongsurakul, Peerawat
This chapter provides perspective on “Bioresources and Biofuels” based on three platforms of bioresource feedstock, i.e., amorphous sugar, lipid, and lignocellulosics. A comprehensive scheme of various possibilities of biofuel production in the three platforms of feedstock that are already commercialized or under development is proposed. At present, only lipid platform dominates the production of “drop-in” biofuel in large volume. However, a coming electric vehicle revolution, disruptive technology, could be a threat to biofuel industries either electricity is produced from renewable energy or having carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) or not. Different alleviation approaches are discussed, for examples (1) shifting from ethanol to “Alcohol to jet, AtJ” or “Direct sugar to hydrocarbon, DSHC” in the amorphous sugar platform; (2) shifting from biodiesel or even bio-hydrotreated diesel (BHD) (also called Hydrogenated Esters and Fatty Acids, HEFA) to HEFA—Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (HEFA-SPK) in the lipid platform; and (3) shifting from Fischer-Tropsch (FT) to FT-Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK) and FT-SPK with Aromatics (FT-SPK/A) in the lignocellulosic biomass platform. Another interesting choice is on biofuel allocation to produce hydrogen and hydrogen carrier fuel for state-of-the-art fuel cell vehicle application. Last but not least, by using biorefinery concept, lipid/oleochemical biorefinery is specially emphasized and some current typical technologies such as fatty acid methyl ester biodiesel as well as coproduct glycerol should be shifted to more valuable oleochemicals are also mentioned in this chapter. Obviously, economic viability for biofuels and oleochemicals production is still a challenge today. Process intensification which aims to improve process performance substantially (with respect to equipment size, time, energy, etc.) is encouraged and illustrated as an example along the chapter.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Overview of biorefinery
(2022-01-01)
Thongchul, Nuttha
;
Charoensuppanimit, Pongtorn
;
Anantpinijwatna, Amata
;
Gani, Rafiqul
;
Assabumrungrat, Suttichai
A strong reliance on fossil resources gives rise to a depletion of nonrenewable resources and negative or harmful environmental impacts. Circumvention of this energy-environment nexus has been proposed through the application of the concept of biorefinery. In this concept, biomass, an alternative renewable feedstock containing C-rich chemicals, is utilized as a replacement of the fossil-based feedstock to produce bioenergy and bio-based chemicals. Originally, biorefinery was perceived as a platform of biomass processing, which would produce primarily fuels and chemicals. To date, biorefinery harnesses a variety of sustainable and synergetic technologies that converts biomass into a wide range of profitable products such as food-and-feed for the future, biopharmaceuticals, and nutraceuticals. Due to variability of feedstock and newly emerged technologies, classifications of biorefinery are diverse and depend on the basis (e.g., source of a biomass, the generation of a feedstock, etc.) taken in consideration. A comprehensive view of biorefinery requires the consideration of processing of biomass from different origins via diversified technology platforms. Since the concept of biorefinery also concerns social aspects and location-specific technologies, various aspects of stakeholders including academia, industry, economy, and society need also to be considered. Collaboration among the various actors is facilitated if necessary key information is easily accessible. Therefore, an overview of biorefinery should cover key information related to biorefinery, such as nature of biomass, current situation, available technologies, process design methods, associated tools, and analyses of processing routes along with case studies. In this chapter, the indices representing the key information related to biorefinery are arranged alphabetically and tabulated to enhance a good understanding of the concept of biorefinery.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Comparative analysis of biomass and coal based co-gasification processes with and without CO2 capture for HT-PEMFCs
(2019-01-22)
Mongkolsiri, Pichamon
;
Jitkeaw, Salinee
;
Patcharavorachot, Yaneeporn
;
Arpornwichanop, Amornchai
;
Assabumrungrat, Suttichai
With the seasonal availability and low energy density of biomass and the high environmental impact of coal, the co-gasification of biomass and coal is an alternative approach facilitating a trade-off between renewable and non-renewable resources. The aim of this study was to investigate hydrogen production from the co-gasification of biomass and coal integrated by means of the sorption-enhanced water gas shift reactor (G-SEWGS) for a high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell (HT-PEMFC). The effects of the gasifier temperature, the steam to fuel ratio (S/F ratio), and the equivalence ratio (ER) on the hydrogen production performance and environmental impact of the G-SEWGS were theoretically analysed and compared with the conventional gasifier integrated with the water gas shift reactor (G-WGS) and the sorption-enhanced gasifier integrated with the water gas shift reactor (SEG-WGS). As compared to the conventional water gas shift reactor, the addition of a CaO sorbent in the modified water gas shift reactor not only reduces the amount of the CO<inf>2</inf> emission but also leads to an increase in the hydrogen concentration and hydrogen content. The G-SEWGS provides better performance in terms of its fuel processor efficiency and CO<inf>2</inf> emission than the G-WGS and the SEG-WGS. Also, the problem of sulphur compound in the hydrogen-rich gas can be reduced by using of the sorption-enhanced water gas shift reactor (SEWGS). The best system exergy efficiency, which was around 22% for the power generation, was determined from the HT-PEMFC integrated with the G-SEWGS. The main exergy destruction of around 70% of the total loss was caused by hydrogen production processes.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Exergoeconomics of hydrogen production from biomass air-steam gasification with methane co-feeding
(2017-01-01)
Nakyai, Teeranun
;
Authayanun, Suthida
;
Patcharavorachot, Yaneeporn
;
Arpornwichanop, Amornchai
;
Assabumrungrat, Suttichai
Biomass is one of the most promising energy sources for hydrogen production. However, biomass gasification has a low hydrogen content in the producer gas. To increase the hydrogen yield, the co-feeding of methane into biomass gasification is proposed in this study. The type of gasifying agent is a key factor in the determination of the content of the hydrogen product. To compare the designs and find the best performance criteria of a process, not only energy and exergy analyses but also a cost analysis of the process should be investigated. In the present study, the effects of various types of gasifying agent, i.e., air and both steam and air, for the biomass gasification with/without methane co-feeding are investigated through an exergoeconomic analysis. It is observed that the air-steam used as an agent achieves high energy and exergy efficiency. Methane co-feeding can improve the energy and exergy efficiency. In exergoeconomic analysis, the specific exergy cost (SPECO) method is applied to investigate the unit cost of hydrogen. The economic reveal that the biomass gasification using air-steam as an agent with methane co-feeding also presented the lowest unit hydrogen cost of 2.69 $/kg. The unit exergy cost of hydrogen is 0.068 $/kW h.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Parametric analysis of a circulating fluidized bed biomass gasifier for hydrogen production
(2015-03-15)
Chutichai, Bhawasut
;
Patcharavorachot, Yaneeporn
;
Assabumrungrat, Suttichai
;
Arpornwichanop, Amornchai
Biomass is considered a potential energy source which can be efficiently converted to useful gaseous products via a gasification process. Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasifiers have attracted significant attention due to their high reaction rates and thermal efficiency. This study aims to investigate the CFB biomass gasification process to generate H<inf>2</inf>-rich synthesis gas. A process simulator is used to analyze the gasifier performance by assuming that the gasification is fast and reach equilibrium. Parametric analysis of the CFB gasifier shows that steam gasification generates the synthesis gas attained the highest H<inf>2</inf> content (50-65vol.%) and the highest product gas quality (higher heating value, HHV=10-13MJ/Nm<sup>3</sup>) at operating temperatures approximately 650-700°C. High-temperature steam cannot provide enough energy for the gasifier, reducing the gross cold gas efficiency of this process to only 16%. The biomass air-steam gasification process is investigated while avoiding high energy consumption, but less H<inf>2</inf> is produced under these conditions.

KMITL

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results