4.7 Article

Comparison of iron-, nickel-, copper- and manganese-based oxygen carriers for chemical-looping combustion

Journal

FUEL
Volume 83, Issue 9, Pages 1215-1225

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2003.11.013

Keywords

chemical-looping combustion; carbon dioxide capture; CO2 separation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For combustion with CO2 capture. chemical-looping combustion (CLC) with inherent separation of CO2 is a promising technology. Two interconnected fluidized beds are used as reactors. In the fuel reactor, a gaseous fuel is oxidized by an oxygen carrier. e.g. metal oxide particles, producing carbon dioxide and water. The reduced oxygen carrier is then transported to the air reactor, where it is oxidized with air back to its original form before it is returned to the fuel reactor. The feasibility of using oxygen carrier based on oxides of iron, nickel, copper and manganese was investigated. Oxygen carrier particles were produced by freeze granulation. They were sintered at 1300 degreesC for 4 h and sieved to a size range of 125-180 mum. The reactivity of the oxygen carriers was evaluated in a laboratory fluidized bed reactor, simulating a CLC system by exposing the sample to alternating reducing and oxidizing conditions at 950 degreesC for all carriers except copper, which was tested at 850 degreesC. Oxygen carriers based on nickel, copper and iron showed high reactivity, enough to be feasible for a suggested CLC system. However. copper oxide particles agglomerated and may not be suitable as an oxygen carrier. Samples of the iron oxide with aluminium oxide showed signs of agglomeration. Nickel oxide showed the highest reduction rate, but displayed limited strength. The reactivity indicates a needed bed mass in the fuel reactor of about 80-330 kg/MWth and a needed recirculation flow of oxygen carrier of 4-8 kg/s, MWth. (C) 2003 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