Elsevier

Journal of Power Sources

Volume 196, Issue 6, 15 March 2011, Pages 3163-3171
Journal of Power Sources

On-board reforming of biodiesel and bioethanol for high temperature PEM fuel cells: Comparison of autothermal reforming and steam reforming

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.11.100Get rights and content

Abstract

In the 21st century biofuels will play an important role as alternative fuels in the transportation sector. In this paper different reforming options (steam reforming (SR) and autothermal reforming (ATR)) for the on-board conversion of bioethanol and biodiesel into a hydrogen-rich gas suitable for high temperature PEM (HTPEM) fuel cells are investigated using the simulation tool Aspen Plus. Special emphasis is placed on thermal heat integration. Methyl-oleate (C19H36O2) is chosen as reference substance for biodiesel. Bioethanol is represented by ethanol (C2H5OH). For the steam reforming concept with heat integration a maximum fuel processing efficiency of 75.6% (76.3%) is obtained for biodiesel (bioethanol) at S/C = 3. For the autothermal reforming concept with heat integration a maximum fuel processing efficiency of 74.1% (75.1%) is obtained for biodiesel (bioethanol) at S/C = 2 and λ = 0.36 (0.35). Taking into account the better dynamic behaviour and lower system complexity of the reforming concept based on ATR, autothermal reforming in combination with a water gas shift reactor is considered as the preferred option for on-board reforming of biodiesel and bioethanol. Based on the simulation results optimum operating conditions for a novel 5 kW biofuel processor are derived.

Research highlights

▶ ATR-HTPEM system for on-board reforming is competitive with SR-HTPEM system in terms of efficiency. ▶ Max. SR fuel processing efficiency: 75.6% for biodiesel, 76.3% for bioethanol. ▶ Max. ATR fuel processing efficiency: 74.1% for biodiesel, 75.1% for bioethanol. ▶ Max. system efficiency for SR-HTPEM systems: 30% for biodiesel and 31% for bioethanol. ▶ Max. system efficiency for ATR-HTPEM systems: 26% for both biodiesel and bioethanol.

Introduction

Today there is great interest in developing fuel cell systems for the transportation sector. Fuel cells are considered as a promising, environmental-friendly option for powering future cars and auxiliary power units (APU) for all kinds of vehicles. Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells are considered as the most promising option for transportation applications because of their high power density which is an order of magnitude higher than for any other type of fuel cell [1]. The operating temperatures are typically between 70 and 90 °C. In order to avoid poisoning of the platin electrode the CO concentration in the feed gas has to be reduced below 20 ppm [2].

This paper focuses on hydrogen production from biofuels for high temperature PEM (HTPEM) fuel cells. HTPEM fuel cells are operated at slightly higher inlet temperatures of 120–180 °C [3]. Li et al. reported that a HTPEM based on polybenzimidazoles, a high-temperature polymer which has been firstly synthesized by Carl Shipp Marvel in the 1960s, can tolerate up to 1 Vol.-% CO and 10 ppm SO2 in the fuel stream, allowing for simplification of the fuel processing system [4]. Thus it is possible to reach the CO requirements for a HTPEM by using only a water gas shift stage.

As there is no existing infrastructure for hydrogen available, the feed hydrogen for high temperature PEM fuel cells has to be supplied by on-board reforming of existing transportation fuels such as gasoline, diesel and biofuels [2]. Especially liquid biofuels have recently attracted increasing attention as alternative sources for the transportation sector [5]. Demirbas comes to the conclusion that bioethanol and biodiesel are the two liquid transportation fuels with the highest potential to replace gasoline and diesel fuel in the future [6]. Currently, bioethanol which is derived mainly by fermentation of sugar cane and starch is by far the most widespread non-fossil alternative fuel in the world. World production of bioethanol increased from 24.5 million metric tons in the year 2004 to 60 million metric tons in 2009 [7]. This is about 4% of the worldwide gasoline consumption. World production of biodiesel, a synthetic diesel-like fuel produced by transesterification of vegetable oils, increased from 2 million metric tons in the year 2004 to 15 million metric tons in 2009. This accounts for approximately 0.2% of diesel consumed for transport [6].

In a first step the liquid biofuels have to be converted into a hydrogen-rich gas by the means of reforming. Steam reforming (SR) is the most widely practiced commercial process for hydrogen and synthesis gas production [8]. It is well known, that SR has the highest hydrogen efficiency amongst the available reforming options [9], [10], [11]. One of the early applications of steam reforming was the catalytic synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen, a process which was developed by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch in 1909.

If H2O is replaced by CO2 (double bondCO2 reforming, CR) a synthesis gas with a lower H2:CO ratio is obtained. By combining SR and CR a synthesis gas ideal for conventional methanol plants can be produced.

Synthesis gas can also be produced by partial oxidation of hydrocarbons with oxygen (POX). POX is divided into thermal partial oxidation (TPOX) at temperatures higher than 1200 °C being used for sulphur-containing heavy hydrocarbon fuels and catalytic partial oxidation (CPOX) for low-sulphur feedstock taking place at temperatures of 900–1000 °C.

Autothermal reforming (ATR) is a mixture of SR and POX using steam and oxygen to produce a hydrogen rich synthesis gas. In order to obtain pure hydrogen from the reformate gas of either SR, CR, POX or ATR (with subsequent water gas shift) further gas purification steps are necessary, e.g., preferential methanation, preferential oxidation and pressure swing adsorption [8], [12].

Ersoz et al. [13] compared SR, ATR and POX for a combined reformer PEM fuel cell system using natural gas, gasoline and diesel as hydrocarbon sources. They come to the conclusion that steam reforming and autothermal reforming appear as the most competitive options in terms of fuel processor efficiency for PEM fuel cells.

Giunta et al. [14] analyzed hydrogen production from steam reforming for PEM fuel cells using bioethanol as raw material. They conclude that hydrogen production using ethanol as raw material is a very attractive alternative to those technologies based on fossil fuels.

Ersoz et al. [15] studied the performance of autothermal reforming for two different hydrocarbon mixtures. The results indicate very similar behaviour for both of the investigated fuels. The maximum fuel processing efficiency is reported at T = 700 °C.

Benito et al. [16] performed extensive thermodynamic analysis of a 1 kW bioethanol steam reforming processor for PEMFC operation. A processor efficiency of 73.7% for S/C = 3.2 was achieved taking advantage of the heat released in the exothermic stages. By using the energy content of the unconverted hydrogen of the exhaust anode gas stream an energy efficiency of the processor-fuel cell system of 30% was achieved.

The objective of this article is to evaluate different reforming concepts for on-board reforming of biodiesel and bioethanol for use with high temperature PEM fuel cells in the transportation sector, e.g., APU applications for cars, trucks and ships. Conversion of biodiesel and bioethanol into a hydrogen-rich gas is analyzed with the simulation tool Aspen Plus. Two different reforming options (SR and ATR) are compared in terms of hydrogen efficiency, fuel processing efficiency, dynamic behaviour, product gas composition, system complexity and sulphur resistance. An extensive parameter study is carried out in order to find optimum operating conditions for a 5 kW biofuel processor suitable for HTPEM applications. As on-board reforming of liquid biofuels requires compact, low-volume, low-weight reformers the approach within this work was to keep the system as simple as possible, using only waste heat streams from within the system to preheat air, water and fuel. An elaborated thermal heat integration system is set up for both reforming concepts to achieve high preheating temperatures and thus a high overall system efficiency.

Section snippets

Bioethanol and biodiesel

In this work bioethanol is represented by pure ethanol C2H5OH. Analysis of biodiesel was performed with a commercial GC-FID system. Based on the analysis methyl-oleate (C19H36O2) was chosen as a reference substance for biodiesel. Methyl-oleate is derived by transesterification of triolein, the triglyceride of oleic acid, which is the dominating fatty acid of rapeseed oil. In Table 1 the chemical and physical properties of biodiesel are compared with those of the model substance methyl-oleate (C

Hydrogen efficiency without heat integration

For the steam reforming concept without considering heat integration (Fig. 1) hydrogen efficiency ηH2 and effective hydrogen efficiency ηH2,eff were calculated in the temperature range 550–850 °C. The influence of preheating H2O-REF and AIR-B on hydrogen efficiency was investigated. Analogue simulations have been conducted for the autothermal reforming concept (Fig. 3). Hydrogen efficiency ηH2 was calculated for different preheating temperatures of TH2O-REF and TAIR-REF with air ratios ranging

Conclusions

Hydrogen production from bioethanol and biodiesel for use with HTPEM fuel cells has been studied within this paper. Extensive simulation work including a variation of reforming temperature, air ratio and steam to carbon ratio has been carried out for two different reformer concepts; one based on steam reforming (SR) and the other based on autothermal reforming (ATR).

Simulation results show that preheating of feed water and feed air has a positive effect on hydrogen efficiency. By applying high

Glossary

APU
auxiliary power unit
ATR
autothermal reforming
CR
CO2 reforming
FID
flame ionization detector
GC
gas chromatography
HTPEM
high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
LHV
lower heating value
POX
partial oxidation
PEM
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
S/C
steam to carbon ratio
SR
steam reforming
WGS
water gas shift

References (22)

  • C. Song

    Catal. Today

    (2002)
  • T. Aicher et al.

    J. Power Sources

    (2006)
  • S.J. Andreasen et al.

    Int. J. Hydrogen Energy

    (2008)
  • Q. Li et al.

    Prog. Polym. Sci.

    (2009)
  • A Demirbas

    Energy Convers. Manage.

    (2009)
  • A. Docter et al.

    J. Power Sources

    (1999)
  • Q. Ming et al.

    Catal. Today

    (2002)
  • A. Cutillo et al.

    J. Power Sources

    (2006)
  • I. Rosso et al.

    Appl. Catal. B: Environ.

    (2004)
  • A. Ersoz et al.

    J. Power Sources

    (2006)
  • P. Giunta et al.

    J. Power Sources

    (2007)
  • Cited by (51)

    • Hydrogen production from bioethanol fuel mixtures via exhaust heat recovery in diesel engines: A promising route towards more energy efficient road vehicles

      2021, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The temperature profile follows a similar trend for all the tested blends and the O/C molar ratios (only O/C of 1.05 shown here) i.e., a sharp rise in temperature reaching its peak followed by a gradual fall. Increasing the biodiesel concentration in the ULSD blend (B30 and B60) elevated and delayed the temperature peak along the whole length of the monolith, producing temperatures beyond the most favourable range for the reforming reactions (700 °C–900 °C) [40]. The diesel has in its composition a high level of aromatics which make the molecule more stable, and thus, the combustion energy is lower compared to compounds which do not have aromatics in their composition, as the case of biodiesel.

    • Steam reforming of surrogate diesel model over hydrotalcite-derived MO-CaO-Al<inf>2</inf>O<inf>3</inf> (M = Ni &amp; Co) catalysts for SOFC applications

      2021, Fuel
      Citation Excerpt :

      Fuel cell energy systems have attracted attention due to their high efficiency and zero-emission. Nowadays, proton exchange membrane (PEM) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) are most promising in the stationary and auxiliary power units (APU) for vehicles such as cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft [1,2]. Pure hydrogen is considered ideal fuel for such cells, which is not available in nature and thus needs to be produced from other resources.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text