تحلیل ترمودینامیکی از مدل های استفاده شده در تولید هیدروژن توسط انرژی زمین گرمایی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|57875||2010||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5516 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 35, Issue 16, August 2010, Pages 8783–8791
Four models are developed for the use of geothermal energy for hydrogen production. These include using geothermal work output as the work input for an electrolysis process (Case 1); using part of geothermal heat to produce work for electrolysis process and part of geothermal heat in an electrolysis process to preheat the water (Case 2), using geothermal heat to preheat water in a high-temperature electrolysis process (Case 3), and using part of geothermal work for electrolysis and the remaining part for liquefaction (Case 4). These models are studied thermodynamically, and both reversible and actual (irreversible) operation of the models are considered. The effect of geothermal water temperature on the amount of hydrogen production per unit mass of geothermal water is investigated for all four models, and the results are compared. The results show that as the temperature of geothermal water increases the amount of hydrogen production increases. Also, 1.34 g of hydrogen may be produced by one kg of geothermal water at 200 °C in the reversible operation for Case 1. The corresponding values are 1.42, 1.91, and 1.22 in Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4, respectively. Greater amounts of hydrogen may be produced in Case 3 compared to other cases. Case 2 performs better than Case 1 because of the enhanced use of geothermal resource in the process. Case 4 allows both hydrogen production and liquefaction using the same geothermal resource, and provides a good solution for the remote geothermal resources. A comparison of hydrogen production values in the reversible and irreversible conditions reveal that the second-law efficiencies of the models are 28.5%, 29.9%, 37.2%, and 16.1% in Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4, respectively.