DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Gas Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Gas Plants Gasworks Profile C: Water Gas Plants Gasworks Profiles Gasworks Profile A: The History and Operation of Gasworks (Manufactured Gas Plants) Contents in Britain Gasworks Profile B: Gasholders and their Tanks Gasworks Profile C: Water Gas Plants 1. Introduction................................................................................... C1 Gasworks Profile D: Producer Gas Plants 2. The Early Development of Water Gas..........................................C1 3. Different Systems Used for the Manufacture of Water Gas......... C3 ISBN 978-1-905046-26-3 © CL:AIRE 2014 4. The Development of Intermittent Water Gas Plants..................... C3 5. The ‘Run’ and ‘Blow’..................................................................... C5 Published by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), 6. Types of Intermittent Water Gas Plant......................................... C7 32 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3QJ. 7. Blue-Water Gas Plants................................................................. C8 8. The Operation of an Intermittent Carburetted Water-Gas Plant... C9 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval 9. Types of Fuel used....................................................................... C16 system, or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright 10. Oil Feedstocks used to enrich Water Gas.................................... C17 holder. All images courtesy of the National Grid Gas Archive, unless stated. 11. Oil Gas......................................................................................... C18 12. Water Gas Composition............................................................... C19 The Gasworks Profiles have been prepared by: 13. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Water Gas Systems in Dr Russell Thomas, Gas Manufacture.......................................................................... C19 Technical Director 14. Contaminants Associated with Water Gas Plants........................ C20 Parsons Brinckerhoff 15. Selected Bibliography……………………………………………….. C22 Redland, Bristol, UK Tel: 0117-933-9262 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]. The author would like to thank the National Grid Gas Archive, Warrington, UK, without whose assistance this publication would not be possible. The author would also like to thank Maria Laffey of Parsons Brinckerhoff and John Horne of IGEM Panel for the History of the Industry, for their assistance in reviewing this document. Disclaimer: The purpose of this document is to act as a pointer to the activities carried out on former water gas plants. The Author and Publisher will not be responsible for any Units loss, however arising, from the use of, or reliance on, this information. This document All units used in this profile have been converted to SI Units. Some are also shown as (‘this publication’) is provided ‘as is’, without warranty of any kind, either expressed or their former imperial units, as the data was taken from documents using this format. One implied. You should not assume that this publication is error-free or that it will be unit commonly used in the gas industry and still in partial use is the British Thermal Unit suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind. The Author and Publisher (Btu), a common unit for the measurement of energy in the gas industry. 1 Btu is assume no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions in this publication. Readers 3 equivalent to 1.055 Kilojoules (0.001 MJ). The Btu was often expressed as Btu/ft ; this are advised to use the information contained herein purely as a guide and to take 3 has now been replaced by the Megajoule per cubic metre, expressed as MJ/m . appropriate professional advice where necessary. 1. Introduction This profile describes the manufacture of gas using the water gas process. Early water gas plants were based on retorts used for coal carbonisation; however, later water gas plants (Photograph 1) more closely resembled producer gas plants in the design of the generator and in their mode of operation. Water gas plants were popular in the UK and worldwide, particularly in the USA where they were first successfully commercialised. One of the major issues with producing gas by carbonising coal was the length of time taken to get the gas plant operational and producing gas. This led to a heavy reliance on storage in gasholders. Without sufficient gas storage, the retorts would have to be kept heated on standby to accommodate rapid increases in gas production. This was both inefficient and uneconomic for the gas manufacturer. An alternative method to meet peak demand for gas was required, leading to the development of water gas plants. Water gas plant could produce gas much more rapidly (within 1-3 hours) than traditional coal carbonisation plant, allowing gas companies to satisfy peak demand more effectively. Whilst this process was commonly employed on many larger town and city gasworks to supplement coal gas supplies, plant was also developed for smaller gasworks. In Britain, water gas was mixed with coal gas (30% water gas to 70% coal gas) prior to distribution. 2. The Early Development of Water Gas Photograph 1. The inside of the water gas plant building at the former East Greenwich Gasworks. Source: National Grid Gas Archive. The discovery of water gas was attributed to the Italian physicist Felice Fontana in 1780. He C1 discovered that when steam was passed through (oil enriched) water gas process when he The central (water gas) retort contained hot iron incandescent carbon, the oxygen of the water discharged hot coke into a water gas generator scrap (or coke) onto which a trickle of water would molecules in the steam had a greater affinity for and intermittently injected steam and air. His fall, producing water gas. The other two ‘coal’ the carbon than the hydrogen to which it was patent described that the gas produced should be retorts made rich coal gas, being operated in the bonded. This led to the formation of carbon enriched with essential oil. The process did not conventional way and receiving a supply of water monoxide and hydrogen from the water and achieve commercial success. gas by a connecting pipe from the mouthpiece of carbon in the reaction: the central retort. A Belgian scientist (M. Jobard) successfully C + H O = H + CO. 2 2 experimented with water gas production circa Ruthin in Wales, and Comrie and Dunkeld in 1833. It is reported that he sold his invention to Scotland, also adopted White’s process for gas This finding predated William Murdoch’s Alexander Selligue of Paris and Florimont Tripier manufacture. The town of Petersfield, Hampshire discovery of a commercial process to produce of Lille. Selligue was then recognised as the adopted White’s method but using coke instead of coal gas. Given its composition, water gas had inventor. Under Selligue’s name, the water gas scrap iron in the central retort. The main failure of little or no illuminating power when burnt, so little process was introduced to Dijon, Strasbourg and White’s process was the greater complexity of use was made of the discovery. Henry Antwerp, as well as parts of Paris and Lyon. The controlling this water gas process compared with Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier, Charles Meusnier Jobard/Selligue process started by decomposing coal gas. The relative amounts of rich gas and and others also later made the same discovery as the water; the resulting hydrogen was then mixed water gas produced had to be carefully controlled Fontana. with hydrocarbon (either oil vapour or heated to ensure correct gas quality. resin) which then passed into a retort containing The first patent taken out for water gas production hot coke. The process lost popularity when The process was exported, and in 1850 it was was believed to have been by W. Vere and H.S. Selligue was unmasked as a fraud. trialled over several months at the Philadelphia Crane in 1823. The patent described the use of Gasworks (USA), but the results did not support admitting water or steam into a retort containing The next major interest in water gas occurred in full-scale adoption. coal, oil or other suitable material undergoing 1847 when Stephen White of Manchester took out decomposition, but was not developed further. a patented ‘hydrocarbon process’ which had Joseph Gillard made major advances in his works similarities to that of Jobard. White’s idea was to at Narbonne, France in 1856. Gillard managed to In 1824, John Holt Ibbetson made the first attempt produce a very rich gas, from fat, oil or tar, and light the town by burning blue-water gas with to utilise water gas on a commercial scale. He dilute it to a reasonable candle power using a argand burners over which platinum wire cage experimented by steaming the coke which cheap, low-grade carrier gas. White’s success mantles were placed. Argand burners were the remained in the horizontal retorts at the end of the was boosted by favourable reports from Samuel first scientifically designed burners, originally period of carbonisation. Ibbetson published a Clegg and Dr E. Frankland. White’s method was designed for oil lamps but later adapted for use in patent in 1826 but did not develop the technology tested on a large scale at a mill gasworks in the gas industry. They consisted of a cylindrical further. On 6 October 1830, Michael Donovan Manchester and at the gasworks of the South wick
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues
    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mond Gas-Producer Plant and Its Application.”
    190 HUNPHREP OX THE MOND GAS-PRODUCER PLANT. [Minutesof 16 March, 189;. JOHN WOLFE BARRY, C.E., F.R.S., President, in the Chair. (Paper No. 2956.) ’‘ The Mond Gas-Producer Plant and its Application.” By HERBERTALFRED HUMPHREI’, ASSOC.M. Inst. C.E. GASEOUSfuel possesses certain well-recognised advantages over solid fuel ; it is easily handled, and its combustion is completely under control, and causes no smoke or dirt. It is also applicable to many cases where solid fuel could not be used, and it is the fuel of internal-combustion engines. For these and other reasons the demand for it is rapidly increasing ; and it is the function of the gas-producers to convertsolid fuel intothe gaseous state. In a Paper read before the Institution in 1886, Mr. F. J. Rowan gave an account of the Wilson, Dowson, Grobe,Sutherland, Siemens, and other gas-producers which had been employed up to that time ; and Papers on the application of the Dowson producer to the generation of gas for motive power hare since been com- municated to the Institution by Mr. J. E. Dowson.2 The Author proposes to deal with recentadvances inthis department of industry. Producer gas was used for furnace work many years before its adoption for use in gas-engines ; and its applicationto generating power, which only commenced about 18 years ago, has through- out beenclosely connected with the name of Mr. Dowson. His success, and the great possibilities in this field of work,led to the construction of many other producersfor power gas; those of Wilson, Taylor,Thwaites and Lencauchez having achieved excellentresults.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Producer Gas Plants. a Profile of the Sites, the Processes Undertaken and Type of Contaminants Present
    Producer Gas Plants. A profile of the sites, the processes undertaken and type of contaminants present. Prepared by Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Queen Victoria House, Redland Hill, Bristol BS6 6US, UK, 0117-933-9262, [email protected]. The author is grateful to members of the IGEM, Gas History Panel for their technical assistance. Introduction William Murdock used coal gas to light his house and office in Redruth in 1792; this was the first commercial application C of gas in the world. Gas has been used ever since for commercial, industrial and domestic applications. Gas was first produced from coal and later on from oil until its replacement by natural gas in the mid 1970s. The conventional production of gas from coal is well documented; however, there was also another method of gas production D which is less well known, this was called “producer gas”. Producer gas plants started to become popular in the early 1880 and were in extensive use by 1910. As producer gas plants evolved from the first plant built by Bischof (figure 1) through to their demise in competition in the mid 20th century, many varied types evolved. Following Bischof’s early development of the gas producer the next major development was that of Fredrick Siemens who developed a combined gas producer and regenerative furnace in 1857. This system was gradually improved and introduced to the B UK through William Siemens. Producer gas plants provided a A great benefit to those industries requiring high and uniform temperatures. This greatly aided those industrial processes Fig. 1. Bischof Gas Producer.
    [Show full text]
  • Library of Congress Classification
    T TECHNOLOGY (GENERAL) T Technology (General) Periodicals and societies. By language of publication 1 English 2 French 3 German 4 Other languages (not A-Z) (5) Yearbooks see T1+ 6 Congresses Industrial museums, etc. see T179+ International exhibitions see T391+ 7 Collected works (nonserial) 8 Symbols and abbreviations Dictionaries and encyclopedias 9 General works 10 Bilingual and polyglot Communication of technical information 10.5 General works Information centers 10.6 General works Special countries United States 10.63.A1 General works 10.63.A2-Z By region or state, A-Z 10.65.A-Z Other countries, A-Z 10.68 Risk communication 10.7 Technical literature 10.8 Abstracting and indexing Language. Technical writing Cf. QA42 Mathematical language. Mathematical authorship 11 General works 11.3 Technical correspondence 11.4 Technical editing 11.5 Translating 11.8 Technical illustration Cf. Q222 Scientific illustration Cf. T351+ Mechanical drawing 11.9 Technical archives Industrial directories 11.95 General works By region or country United States 12 General works 12.3.A-Z By region or state, A-Z Subarrange each country by Table T4a 12.5.A-Z Other regions or countries, A-Z Subarrange each country by Table T4a 13 General catalogs. Miscellaneous supplies 14 Philosophy. Theory. Classification. Methodology Cf. CB478 Technology and civilization 14.5 Social aspects Class here works that discuss the impact of technology on modern society For works on the role of technology in the history and development of civilization see CB478 Cf. HM846+ Technology as a cause of social change History Including the history of inventions 14.7 Periodicals, societies, serials, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas
    DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2021 Project Peer Review Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas March 25, 2021 WBS: 3.5.1.405 Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 1 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Project Overview 2 Project Overview Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Goal is to produce 100 gallons of Jet Fuel from Biogas using the Cool GTL Process – GTI will demonstrate a new simple GTL process which converts biogas, CO2, and methane directly to jet, gasoline, and diesel – Show the technology to be significantly lower cost, and more efficient than previous GTL processes- produce jet fuel at < $3/GGE – Also complete modeling, engineering, technoeconomic and LCA for Cool GTL biogas commercial process- advance from TRL 3 to 5 3 3 Cool GTL • Converts CO2-rich methane, ethane and propane to high-quality gasoline, diesel and jet fuel • Works well for any gas containing CO2 or CO • Uses unique CO2/steam reforming catalyst to directly make 2:1 H2/CO synthesis gas • Uses unique combined Fischer-Tropsch and wax-cracking reactor • Simple and compact with unique catalysts in each stage 4 SM Unique Cool GTL Technology Novel Features Beneficial Results • Unique bi-reforming catalyst • Modular, low-cost GTL • Unique wax cracking-FT catalyst • Small footprint • Unique electric reformer design • Great economics • Distributed plant locations Two patents issued Current GTL Cool GTLSM and several others pending 5 SM
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • THE RELATION BETWEEN HEATING VALUE of GAS and ITS USEFULNESS to the CONSUMER a CRITICAL REVIEW of the PUBLISHED DATA Bye
    T290 THE RELATION BETWEEN HEATING VALUE OF GAS AND ITS USEFULNESS TO THE CONSUMER A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE PUBLISHED DATA ByE. R. Weaver ABSTRACT The introduction, Section I, contains a description of the sources and a dis- cussion of the character of the available information which has an important bearing upon the subject treated. The data are divided into two classes, (1) direct observations of the useful effects obtained from the utilization of gases of different qualities in the appliances in common use, and (2) statistical data showing changes in the quantity of gas used which accompanied changes in heating value. Section II contains a summary and some discussion of the data of the first class. Because of the large amount of such material only the briefest summary of such information consistent with clearness has been given. In some cases in which data are not available to the public in published form, and in others in which the reviewer does not agree with the authors upon the interpretation of the data, detailed figures are presented. Section III contains a summary and discussion of the general significance of the information presented in Section II. There is very general agreement that in all kinds of commercial appliances the potential heat of the gas is used with substantially equal efficiency, whatever the other properties of the gas may be. An explanation is offered for the general applicability of this relation to the results observed with appliances of the most varied character when using gases of any composition within the ordinary limits of commercial supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production
    Paper ID #12042 Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production Prof. Yeong Ryu, State University of New York, Farmingdale YEONG S. RYU graduated from Columbia University with a Ph.D. and Master of Philosophy in Mechan- ical Engineering in 1994. He has served as an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Farmingdale State College (SUNY) since 2006. In addition, he has conducted various research projects at Xerox Corporation (1994-1995), Hyundai Motor Corporation (1995-1997), and New Jersey Institute of Technology (2001-2003). He has been teaching and conducting research in a broad range of areas of system identification and control of nonlinear mechatronic systems and vibrations in structures requir- ing precision pointing to eliminate the detrimental effects of such diverse disturbance sources. He has authored or co-authored more than 70 publications. His work currently focuses on the development and implementation of modeling and control of renewable energy systems, characterization of nanomaterials, photovoltaics, and nanoscale integrated systems. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the Materials Research Society (MRS). Dr. Hazem Tawfik, State University of New York, Farmingdale Prof. Tawfik obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, from University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He has held a number of industrial & academic positions and affiliations with organizations that included Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Stony Brook University (SBU), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Atomic Energy of Canada Inc., Ontario Hydro, NASA Kennedy, NASA Marshall Space Flight Centers, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals Around the World
    FUELLING THE FIRE The chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world ‘Fuelling the Fire: the chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world’ is a Friends of the Earth International report produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland and published in July 2016. Friends of the Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups and some 2 million members and supporters around the world. We challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalisation, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because of what we do. Friends of the Earth International has member groups in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao (Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
    [Show full text]
  • Guião De Relatório De Projecto / Estágio
    Integrated Masters in Chemical Engineering Packed Bed Membrane Reactor for the Water- Gas Shift Reaction: Experimental and Modeling Work Masters Thesis of Joel Alexandre Moreira da Silva Developed in the framework of the course of dissertation performed at Multiphase Reactors Group, Department of Chemical Engineering & Chemistry, Eindhoven University of Technology Supervisor at TU/e: Eng. Arash Helmi, Dr. Fausto Gallucci and Dr. Martin Van Sint Annaland Chemical Engineering Department July of 2013 Packed Bed Membrane Reactor for the Water-Gas Shift Reaction: Experimental and Modeling Work Acknowledgements I would like to deeply thank Engineer Arash Helmi for all the advice, patiente, support, encouragement and dedication to this project. His help was fundamental to this project. I would also like to thank Doctor Fausto Gallucci for all the good advices given and all the help provided during this project. I would also like to thank Doctor Martin Van Sint Annaland for all the suggestions made regarding the scope of my project and for making this project possible to happen. Also a special thanks to Masters student Rogelio González for all the help while using the phenomenological models that he was developing. Also a very special thanks to Joris for the technical support provided to the set-up I used and for all the technical advices. I would like to thank all SMR group members for making this group such a good one, with such a good environment. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for their encouragement and support. They played undoubtedly a very important role during this dissertation project.
    [Show full text]