4.5 Article

Evaluation of the CO2 gasification of residual char under a regeneration atmosphere via calcium-based chemical looping gasification

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2021.108564

关键词

Calcium-based looping gasification; Regenerator; CO2 gasification behaviors; Residual char

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52006096]
  2. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation, China [2020GXNSFBA297075, 2018GXNSFAA138038]
  3. Foundation for Science and Technology Base and Talents of Guangxi Provence, China [GUIKE AD20297010]
  4. Scientific Research and Technology Development Plan of Guilin, China [20180107-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcium-based chemical looping gasification is important in the utilization of carbon-based fuels. This study investigated the effects of various parameters on the regeneration of CO2 gasification of residual char, finding that reaction rate increased with temperature and adding a sorbent improved the efficiency of CO2 gasification.
Calcium-based chemical looping gasification plays a vital role in the utilization of carbon-based fuels. In this study, the effects of various parameters in the regeneration of CO2 gasification of residual char were studied. Since the CO2 gasification of residual char was an endothermic reaction, the reaction rate increased with temperature. The maximum reaction rate appeared at a CO2 partial pressure of 80%. The carbon conversion rate of residual char increased upon increasing the CO2 capture capacity of sorbent. The CO2 gasification of residual char complied with the shrinking core model instead of the volumetric reaction model, and the municipal solid waste (MSW) char after CO2 gasification was cylindrical shape. The apparent activation energy decreased after adding a sorbent, showing that the CO2 gasification of residual char was improved by adding a sorbent. These results provide an approach to enhance the CO2 utilization in regenerator, outlets and help reduce the oxygen demand and heat losses.

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

4.5
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