This is from the same people looking to restore ATSF 3463
http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c76c887192c12a4d4a6fe34ba&id=75645ff4c4&e=c910384120
I have a problem with this:
While I will be the first to say that a longer bright plume will provide theoretically better heat distribution to more of the area of the inner box and chamber, the CSR seems to be arguing that there is a higher temperature 'further' in this plume than in the coal fire. I do not see this; on the other hand, I see lower temperature and quite a bit of turbulence even in the 'early' part of the flame, which indicates to me that the torrefied product is vaporizing early and reaching a relatively lower peak temperature. I would have a concern that this would quench much more quickly with wall contact, and perhaps more easily fall below reaction temperature more quickly via radiation uptake.
Part of this will involve the physical form of the torrefied fuel -- if the Solvay fuel is typical of current practice, it is relatively 'pelletized' for use in PC co-firing (or, less likely, optimized for pellet-stove use) and while this may work in small engines under restricted turndown, it may not scale either to large wide grates or to very high rates of firing approaching the grate limit for coal, both of which are critical issues for Project 130. There will also be problems if the projected flame length extends all the way to the tubeplates, although I am certain Wolf is well aware of all these things and will be designing around them.
Perhaps, if the 'goal' involves 100% firing with torrefied product, a better approach would be to use further torrefaction (and consolidation) to produce a product with greater carbon content, and co-fire this with the Solvay-style product in similar proportion to that employed in current PC firing.
Good to hear the opinion of someone who knows something!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.