4.8 Article

Fluidized bed testing of commercially prepared MgO-promoted hematite and CuO-Fe2O3 mixed metal oxide oxygen carriers for methane and coal chemical looping combustion

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 348-357

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.042

关键词

Oxygen carriers; Chemical looping combustion; Commercial scale preparation of oxygencarriers; Fluidized bed testing of oxygen carriers

资金

  1. Directorate For Engineering [1511818] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  2. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1511818] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Performance data of two commercially prepared oxygen carriers, MgO-promoted natural mineral hematite (Fe2O3) and synthetic mixed metal cuO-Fe2O3/alumina, are described in this paper. Large, 180-kg (400-pound) batches of both oxygen carriers were successfully prepared at a commercial catalyst preparation facility. These carriers have shown excellent reactivity and stable performance during cyclic chemical-looping combustion (CLC) tests conducted with methane/air at 700-850 degrees C in an atmospheric fluid bed reactor. Attrition resistance of both oxygen carriers with particle size of 100-150 gm, measured using the ASTM 5757D method, was better than that of standard fluidized bed cracking catalysts. The presence of MgO on the hematite oxygen carrier significantly improved the oxygen utilization of hematite for methane CLC. The CuO-Fe2O3/alumina oxygen carrier showed excellent performance during the 25-cycle fluidized bed CLC test conducted at 800 degrees C with methane and air. Full combustion of methane to CO2 and stable oxygen transfer capacity were observed during all the cycles. The fluidization of this material was easy, with no particle agglomeration as is traditionally observed with CuO-containing materials. Fluidized bed temperature programmed reaction tests with coal were also conducted with both materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.8
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