4.7 Article

Experimental Investigation of Oxy-coal Combustion in a 15 kWth Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustor

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 1694-1703

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b02654

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB0600802]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51736002]
  3. Key Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province [BE2017195]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University [YJBB1810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pressurized oxy-coal combustion is considered as a promising carbon capture technology as a result of its potential of high efficiency and low cost in CO2 capture. However, experimental investigations of oxy-coal combustion under pressurized conditions are far less common than those under atmospheric pressure conditions, and hence, further research is needed to elucidate the effects of pressure on oxy-coal combustion in terms of combustion performance, emissions, etc. In this study, a series of oxy-coal combustion experiments were carried out under the pressures from 0.1 to 0.4 MPa on a 15 kW(th) fluidized bed combustion system. The effects of the combustion pressure and oxygen concentration in the oxidant on the temperature profile, unburnt carbon, combustion efficiency, fly ash composition, and NOx emission were investigated. The experimental results have shown that the CO2 concentration in the oxy-combustion flue gas under different combustion pressures have all exceeded 90%, which is beneficial to the carbon capture process. An increase in pressure is helpful to reduce the unburnt carbon in the fly ash and improve the combustion efficiency under all of the tested oxy-combustion atmospheres. The NOx emission decreases with combustion pressure within the investigated range of 0.1-0.4 MPa, while the reduction is more pronounced at lower pressures. Besides, the effect of combustion pressure on the chemical composition of the fly ash is found to be insignificant.

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

4.7
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