4.7 Article

Comparison, advancement, and performance evaluation of heat exchanger assembly in solid-state hydrogen storage device

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 667-678

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.051

关键词

Metal hydride; Solid-state hydrogen storage systems; Sorption time; Gravimetric density; Specific output energy rate

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology [DST/TMD/MECSP/2K17/14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the design and optimization of different solid-state hydrogen storage systems, and proposes a novel reactor design that integrates heat pipes for higher output energy rate and shorter reaction time.
Despite myriads of mathematical and experimental studies using various heat exchangermetal hydride assemblies, an adept comparison of reactors on standard performance defining parameters, i.e., reactor weight, external energy utilization, and alloy material, are not studied or reported for industrial storage containers and onboard applications. This lacuna is a critical barrier in developing efficacious hydrogen storage reactors for various applications. This article chronicles the 3-D design and optimization of three basic heat exchanger setups of solid-state hydrogen storage systems (shell and tube, spiral tube, and tubular) on critical parameters. For 5 kg LaNi5, a tubular design with small tube diameters has resulted in a shorter reaction time (120 s) for 90% saturation at 303 K and 15 bar inlet conditions; however, the reactor's gravimetric density was exceptionally high. In contrast, the reactor with three spiral tubes accomplished an exemplary reaction rate at a reasonable gravimetric density. This spiral arrangement became the base for developing a novel reactor that integrated heat pipes to reduce the sorption time. The proposed design achieved a specific output energy rate of 527 W/kg for 90% saturation in 366 s at a supply pressure of 15 bar, which is 23.7% higher than the reactor without heat pipes.

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