Early debridement and skin grafting in diabetic ulcer to reduce morbidity.

Bora, Kalpesh Kantilal; Shahapurkar, V. V.

doi:10.7439/ijbar.v5i1.540

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[22,29] This method enables the transfer of experimental knowledgef rom smaller facilities to al arger plant, which can differ with respect to heat losses,p reheating of ingoing streams,m oisture content of the feedstock, and other parameters that affect the efficiency of the process.C ompared to the GoBiGas plant (32 MW biomass ), the heat balancei nt he flow-sheet (100 MW biomass ,d esign A.1) is modified to accountf or the preheating of the steam and air to ah igher temperature (550 8Ci nsteado ft he 350 8Cu sedi nt he current operation) and reduced heat losses,f rom 5.2% of the energy in the fuel [22] (current design)t o0 .5-2.5 %, compared to the heat losses of the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilersofarelevant size. [31] Thef lue gasf rom the combustion side of the DFB gasifier is directed to ap ostcombustion chamber (4 in Figure 3), which is then used to combust the off-gases and slipstreams. Thes ensible heat in the flue gases is then recoveredt hrough heat exchange (9).…”

Section: Processdesign Based On Gobigasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency Comparison of Large‐Scale Standalone, Centralized, and Distributed Thermochemical Biorefineries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comparison of three strategies for the introduction of new biorefineries: standalone and centralized drop‐in, which are placed within a cluster of chemical industries, and distributed drop‐in, which is connected to other plants by a pipeline. The aim was to quantify the efficiencies and the production ranges to support local transition to a circular economy based on biomass usage. The products considered are biomethane (standalone) and hydrogen/biomethane and sustainable town gas (centralized drop‐in and distributed drop‐in). The analysis is based on a flow‐sheet simulation of different process designs at the 100 MWbiomass scale and includes the following aspects: advanced drying systems, the coproduction of ethanol, and power‐to‐gas conversion by direct heating or water electrolysis. For the standalone plant, the chemical efficiency was in the range of 78–82.8 % LHVa.r.50 % (lower heating value of the as‐received biomass with 50 % wet basis moisture), with a maximum production of 72 MWCH4 , and for the centralized drop‐in and distributed drop‐in plants, the chemical efficiency was in the range of 82.8–98.5 % LHVa.r.50 % with maximum production levels of 85.6 MWSTG and 22.5 MWnormalH2 /51 MWCH4 , respectively. It is concluded that standalone plants offer no substantial advantages over distributed drop‐in or centralized drop‐in plants unless methane is the desired product.

show abstract