4.7 Article

Techno-economic Analysis of Metal-Organic Frameworks for Hydrogen and Natural Gas Storage

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 2024-2032

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02510

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy
  2. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A techno-economic analysis was conducted for metal organic framework (MOF) adsorbents, which are promising candidates for light-duty vehicle on-board natural gas and hydrogen storage. The goal of this analysis was to understand cost drivers for large-scale (2.5 Mkg/year) MOF synthesis and to identify potential pathways to achieving a production cost of less than $10/(kg of MOF). Four MOFs were analyzed with four different metal centers and three different linkers: Ni-2(dobdc) (dobde(4-) = 2,5-dioxido-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate; Ni-MOF-74), Mg-2(dobdc) (dobde(4-) = 2,5-dioxido-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate; Mg-MOF-74), Zn4O(bdc)(3) (bdc(2-) = 1,4-benzenedicarboxylate; MOF-5), and Cu-3(btc)(2) (btc(3-) = 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylate; HKUST-1). Baseline costs are projected to range from $35/kg to $71/kg predicated on organic solvent (solvothermal) syntheses using an engineering scale-up of laboratory-demonstrated synthesis procedures and conditions. Two alternative processes were analyzed to evaluate the cost impact of reducing solvent usage: liquid assisted grinding (LAG) and aqueous synthesis. Cost projections from these alternative synthesis, approaches range from $13/kg to $36/kg (representing 34-83% reductions), demonstrating the large impact of solvent on the baseline analysis. Finally, sensitivity studies were conducted to identify additional opportunities for achieving MOF production costs of less than $10/kg.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available