4.8 Article

Enhanced CO2 sorption capacity of amine-tethered fly ash residues derived from co-firing of coal and biomass blends

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 242, Issue -, Pages 453-461

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.143

Keywords

Co-firing fly ash; Amine-tethered sorbents; CO2 sorption behaviors; Sorbent regeneration performance; Operating conditions

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51806108, 51806109, 51706108]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China [18KJB470018, 18KJB470019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Co-firing of coal and biomass blends provides a promising route for clean energy utilization with high efficiency and mitigated pollutants emission. However, the technology meets an important challenge in effective utilization of the co-firing fly ashes. Efforts have been made to valorize the co-firing fly ash residues as potential CO2 sorbents. To achieve enhanced CO2 sorption performance, the samples were modified with tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA). Effects of amine loading, CO2 sorption temperature, initial CO2 concentration and gas flow rate on CO2 sorption behaviors of the amine-tethered sorbents were investigated. The desired sorbent with 25% TEPA loading presented the highest CO2 sorption capacity of 1.19 mmol CO2/g when tested under 60 degrees C and 15%CO2 with a total gas flow rate of 1200 ml min(-1). The effects of regeneration temperature and ramping rate on sorbent regeneration performance were demonstrated. The maximum sorbent regeneration efficiency of 97.2% was achieved under the regeneration condition of 110 degrees C and 5 degrees C min(-1). CO2 sorption capacity of the amine-tethered sorbent kept stable within 5 repeated cycles. These findings indicate that the amine-tethered sorbent could be a good candidate for on-site CO2 capture from flue gas in co-firing power plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available