4.7 Article

Thermochemical Hydrogen Storage via the Reversible Reduction and Oxidation of Metal Oxides

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 35, 期 22, 页码 18756-18767

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c02615

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [823802]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the technical performance of a cyclic reduction and oxidation process of metal oxides as a hydrogen storage route, with iron oxide selected as the most promising candidate. A thermodynamic model was developed to determine favorable process temperatures and the energy demand for storage was calculated to be 27% of the lower heating value of hydrogen. Compared to other hydrogen storage methods, the iron-based storage shows drawbacks for on-board mobile applications but potential advantages for large-scale and long-term storage applications.
In this work, we perform a technical analysis of a cyclic reduction and oxidation process of metal oxides applied as a hydrogen storage route. Hydrogen is used to reduce a metal oxide and form steam, and regenerated by oxidizing the reduced metal oxide with steam. The reduced metal acts as the solid storage medium, which could be transported or used for stationary applications. Suitable metal oxides were screened according to the following performance indicators: specific energy demand (enthalpy change of reaction), thermodynamic conversion extents, specific storage density, resistance to sintering (melting point), and material cost. Iron oxide was then selected as the most promising candidate. A thermodynamic model was developed to determine favorable process temperatures of >400 degrees C for the hydrogen storage step and 100-500 degrees C for the hydrogen release step. The energy demand of the storage was calculated to be 27% of the lower heating value of hydrogen. Vis-a-vis other hydrogen storage methods, the iron-based storage exhibits drawbacks for on-board mobile applications but could be attractive for large-scale and long-term storage applications.

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