https://www.mdu.se/

mdu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Differences on Capturing CO2 from the Combustion of Biomass and Coal by using Chemical Absorption
Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering, Future Energy Center.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7328-1024
Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering, Future Energy Center. Tianjin University of Commerce, China.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3907-1987
Strategig development manager, Stockholm Exergi.
Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering, Future Energy Center.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6279-4446
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Energy. Proc., Scanditale AB , 2020Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Even though all capture technologies developed for capturing CO2 from the utilization of fossil fuels can be applied to capture CO2 from the utilization of biomass, due to the obvious different properties, the performance can also be quite different. This work investigates the differences when using chemical absorption to capture CO2 from the combustion of recycled woods and coal, in order to provide suggestions on the integration of CO2 capture in the utilization of bioenergy and promote the application of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage (BECCS). Two solvents, Monoethanolamine (MEA) and hot potassium carbonate (HPC), have been included. The results show that the flue gas (FG) from the combustion of recycled wood (RW) has a higher CO2 content, but lower O2, SOx and NOx content compared to the coal fired FG. In comparison to the coal fired FG, capturing CO2 from the RW fired FG requires less energy for both solvents, due to its higher CO2 content. The estimated oxidative and acid gas degradations are higher for FFCCS compared to BECCS, due to the higher O2, SOx and NOx contents in coal fired FG compared to those in the RW fired FG. For HPC process, FG compression work account for the largest part of the total energy consumption. Even though, the reboiler duty of the HPC process is lower than that of the MEA process, the total energy penalty is higher.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Scanditale AB , 2020.
Keywords [en]
BECCS, Degradation, Energy penalty, Gas composition, Hot potassium carbonate, Monoethanolamine
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-68417DOI: 10.46855/energy-proceedings-7511Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85202609947OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-68417DiVA, id: diva2:1896808
Conference
Applied Energy Symposium: Low Carbon Cities and Urban Energy Systems, CUE 2020. Virtual, Online. 10 October 2020 through 17 October 2020. Code 316989
Available from: 2024-09-11 Created: 2024-09-11 Last updated: 2024-12-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Nookuea, WorradaDong, BeibeiLi, HailongYan, JinyueThorin, Eva

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nookuea, WorradaDong, BeibeiLi, HailongYan, JinyueThorin, Eva
By organisation
Future Energy Center
Energy Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 47 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf