Multi-Criteria Efficiency Analysis of Using Waste-Based Fuel Mixtures in the Power Industries of China, Japan, and Russia; Applied Sciences; Vol. 10, iss. 7

Detalles Bibliográficos
Parent link:Applied Sciences
Vol. 10, iss. 7.— 2020.— [2460, 21 p.]
Autores Corporativos: Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет Инженерная школа энергетики Научно-образовательный центр И. Н. Бутакова (НОЦ И. Н. Бутакова), Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет Исследовательская школа физики высокоэнергетических процессов
Otros Autores: Vershinina K. Yu. Kseniya Yurievna, Dorokhov V. V. Vadim Valerjevich, Romanov D. S. Daniil Sergeevich, Nyashina G. S. Galina Sergeevna, Kuznetsov G. V. Geny Vladimirovich
Sumario:Title screen
This paper presents the results of analyzing the efficiency of the following five fuel types: dry coal, wet coal processing waste, coal–water slurry, and two waste-derived slurries. In the calculations, we employed 16 criteria related to the energy industry, economy, social aspects, safety at plants, and environmental protection. We used the experimental data, obtained from the combustion of the fuels under study at three heating temperatures (700 °C, 800 °C, and 900 °C). Three countries were analyzed, where all of them have a high share of using fossil fuels in the energy industry: Japan, China, and Russia. The total performance indicator was calculated using three multiple-criteria decision analysis techniques (weighted sum method, weighted product method, and analytic hierarchy process). The choice of weight coefficients was confirmed for each method. We found that coal and coal–water slurry had the lowest integral efficiency indicators (0.016–0.535 and 0.045–0.566, respectively). The maximum effect was achieved when using waste-derived slurry with used turbine oil (0.190–0.800) and coal processing waste (0.535–0.907). There were, on average, 3%–60% differences in the integral efficiency indicator for the same fuel in different countries. The difference in the efficiency indicator of the same fuel in different countries was on average 3%–60%; with changes in temperature, the difference in efficiency was 5%–20%; and when changing the calculation procedure, the difference was 10%–90%.
Lenguaje:inglés
Publicado: 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072460
Formato: xMaterials Electrónico Capítulo de libro
KOHA link:https://koha.lib.tpu.ru/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=664928

MARC

LEADER 00000naa0a2200000 4500
001 664928
005 20250124134217.0
035 |a (RuTPU)RU\TPU\network\36113 
035 |a RU\TPU\network\33184 
090 |a 664928 
100 |a 20210531d2020 k||y0rusy50 ba 
101 0 |a eng 
102 |a CH 
135 |a drcn ---uucaa 
181 0 |a i  
182 0 |a b 
200 1 |a Multi-Criteria Efficiency Analysis of Using Waste-Based Fuel Mixtures in the Power Industries of China, Japan, and Russia  |f K. Yu. Vershinina, V. V. Dorokhov, D. S. Romanov [et al.] 
203 |a Text  |c electronic 
300 |a Title screen 
320 |a [References: 40 tit.] 
330 |a This paper presents the results of analyzing the efficiency of the following five fuel types: dry coal, wet coal processing waste, coal–water slurry, and two waste-derived slurries. In the calculations, we employed 16 criteria related to the energy industry, economy, social aspects, safety at plants, and environmental protection. We used the experimental data, obtained from the combustion of the fuels under study at three heating temperatures (700 °C, 800 °C, and 900 °C). Three countries were analyzed, where all of them have a high share of using fossil fuels in the energy industry: Japan, China, and Russia. The total performance indicator was calculated using three multiple-criteria decision analysis techniques (weighted sum method, weighted product method, and analytic hierarchy process). The choice of weight coefficients was confirmed for each method. We found that coal and coal–water slurry had the lowest integral efficiency indicators (0.016–0.535 and 0.045–0.566, respectively). The maximum effect was achieved when using waste-derived slurry with used turbine oil (0.190–0.800) and coal processing waste (0.535–0.907). There were, on average, 3%–60% differences in the integral efficiency indicator for the same fuel in different countries. The difference in the efficiency indicator of the same fuel in different countries was on average 3%–60%; with changes in temperature, the difference in efficiency was 5%–20%; and when changing the calculation procedure, the difference was 10%–90%. 
461 |t Applied Sciences 
463 |t Vol. 10, iss. 7  |v [2460, 21 p.]  |d 2020 
610 1 |a электронный ресурс 
610 1 |a труды учёных ТПУ 
610 1 |a multi-criteria analysis 
610 1 |a coalwater slurries 
610 1 |a coal and oil processing waste 
610 1 |a coal 
610 1 |a efficiency indicators 
610 1 |a водоугольные суспензии 
610 1 |a отходы 
610 1 |a каменный уголь 
701 1 |a Vershinina  |b K. Yu.  |c specialist in the field of heat and power engineering  |c Associate Professor of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences  |f 1992-  |g Kseniya Yurievna  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\33706  |9 17337 
701 1 |a Dorokhov  |b V. V.  |c specialist in the field of thermal power engineering and heat engineering  |c Research Engineer of Tomsk Polytechnic University  |f 1997-  |g Vadim Valerjevich  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\47191  |9 22771 
701 1 |a Romanov  |b D. S.  |c specialist in the field of thermal power engineering and heat engineering  |c Research Engineer of Tomsk Polytechnic University  |f 1997-  |g Daniil Sergeevich  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\47193  |9 22773 
701 1 |a Nyashina  |b G. S.  |c specialist in the field of heat and power engineering  |c Assistant to Tomsk Polytechnic University, Candidate of Technical Sciences  |f 1992-  |g Galina Sergeevna  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\35843  |9 18988 
701 1 |a Kuznetsov  |b G. V.  |c Specialist in the field of heat power energy  |c Professor of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences  |f 1949-  |g Geny Vladimirovich  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\31891  |9 15963 
712 0 2 |a Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет  |b Инженерная школа энергетики  |b Научно-образовательный центр И. Н. Бутакова (НОЦ И. Н. Бутакова)  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\col\23504 
712 0 2 |a Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет  |b Исследовательская школа физики высокоэнергетических процессов  |c (2017- )  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\col\23551 
801 2 |a RU  |b 63413507  |c 20220425  |g RCR 
856 4 |u https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072460 
942 |c CF