4.6 Article

Performance of an Indirect Packed Bed Reactor for Chemical Energy Storage

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14185149

关键词

thermal storage; thermochemical energy storage; indirect heat exchanger; packed bed; fluid-dynamic simulations; storage efficiency

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Economic Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical systems for thermal energy storage show promise in addressing solar irradiation fluctuation issues, and this study focused on simulating a configuration using an indirect-packed bed heat exchanger. Despite limitations in heat exchange efficiency, the results demonstrated a good storage efficiency of about 0.7.
Chemical systems for thermal energy storage are promising routes to overcome the issue of solar irradiation discontinuity, helping to improve the cost-effectiveness and dispatchability of this technology. The present work is concerned with the simulation of a configuration based on an indirect-packed bed heat exchanger, for which few experimental and modelling data are available about practical applications. Since air shows advantages both as a reactant and heat transfer fluid, the modelling was performed considering a redox oxide based system, and, for this purpose, it was considered a pelletized aluminum/manganese spinel. A symmetrical configuration was selected and the calculation was carried out considering a heat duty of 125 MWth and a storage period of 8 h. Firstly, the heat exchanger was sized considering the mass and energy balances for the discharging step, and, subsequently, air inlet temperature and mass flow were determined for the charging step. The system performances were then modelled as a function of the heat exchanger length and the charging and discharging time, by solving the relative 1D Navier-Stokes equations. Despite limitations in the global heat exchange efficiency, resulting in an oversize of the storage system, the results showed a good storage efficiency of about 0.7.

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

4.6
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