Cargando…

Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness

This paper investigates the influence of the support material and its thickness on the hydrogen flux in Palladium membranes in the presence of sweep gas in fluidized bed membrane reactors. The analysis is performed considering both ceramic and metallic supports with different properties. In general,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Di Marcoberardino, Gioele, Knijff, Jasper, Binotti, Marco, Gallucci, Fausto, Manzolini, Giampaolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500136
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9090116
_version_ 1783457100731514880
author Di Marcoberardino, Gioele
Knijff, Jasper
Binotti, Marco
Gallucci, Fausto
Manzolini, Giampaolo
author_facet Di Marcoberardino, Gioele
Knijff, Jasper
Binotti, Marco
Gallucci, Fausto
Manzolini, Giampaolo
author_sort Di Marcoberardino, Gioele
collection PubMed
description This paper investigates the influence of the support material and its thickness on the hydrogen flux in Palladium membranes in the presence of sweep gas in fluidized bed membrane reactors. The analysis is performed considering both ceramic and metallic supports with different properties. In general, ceramic supports are cheaper but suffer sealing problems, while metallic ones are more expensive but with much less sealing problems. Firstly, a preliminary analysis is performed to assess the impact of the support in the permeation flux, which shows that the membrane permeance can be halved when the H(2) diffusion through the support is considered. The most relevant parameter which affects the permeation is the porosity over tortuosity ratio of the porous support. Afterward, the different supports are compared from an economic point of view when applied to a membrane reactor designed for 100 kg/day of hydrogen, using biogas as feedstock. The stainless steel supports have lower impact on the hydrogen permeation so the required membrane surface area is 2.6 m(2) compared to 3.6 m(2) of the best ceramic support. This ends up as 5.6 €/kg H(2@20bar) and 6.6 €/kg H(2@700bar) for the best stainless steel support, which is 3% lower than the price calculated for the best ceramic support.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6780302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67803022019-10-30 Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness Di Marcoberardino, Gioele Knijff, Jasper Binotti, Marco Gallucci, Fausto Manzolini, Giampaolo Membranes (Basel) Article This paper investigates the influence of the support material and its thickness on the hydrogen flux in Palladium membranes in the presence of sweep gas in fluidized bed membrane reactors. The analysis is performed considering both ceramic and metallic supports with different properties. In general, ceramic supports are cheaper but suffer sealing problems, while metallic ones are more expensive but with much less sealing problems. Firstly, a preliminary analysis is performed to assess the impact of the support in the permeation flux, which shows that the membrane permeance can be halved when the H(2) diffusion through the support is considered. The most relevant parameter which affects the permeation is the porosity over tortuosity ratio of the porous support. Afterward, the different supports are compared from an economic point of view when applied to a membrane reactor designed for 100 kg/day of hydrogen, using biogas as feedstock. The stainless steel supports have lower impact on the hydrogen permeation so the required membrane surface area is 2.6 m(2) compared to 3.6 m(2) of the best ceramic support. This ends up as 5.6 €/kg H(2@20bar) and 6.6 €/kg H(2@700bar) for the best stainless steel support, which is 3% lower than the price calculated for the best ceramic support. MDPI 2019-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6780302/ /pubmed/31500136 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9090116 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Di Marcoberardino, Gioele
Knijff, Jasper
Binotti, Marco
Gallucci, Fausto
Manzolini, Giampaolo
Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title_full Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title_fullStr Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title_full_unstemmed Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title_short Techno-Economic Assessment in a Fluidized Bed Membrane Reactor for Small-Scale H(2) Production: Effect of Membrane Support Thickness
title_sort techno-economic assessment in a fluidized bed membrane reactor for small-scale h(2) production: effect of membrane support thickness
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31500136
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes9090116
work_keys_str_mv AT dimarcoberardinogioele technoeconomicassessmentinafluidizedbedmembranereactorforsmallscaleh2productioneffectofmembranesupportthickness
AT knijffjasper technoeconomicassessmentinafluidizedbedmembranereactorforsmallscaleh2productioneffectofmembranesupportthickness
AT binottimarco technoeconomicassessmentinafluidizedbedmembranereactorforsmallscaleh2productioneffectofmembranesupportthickness
AT galluccifausto technoeconomicassessmentinafluidizedbedmembranereactorforsmallscaleh2productioneffectofmembranesupportthickness
AT manzolinigiampaolo technoeconomicassessmentinafluidizedbedmembranereactorforsmallscaleh2productioneffectofmembranesupportthickness