Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKanoglu, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorBolatturk, Ali
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Ceyhun
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-07T07:51:11Z
dc.date.available2016-03-07T07:51:11Z
dc.date.issued2010-08
dc.identifier.citationKanoglu, Mehmet, Ali Bolatturk, and Ceyhun Yilmaz. "Thermodynamic Analysis Of Models Used In Hydrogen Production By Geothermal Energy." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010): 8793-8791.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0360-3199
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11073/8205
dc.description.abstractFour models are developed for the use of geothermal energy for hydrogen production. These include using geothermal work output as the work input for an electrolysis process (Case 1); using part of geothermal heat to produce work for electrolysis process and part of geothermal heat in an electrolysis process to preheat the water (Case 2), using geothermal heat to preheat water in a high-temperature electrolysis process (Case 3), and using part of geothermal work for electrolysis and the remaining part for liquefaction (Case 4). These models are studied thermodynamically, and both reversible and actual (irreversible) operation of the models are considered. The effect of geothermal water temperature on the amount of hydrogen production per unit mass of geothermal water is investigated for all four models, and the results are compared. The results show that as the temperature of geothermal water increases the amount of hydrogen production increases. Also, 1.34 g of hydrogen may be produced by one kg of geothermal water at 200 °C in the reversible operation for Case 1. The corresponding values are 1.42, 1.91, and 1.22 in Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4, respectively. Greater amounts of hydrogen may be produced in Case 3 compared to other cases. Case 2 performs better than Case 1 because of the enhanced use of geothermal resource in the process. Case 4 allows both hydrogen production and liquefaction using the same geothermal resource, and provides a good solution for the remote geothermal resources. A comparison of hydrogen production values in the reversible and irreversible conditions reveal that the second-law efficiencies of the models are 28.5%, 29.9%, 37.2%, and 16.1% in Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4, respectively.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910011481en_US
dc.subjectHydrogen productionen_US
dc.subjectHydrogen liquefactionen_US
dc.subjectGeothermal energyen_US
dc.subjectBinary cycleen_US
dc.subjectPrecooled Linde-Hampson cycleen_US
dc.titleThermodynamic analysis of models used in hydrogen production by geothermal energyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.128


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record