4.7 Article

Hydrogen storage systems for fuel cells: Comparison between high and low-temperature metal hydrides

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 29, 页码 15118-15134

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.083

关键词

Hydrogen storage; Metal hydride system; Lanthanum-nickel hydride; Magnesium hydride; Dynamic analysis model; Fuel cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The need for the enhancement of alternative energy sources is increasingly recognised and, in this perspective, the achievement of hydrogen economy seems to be fundamental. In this regard, fuel cells represent an interesting option for small and medium scale distributed renewable generation; however, these systems are inextricably linked with the concept of hydrogen storage. Research on metal hydrides revealed the opportunity to use these materials as basic elements in hydrogen storage devices, called MH systems. This means that interest exists in investigating the behaviour of metal hydrides: in fact, MH system operation is based on the hydriding/dehydriding reactions hydrides undergo, and, with the aim of evaluating the performance of such devices, these processes must be discussed and modelled. In the light of this, a simple numerical model to study hydride-based storage systems and their integration with fuel cells was developed: two low-temperature hydrides (LaNi5, LaNi4.8Al0.2) and two high-temperature hydrides (Mg, Mg2Ni) were selected and their behaviours in a MH system were simulated and compared with the help of such a model. This is an essential step in identifying the hydrides more suited to the application in question. Results showed that the choice is the trade off between encumbrance and reaction times; this implies that low-temperature hydrides are preferable because their encumbrance is limited and their reaction temperature range grants a greater versatility in small scale generation. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据