4.7 Article

Study on the influencing factors of gas consumption in hydrate-based CO2 separation in the presence of CP by Raman analysis

期刊

ENERGY
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117316

关键词

CO2 separation; Hydrate; IGCC; Cyclopentane

资金

  1. National Natural Science Fund of Guangdong Province, China [2019A1515011490]
  2. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [51736009]
  3. Special project for marine economy development of Guangdong Province [GDME-2018D002]
  4. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [ZDBS-LY-SLH041]
  5. CAS Science and Technology Apparatus Development Program [YZ201619]
  6. Frontier Sciences Key Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [QYZDJ-SSW-JSC033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The separation of carbon dioxide (CO2) by hydrate-based technology has attracted much attention due to its low energy consumption and simple process. In view of the problems of slow hydrate formation and low gas consumption the factors influencing the hydrate-based separation of CO2 from integrated gasification conbined cycle (IGCC) syngas in the presence of cyclopentane (CP) are systematically studied in this paper. The results show that CP helps to promote the formation of CP-CO2 binary hydrate, and the gas consumption is affected by hydrate formation mode and hydrate density. The denser the hydrate phase is, the lower the gas consumption is. At the optimum condition of 275.65 K and 4.45 MPa with CP of 5v%, the highest gas consumption of 0.0128 mol/mol is obtained. The gas-hydrate contact is an important factor affecting gas consumption. In the hydrate formation system, the liquid often exists between gas and hydrate, limiting the full contact of gas and hydrate. Therefore, in the process of hydrate formation, making the hydrate fully contact with the gas without being covered by the liquid is a way to improve the gas consumption. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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