4.3 Article

A TGA study of CO2 gasification reaction of various types of coal and biomass

期刊

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 3275-3281

出版社

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-016-0636-1

关键词

CO2 gasification; Coal and biomass; Volatile species; Thermogravimetric analysis; Boudouard reaction

资金

  1. Human Resources Development program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) - Korean government's Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy [20144010200780]
  2. MSIP
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea [2014M3C8A5030614]
  4. Global Frontier R&D Program of the Center for Multiscale Energy Systems - National Research Foundation under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea [2012M3A6A7054863]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014M3C8A5030614] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CO2 gasification kinetics of various carbonaceous samples of high-and low-rank coal and a biomass were determined under CO2 flow with increasing temperature in a Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) coupled with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). We utilized four different types of fuels and their chars with significant differences in their physico-chemical properties that are being most widely used in Korea. As a result, fuels with larger surface area and more catalytic components in ash were preferred for increasing the intrinsic reactivity of CO2 gasification particularly for low-rank coals and biomass, respectively. It was postulated that the catalytic effect of ash components could compensate for the lack of active sites in the biomass samples. From the practical point of view, the utilization of the low-rank coal with the porous char structure with blending the biomass is recommended for a remarkable increase of the gasification rate.

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

4.3
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