4.7 Article

Kinetic models for the oxy-fuel combustion of coal and coal/biomass blend chars obtained in N2 and CO2 atmospheres

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 510-518

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.10.033

Keywords

Coal; Biomass; Non-isothermal TG; Oxy-fuel combustion; Kinetic models; Entrained flow reactor

Funding

  1. Spanish MICINN [PS-120000-2005-2]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. CSIC JAE-Pre program
  4. CSIC JAE-Doc program
  5. European Social Fund
  6. Government of the Principado de Asturias (Severo Ochoa program)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The thermal reactivity and kinetics of five coal chars, a biomass char, and two coal/biomass char blends in an oxy-fuel combustion atmosphere (30%O-2-70%CO2) were studied using the non-isothermal thermogravimetric method at three heating rates. Fuel chars were obtained by devolatilization in an entrained flow reactor at 1273 K under N-2 and CO2 atmospheres. Three nth-order representative gas-solid models - the volumetric model (VM), the grain model (GM) and the random pore model (RPM) were employed to describe the reactive behaviour of the chars. The RPM model was found to be the best for describing the reactivity of the high rank coal chars, while VM was the model that best described the reactivity of the bituminous coal chars, the biomass char and the coal-biomass blend char. The kinetic parameters of the chars obtained in N-2 and CO2 in an oxy-fuel combustion atmosphere with 30% of oxygen were compared, but no relevant differences were observed. The behaviour of the blend of the bituminous coal (90%wt.) and the biomass (10%wt.) chars resembled that of the individual coal concealing the effect of the biomass. Likewise, no interaction was detected between the high rank coal and the biomass chars during oxy-fuel combustion of the blend. (C) 2012 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