4.7 Article

Evaluation of red mud as oxygen carrier for chemical looping combustion of methane and biomass in fluidized bed

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106964

关键词

Chemical Lopping Combustion (CLC); Red mud; Methane; Biomass char; Agglomeration

资金

  1. National Natural Foundation of China [51906113]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu province [BK20190707]
  3. Key Research and Development (R&D) Projects of Shanxi Province [201903D121031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red mud shows low reactivity with methane and better reactivity with biomass char. It exhibits stable reactivity during oxygen carrier cycles, but tends to agglomerate during methane fluidized bed experiments.
The reaction performance of red mud, which generally contains high amount of Na, as an oxygen carrier for Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) was evaluated using methane and biomass char as fuel respectively. Effects of reaction temperature and cycles on fuel conversion, particle agglomeration and Na distribution were investigated. Fluidized Bed Thermogravimetric test suggested a stable reactivity during successive redox cycles of the red mud with an oxygen transport capacity of 1.65%. The red mud demonstrates a low reactivity with methane, and a serious agglomeration was found during the fluidized bed experiments with methane due to the further reduction of Fe2O3 to its low state of FeO. It has enough reactivity to oxidize the char gasification productions, thus accelerating the char conversion. The average values of the instantaneous rate increase by 2.82 times at 1143 K, 3.88 times at 1163 K, 3.58 times at 1183 K and 2.0 times at 1203 K in comparison with inert gasification process. Almost no agglomerates formation was found for the CLC investigation using biomass char as fuel. Irrespective of the CLC process of methane or the biomass char, Na exists in a stable phase of NaAlSiO4 with a high melting point and has no influence on particle agglomeration.

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