1 Introduction and objectives - calcium-looping based energy conversion and storage
1.1 The challenges in carbon neutrality of our energy systems
Fig. 1 Power generation in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2000-2040 [3] |
Fig. 2 Renewable energy in total final energy consumption, by Sector, 2016 [4] |
1.2 The role of calcium-looping in carbon-neutral power generation
Fig. 3 Schematic illustration of energy conversion and storage strategy for carbon-neutral and its potential applications [14] |
1.3 The objectives of this paper
2 Background of calcium-looping
2.1 Basics of calcium-looping
Fig. 4 Schematic representation of the calcium-looping process suitable for CO2 capture from post-combustion flue gas (a), and gas-solid fluidized beds (b) |
2.2 Barriers of calcium-looping for decarbonization
2.2.1 Modelling works
2.2.2 Cement decarbonization
Fig. 5 Schematic of the energy flows of calcium-looping integrated system for post-combustion CO2 capture and cement manufacture |
2.2.3 Power plant decarbonization
Fig. 6 Energy penalties of fossil fuelled power plant with and without CCS at 85% capacity factor (calculated in GWh) [16] |
2.3 Calcium-looping beyond CCS
2.3.1 Calcium-looping for energy conversion
Fig. 7 Pathways for H2-riched fuel gas conversion: WGS - water gas shift; SMR -steam methane reforming; DMR -dry methane reforming |
Fig. 8 The production of H2 as a function of temperature with 1 mol CaO (red dash line) and without (black dash dot line) predicted by thermodynamic equilibrium modelling, a mole fraction of H2, inputs: 1 mol CO, 1 mol H2O; b product gas concentration of H2 at 15 bar pressure, inputs: 1 mol CH4, 1 mol CO, and 2 mol H2O [37,38] |
2.3.2 Calcium-looping for energy storage
Fig. 9 Schematic representing a brief summary and comparison of three thermal energy storage technologies (a) and possible temporal and spatial distribution in operation (b) |
Fig. 10 Schematic representation of the calcium-looping based TCES for CSP (a), and the flow chart (b) |
2.4 Summary
3 Materials optimization
3.1 Thermodynamics, kinetics and bottlenecks
3.2 Property enhancement
Table 1 Presents a comparison of the different strategies for improving carbonate looping with AEMOs-based sorbents |
| Dopant | Precursor /Dopants | Synthesis | Temperature(°C)/time(min)/gas | Cyclic findings CO2 uptake (gco2·gsorbent− 1) or energy density (kJ·kg− 1) | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbonation | Calcination | |||||
| Solid doping | Limestone, dolomite /MgO | Wet mixing by acetic acid | 850/5/CO2 | 725/5/He | Normalized conversion more than 0.7 after 30 cycles and improved overall CSP efficiency by simulation | [59] |
| Limestone, dolomite /MgO | Wet mixing by template | 850/10/ CO2 | 750/10/ N2 | energy density was ~ 2780 | [60] | |
| Ca(NO3)2·4H2O / CuO or FeMnO3-Fe2O3 | sol-gel | 700/10/50% CO2 in N2 | 700/15/ N2 | Energy density of CuO doped only 237 after 20 cycles, whereas FeMnO3-Fe2O3 doped above 2400 after 44 cycles | [61, 62] | |
| Calcium naphthenate / Si, Ti, Cr, Co or Ce | flame spray pyrolysis | ~/5 ~ 10/30 vol% CO2 in He | 700/30/ He | Ce/CaO has the relatively high value of CO2 uptake | [63] | |
| CaCO3 / Graphite | Wet mixing | 850/5/CO2 | 750/10/ N2 | Energy density was ~ 1333 after 50 cycles | [64] | |
| Calcium acetate hydrate / MgO | “One-Pot” Recrystallization | 650/20/20 vol% CO2 | 900/10/30 ml·min− 1 of CO2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.47 after 10 cycles | [65] | |
| Ca(NO3)2·4H2O/Mn | Wet chemistry with template | 600/45/50 vol% CO2 in 50% N2 | 700/20/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.53 after 25 cycles | [66] | |
| Calcium gluconate /Ca-Mn-Fe | Milling | 700/10/CO2 | 700/15/N2 | Average energy density was ~ 1450 in 60 cycles | [67] | |
| SrO / SrZrO3 | Sintering of yttria-stabilized zirconia | 1150/180/CO2 | 1235/90/90 10 ml·min− 1 CO2 in Ar | Energy density was ~ 1450 MJ·m− 3 over fifteen cycles | [68] | |
| high-purity limestone / Ca3Al2O6 or Ca4Al6O13 | Ball milling | 825/5/CO2 | 725/5/He | 5 wt% Al2O3 composite optimized for calcium-looping conditions applied to CSP storage and CO2 capture | [26] | |
| Ca(NO3)2·4H2O / Ca2Fe2O5 | Sol-gel | 700/10/50% CO2 in N2 | 700/15/N2 | Energy density was only 631 after 20 cycles | [61] | |
| Limestone / Ca12Al14O33 | Wet-mixing | 850-1000/5/1.3 Mpa CO2 | 850/10/N2 | Energy density was ~ 2500 after 30 cycles | [69] | |
| Calcium citrate hydrate / Ca2SiO4 or AlCaTiO3 | Chemical vapor deposition | 850/10/CO2 | 850/5/N2 | Energy density of Al2O3 stabled one was ~ 1500 after the 50th cycle | [70] | |
| Ca-naphthenate / CaZrO3 | Flame spray pyrolysis | ~/5 ~ 10/ 30 vol% CO2 in He | 700/30/He | Zr/Ca (3:10) was identified as the most promising material for CO2 uptake | [70] | |
| Ca(NO3)2·4H2O / CaSiO3 | Bio-template method | 725/5/He | 825/5/ CO2 | Improved multicycle stability for limestone, 19 wt% of SiO2 yields a reduction close to 13% energy density | [71] | |
| Calcium acetylacetonate / Ca3Al2O6 | Template-assistant hydrothermal | 650/20/20 vol% CO2 in N2 | 900/15/CO2 | reduce CO2 capture ability after 10 cycles | [72] | |
| Ca(NO3)2 / Ca3Al2O6 | Template-assisted hydrothermal | 650/20/12 vol% CO2 in N2 | 900/5/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.55 after 30 cycles | [73] | |
| Calcium nitrate tetrahydrate / Ca3Al2O6 | Template-assistant hydrothermal | 650/20/20 vol% CO2 in N2 | 900/4/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.30 after 60 cycles | [50] | |
| Molten salts | CaCO3 / KCl, K2CO3 or NaCl | Wet mixing | 650/15/ CO2 | 850/2/ N2 | Enhancing effect followed the order KCl > NaCl >K2CO3 | [74] |
| Hydromagnesite / LiNO3, NaNO3, KNO3 | Wet mixing | ~/60/CO2 | 450/15/N2 | Average value of CO2 uptake was ~ 0.243 over 10 cycles | [75] | |
| Mg(Ac)2·4H2O / NaNO3-NaNO2 | hydrothermal treatment | 325/30/0.85 bar CO2 | 450/30/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.87 at 350 °C in the presence of 0.85 bar of CO2 within only 50 min | [76] | |
| Magnesium Acetylacetonate dihydrate / LiNO3-(Na, K)NO2 | nonhydrolytic sol-gel reaction | 340/60/CO2 | 450/30/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.53 after 10 cycles | [77] | |
| Magnesium hydroxide / (Li, K)NO3 | Molten mixing | 350/60/CO2 | 500/10/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.37 after 10 cycles | [58] | |
| Magnesium nitrate hexahydrate / (Li, Na)NO3-Na2CO3 / | coprecipitation method | 325/10/CO2 | 425/5/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.33 after 10 cycles | [78] | |
| Mg5(CO3)2(OH)2·4H2O / NaNO3-Na2CO3 | ball milling | 360/90/CO2 | 400/60/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.37 after 10 cycles | [79] | |
| Magnesium methoxide / NaNO3-Na2CO3 | aerogel method | 325/60/CO2 | 450/10/N2 | CO2 uptake was ~ 0.30 after 10 cycles | [80] | |
3.2.1 Solid doping
3.2.2 Molten salts doping
3.3 New materials design
3.3.1 The structural doping
Fig. 15 Schematic of the AEMOs-based sorbent structure design strategies based on surface area and volume change |
3.3.2 The intelligent screening
3.3.3 The multi-functional design
3.3.4 Reuse of industrial solid wastes
3.4 Summary
4 Integrated reactors of calcium-looping
4.1 Supported membrane reactor
Fig. 17 Schematic of supported carbonate membrane reactor for SMR reaction [105] |
4.2 Fixed-bed reactor
Fig. 18 Schematic representation of DMR with calcium-looping [10] |
Fig. 19 A possible integration of the calcium-looping with SMR for power generation employing natural gas as energy source [110] |
4.3 Moving-bed reactor
Fig. 20 The comparison of the typical three reactors: a alternating fixed-bed reactor, b fluidized-bed reactor, c Moving-bed reactor [107] |
4.4 Summary
5 Integrated applications of calcium-looping
5.1 Integrated with IGCC or SOFCs
5.1.1 The efficiency improvement
Fig. 21 Integration of calcium-looping with H2 fuelled IGCC power plant [111] |
Fig. 22 Schematic of ZECOMAG power plant with air gas turbine [115] |
5.1.2 Techno-economic analyses of the comprehensive process
5.2 Integrated with CSP
5.2.1 The efficiency improvement
Fig. 23 Evolution of technological concepts of thermal energy storage materials for CSP. The new generation of technologies towards to higher temperature enables higher efficiencies [118] |
Fig. 24 Detailed scheme of the CSP plant with calcium-looping in the combined cycles [121] |
5.2.2 Techno-economic analyses of the comprehensive process
5.3 The flexibility of calcium-looping based EIUCCS and challenges
Fig. 25 Operating modes for renewables integrated with fossil fuelled power system |
Table 2 Comparison of main typical condition for calcium-looping based CCS and TCES |
| Calcium-looping [30, 55, 104] | Two typical conditions | |
|---|---|---|
| Calcination | Carbonation | |
| Target to CCS (focus on Mass) | ~ 950 ~ 70 vol.% CO2 ~ 1 bar | ~ 650 ~ 15% vol.% CO2 ~ 1 bar |
| Target to TCES (focus on Heat) | ~ 725 He, air or low CO2 mixture ~ 1 bar | ~ 850 Pure CO2 1 ~ 5 bar |

