4.7 Article

Syngas Chemical Looping Process: Design and Construction of a 25 kWth Subpilot Unit

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 2292-2302

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef202039y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA)
  2. Ohio Department of Development (ODOD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The syngas chemical looping (SCL) process employing the gas solid counter-current flow pattern demonstrates an innovative approach to generate hydrogen and/or electricity from syngas accompanied with in situ carbon capture. Iron-based oxygen carriers donate oxygen for complete syngas conversion in the reducer. The reduced oxygen carriers are then oxidized by steam and/or air to generate hydrogen and/or heat in the oxidizer and/or the combustor, respectively. Previous studies have reported the performance of the iron-based oxygen carriers, the advantages of a moving bed reducer and oxidizer, and simulation of various parametric effects on the reactor design of the reducer, oxidizer, and combustor for a continuous system. In this study, a 25 kW(th) subpilot SCL unit was designed based on the simulated criteria and constructed to demonstrate the feasibility of generating high purity hydrogen with in situ carbon capture. Two test runs were presented using 4.5 mm x 2.5-4.5 mm cylindrical oxygen carriers comprising of 60 wt % iron oxide (Fe2O3). The first test resulted in a syngas conversion of 99.96% and trace amounts of hydrogen generation highlighting the importance of the extent of oxygen carrier conversion. The second test demonstrated the continuous production of hydrogen with an average purity of 94.4% and a maximum of 98.4% when the conversion of the oxygen carriers exiting the reducer was 35.54%. The initial test results support the concept of continuous hydrogen generation with in situ carbon capture using the SCL process and also highlight the advantage of adopting the countercurrent moving bed reactor design.

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