0
Research Papers

Tin as a Possible Candidate for Solar Thermochemical Redox Process for Hydrogen Production

[+] Author and Article Information
Irina Vishnevetsky1

Solar Research Facilities Unit, Weizmann Institute of Science, P.O. Box 26, Rehovot 76100, Israelirina.vishnevetsky@.weizmann.ac.il

Michael Epstein

Solar Research Facilities Unit, Weizmann Institute of Science, P.O. Box 26, Rehovot 76100, Israel

1

Corresponding author.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 131(2), 021007 (Apr 02, 2009) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3090825 History: Received July 30, 2007; Revised June 05, 2008; Published April 02, 2009

The feasibility to produce hydrogen in the SnH2O/SnO2C thermochemical water splitting redox process depends mainly on the efficiency of the tin hydrolysis step, which has not been studied adequately so far, while the cassererite carboreduction is implemented by industry for tin production. The present work deals with the hydrolysis of different kinds of tin powders at different experimental conditions at moderate temperature range 180620°C. In spite of the fact that the rate of hydrogen production is lower compared with other metals, e.g., zinc, at the same reactor temperature, high conversion level was obtained in a controllable reaction. Consequently, tin can be a relevant candidate for solar hydrogen production considering the advantage of significant lower temperatures required for the solar carboreduction of its oxide.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Equilibrium constant versus temperature for Sn, In, and Ga redox reactions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Equilibrium constants versus temperature for hydrolysis of tin and tin monoxide

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Sample holder (a) before and (b)after test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Structures of different tin powders observed in TEM after sonication: (a) nano-, (b) 10 μm, and (c) 44 μm powders

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The main parameters of tin powder (10 g) hydrolysis versus time from heating beginning: (1) temperature in the middle of reactor below sample holder, (2) temperature in reaction zone, (3) steam temperature at the exit of boiler, (4) pressure in reactor, (5) hydrogen flow rate from Eq. 4, (6) hydrogen flow rate from Eq. 5, and (7) mass water flow rate×10 from pump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of temperature in reaction zone (2, 4, 6) and hydrogen flow rate (1, 3, 5) as a function of reactor temperature for 1.8 g of boron (3, 4), 10 g zinc (1, 2) and 10 g tin (5, 6) hydrolysis; mass water flow rate 0.25 g/min for boron and 0.55 g/min for tin and zinc

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Hydrogen flow rate calculated by Eq. 5 for (1) 10 μm, (2) nano-, and (3) 44 μm powders (all results are reduced to 10 g powder, ṀH2O=0.55 g/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Hydrogen flow (Eq. 4) developing versus time since a steam flow started (a) and temperature (b) at different steam flow starting temperatures: (1) 180°C, (2) 360°C, (3) 500°C, and (4) 580°C (M0∼9.5 g, ṀH2O=0.55 g/min) during heating period up to 620°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Conversion versus time period after the steam flow starts at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Hydrogen flow (Eq. 4) output rate (a) and conversion (b) versus time since a steam flow started (steady state temperature condition: (1) 350°C, (2) 420°C, (3) 525°C, and (4) 600°C); M0∼9.5 g, ṀH2O=0.55 g/min

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Mass fractions of tin, tin monoxide, and tin dioxide in powder after three 3 h tests at different constant temperatures (a) and portion of monoxide in tin oxides versus reactor temperature after tests completion (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Hydrogen flow output (Eq. 4) versus time since a steam flow started (a) versus temperature in reaction zone (b) at the same temperature condition (c) for tests with tin (1, 3) and tin monoxide (2), M0=9.5 g, ṀH2O=0.55 g/min

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Relative hydrogen output versus steam partial pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Conversion versus time since the steam flow starts at 360°C (M0∼9.5 g, (●)ṀH2O=0.55 g/min, and (◼) ṀH2O=1.65 g/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Structures of 10 μm powders after tests that were done at different temperatures: (a) 420°C, (b) 600°C, and (c) 360–620°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Hydrogen flow rate as a function of the temperature in the (a) reaction zone and(b) Arrhenius plot (M0∼9.5 g, PH2O0≈0.93 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Deviation of exponential behavior of the reaction rate at different conversion levels

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Examples of calculated rate-decreasing factor f(χ,T) for (a) different isothermal conditions and(b) different preheating history

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In