4.5 Article

Performance Indicators for Benchmarking Solar Thermochemical Fuel Processes and Reactors

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.677980

关键词

concentrated solar power; solar fuels and chemicals; solar reactors; benchmarking; thermochemical processes

资金

  1. European Union [823802]
  2. Swiss Federal Office of Energy [SI/501213-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses how concentrated solar energy can be used to drive chemical processes to convert solar radiation into chemical energy, particularly for fuel production. It proposes dimensionless performance indicators based on mass and energy balances and provides reporting guidelines for these processes and reactors, as well as suggestions for performance benchmarking.
Concentrated solar energy offers a source for renewable high-temperature process heat that can be used to efficiently drive endothermic chemical processes, converting the entire spectrum of solar radiation into chemical energy. In particular, solar-driven thermochemical processes for the production of fuels include reforming of methane and other hydrocarbons, gasification of biomass, coal, and other carbonaceous feedstock, and metal oxide redox cycles for splitting H2O and CO2. A notable issue in the development of these processes and their associated solar reactors is the lack of consistent reporting methods for experimental demonstrations and modelling studies, which complicates the benchmarking of the corresponding technologies. In this work we formulate dimensionless performance indicators based on mass and energy balances of such reacting systems, namely: energy efficiency, conversion extent, selectivity, and yield. Examples are outlined for the generic processes mention above. We then provide guidelines for reporting on such processes and reactors and suggest performance benchmarking on four key criteria: energy efficiency, conversion extent, product selectivity, and performance stability.

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

4.5
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