 |
| Titel |
Results of a European interlaboratory comparison on CO2 sorption on coals and activated carbon |
| VerfasserIn |
Yves Gensterblum, Andreas Busch, Berndhard M. Krooss, Guy de Weireld, Pierre Billemont, Patrick van Hemert, Karl-Heinz Wolf, Delphine Charriere |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2011
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 13 (2011) |
| Datensatznummer |
250051514
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| For the assessment of CO2 storage in coal seams or enhanced coalbed methane
production (ECBM), the sorption properties of natural coals are important parameters.
Since more and more laboratories worldwide are concerned with measurements
of gas sorption on coal it is indispensable to establish quality standards for such
experiments.
The first two interlaboratory studies on CO2 sorption on coal (Goodman et al. 2004,
2007) revealed a poor agreement of sorption isotherms among the participating laboratories,
particularly in the high-pressure range.
During the MOVECBM (http://www.movecbm.eu/) project funded by the European
Commission (6th framework), an interlaboratory comparison of CO2 sorption on selected
coals and activated carbon was initiated. Measurements were performed on dry samples at
45Ë C using the manometric and the gravimetric method. up to a final pressure of 15
MPa.
PIC
Figure 1: CO2 Excess sorption isotherm on activated carbon F400
The first set of high-pressure sorption measurements was performed on a Filtrasorb 400
activated carbon sample in order to minimise heterogeneity effects and to optimize the
experimental procedures for the individual (manometric or gravimetric) methods
(Gensterblum et al. 2009).
Since comparability for the activated carbon was excellent, the measurements were
continued using natural coals of various rank (anthracite, bituminous coal and lignite) to
study the influence of heterogeneities and varying starting conditions on the CO2 sorption
properties (Gensterblum et al. 2010).
Compared to the poor reproducibility observed in previous interlaboratory studies
(Goodman et al., 2004, 2007) this European study showed excellent agreement ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|