Comparison of experimental results from three dual fluidized bed test facilities capturing CO2 with CaO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postcombustion CO2 capture technologies using CaO as a regenerable solid sorbent have emerged as a promising route to reduce the electricity penalty and the cost of CO2 capture from flue gases of both new and existing fossil fu elled power plants. Rapid progress is taking place in the understanding of these processes at different levels. However, experimental information, validating the concept under continuous operating conditions similar to those expected for large-scale application, remain scarce. We present here a comparative analysis of the results obtained in three laboratory-scale dual fluidized bed (DFB) test facilities in Spain, Germany and Canada. The test facilities range from 10 to 75 kW th with riser heights between 4.5 and 12.4 m. They have been operated to capture CO2 with CaO from simulated flue gases in the bubbling, turbulent and fast fluidization fluid-dynamic regimes. The carbonator reactors are interconnected with regenerators, where the CaCO3 decomposition has been conducted continuously and semi-continuously, operated in both air-combustion and oxy-combustion modes. Many stationary and non stationary states have been achieved at different combinations of the key operating parameters (e.g. calcium looping ratio). All DFB test facilities showed a carbon balance closure of high quality in most tests. The trends of CO2 capture efficiency with respect to operating conditions and sorbent characteristics are compared and a discussion is made on the most appropriate methodology to conduct future tests under a joint new FP7 project (CaOling) that aims at the rapid scaling up of the calcium looping technology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".