4.7 Article

CaxLa1-xMn1-yMyO3-δ (M = Mg, Ti, Fe, or Cu) as Oxygen Carriers for Chemical-Looping with Oxygen Uncoupling (CLOU)

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 4097-4107

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef3020102

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chalmers University of Technology via the Energy Area of Advance
  2. European Research Council [291235]
  3. Magnus Bergvalls Stiftelse
  4. United States Council for International Exchange of Scholars
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [291235] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perovskite materials of the type CaxLa1-xMn1-yMyO3-delta (M = Mg, Ti, Fe, or Cu) have been investigated as oxygen carriers for the chemical-looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU) process. The oxygen carrier, particles were Produced by mechanical homogenization of primary solids in a rotary, evaporator, followed by extrusion and calcination, at 1300 degrees C for 6 h. The chemical-looping characteristics of the substituted perovskites developed in this work were evaluated in a laboratory-scale fluidized-bed reactor in the temperature range of 900-1000 degrees C during alternating reducing and oxidizing conditions. The oxygen carriers showed oxygen releasing behaviour (CLOU) in an inert atmosphere between 900 and 1000 degrees C. In addition, their reactivity with methane was high, approaching complete gas yield for all of the materials at 950 degrees C, with the exception being the Cu-doped perovskite, which defluidized during reduction. The rates of oxygen release were also investigated using devolatilized wood char as solid were found to be similar. The required solids inventory in the fuel reactor for the perovskite oxygen carriers is estimated to be 325 kg/MWth. All of the formulation exhibited high rates of oxidation and a high degree of stability, with no particle fragmentation or agglomeration. The high reactivity and favourable oxygen uncoupling properties make these oxygen carriers promising candidates for the CLOU process.

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