4.7 Article

CH4 and CO2 adsorption-induced deformation of carbon slit pores with implications for CO2 sequestration and enhanced CH4 recovery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 66-79

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2019.03.018

关键词

CO2 sequestration; Enhanced gas production; CH4 and CO2 adsorption; Coal and shale deformation; Carbon slit pore

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M632747]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR201702150018]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18CX02143A, 17CX05017]
  4. China University of Petroleum [YJ20170019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geological sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) into coal seams and shale gas reservoirs have the benefits of CO2 storage as well as enhanced gas recovery. However, the coal or shale swelling during CO2 enhanced methane (CH4) production significantly reduces the gas injection and production rate. In this work, the CH4 and CO2 adsorption-induced deformation of carbon slit pores as representative of coal and shale nanopores was studied using grand canonical Monte Carlo simulation. We focused on the strain difference by comparing the CO2 and CH4 adsorption-induced deformation of pores with various widths. The effect of each pore width on the bulk swelling was analyzed under different pressures and temperatures. The results showed that the strain difference between CO2 and CH4 at different conditions oscillates with a damped amplitude as the pore width increases, which can be positive or negative indicating pore swelling or contraction when CH4 is displaced by CO2. The maximum swelling occurs among the pores inaccessible to CH4 but accessible to CO2 molecules and the contracting pores contribute negatively to the bulk swelling. Furthermore, this study provided fundamental adsorption induced strain of each pore width for predicting the bulk deformation during CO2 enhanced CH4 production when the coal or shale pore size distribution is known.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据