4.7 Article

Optimisation of the fuelling of hydrogen vehicles using cascade systems and ejectors

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 46, 期 14, 页码 9567-9579

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.098

关键词

Hydrogen Fuelling Stations; Ejectors; CFD; Energy optimisation; Dynamic Modelling

资金

  1. Danish Energy Agency [EUDP17-II]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that replacing expansion valves with ejectors in hydrogen fuelling stations can significantly reduce energy consumption for hydrogen compression, while also revealing the impact of increasing the number of buffer tanks on energy savings.
The present study investigates the replacement of expansion valves, used in the cascade system of hydrogen fuelling stations, by a series of ejectors. The major advantage of using ejectors is to recover part of the kinetic energy lost during the expansion of a high-pressure primary flow, in order to entrain a lower pressure secondary flow; thus resulting in a more efficient fuelling. Firstly, a quasi-steady 1-D simulation model of the ejector was calibrated using computational fluid dynamics in terms of the main geometry and pressure conditions. Secondly, the quasi-steady 1-D model of the ejector was used in a dynamic model of the hydrogen fuelling station, in order to investigate the influence of its geometry on the transient fuelling performances. Different fuelling scenarios were explored with varying number of buffer tanks in the cascade system of the fuelling station, and different initial pressures in the vehicle?s tank. The results show that the replacement of the expansion valve by an ejector may reduce the energy consumption for hydrogen compression by up to 6.5% using two buffer tanks in the cascade system. On the other hand, increasing the number of buffer tanks reduces the energy savings as the driving pressure ratio decreases. ? 2020 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