Simulation of a moving bed chemical looping system for electricity production from coal via chemical looping water splitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coal is a crucial energy source for modern industry and society. Because coal is one of the most CO 2 ‐intensive carbonaceous fuels, the combustion of coal with CO 2 capture is of great environmental relevance. However, the conventional coal‐based power generation processes, including the pulverized coal (PC) boiler process and the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process, suffer a significant efficiency loss when integrated with conventional CO 2 capture methods. Chemical looping technology is a promising alternative pathway for coal‐based power generation with intrinsic CO 2 separation and capture. Process simulation of chemical looping processes can provide an overview on the viability of the processes, thereby quantifying their advantages over conventional processes. This study presents the process simulation of a chemical looping water splitting combined cycle (CLWS‐CC) system for electricity generation. The CLWS‐CC process directly uses coal as the feedstock to produce H 2 , which is subsequently combusted in a combined cycle to generate electricity. The oxygen carriers used in the chemical looping process are optimized in their composition. Autothermal operation is established within the chemical looping system. Four CLWS‐CC cases that operate at different pressures are considered. In two of the four cases, an unequal pressure operating strategy is adopted to minimize the compression power consumption in order to enhance the overall process energy efficiency. The process simulation shows that the CLWS‐CC process is able to achieve an 18% increase in net plant efficiency over the conventional IGCC process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".