Skip navigation
  •  Inicio
  • UDC 
    • Cómo depositar
    • Políticas do RUC
    • FAQ
    • Dereitos de Autor
    • Máis información en INFOguías UDC
  • Percorrer 
    • Comunidades
    • Buscar por:
    • Data de publicación
    • Autor
    • Título
    • Materia
  • Axuda
    • español
    • Gallegan
    • English
  • Acceder
  •  Galego 
    • Español
    • Galego
    • English
  
Ver ítem 
  •   RUC
  • Escola Técnica Superior de Náutica e Máquinas
  • Investigación (ETSNM)
  • Ver ítem
  •   RUC
  • Escola Técnica Superior de Náutica e Máquinas
  • Investigación (ETSNM)
  • Ver ítem
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Thermo-Economic Comparison between Three Different Electrolysis Technologies Powered by a Conventional Organic Rankine Cycle for the Green Hydrogen Production Onboard Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers

Thumbnail
Ver/abrir
Romero_Gomez_Manuel_2024_Thermo-Economic_Comparison_between_Three_Different_Electrolysis.pdf (3.913Mb)
Use este enlace para citar
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/38977
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
A non ser que se indique outra cousa, a licenza do ítem descríbese como Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
Coleccións
  • Investigación (ETSNM) [84]
Metadatos
Mostrar o rexistro completo do ítem
Título
Thermo-Economic Comparison between Three Different Electrolysis Technologies Powered by a Conventional Organic Rankine Cycle for the Green Hydrogen Production Onboard Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers
Autor(es)
Romero Gómez, Manuel
Elrhoul, Doha
Naveiro, Manuel
Data
2024
Cita bibliográfica
Elrhoul, D.; Naveiro, M.; Romero Gómez, M. Thermo-Economic Comparison between Three Different Electrolysis Technologies Powered by a Conventional Organic Rankine Cycle for the Green Hydrogen Production Onboard Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2024, 12, 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12081287
Resumo
[Abstract] The high demand for natural gas (NG) worldwide has led to an increase in the size of the LNG carrier fleet. However, the heat losses from this type of ship’s engines are not properly managed, nor is the excess boil-off gas (BOG) effectively utilised when generation exceeds the ship’s power demand, resulting in significant energy losses dissipated into the environment. This article suggests storing the lost energy into green H2 for subsequent use. This work compares three different electrolysis technologies: solid oxide (SOEC), proton exchange membrane (PEME), and alkaline (AE). The energy required by the electrolysis processes is supplied by both the LNG’s excess BOG and engine waste heat through an organic Rankine cycle (ORC). The results show that the SOEC consumes (743.53 kW) less energy while producing more gH2 (21.94 kg/h) compared to PEME (796.25 kW, 13.96 kg/h) and AE (797.69 kW, 10.74 kg/h). In addition, both the overall system and SOEC stack efficiencies are greater than those of PEME and AE, respectively. Although the investment cost required for AE (with and without H2 compression consideration) is cheaper than SOEC and PEME in both scenarios, the cost of the H2 produced by the SOEC is cheaper by more than 2 USD/kgH2 compared to both other technologies.
Palabras chave
SOEC
PEME
AE
gH2
ORC
ICE
 
Versión do editor
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12081287
Dereitos
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license

Listar

Todo RUCComunidades e colecciónsPor data de publicaciónAutoresTítulosMateriasGrupo de InvestigaciónTitulaciónEsta colecciónPor data de publicaciónAutoresTítulosMateriasGrupo de InvestigaciónTitulación

A miña conta

AccederRexistro

Estatísticas

Ver Estatísticas de uso
Sherpa
OpenArchives
OAIster
Scholar Google
UNIVERSIDADE DA CORUÑA. Servizo de Biblioteca.    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2013 Duraspace - Suxestións