Performance comparison among different multifunctional reactors operated under energy self-sufficiency for sustainable hydrogen production from ethanol |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Center of Excellence in Catalysis and Catalytic Reaction Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;2. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut''s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand;4. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut''s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand;5. Key Laboratory for Green Chemical Technology of Ministry of Education, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemical Science and Engineering, Tianjin 300072, China;1. Graduate School of Science and Technology, Hirosaki University, 1-Bunkyocho, Hirosaki 036-8560, Japan;2. Energy Conversion Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Regional Innovation (IRI), Hirosaki University, 2-1-3 Matsubara, Aomori 030-0813, Japan;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan 030024, China;4. Industrial Research Institute, Aomori Prefectural Industrial Technology Research Center, 4-11-6 Second Tonyamachi, Aomori 030-0113, Japan;1. Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Jeju National University, Jeju, 63243, South Korea;2. Center for Advanced Chemistry, Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, 03 Quang Trung, Da Nang, Viet Nam;3. Division of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Kangwon, 24341, South Korea;1. Center of Excellence in Catalysis and Catalytic Reaction Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;2. Division of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep, Bangkok 10120, Thailand;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand;4. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;1. Research Unit on Plasma Technology for High-Performance Materials Development, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;2. Division of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep, Bangkok 10120, Thailand;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand;4. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 94720, USA;5. Center of Excellence in Catalysis and Catalytic Reaction Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;6. Bio-Circular-Green-economy Technology & Engineering Center, BCGeTEC, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand;1. Department of Tool and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut''s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand;2. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, 73000, Thailand;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University, 25/25 Phutthamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakorn Pathom, 73170, Thailand;4. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand;5. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut''s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand |
| |
| Abstract: | Four ethanol-derived hydrogen production processes including conventional ethanol steam reforming (ESR), sorption enhanced steam reforming (SESR), chemical looping reforming (CLR) and sorption enhanced chemical looping reforming (SECLR) were simulated on the basis of energy self-sufficiency, i.e. process energy requirement supplied by burning some of the produced hydrogen. The process performances in terms of hydrogen productivity, hydrogen purity, ethanol conversion, CO2 capture ability and thermal efficiency were compared at their maximized net hydrogen. The simulation results showed that the sorption enhanced processes yield better performances than the conventional ESR and CLR because their in situ CO2 sorption increases hydrogen production and provides heat from the sorption reaction. SECLR is the most promising process as it offers the highest net hydrogen with high-purity hydrogen at low energy requirement. Only 12.5% of the produced hydrogen was diverted into combustion to fulfill the process's energy requirement. The thermal efficiency of SECLR was evaluated at 86% at its optimal condition. |
| |
| Keywords: | Hydrogen production Sorption enhanced chemical looping reforming Process simulation Ethanol steam reforming |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
