4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Externally reformed solid oxide fuel cell-micro-gas turbine (SOFC-MGT) hybrid systems fueled by methanol and di-methyl-ether (DME)

期刊

ENERGY
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2124-2130

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.013

关键词

SOFC; Micro-gas turbines; Methanol reforming; DME reforming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid oxide fuel cell-micro-gas turbine (SOFC-MGT) hybrid power plants integrate a solid oxide fuel cell and a micro-gas turbine and can achieve efficiencies of over 60% even for small power outputs (200-500 kW). The SOFC-MGT systems currently developed are fueled with natural gas, which is reformed inside the same stack, but the use of alternative fuels can be an interesting option. in particular, as the reforming temperature of methanol and di-methyl-ether (DME) (200-350 degrees C) is significantly lower than that of natural gas (700-900 degrees C), the reformer can be sited outside the stack. External reforming in SOFC-MGT plants fueled by methanol and DME enhances efficiency due to improved exhaust heat recovery and higher voltage produced by the greater hydrogen partial pressure at the anode inlet. The study carried out in this paper shows that the main operating parameters of the fuel reforming section (temperature and steam-to-carbon ratio (SCR)) must be carefully chosen to optimise the hybrid plant performance. For the stoichiometric SCR values, the optimum reforming temperature for the methanol fueled hybrid plant is approximately 240 degrees C, giving efficiencies of about 67-68% with a SOFC temperature of 900 degrees C (the efficiency is about 72-73% at 1000 degrees C). Similarly, for DME the optimum reforming temperature is approximately 280 degrees C with efficiencies of 65% at 900 degrees C (69% at 1000 degrees C). Higher SCRs impair stack performance. As too small SCRs can lead to carbon formation, practical SCR values are around one for methanol and 1.5-2 for DME. (C) 2008 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