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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |