Carbon Dioxide Sequestration via Steelmaking Slag Carbonation in Alkali Solutions: Experimental Investigation and Process Evaluation

doi:10.1007/s40195-017-0694-0

Abstract

Abstract:

Carbon dioxide mineral sequestration with steelmaking slag is a promising method for reducing carbon dioxide in a large-scale setting. Existing calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide in steelmaking slag can be easily leached by water, and the formed calcium carbonate can be easily wrapped on the surface of unreacted steelmaking slag particles. Thus, further increase in the carbonation reaction rate can be prevented. Enhanced carbon dioxide mineral sequestration with steelmaking slag in dilute alkali solution was analysed in this study through experiments and process evaluation. Operating conditions, namely alkali concentration, reaction temperature and time, and liquid-to-solid ratio, were initially investigated. Then, the material and energy balance of the entire process was calculated, and the net carbon dioxide sequestration efficiency at different reaction times was evaluated. Results showed that dilute alkali solution participated in slowing down the leaching of active calcium in the steelmaking slag and in significantly improving carbonation conversion rate. The highest carbonation conversion rate of approximately 50% can be obtained at the optimal conditions of 20 g/L alkali concentration, 2 mL/L liquid-to-solid ratio, and 70 °C reaction temperature. Carbonation reaction time significantly influences the net carbon dioxide sequestration efficiency. According to calculation, carbon dioxide emission of 52.6 kg/t-slag was avoided at a relatively long time of 120 min.

Key words: Steelmaking slag, Dilute alkali solution, CO₂ mineral, sequestration, Process evaluation

Chen-Ye Wang, Wei-Jun Bao, Zhan-Cheng Guo, Hui-Quan Li. Carbon Dioxide Sequestration via Steelmaking Slag Carbonation in Alkali Solutions: Experimental Investigation and Process Evaluation[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2018, 31(7): 771-784.

Figures/Tables 17

References

[1]	K.S. Lackner, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 27, 193(2002)
[2]	K.S. Lackner, Science 300, 1677 (2003)
[3]	A. Sanna, M. Uibu, G. Caramanna, R. Kuusikand,M.M. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 8049(2014)
[4]	J. Sipila¨, S. Teir, R. Zevenhoven, A ° bo Akademi Rep. VT. 1, 12(2008)
[5]	E.R. Bobicki, Q.X. Liu, Z.H. Xu, H.B. Zeng, Prog. Energy Combust. 38, 302(2012)
[6]	W.J .J.Huijgen, G.Witkamp, R. Comans,Environ. Sci. Technol.39, 9676(2005)
[7]	S. Eloneva, S. Teir, J. Salminen, C.J. Fogelholm, R. Zevenhoven,Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 7104(2008)
[8]	Y. Sun, M.S. Yao, J.P. Zhang, G. Yang, Chem. Eng. J. 173, 437(2011)
[9]	W.J. Bao, H.Q. Li, Y. Zhang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49, 2055(2010)
[10]	W.J. Bao, H.Q. Li, Y. Zhang, Greenh. Gases. 4, 785(2014)
[11]	J. Yu, K. Wang, Energy Fuels 25, 5483 (2011)
[12]	S.C. Tian, J.G. Jiang, X.J. Chen, F. Yan, K.M. Li, Chem. Sustain.Chem. 6, 2348(2013)
[13]	W.J .J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2790(2006)
[14]	W.J .J. Ind.Eng. Chem. Res. 45, 9184(2006)
[15]	W.J .J. Energy Convers.Manag.48, 1923 (2007)
[16]	J.K. Stolaroff, G.V. Lowry, D.W. Keith, Energy Convers.Manag. 46, 687(2005)
[17]	E.E. Chang, C.H. Chen, Y.H. Chen, S.Y. Pan, P.C. Chiang, J.Hazard. Mater. 186, 558(2011)
[18]	S.Y. Pan, E.G. Eleazar, E.E. Chang, Y.P. Lin, H. Kim, P.C. Chiang, Appl. Energy 148, 23 (2015)
[19]	S.Y. Pan, Y.H. Chen, C.D. Chen, A.L. Shen, M. Lin, P.C. Chiang, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 12380(2015)
[20]	S.Y. Pan,A.M. L. Appl. Energy 170, 269(2016)
[21]	R.M. Santos, D. Franc?ois, G. Mertens, J. Elsen, T.V. Gerven,Appl. Thermal. Eng. 5, 154(2013)
[22]	S. Eloneva, A. Said, C.J. Fogelholm, R. Zevenhoven, Appl.Energy 90, 329 (2012)
[23]	N.J. Du, L.J. Wang, Inorg. Chem. Ind. 41, 38(2009)
[24]	H.P. Mattila, R. Zevenhoven, Chem. Sustain. Chem. 7, 903(2014)
[25]	Y.Z. Chen, X.Q. Wang, Petro-Chem. Equip. Technol. 18, 13(1997)
[26]	S.Q. Yuan, W.L. Cao, Fluid Eng. 20, 35(1999)
[27]	Q. Zheng, P. Liu, Y. Fang, Mod. Mach. 6, 87(2010)
[28]	Q.S. Ding, J. Filtr. Sep. 19, 41(2009)
[29]	S. Datta, M.P. Henry, Y.J. Lin, A.T. Fracaro, C.S. Millard, S.W. Snyder, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 15177(2013)
[30]	C.M. Ma, Q.S. Ge, Adv. Clim. Change Res. 5, 92(2014)
[31]	M.A. Gadalla, Z. Olujic, P.J. Jansens, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39,6860(2005)
[32]	R. Smith, O. Delaby, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 69A, 492(1991)
[33]	O. Delaby, R. Smith, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 73B, 21(1995)
[34]	J. Xu, Y. Fan, Prog. Res. Clim. Change 9, 341 (2013)
[35]	W. Wang, D. Jiang, D.J. Chen, Z.B. Chen, W.J. Zhou, B. Zhu, J.Clean. Prod. 112, 787(2016)

Materials flow	Carbonation reaction time (min)
Materials flow	30	60	120
Input
Steelmaking slag (t/h)	56.31	39.31	29.34
Dilute alkali solution (m³/h)	112.6	78.6	58.7
CO₂ gas (t/h)	6.25	6.25	6.25
Added water (kg/h)	15.64	11.39	8.90
Added alkali (kg/h)	125.1	91.1	71.2
Output
Carbonated residue (kg/h)	62.56	45.56	35.59

Materials flow	Carbonation reaction time (min)
Materials flow	30	60	120
Input
Steelmaking slag (t/h)	56.31	39.31	29.34
Dilute alkali solution (m³/h)	112.6	78.6	58.7
CO₂ gas (t/h)	6.25	6.25	6.25
Added water (kg/h)	15.64	11.39	8.90
Added alkali (kg/h)	125.1	91.1	71.2
Output
Carbonated residue (kg/h)	62.56	45.56	35.59

Process	Stirring tank	Carbonation reaction time (min)
Process	Stirring tank	30	60	90
Premixing	Volume (m³)	100.7	70.3	52.5
	Width (m)	4	3.6	3.2
	Height (m)	8	7.2	6.4
	Impeller diameter (m)	1.4	1.26	1.12
	Stirring speed (s^-1)	2.15	2.42	2.67
	Stirring power (kW)	64.6	54.4	40.5
Carbonation	Volume (m³)	100.7	140.6	209.9
	Width (m)	4	4.5	5.1
	Height (m)	8	9	10.2
	Impeller diameter (m)	1.4	1.58	1.78
	Stirring speed (s^-1)	2.15	1.92	1.68
	Stirring power (kW)	64.6	83.1	103.8

Process	Stirring tank	Carbonation reaction time (min)
Process	Stirring tank	30	60	90
Premixing	Volume (m³)	100.7	70.3	52.5
	Width (m)	4	3.6	3.2
	Height (m)	8	7.2	6.4
	Impeller diameter (m)	1.4	1.26	1.12
	Stirring speed (s^-1)	2.15	2.42	2.67
	Stirring power (kW)	64.6	54.4	40.5
Carbonation	Volume (m³)	100.7	140.6	209.9
	Width (m)	4	4.5	5.1
	Height (m)	8	9	10.2
	Impeller diameter (m)	1.4	1.58	1.78
	Stirring speed (s^-1)	2.15	1.92	1.68
	Stirring power (kW)	64.6	83.1	103.8

Transporter	Power	Carbonation reaction time (min)
Transporter	Power	30	60	90
Belt conveyor (I)	Mass flow (t/h)	56.3	39.3	29.3
Belt conveyor (I)	Power consumption (kW)	3.1	2.61	2.31
Belt conveyor (II)	Mass flow (t/h)	62.6	45.6	35.6
Belt conveyor (II)	Power consumption (kW)	3.2	2.8	2.5
Pump (I)	Mass flow (t/h)	171.3	119.5	89.2
Pump (I)	Power consumption (kW)	15.5	10.8	8.1
Pump (II)	Mass flow (t/h)	177.4	125.7	95.4
Pump (II)	Power consumption (kW)	16.1	11.41	8.7
Pump (III)	Mass flow (t/h)	114.9	80.2	59.8
Pump (III)	Power consumption (kW)	10.4	7.3	5.4