4.7 Article

Coupled hydrodynamic and kinetic model of liquid metal bubble reactor for hydrogen production by noncatalytic thermal decomposition of methane

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 2486-2503

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.143

Keywords

Hydrogen production; Noncatalytic methane decomposition; Liquid metal; Bubble reactor; Hydrodynamics; Kinetics

Funding

  1. Lakehead University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Industrial-scale implementation of liquid metal bubble reactors (LMBRs) to produce hydrogen by methane decomposition will require large gas holdups (e.g., 20-30 vol%) and elevated gas pressures (>20 bar) to allow for practical reactor sizes. A realistic reactor design must account for the coupling between reaction kinetics and hydrodynamic effects. The gas holdup is predicted from the superficial gas velocity with a drift flux model that was experimentally corroborated in gas-molten metal mixtures. Large superficial gas velocities (>0.40 m s(-1)) are required to achieve gas holdups of about 25 vol% in liquid metal baths (LMBs). A noncatalytic kinetic model is developed to provide thermodynamically consistent decomposition rates at methane conversions approaching equilibrium. The coupled model optimizes the LMB dimensions (diameter and length) and the inlet pressure to minimize the volume of liquid metal when the hydrogen production rate, bath temperature, methane conversion, metal composition, and maximum gas holdup are specified. For example, 200 kt a(-1) of hydrogen can be produced in an LMBR containing at least 96.5 m(3) of molten tin held at 1100 degrees C in a bath measuring 3.50 m in diameter and 14.3 m in length, with an inlet methane pressure of 57.8 bar resulting in an average gas holdup of 29.7 vol% and a methane conversion of 65%. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available