Volume 20, Issue 2 (February 2020)                   Modares Mechanical Engineering 2020, 20(2): 267-278 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Abdolalipouradl M, Khalilarya S, Mohammadkhani F. Hydrogen Production Using Proposed Cycle from Sabalan Geothermal Wells via Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis. Modares Mechanical Engineering 2020; 20 (2) :267-278
URL: http://mme.modares.ac.ir/article-15-27415-en.html
1- Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2- Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran , sh.khalilarya@urmia.ac.ir
3- Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty of Khoy, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract:   (4296 Views)

In the present study, a new combined cycle (including a two-step flash evaporation, the Kalina cycle, and a proton-exchange membrane) for simultaneous power and hydrogen generation from Sabalan geothermal wells has been proposed and analyzed from the viewpoints of energy and exergy. The effects of important parameters including separators pressure of flash evaporation, the minimum temperature difference in the pinch point, Kalian higher pressure, superheated geothermal fluid, the ratio of consumed power for hydrogen production and dead state temperature on the amount of produced hydrogen, the net generating power, thermal and exergy efficiencies of the proposed combined cycle have been studied. The results show that for the investigated case in the proposed combined cycle, the amount of the produced hydrogen, net generating power and energy, and exergy efficiency were 1536kg/hr, 12.83MV, 11.39% and 43.64%, respectively. Increasing the pressure of the separators was not effective in increasing hydrogen production, while with increasing the first separator pressure, as well as, the second separator pressure to the optimum pressure, the thermal and exergy efficiency increase. With increasing the temperature of the proton membrane electrolyzer, the produced hydrogen discharge increases and while maintaining cycle net output power, thermal and exergy efficiencies increase. Also, at the optimum point for high-pressure Kalina, the maximum amount of hydrogen production is obtained. The highest amount of exergy degradation was obtained for the protonated membrane electrolyzer, evaporator and condenser 2, respectively.

Full-Text [PDF 1293 kb]   (1935 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Thermal Power Plant
Received: 2018/11/21 | Accepted: 2019/05/14 | Published: 2020/02/1

References
1. Mosaffa AH, Zareei A. Proposal and thermoeconomic analysis of geothermal flash binary power plants utilizing different types of organic flash cycle. Geothermics. 2018;72:47-63. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.10.011]
2. Yari M. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants. Renewable Energy. 2010;35(1):112-121. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.renene.2009.07.023]
3. Badr O, O'Callaghan PW, Probert SD. Rankine-cycle systems for harnessing power from low-grade energy sources. Applied Energy. 1990;36(4):263-292. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0306-2619(90)90002-U]
4. Lin D, Zhu Q, Li X. Thermodynamic comparative analyses between (organic) Rankine cycle and Kalina cycle. Energy Procedia. 2015;75:1618-1623. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.385]
5. Hettiarachchi HDM, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. The performance of the Kalina Cycle System 11(KCS-11) with low-temperature heat sources. Journal of Energy Resources Technology. 2007;129(3):243-247. [Link] [DOI:10.1115/1.2748815]
6. Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Valdimarsson P, Saevarsdottir G, Fujii H. Flash cycle optimization of Sabalan geothermal power plant employing exergy concept. Geothermics. 2012;43:75-82. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.02.003]
7. Aali A, Pourmahmood N, Zare V. Proposal and analysis of a new cycle for power generation from Sabalan geothermal wells. Journal of Mechanical Engineering of Tabriz University. 2017;47(3):139-147. [Persian] [Link]
8. Aali A, Pourmahmood N, Zare V. Exergy analysis of a new proposed cycle for power generation from sabalan geothermal wells. Journal of Mechanical Engineering of Tabriz University. 2018;48(1):251-260. [Persian] [Link]
9. Aali A, Pourmahmood N, Zare V. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel combined flash-binary cycle for Sabalan geothermal power plant in Iran. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;143:377-390. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.025]
10. Abdolalipouradl M, Khalilarya S, Jafarmadar S. Exergy analysis of a new proposal combined cycle from Sabalan geothermal source. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2018;18(4):11-22. [Persian] [Link]
11. Ozgur T, Yakaryılmaz AC. A review: Exergy analysis of PEM and PEM fuel cell based CHP systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2018;43(38):17993-8000. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.106]
12. Orhan MF, Babu BS. Investigation of an integrated hydrogen production system based on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Comparative evaluation of hydrogen production options with a regenerative fuel cell system. Energy. 2015;88:801-820. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.009]
13. Pham AT, Baba T, Shudo T. Efficient hydrogen production from aqueous methanol in a PEM electrolyzer with porous metal flow field: Influence of change in grain diameter and material of porous metal flow field. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(24):9945-9953. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.05.171]
14. Garcia-Valverde R, Espinosa N, Urbina A. Simple PEM water electrolyser model and experimental validation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2012;37(2):1927-1938. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.09.027]
15. Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC. Energy and exergy analysis of hydrogen production by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer plant. Energy Conversion and Management. 2008;49(10):2748-2756. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.03.018]
16. Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy analyses of hydrogen production via solar-boosted ocean thermal energy conversion and PEM electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(4):1795-1805. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.11.025]
17. Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi-objective optimization of a novel solar-based multigeneration energy system. Solar Energy. 2014;108:576-591. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.solener.2014.07.022]
18. Ranjbar SF, Nami H, Khorshid A, Mohammadpour H. Hydrogen production using waste heat recovery of MATIANT non-emission system via PEM electrolysis. Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2016;16(10):42-50. [Persian] [Link]
19. Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A, Gadalla M. Economics of hydrogen production and liquefaction by geothermal energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2012;37(2):2058-2069. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.06.037]
20. Ghaebi H, Farhang B. Using various organic Rankine cycles for production of power and hydrogen by incorporating geothermal energy and proton exchange membrane (A comparative study). Modares Mechanical Engineering. 2016;16(6):138-148. [Persian] [Link]
21. Ratlamwala TAH, Dincer I. Comparative efficiency assessment of novel multi-flash integrated geothermal systems for power and hydrogen production. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2012;48:359-366. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.04.039]
22. Ghaebi H, Farhang B, Parikhani T, Rostamzadeh H. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a cogeneration system for power and hydrogen production purpose based on TRR method and using low grade geothermal source. Geothermics. 2018;71:132-145. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.08.011]
23. Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: An engineering approach. 7th Edition. New York: McGraw- Hill; 2011. [Link]
24. Yari M, Mehr AS, Zare V, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA. Exergoeconomic comparison of TLC (trilateral Rankine cycle), ORC (organic Rankine cycle) and Kalina cycle using a low grade heat source. Energy. 2015;83:712-722 [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.080]
25. Ahrendts J. Reference states. Energy. 1980;5(8-9):666-677. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0360-5442(80)90087-0]
26. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. [Link]
27. Shokati N, Ranjbar F, Yari M. Comparative and parametric study of double flash and single flash/ORC combined cycles based on exergoeconomic criteria. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2015;91:479-495. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.08.031]
28. Elsayed A, Embaye M, AL-Dadah R, Mahmoud S, Rezk A. Thermodynamic performance of Kalina Cycle System 11 (KCS11): feasibility of using alternative zeotropic mixtures. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies. 2013;8(S1):69-78. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/ijlct/ctt020]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.