CCS - A technology for the future: general discussion.
CCS - A technology for the future: general discussion.
复制标题
CCS - 面向未来的技术：一般性讨论。
DOI：
10.1039/c6fd90053d
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Smit B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smit B
Niall MacDowell开始了对Lisa Joss论文的讨论：Lisa，在您的论文中，您评估了McDonald等人提出的相变MOF类。1在TSA进程的背景下。尽管最初的论文声称每吨二氧化碳的再生能量为2.2-2.3GJ，但您观察到，由于对水的敏感性，实际上每吨二氧化碳的再生能量可能大于5.0GJ。在这一点上，我要指出的是，您的模型气体的水分含量相对较低，为4%--一个典型的燃煤电厂将产生含有8%水的废气。暂时撇开边际资本支出要求不谈，这一能源成本比最先进的胺工艺每吨二氧化碳所需的2.2-2.3GJ要高得多，2-4这项工作是否表明，不应出于二氧化碳捕获目的而追求对水敏感的吸附剂？你的结论似乎表明不是，你说“吸附过程不像胺过程那样成熟”，但在整个讨论中反复注意到吸附过程在工业上运行的规模。有人指出，与干燥过程相比，在吸附器中加入一段糖类物质可能更可取。你认为这可能会对能源成本产生什么影响，因为这种材料可能也需要再生？
Niall MacDowell opened discussion of the paper by Lisa Joss: Lisa, in your paper, you evaluated the class of phase-change MOFs proposed by McDonald et al. 1 in the context of a TSA process. Despite the original paper claiming an energy of regeneration of 2.2–2.3 GJ per t of CO2, you observed that, owing to a sensitivity to water, the energy of regeneration was in practice likely to be greater than 5.0 GJ per t of CO2. At this point, I would note that the water content of your model gas was relatively low at 4%–a typical coal plant would produce an exhaust gas containing $8% water. Putting aside the marginal CAPEX requirements for a moment, this energy cost is so much greater than the 2.2–2.3 GJ per t of CO2 required for a state-of-the-art amine process, 2–4 does this work indicate that adsorbents with a sensitivity for water should not be pursued for CO2 capture purposes? Your conclusions seem to indicate not, stating that “adsorption processes are not as mature [as amine processes]”, but the scale at which adsorption processes are operating in industry was repeatedly noted throughout the discussions.It was noted that it might be preferable to incorporate a section of sacri cial material in the adsorber as opposed to a drying process. What effect do you think this might have on the energy cost, as presumably this material would also have to be regenerated?