A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae
The energy requirements for converting one tonne (1,000 kg) of Chlorella slurry of 20 wt% solids via fast pyrolysis, microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP), and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) were compared. Drying microalgae prior to pyrolysis by using a spray drying process with a 50% energy efficiency required an energy input of 4,107 MJ, which is higher than the energy content (4,000 MJ) of raw microalgae. The energy inputs to conduct fast pyrolysis, MAP, and HTL reactions were 504 MJ (50% efficient), 1,057 MJ (~25% efficient), and 2,776 MJ (50% efficient), respectively. The overall energy requirement of fast pyrolysis is theoretically about 1.6 times more than that of HTL. The energy recovery ratios for fast pyrolysis, MAP, and HTL of microalgae were 78.7%, 57.2%, and 89.8%, respectively. From the energy balance point of view, hydrothermal liquefaction is superior, and it achieved a higher energy recovery with a less energy cost. To improve the pyrolysis process, developing drying devices powered by renewable energies, optimizing the pyrolysis process (specifically microwave-assisted), and improving the energy efficiency of equipment are options.Citation: Zhang, B., Wu, J., Deng, Z., Yang, C., Cui, C., and Ding, Y. (2017). A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae. Trends in Renewable Energy, 3(1), 76-85. DOI:10.17737/tre.2017.3.1.0013
A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae
The energy requirements for converting one tonne (1,000 kg) of Chlorella slurry of 20 wt% solids via fast pyrolysis, microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP), and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) were compared. Drying microalgae prior to pyrolysis by using a spray drying process with a 50% energy efficiency required an energy input of 4,107 MJ, which is higher than the energy content (4,000 MJ) of raw microalgae. The energy inputs to conduct fast pyrolysis, MAP, and HTL reactions were 504 MJ (50% efficient), 1,057 MJ (~25% efficient), and 2,776 MJ (50% efficient), respectively. The overall energy requirement of fast pyrolysis is theoretically about 1.6 times more than that of HTL. The energy recovery ratios for fast pyrolysis, MAP, and HTL of microalgae were 78.7%, 57.2%, and 89.8%, respectively. From the energy balance point of view, hydrothermal liquefaction is superior, and it achieved a higher energy recovery with a less energy cost. To improve the pyrolysis process, developing drying devices powered by renewable energies, optimizing the pyrolysis process (specifically microwave-assisted), and improving the energy efficiency of equipment are options.Citation: Zhang, B., Wu, J., Deng, Z., Yang, C., Cui, C., and Ding, Y. (2017). A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae. Trends in Renewable Energy, 3(1), 76-85. DOI:10.17737/tre.2017.3.1.0013
A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae
Zhang, Bo (author) / Wu, Jinsheng (author) / Deng, Zhao (author) / Yang, Changyan (author) / Cui, Chang (author) / Ding, Yigang (author) / School of Chemical Engineering and Pharmacy at the Wuhan Institute of Technology
2017-01-01
doi:10.17737/tre.2017.3.1.0013
Trends in Renewable Energy; Vol 3, No 1 (2017); 76-85 ; 2376-2144 ; 2376-2136 ; 10.17737/tre.2017.3.1
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Ecotoxicity Assessment of Microalgae-Based Road Binder Obtained by Hydrothermal Liquefaction
| Springer Verlag | 2024
| American Chemical Society | 2022
Liquid‐Phase Pyrolysis‐Based Biomass Liquefaction
| Wiley | 2016