A comparative study of CO2 sorption properties for different oxides

Abstract

It is essential to capture CO 2 from flue gas stream, which is considered as one of the prime reasons of global warming. Although various CO 2 capture technologies already exist, most of these techniques are still unfit to be employed at a large scale. In the past one decade, oxides have emerged as a strong candidate to capture CO 2 for post-, pre-and oxy-combustion conditions. Oxides combine with CO 2 present in the flue gas and form carbonate, which when heated regenerates the oxides and thus liberates almost pure stream of CO 2 . The selection criteria for potential oxides entail their CO 2 capture capacity, absorption rate, thermal stability, regeneration heat, cost and structural properties. Thus, here, we review the technical merit of all the suitable oxides which can be used for CO 2 capture at any fossil fuel burning plants.

Development of sodium/lithium/fly ash sorbents for high temperature post-combustion CO 2 capture

“…The CO 2 sorption difference between Li/Na sorbent in presence of 100% and 14% CO 2 was completely eliminated by adding 20% K 2 CO 3 , which resulted in absorbing 2.54 mol CO 2 /kg sorbent, compared to 1.36 mol CO 2 /kg sorbent without K 2 CO 3 . The difference between the K 2 CO 3 promoted and not promoted sorbent can be attributed to the eutectic carbonate mixture formed in presence of K 2 CO 3 , which further enhances CO 2 diffusion in the carbonated layer [38]. The slope of the CO 2 uptake profile presented in Fig.…”

CO2 chemisorption and evidence of the CO oxidation–chemisorption mechanisms on sodium cobaltate

“…In the field of CO 2 capture, several alkaline ceramics have been proposed as possible CO 2 chemisorbents [3][4][5][6]. Within these alkaline ceramics, Li 2 ZrO 3 , Li 4 SiO 4 , Li 2 CuO 2 and Na 2 ZrO 3 , among others, have been extensively studied, because they exhibit good CO 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.02.075 1385-8947/Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.…”

Progress in hydrotalcite like compounds and metal-based oxides for CO2 capture: a review

“…This scheme only applies for cases where Li 2 CO 3 is a solid. Na 2 ZrO 3 shows better reaction rate than the synthetic sorbents such as Li 2 ZrO 3 and Li 4 SiO 4 (Kumar and Saxena, 2014). This is explained on basis of lithium or sodium mobility in the ceramics.…”

“…In particular, Li 4 SiO 4 is cheaper than Li 2 ZrO 3 due to cost-effective precursors (Qi et al, 2012;Kato et al, 2002). Sodium ceramics are less expensive compared to lithium ceramics (Kumar and Saxena, 2014). Li 2 CuO 2 is cheaper than Li 2 ZrO 3 (Palacios-Romero and .…”