4.7 Article

Laboratory scale studies on CO2 oxy-fuel combustion in the context of underground coal gasification

期刊

JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 177-190

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2017.06.021

关键词

Underground coal gasification (UCG); CO2 gasification; Thermo gravimetric studies; Syngas

资金

  1. SERB, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [SR/FTP/ETA-220/2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidizing/gasifying agents play an essential role in the economy of underground coal gasification (UCG). The selection of feed gases to UCG depends on the prevailing conditions and inherent properties of a coal seam. Steam based UCG operation would lead to transportation and operational difficulty for efficient gasification. Alternatively, CO2 gas is a potential gasifying medium for coal gasification and this option would ensure the reutilization of waste CO2 gas in a UCG operation. Thus, in the present study, borehole coal combustion and gasification experiments are carried out to simulate CO2 enhanced UCG system using a low ash coal originating from the Northeast region of India. UCG experiments are simulated in a laboratory scale using CO2/O-2 gases and the results are compared with pure oxygen and oxygen enriched air based UCG operation. The composition and calorific value of syngas are analysed for various gasifying agents. The CO2/O-2 borehole experimental studies show that a CO enriched product gas (similar to 40 vol.%) can be generated under dried coal seam conditions. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) studies show that the rate of pyrolysis is higher under a CO2 atmosphere as compared to N-2 atmosphere. Further, the TGA results show that the generated CO2 pyrolysis products led to substantial char gasification even at low temperatures. The reactivity of tar with CO2 enhanced the calorific value of the product gas due to dry reforming reactions. Also, the presence of suitable inorganic species in the coal progressed the CO2 gasification through ash catalysis.

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