hydrogen production for fuel cells via reformation of coal ... · hydrogen production for fuel...
TRANSCRIPT
Hydrogen Production for Fuel Cells via Reformation of Coal-
Derived MethanolDr. Paul A. Erickson,
with Hyung Chul Yoon, Chang-Hsien Liao, David Davieau, J. Lars Dorr, David Vernon, Robert Kamisky, Allison Nederveld, Eddie Jordan, Michael Beerman, Zachary Zoller, Jon Hsu, Jon Otero, Todd Skinner and Matt
CaldwellUniversity of California Davis Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical EngineeringInstitute of Transportation Studies – ITS Davis
May 2005
Project ID # PDP8This presentation does not contain any proprietary or confidential information
With Support from
2
Overview
• Project start date Oct 03• Project end date Oct 06• Percent complete 50%
• Hydrogen Production“… develop reforming
technologies for gasification and pyrolysis processes.”
-DOE technical plan
• Total project funding 500k– DOE share 400k– Contractor share 100k
• Funding received in FY04 225k• Funding received in FY05 125k
Timeline
Budget
Barriers Addressed
• Eastman Chemical• Methanex (ended
support Nov 04)
Partners
3
Motivation
Hydrogen Feedstock
Natural Gas
Methanol from Coal(Hydrogen through on-
board reforming)
Hydrogen from Coal
GasificationGasoline Eq
($/gal)3.44-4.32 1.77 3.18
Economic Study by Georgetown University and the University of Florida
For full report see http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu
Georgetown 1st Generation Alcohol-Fuelled Fuel Cell Bus at UC Davis
This study also serves as a baseline for bio-derived alcohol feedstocks which come from similar upstream gasification processes.
Energy Security thru a Diverse Domestic Energy Portfolio
4
Overall Objectives•Quantify the differences between coal-derived and fuel cell grade methanol (completed)•Demonstrate hydrogen production from steam reforming and autothermal reforming of coal-derived methanol (completed)•Determine hydrogen quality and conversion degradation for both coal-derived methanol and baseline fuel cell grade methanol (current)•Determine limiting steps in the reformation process when using Coal-Derived Methanol (current)•Determine and demonstrate ways to enhance the reforming methods (current)•Demonstrate and characterize operation of a hydrogen fuel cell fed by coal derived methanol (future)
5
Technical Approach• Demonstrate fuel conversion change over
time (degradation) with both coal-derived and baseline fuel
• Identify the limiting steps in the reformation processes
• Identify ways of overcoming the limiting steps in the reformation processes
• Find the relative magnitudes of each process variable on the reformation outputs including fuel type.
6
Technical Accomplishments/ Progress/Results
• Hydrogen was produced from coal-based methanol through both steam-reformation and autothermal reformation methods.
• An empirical model of steam reformer performance with coal-based methanol (Eastman) as compared to “fuel cell grade”methanol (Methanex) was developed.
• Degradation rates of reactor performance for the steam reforming method and fuels was quantified.
• Passive methods for enhancing steam reformation was investigated.
• An empirical model of the autothermal reactor performance with coal-derived methanol is being investigated.
• Transient operation of the reactors is being demonstrated.• Review of clean-up methods and capabilities of competing
methods is being analyzed for future experimental studies.
7
Milestones (on or ahead of schedule)ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Peliminary Investigation And comparison of M 32.4 w Thu 1/1 Fri 8/132 External Evaluation of MeOH Fuels 4 wk Thu 1/1 Wed 1/283 Internal Evaluation of MeOH Fuels 24 wk Mon 3/1 Fri 8/134 LCMS Testing 24 wk Mon 3/1 Fri 8/135 Gravametric Testing 24 wk Mon 3/1 Fri 8/136 Analysis of Coal Based MeOH Analyte Histo 24 wk Mon 3/1 Fri 8/137 Testing 105 wkMon 12/29 Fri 12/308 Steam Reforming 105 wkMon 12/29 Fri 12/309 Setup 42 wk Mon 12/2 Fri 10/1510 Steady State 41.4 w Mon 10/18 Tue 8/211 Model Development 3 wk Mon 10/1 Fri 11/512 Data Collection 41.4 w Mon 10/1 Tue 8/213 Transient Testing 17.2 w Fri 4/1 Fri 7/2914 Degradation Testing 22 wk Mon 8/1 Fri 12/3015 Autothermal Reforming 104.2 w Thu 1/1 Thu 12/2916 Setup 48.4 w Thu 1/1 Fri 12/317 Steady State 43.2 w Mon 1/3 Mon 10/3118 Model Development 3 wk Mon 1/3 Fri 1/2119 Data Collection 39 wk Tue 2/1 Mon 10/320 Transient Testing 17.2 w Mon 5/2 Mon 8/2921 Degradation Testing 17.6 w Tue 8/30 Thu 12/222 Testing the Reformate Streams in the PEM Fue 47.6 w Mon 1/2 Wed 11/223 Preliminary Evaluation of Enhancement Requir 26 wk Mon 1/2 Fri 6/3024 PEM Fuel Cell Stack Testing 26 wk Thu 6/1 Wed 11/225 Analysis and Final Report Preparation 12 wk Mon 10/2 Fri 12/22
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
May 2005
8
Sulfur
Chemicals
Syngas Conversion
CO2
Low Temp Gas Cooling
Shift RxCO+H2O CO2 + H2
HgRemoval(>90+%)
ParticulateScrubber
TexacoGasifier
Slag/Frit
Coal
H2O
+
ASUAir Products
O2
Slurry
Acid Gas RemovalRectisol
Sulfur RecoveryClaus/Scot
CO/H2
CO/H2Separation
H2
COFines/Char
Eastman Gasification Process
end uses of acetylLockHopper
Acetic AnhydrideAcetic AcidMethyl AcetateMethanol
From Erickson et. al. 2004 ASME Power Conference
Upstream Processes (from Eastman Chemical)
Important Background
9
R T : 0 . 0 0 - 7 0 . 0 0
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5T i m e ( m i n )
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
5 5
6 0
6 5
7 0
7 5
8 0
8 5
9 0
9 5
1 0 0
Rel
ativ
e In
tens
ity
3 1 . 0 5
2 . 4 0
4 1 . 0 22 . 5 8
3 2 . 5 1 4 3 . 1 92 8 . 2 8 3 8 . 0 06 . 6 9 5 1 . 2 04 6 . 6 02 6 . 1 68 . 6 7 5 3 . 8 8 6 9 . 8 95 5 . 2 3 6 3 . 3 92 3 . 4 41 8 . 5 3
N L :6 . 4 6 E - 1A B I U V D e t e c t o r A n a l o g E r i c k s o n # 1
R T : 0 . 0 0 - 6 9 . 9 7
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5T i m e ( m i n )
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
5 5
6 0
6 5
7 0
7 5
8 0
8 5
9 0
9 5
1 0 0
Rel
ativ
e In
tens
ity
3 . 0 2
3 1 . 0 7
2 6 . 1 2
3 . 7 54 1 . 1 9
2 6 . 3 7 3 4 . 6 94 . 2 3 2 3 . 5 52 1 . 4 73 7 . 1 22 7 . 5 6
3 8 . 0 74 3 . 1 31 9 . 1 6 6 9 . 7 91 6 . 6 9
N L :1 . 1 8 E - 1A B I U V D e t e c t o r A n a l o g E r i c k s o n # 4
Fuel Cell Grade
Coal-derived Methanol
Liquid Chromatography Results for both Coal-derived and Chemical Grade Methanol
Petroleum Hydrocarbons 5.9 mg/l
Petroleum Hydrocarbons 17.0 mg/l
Differences between Eastman’s Coal-derived and Fuel Cell Grade Methanol
10
Experimental Facilities
11
Steam Reforming Schematic
12
SR Reactor Geometries
Adapter for the AcousticField Generator
Schedule 40 SS Pipe,2.09 cm I.D.,(3/4” Nominal Dia.)
60.96 cm Length (24”)
Reactor A: Large Aspect Ratio (L/D=25.4) SR Reactor
To CondenserSchedule 40 SS Pipe,
2.09 cm I.D., (3/4” Nominal)12.7 cm Length
Internal Cartridge Heater 0.63 cm Dia. 20.32 cm Length
Nozzle Band Heaters
Reactor C: Cartridge Heater SR Reactor
Adapter for the Acoustic Field
Generator
Nozzle Band Heaters
Schedule 40 SS Pipe,3.51 cm I.D.(1 ¼” Nominal Dia.)
25.4 cm Length
Reactor B: Small Aspect Ratio (L/D=5.4) SR Reactor
13
The average results of multiple (three tests for each fuel) 70-hr Catalyst Degradation Tests in Reactor C for both fuel cell grade and coal-derived methanol (2.5 LHSV-M).
Degradation Tests
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (Hours)
Con
vers
ion(
%)
Coal-derived Methanol
Chemical Grade Methanol
14
Hydrocarbon Concentraton
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time(hour)
Gas
Con
cent
ratio
n(%
)
Chemical Grade MethanolCoal-derived Methanol
Hydrocarbon concentrations for both fuel cell grade methanol and coal-derived methanol in multiple 70 hr degradation tests.
15
Results from two 30-hr Degradation tests in Reactor B with fuel cell grade methanol (2.5 LHSV-M). When compared to the 70-hr degradation tests in Reactor C these results show that catalyst degradation is a strong function of reactor geometry.
Chemical Grade MeOH in Reactor B
y = -0.14x + 83.786R2 = 0.9255
y = -0.1503x + 83.774R2 = 0.9701
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Time(Hrs)
Con
vers
ion(
%)
Run 1Run 2Linear (Run 1)Linear (Run 2)
16
Understanding the Steam-Reformation
Process
Right: Typical Reactor Temperature Profile in Reactor A (Deg C). Note that the geometry is not to scale.
0.0000
0.0050
0.0100
0.0150
0.0200
0.0250
0.0300
0.0350
250 270 290 310 350
Temperature Deg C
Deg
rada
tion
(% C
onv/
hr)
7 hour performance degradation rates (% conversion / hr) in a quasi-isothermal steam reformer using fuel cell grade methanol at different temperatures. This plot shows that degradation has a strong sensitivity to temperature variations.
17
Enhancing the Steam-Reformation Process
Catalyst Bed with Two Sets of Flow Disturbers
Schematic of Fluid Pathway and Heat transfer inside a Steam Reformer Catalyst Bed
18
Temperature profiles inside the Half Radial Catalyst Bed Reactor B; Package Density of Flow Disturbers increased from Left to Right
2 PACKS 3.0 LHSV-M
4 PACKS 3.0 LHSV-M
6 PACKS 3.0 LHSV-M
8 PACKS 3.0 LHSV-M
270.00
180.00
190.00
200.00
210.00
220.00
230.00
240.00
250.00
260.00
Temp in deg C
Zone 4 Exit
Zone 3 Exit
Zone 2 Exit
Zone 1 Exit
Zone 0 Exit
0 PACKS 3.0 LHSV-M
Steam Reformation: Heat Transfer Enhancement via Flow Disturbance
19
SR Reactor PerformanceConversion vs Space Velocity (Crushed catalyst)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
lhsv-mco
nver
sion
%
0C
2C4C
6C8C
linear (0C)
linear (2C)linear (4C)
linear (6C)linear (8C)
Conversion vs Space Velocity (Pelletized catalyst)
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
lhsv-m
conv
ersi
on %
0P2P4P6P8Plinear (0P)linear (2P)linear (4P)linear (6P)linear (8P)
Chemical Grade Methanol Fuel Conversion (%) versus Liquid Hourly Space Velocity of Methanol at different package density of Flow Disturbers, (1)Left: Using Pelletized
Catalyst; (2) Right: Using Crushed Catalyst
20
Autothermal Reformation
Schematic of the Autothermal-Reforming System
The Monolithic ATR Catalyst Tested
21
Autothermal Reformation of Methanol
ATR Reactor Efficiency Map from Experimental Data
•Fuel conversion was approximately 100%, when above the light off point (approx. O2/C =0.2). •Similar results are shown with coal-derived methanol.•The maximum H2 output during the experiments occurred at O2/C=0.3•The results show that the O2/C is a significant operating parameter in the ATR of methanol.•Limiting space velocity has yet to be found.•Above the light off point an equilibrium model can accurately predict the actual species concentration.•Degradation of ATR with Coal-Derived Methanol is forthcoming.
Reactor H2 Efficiency vs. GHSV0.30 O2/C
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
H2-E
ffici
ency
(%) .
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
GHSV
22
Responses to Previous Year Reviewers’ Comments
• Reviewers suggested that we check the magnitude of the reactor performance degradation due to fuel impurities in relation to this same output metric due to other variables.
• We have found that reactor geometry affects the catalyst degradation in steam-reformation much more than switching from fuel cell grade methanol to coal-derived methanol. Compare degradation rates in Slide 15 (wide diameter reactor B) to the rates shown Slide 13 (Small diameter with internal cartridge heater).
23
Future Work
• Present-Oct 05– Finish degradation rate tests for fuels in Autothermal
Reactor– Finish transient tests– Review clean-up technology
• Oct 05-Oct 06 – Integrate reformer and cleanup to PEM hydrogen
fuel cell or purchase complete system– Quantify fuel cell performance with Coal-Derived vs.
Fuel Cell grade fuel
24
Conclusions and Major Findings•Coal-derived Methanol has more hydrocarbon impurities than fuel cell grade methanol. Relative levels of chlorides and sulfur are similar. (From Year 1)
•Coal-derived methanol can be used as a hydrogen feedstock with both steam reformation and autothermal reformation. Overall performance with the two fuels is comparable.
•In steam reformation with copper-based catalysts, the performance degradation with coal-derived methanol was greater than that when using fuel cell grade methanol. However, reactor geometry seems to have a much greater role in degradation than fuel impurities at this level.
•Passive flow disturbance within the steam reforming catalyst bed was investigated. From the temperature profile and fuel conversion data, it was proven that the flow disturbance made a significant heat transfer enhancement and increased the capacity of the steam reformer.
•ATR of fuel cell grade methanol has been investigated and ATR of coal-derived methanol is underway. Chemical equilibrium accurately predicts output composition above the light off point. The upper end of flow rate has not yet been determined but it is greater than 77,000 GHSV.
25
Publications and PresentationsPublished • Dorr, J. L., “Methanol Autothermal Reformation: Oxygen-to-Carbon Ratio and Reaction Progression”
Masters Thesis, UC Davis, December 2004• Dorr, J. L., and P.A. Erickson (2004), “Preliminary Modeling and Design of an Autothermal Reformer,”
Proceedings of IMECE: 2004 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 13-19, 2004 Anaheim, California, IMECE 2004-59892 pp. 1-9
• Erickson, Paul A., Robert J. Kamisky and Nate Moock (2004) “Coal-Based Methanol for Use in Fuel Cells: Research Needed” proceedings of ASME POWER 2004, PWR-Vol. 35 pp. 703-710
In Press • Erickson, P.A. and H.C. Yoon (2005) “Hydrogen from Coal-Derived Methanol: Experimental Results”
Proceedings of the 3rd International Energy Engineering Conference, 2005, Paper Number AIAA-2005-5567• Liao, C.H. and P.A. Erickson, (2005)“Heat Transfer Enhancement of Steam-Reformation by Passive Flow
Disturbance Inside the Catalyst Bed” Proceedings of the ASME 2005 Heat Transfer Summer Conference San Francisco, CA, Westin St. Francis Hotel, July 17-22, 2005 Paper number HT2005-72043 Pages 1-7
In Works • C.H. Liao “An Analysis of the Effect of Flow Disturbers on Hydrogen Production via Steam-Reforming,”
Masters Thesis, UC Davis, expected June 2005.• H.C. Yoon “Hydrogen from Steam-Reformation of Coal-Derived Methanol,” Masters Thesis, UC Davis,
expected June 2005
26
The most significant hydrogen hazard associated with this project is: Build up and ignition of hydrogen gas or fuels from leaking valves or tubes
Hydrogen Safety
27
Our approach to deal with this hazard is:
Hydrogen monitoring with appropriate alarms and evacuation procedures, Automatic and Manual Safety shutoffs are included at control panel locationleak checks before and after each data run, real time monitoring and purging of hydrogen pathways before exposing personnel to the system, provide constant air flow away from reformer systems at all times, always onremoval of potential ignition sources at most likely H2 build up locations, safety training for all personnel CUPA audits maintained up to date
PI stays abreast of University, State and Federal regulations by being on Safety Committee for Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Department.
Hydrogen Safety