4.7 Article

Curtailing the generation of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by blending and oxy-combustion of coals

期刊

FUEL
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 772-784

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.023

关键词

Co-firing of coals; Oxy combustion; Carbon dioxide; Sulfur dioxide; Nitrogen oxide

资金

  1. Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI)
  2. State of Illinois

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research examined the reduction of combustion-generated sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from a pulverized high-sulfur bituminous coal by co-firing it with a lignite coal and by substituting air with O-2/CO2 gases, of compositions pertinent to dry once through oxy-fuel combustion conditions. Oxygen mole fractions were in the range of 21-30%. The neat bituminous and lignite coals as well as a 50-50 wt% blend thereof were burned in a laboratory-scale electrically-heated drop-tube furnace under fuel-lean conditions. Coal particles were in the size range of 75-90 mu m and the furnace was operated at 1400 K. Results showed that the SO2 emissions from the lignite coal were drastically lower than those from the bituminous coal, whereas the NOx emissions were only mildly lower. Co-firing the high-sulfur bituminous coal and the low-sulfur lignite coal reduced the SO2 emissions, under both air and oxy-combustion conditions, to values well-below those predicted by linear interpolation of the respective emissions of the two neat coals. This observation, in conjunction with ash analysis shows that the alkali-rich ashes of the lignite coal acted as sulfur sorbents for the copious SO2 emissions of the bituminous coal. This behavior was contrasted to SO2 sorption when the bituminous coal was co-injected with calcium- and sodium-based sorbents at analogous alkali to sulfur ratios. Co-firing of the coals reduced the NOx emissions only mildly, whereas the substitution of the background N-2 gas with CO2 resulted in much more extensive NOx reductions. (C) 2016 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