Combined Calcium Looping and Chemical Looping Combustion for Post‐Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture: Process Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, a combined calcium looping and chemical looping combustion (CaL–CLC) technology is simulated at thermodynamic equilibrium conditions and the results in terms of efficiency, power production, and solids circulation rates are compared with the case of using CaL alone. In addition, a new solids looping configuration in the CaL–CLC process is proposed with the purpose of mitigating the loss of calcium oxide conversion after high cycle numbers. Simulations show an improved process efficiency of the CaL–CLC method compared with CaL alone (34.2 vs. 31.2 % higher heat value) and an increased power output (136 vs. 110 MWe additional power) due to the higher energy requirement to preheat the reactants. A sensitivity analysis of the process operating parameters highlights the particular importance of the temperature difference between reactors, which has a strong impact on the required mass of solids circulating in the loops. Finally, partial carbon dioxide capture scenarios are considered and indicate that lower capture levels are suitable to match regulation targets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".