Process Simulation of Chemical Looping Combustion for a Mixture of Biomass and Coal with Various Oxygen Carriers—Part II

  • Kartik Deshpande
  • Ramesh K. AgarwalEmail author
  • Ling Zhou
  • Xiao Zhang
Part of the Energy, Environment, and Sustainability book series (ENENSU)


Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) is an emerging technology that has shown great promise for the capture of almost pure CO2 in combustion of fossil fuels in power plants. In this chapter, the CLC process is modeled in ASPEN Plus and then validated using experimental data from the combustion of three types of biomass as fuels, and Hematite (Fe2O3) as an oxygen carrier (OC). The three types of biomass used in the simulation are Pine Sawdust, Almond Shells, and Olive Stones. The effect of the fuel reactor temperature on gas concentrations (namely CO2, CO, H2, and CH4) in the fuel reactor, and the carbon capture efficiency are examined. It is found that all three biomass types have very high carbon capture efficiencies, with Pine Sawdust and Almond Shell reaching nearly 100% capture efficiency for temperatures equal to or greater than 950 °C, while Olive Stones reaches a capture efficiency of nearly 100% at temperatures greater than 980 °C. It is also found that fluctuations in CO2 concentrations in the fuel reactor vary across the three biomass types. The effect of using Mn2O3 as the OC in place of Fe2O3 was also investigated. It was found that switching the oxygen carrier to Mn2O3 caused the concentrations of CO and H2 in the fuel reactor to decrease slightly, while the concentration of CO2 increased slightly. Furthermore, changing the OC to Mn2O3 had no effect on the carbon capture efficiency. Additionally, a mixture of coal and biomass at 895 °C was used with each of the two oxygen carriers, and the results were compared. It was found that the system using Fe2O3 had a greater power output than the one using Mn2O3, and that power output increased as the fraction of coal in the coal-biomass mixture increased.


Chemical looping combustion Process simulation Biomass Coal Carbon capture efficiency 



This work was partially supported by the Missouri STARS program and Special Foundation for Excellent Young Teachers and Principals Program of Jiangsu Province, China. The authors would like to thank Dr. Teresa Mendiara from Instituto de Carboquímica (ICB) for providing additional experimental data for validation.


  1. Adánez-Rubio I, Abad A, Gayán P et al (2014) Biomass combustion with CO2 capture by chemical looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU). Fuel Process Technol 124:104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adánez-Rubio I, Pérez-Astray A, Mendiara T et al (2018) Chemical looping combustion of biomass: CLOU experiments with a Cu-Mn mixed oxide. Fuel Process Technol 172:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alalwan HA, Cwiertny DM, Grassian VH (2017) Co 3 O 4 nanoparticles as oxygen carriers for chemical looping combustion: a materials characterization approach to understanding oxygen carrier performance. Chem Eng J 319:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alalwan HA, Mason SE, Grassian VH et al (2018) α-Fe2O3 nanoparticles as oxygen carriers for chemical looping combustion: an integrated materials characterization approach to understanding oxygen carrier performance, reduction mechanism, and particle size effects. Energy Fuels 32(7):7959–7970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee S, Agarwal R (2015) Transient reacting flow simulation of spouted fluidized bed for coal-direct chemical looping combustion with different Fe-based oxygen carriers. Appl Energy 160:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa TR, Gayán P, Abad A et al (2017) Promising impregnated Mn-based oxygen carriers for chemical looping combustion of gaseous fuels. Energy Procedia 114:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gu H, Shen L, Xiao J et al (2010) Chemical looping combustion of biomass/coal with natural iron ore as oxygen carrier in a continuous reactor. Energy Fuels 25(1):446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kevat MD, Banerjee T (2018) Process simulation and energy analysis of chemical looping combustion and chemical looping with oxygen uncoupling for sawdust biomass. Energy Technol 6(7):1237–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Linderholm C, Schmitz M, Knutsson P et al (2016) Chemical-looping combustion in a 100-kW unit using a mixture of ilmenite and manganese ore as oxygen carrier. Fuel 166:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Linderholm C, Schmitz M, Biermann M et al (2017) Chemical-looping combustion of solid fuel in a 100 kW unit using sintered manganese ore as oxygen carrier. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 65:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lyngfelt A (2014) Chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels–status of development. Appl Energy 113:1869–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lyngfelt A, Leckner B (2015) A 1000 MWth boiler for chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels–discussion of design and costs. Appl Energy 157:475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mayer K, Schanz E, Pröll T et al (2018) Performance of an iron based oxygen carrier in a 120 kW th chemical looping combustion pilot plant. Fuel 217:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mendiara T, Pérez-Astray A, Izquierdo MT et al (2018) Chemical looping combustion of different types of biomass in a 0.5 kW th unit. Fuel 211:868–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meng WX, Banerjee S, Zhang X et al (2015) Process simulation of multi-stage chemical-looping combustion using Aspen Plus. Energy 90:1869–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sarvaramini A, Larachi F (2014) Integrated biomass torrefaction–chemical looping combustion as a method to recover torrefaction volatiles energy. Fuel 116:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schmitz M, Linderholm C (2018) Chemical looping combustion of biomass in 10-and 100-kW pilots–analysis of conversion and lifetime using a sintered manganese ore. Fuel 231:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schuur EAG, McGuire AD, Schädel C et al (2015) Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shen L, Wu J, Xiao J et al (2009) Chemical-looping combustion of biomass in a 10 kWth reactor with iron oxide as an oxygen carrier. Energy Fuels 23(5):2498–2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Velasco-Sarria FJ, Forero CR, Adánez-Rubio I et al (2018) Assessment of low-cost oxygen carrier in South-western Colombia, and its use in the in-situ gasification chemical looping combustion technology. Fuel 218:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yan L, Yue G, He B (2015) Exergy analysis of a coal/biomass co-hydrogasification based chemical looping power generation system. Energy 93:1778–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhou L, Zhang Z, Chivetta C et al (2013) Process simulation and validation of chemical-looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU) process using Cu-based oxygen carrier. Energy Fuels 27(11):6906–6912CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kartik Deshpande
    • 1
  • Ramesh K. Agarwal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ling Zhou
    • 1
  • Xiao Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations