4.7 Article

Hydrogen production from CO2-free thermal decomposition of methane: Design and on-sun testing of a tube-type solar thermochemical reactor

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 153-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.02.002

关键词

Methane cracking; Splitting; Pyrolysis; Hydrogen; Solar reactor; Thermochemistry

资金

  1. IHI Corporation (Japan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study addresses the development of a solar thermochemical reactor for CO2-free production of hydrogen from solar-aided methane decomposition. The developed lab-scale solar reactor basically pertaining to the indirect heating concept is chiefly based on a tube-type configuration in tandem with a cavity receiver. The reactor design and performance prediction were first appraised via 3-dimensional CFD thermal simulation as a function of internal geometry. The model including coupled heat/mass transfer and chemical reaction aimed to simulate the reactor in order to determine the temperature distribution and the conditions for maximum reactor efficiency. The designed 1 kW solar reactor was then constructed and installed for reaction testing at the focus of a 2 m-diameter parabolic solar concentrator. Solar CH4 decomposition experiments were performed between 1300 and 1400 degrees C to demonstrate the feasibility of hydrogen production and the reliability of the solar process using the developed reactor concept, and the results were used to validate simulations. Regarding the estimated kinetic parameters, the best fitting was obtained for an activation energy of 320 kJ/mol and a pre-exponential factor of 10(11) s(-1). The chemical conversion was improved when increasing the temperature or decreasing the inlet gas flow rate or the CH4 mole fraction. A maximum CH4 conversion (resp. H-2 yield) of 90% (resp. 85%) was achieved at 1400 degrees C and the thermochemical reactor efficiency reached 5% for the highest CH4 content in the feed. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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