4.7 Article

Screening of inert solid supports for CaO-based sorbents for high temperature CO2 capture

Journal

FUEL
Volume 181, Issue -, Pages 199-206

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.138

Keywords

Calcium looping; CO2 capture; Inert support; Screening; CaO sorbents

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51306063, 21306059]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  3. Ph.D. Program Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China [20130142120047]
  4. Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion [FSKLCCB1602]
  5. Analytical and Testing Center at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A screening of inert solid supports as metal skeletons of CaO-based sorbents was conducted in this work, aiming to provide the basis and guideline for the selection of inert solid refractories to produce high temperature CO2 capture sorbent. We studied 12 different refractories including Al-, Ti-, Mn-, Mg-, Y-, Si-, La-, Zr-, Ce-, Nd-, Pr- and Yb-based supports, among which Yb and Pr are newly introduced ones. The sorbents were synthesized using the same wet-mixing method, by which the inert supports could be well dispersed among the ultra-fine active specie of CaO/CaCO3 particles to fully play the role of frameworks for sintering resistance. The sorbents stabilized by these inert supports were also cyclically tested under the same conditions. Y- and Al-based supports were found to exhibit much superior cyclic performance than the other supports. Mn-, Mg-, La-, Yb- and Nd-based supports are also good candidates, whereas the other ones containing Ti-, Ce-, Zr-, Si-and Pr-based supports show less effectiveness. The melting point of the inert support and surface area of the synthetic sorbents are found to be the key factors to affect the sorbent performance. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available