Circulating-Fluidized-Bed-Based Calcium-Looping Gasifier: Experimental Studies on the Calcination–Carbonation Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in hydrogen energy is rising. Biomass could be its potential resource. Steam gasification of biomass in the presence of the sorbent calcium oxide (CaO) can produce a gas rich in hydrogen along with in situ capture of the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) produced. Calcium-looping gasification (CLG) produces a gas rich in hydrogen and at the same time captures CO 2 during the process while also regenerating sorbent producing pure CO 2 . However, deposition of char and tar, sintering because of high-temperature operation, and cyclic heating and cooling in the looping system can drastically reduce the ability of sorbent to capture CO 2 and at the same time for its regeneration. Therefore, this paper presents the study conducted to examine the performance of the sorbent as it goes through a number of alternating calcination–carbonation cycles. This research is carried out using two rigs. With the first one, kinetic rates are developed for calcination in the presence of three media: nitrogen (N 2 ), CO 2, and steam (H 2 O). With the second one, the effects of the particle size, medium, and temperature on the calcination and carbonation reactions are studied. An empirical relationship, in order to predict the loss during carbonation as the sorbent goes through successive calcination–carbonation cycles, is developed and presented here. With the calcium-looping system at the laboratory scale, (a) assessment of the fluid dynamics of the process, distribution of the pressure, and particles lost by attrition and (b) a study of the calcination–carbonation cycle are made and presented in this paper.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".