Advertisement

Process Simulations of Chemical Looping Combustion for Mixtures of Coal and Biomass Using an Iron Based Oxygen Carrier—Part I

  • Justin Lam
  • Ramesh K. AgarwalEmail author
  • Xiao Zhang
Chapter
Part of the Energy, Environment, and Sustainability book series (ENENSU)

Abstract

Chemical-looping combustion (CLC) is a recent carbon capture technology that has shown great promise for almost pure CO2 separation and capture in combustion of fossil fuels in power generation plants. In this paper, several process simulations of chemical-looping combustion are conducted using ASPEN Plus. The entire CLC process is modeled and validated against the experimental data using a mixture of biomass and coal and pure biomass as fuels. The effect of fuel reactor temperature on gas concentrations (namely CO2, CO, CH4 and O2) in the fuel and air reactors, the conversion efficiency of carbonaceous gases, the char conversion efficiency, the carbon capture efficiency, and the energy output are investigated. It is found that increasing the fuel reactor temperature increases the CO2 concentration in the fuel reactor for the biomass/coal mixture and decreases the CO2 concentration for pure biomass in agreement with the experimental data. However, for the coal/biomass mixture and pure biomass, there is an increase in CO concentration in the fuel reactor. Poor oxygen transport capacity of the iron ore (Fe2O3) used as an oxygen carrier results in decrease in conversion efficiency for both types of fuels. However, both types of fuel showed an increase in carbon conversion efficiency since lesser amount of residual char made it past the fuel reactor as temperatures increased. Energy output for both fuels grew steadily with increase in fuel reactor temperature, but for pure biomass it stagnated between 760 and 800 °C and it peaked for biomass/coal mixture at 960 °C. Variations of gas concentrations in fuel and air reactors as well as energy output as a function of different mass fractions of coal and biomass are also obtained. The concentrations of CO2, CO, and CH4, and energy output all decrease with decreasing fraction of coal in the coal/biomass mixture.

Keywords

Chemical looping combustion Process simulation Biomass Coal Carbon capture efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Mayur D. Kevat and Tamal Banerjee of Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India for their input and help.

References

  1. Basu P, Butler J, Leon MA (2011) Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renew Energy 36:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cuadrat A, Abad A, de Diego LF (2012a) Prompt considerations on the design of chemical-looping combustion of coal from experimental tests. Fuel 97:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuadrat A, Abad A, Adánez J, de Diego LF (2012b) Behavior of ilmenite as oxygen carrier in chemical-looping combustion. Fuel Process Technol 94(1):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gu H, Shen LH, Xiao J, Zhang S, Song T (2011) Chemical looping combustion of biomass/coal with natural iron ore as oxygen carrier in a continuous reactor. Energy Fuel 25:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jerndal E, Leion H, Axelsson L, Ekvall T, Hedberg M, Johansson K, Källén M, Svensson R, Mattisson T, Lyngfelt A (2011) Using low-cost iron-based materials as oxygen carriers for chemical looping combustion. Oil Gas Sci Technol —Rev IFP Energ nouvelles 66:235–248Google Scholar
  6. Khorshidi Z, Hoa MT, Wiley DE (2013) Techno-economic study of biomass co-firing with and without CO2 capture in an Australian black coal-fired power plant. Energy Procedia 37:6035–6042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khorshidi Z, Hoa MT, Wiley DE (2014) The impact of biomass quality and quantity on the performance and economics of co-firing plants with and without CO2 capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 21:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Li J, Zhang X, Pawlak-Kruczek H, Yang W, Kruczek P, Blasiak W (2014) Process simulation of co-firing torrefied biomass in a 220 MWe coal-fired power plant. Energy Convers Manag 84:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li S, Chen X, Liu A, Wang L, Yu G (2015) Co-pyrolysis characteristic of biomass and bituminous coal. Bioresour Technol 179:414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lyngfelt A, Leckner B, Mattisson T (2001) A fluidized-bed combustion process with inherent CO2 separation; application of chemical-looping combustion. Chem Eng Sci 56:3101–3113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kevat MD, Subhash CM, Mahantaa P, Somayajia C, Banerjeeb T, Simulation and validation of chemical looping combustion for mixtures of coal and biomass using iron based oxygen carrier (unpublished)Google Scholar
  12. Mendiara T, Abad A, De Diego LF, García-Labiano F, Gayán P, Adánez J (2013) Biomass combustion in a CLC system using an iron ore as an oxygen carrier. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 19:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meng WX, Banerjee S, Zhang X, Agarwal RK (2015) Process simulation of multi-stage chemical-looping combustion using Aspen Plus. Energy 90:1869–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sahir AH, Dansie JK, Cadore AL, Lighty JS (2014) A comparative process study of chemical-looping combustion (CLC) and chemical-looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU) for solid fuels. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 22:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shen LH, Zheng M, Xiao J et al (2007) Chemical looping combustion of coal in interconnected fluidized beds. Sci China Ser E: Technol Sci 50(2):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shen L, Wu J, Xiao J, Song Q, Xiao R (2009) Chemical-looping combustion of biomass in a 10 kWth reactor with iron oxide as an oxygen carrier. Energy Fuels 23(5):2498–2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang J, Anthony EJ (2008) Clean combustion of solid fuels. Appl Energy 85(2):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhang X et al (2015) Process simulation and maximization of energy output in chemical-looping combustion using ASPEN plus. Int J Energy Environ 6(2):201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations