화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol.24, No.1, 175-180, January, 2007
DOI10.1007/s11814-007-5028-x  Export Citation
Partial gasification of coal in a fluidized bed reactor: Comparison of a laboratory and pilot scale reactors
Rui Xiao†, Laihong Shen, Mingyao Zhang, Baosheng Jin, Yuanquan Xiong, Yufeng Duan, Zhaoping Zhong, Hongcang Zhou1, Xiaoping Chen, and Yaji Huang
  • Key Laboratory of Clean Coal Power Generation and Combustion, Technology of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
  • 1Department of Environmental Science & Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
E-mail:
A 0.1 MWth lab-scale and 2 MWth pilot-scale experimental rigs were constructed to demonstrate the technical feasibility of a new process. The aim of the lab-scale study is to optimize coal partial gasification reactions operating conditions, which were applied in the pilot-scale tests. A comparison between the laboratory and pilot scale experimental results is presented in this paper in order to provide valuable information for scaling-up of the PFB coal partial reactor to industrial applications. The results show that trends and phenomena obtained in the laboratory reactor are confirmed in a pilot plant operating at similar conditions. However, many differences are observed in the two reactors. The higher heat loss in the lab-scale reactor is responsible for higher equivalence ratio (ER) and lower gas heating value at the similar reactor temperature. With respect to the pilot-scale reactor, mass transfer limitation between bubbles and emulsion phase may become important. Hence, longer contact time is required to achieve the same conversions as in the lab-scale reactor. This difference is explained by a significant change of the hydrodynamic conditions due to the formation of larger bubbles.
Keywords:Partial Gasification;Coal;Gasification Characteristics;Lab-scale Test;Pilot-scale Test
  1. Beer JM, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 26, 301 (2000)
  2. Choi YC, Lee JG, Kim JH, Hong JC, Kim YK, Yoon SJ, Lee SH, Park MH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 23(3), 380 (2006)
  3. Lee WJ, Kim SD, Song BH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 19(6), 1091 (2002)
  4. Lee SH, Choi KB, Lee JG, Kim JH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 23(4), 576 (2006)
  5. Minchener AJ, Arnold MJ, Dawes SG, The British coal topping cycle: a new technology for clean and efficient power generation, 12th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, ASME, Savannah, 1129 (1993)
  6. Shadle LJ, Monazam ER, Swanson ML, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40(13), 2782 (2001)
  7. Tang Z, Wang Y, Fuel Process. Technol., 62(2-3), 137 (2000)
  8. Watkinson AP, Cheng G, Prakash CB, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 3, 468 (1983)
  9. Wheeldon JM, Bonsu AK, Foote JP, Commissioning of the circulating PFBC in the foster wheeler advanced PFBC train at the PSDF, 16th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, ASME, Reno (2001)
  10. Xiao R, Zhang MY, Jin BS, Liu XD, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 80(5), 800 (2002)
  11. Xiao R, Zhang MY, Jin BS, Huang YJ, Zhou HC, Coal gasification characteristics in a 2MWth second-generation PFB gasifier, 18th International Conference on Fluidized Bed combustion, ASME, Toronto (2005)
  12. Xiao R, Zhang MY, Jin BS, Huang YJ, Zhou HC, Energy Fuels, 20(2), 715 (2006)
  13. Xiao R, Jin BS, Zhou HC, Zhong ZP, Zhang MY, Energy Conv. Manag., 48, 778 (2007)
  14. Zhong WQ, Xiao R, Zhang MY, AIChE J., 52(3), 924 (2006)
  15. Zhong WQ, Chen XP, Zhang MY, Chem. Eng. J., 118(1-2), 37 (2006)
  16. Zhong WQ, Zhang MY, Jin BS, Chen XP, Chem. Eng. Process., 45(9), 734 (2006)