混合H2对天然气输送网络容量和效率的影响

Francis Bainier, R. Kurz
{"title":"混合H2对天然气输送网络容量和效率的影响","authors":"Francis Bainier, R. Kurz","doi":"10.1115/gt2019-90348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Gas Transport System Operators (TSO1) are considering injecting hydrogen gas in their networks. Blending hydrogen into the existing natural gas pipeline network appears to be a strategy for storing and delivering renewable energy to markets [1], [2],[3].\n In comparison to methane, hydrogen gas (dihydrogen or molecular hydrogen) has a higher mass calorific value than methane gas. Because of this property, molecular hydrogen is appreciated for space shuttle engines. A second property is that hydrogen gas has a lower mass density than methane gas. The result of the second property is that the volume calorific value is in favor of methane gas. The list of differences between methane and hydrogen is long. In the relevant range of pressures and temperatures, the Joule-Thomson coefficient has a different sign for hydrogen and methane, and the compressibility factor has the opposite trend when the gas is compressed. The dynamic viscosity is also significantly different, and finally, heat capacity, isentropic exponent, and the thermal conductivity are also different.\n What are the impacts of these hydrogen characteristics on the transport capacity and its efficiency in the case of blending in a gas transport network?\n The first part of the paper is a review of the differences in characteristics between Hydrogen Gas and a Typical Natural Gas in Europe and their impact on the gas flow performance in a pipeline network equipped with compressors.\n The second part of the paper is dedicated to pipe segments. And in the third part, compressor stations are introduced between each pipe segment. At each step, an analysis of a mixed gas from one hundred per cent pure natural gas to one hundred per cent pure hydrogen is done.\n The paper provides some results for 10 %, 40 %, and 100 % of hydrogen blending in an international pipeline. The study shows that the energy quantity transported at the same pressure ratio is reduced respectively by 4 %, 14 %, and 15 to 20 %, and energy requirement for compression increases respectively by 7 %, 30 %, and 210 % (i.e. it more than triples). To transport the same quantity of energy in a network, assuming the resizing to the same level of optimizations, the energy requirement increases by 11 %, 52 %, and 280 %. In other words, it takes 4 times the energy to transport a given amount of energy if the gas is pure hydrogen than it takes if the gas is pure natural gas.\n The paper does not address the issue of equipment or material, it only compares the influence of hydrogen gas on the network capacity and the transport efficiency. This paper doesn’t take into account the limits of the equipment. All equipment is considered as compatible with any load of hydrogen blending.","PeriodicalId":412490,"journal":{"name":"Volume 9: Oil and Gas Applications; Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles; Wind Energy","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts of H2 Blending on Capacity and Efficiency on a Gas Transport Network\",\"authors\":\"Francis Bainier, R. Kurz\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/gt2019-90348\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Gas Transport System Operators (TSO1) are considering injecting hydrogen gas in their networks. Blending hydrogen into the existing natural gas pipeline network appears to be a strategy for storing and delivering renewable energy to markets [1], [2],[3].\\n In comparison to methane, hydrogen gas (dihydrogen or molecular hydrogen) has a higher mass calorific value than methane gas. Because of this property, molecular hydrogen is appreciated for space shuttle engines. A second property is that hydrogen gas has a lower mass density than methane gas. The result of the second property is that the volume calorific value is in favor of methane gas. The list of differences between methane and hydrogen is long. In the relevant range of pressures and temperatures, the Joule-Thomson coefficient has a different sign for hydrogen and methane, and the compressibility factor has the opposite trend when the gas is compressed. The dynamic viscosity is also significantly different, and finally, heat capacity, isentropic exponent, and the thermal conductivity are also different.\\n What are the impacts of these hydrogen characteristics on the transport capacity and its efficiency in the case of blending in a gas transport network?\\n The first part of the paper is a review of the differences in characteristics between Hydrogen Gas and a Typical Natural Gas in Europe and their impact on the gas flow performance in a pipeline network equipped with compressors.\\n The second part of the paper is dedicated to pipe segments. And in the third part, compressor stations are introduced between each pipe segment. At each step, an analysis of a mixed gas from one hundred per cent pure natural gas to one hundred per cent pure hydrogen is done.\\n The paper provides some results for 10 %, 40 %, and 100 % of hydrogen blending in an international pipeline. The study shows that the energy quantity transported at the same pressure ratio is reduced respectively by 4 %, 14 %, and 15 to 20 %, and energy requirement for compression increases respectively by 7 %, 30 %, and 210 % (i.e. it more than triples). To transport the same quantity of energy in a network, assuming the resizing to the same level of optimizations, the energy requirement increases by 11 %, 52 %, and 280 %. In other words, it takes 4 times the energy to transport a given amount of energy if the gas is pure hydrogen than it takes if the gas is pure natural gas.\\n The paper does not address the issue of equipment or material, it only compares the influence of hydrogen gas on the network capacity and the transport efficiency. This paper doesn’t take into account the limits of the equipment. All equipment is considered as compatible with any load of hydrogen blending.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 9: Oil and Gas Applications; Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles; Wind Energy\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 9: Oil and Gas Applications; Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles; Wind Energy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/gt2019-90348\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 9: Oil and Gas Applications; Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles; Wind Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/gt2019-90348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

燃气输送系统运营商(TSO1)正在考虑在其网络中注入氢气。将氢气混合到现有的天然气管网中似乎是一种储存和向市场输送可再生能源的策略[1],[2],[3]。与甲烷相比,氢气(二氢或分子氢)比甲烷气体具有更高的质量热值。由于这一特性,氢分子被用于航天飞机发动机。第二个特性是氢气的质量密度比甲烷低。第二个性质的结果是体积热值有利于甲烷气体。甲烷和氢气的不同之处不胜枚举。在相应的压力和温度范围内,氢气和甲烷的焦耳-汤姆逊系数具有不同的符号,压缩系数在气体被压缩时具有相反的趋势。动黏度也有显著差异,最后,热容、等熵指数、导热系数也有差异。在混合气体输送网络的情况下,这些氢特性对输送能力和效率的影响是什么?本文的第一部分回顾了欧洲氢气和一种典型天然气的特性差异及其对装有压缩机的管网中气体流动性能的影响。论文的第二部分是管段的研究。第三部分介绍了各管段之间的压缩站。在每一步中,都要对从100%纯天然气到100%纯氢气的混合气体进行分析。本文给出了在国际管道中10%、40%和100%混合氢的一些结果。研究表明,在相同压力比下,输送的能量分别减少了4%、14%和15% ~ 20%,压缩能量需求分别增加了7%、30%和210%(即增加了两倍以上)。为了在网络中传输相同数量的能量,假设调整到相同的优化水平,能量需求增加11%,52%和280%。换句话说,如果气体是纯氢,那么运输一定量的能量所需的能量是纯天然气所需能量的4倍。本文不涉及设备和材料的问题,只比较了氢气对网络容量和运输效率的影响。本文没有考虑到设备的局限性。所有设备都被认为与任何氢气混合负荷兼容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impacts of H2 Blending on Capacity and Efficiency on a Gas Transport Network
Gas Transport System Operators (TSO1) are considering injecting hydrogen gas in their networks. Blending hydrogen into the existing natural gas pipeline network appears to be a strategy for storing and delivering renewable energy to markets [1], [2],[3]. In comparison to methane, hydrogen gas (dihydrogen or molecular hydrogen) has a higher mass calorific value than methane gas. Because of this property, molecular hydrogen is appreciated for space shuttle engines. A second property is that hydrogen gas has a lower mass density than methane gas. The result of the second property is that the volume calorific value is in favor of methane gas. The list of differences between methane and hydrogen is long. In the relevant range of pressures and temperatures, the Joule-Thomson coefficient has a different sign for hydrogen and methane, and the compressibility factor has the opposite trend when the gas is compressed. The dynamic viscosity is also significantly different, and finally, heat capacity, isentropic exponent, and the thermal conductivity are also different. What are the impacts of these hydrogen characteristics on the transport capacity and its efficiency in the case of blending in a gas transport network? The first part of the paper is a review of the differences in characteristics between Hydrogen Gas and a Typical Natural Gas in Europe and their impact on the gas flow performance in a pipeline network equipped with compressors. The second part of the paper is dedicated to pipe segments. And in the third part, compressor stations are introduced between each pipe segment. At each step, an analysis of a mixed gas from one hundred per cent pure natural gas to one hundred per cent pure hydrogen is done. The paper provides some results for 10 %, 40 %, and 100 % of hydrogen blending in an international pipeline. The study shows that the energy quantity transported at the same pressure ratio is reduced respectively by 4 %, 14 %, and 15 to 20 %, and energy requirement for compression increases respectively by 7 %, 30 %, and 210 % (i.e. it more than triples). To transport the same quantity of energy in a network, assuming the resizing to the same level of optimizations, the energy requirement increases by 11 %, 52 %, and 280 %. In other words, it takes 4 times the energy to transport a given amount of energy if the gas is pure hydrogen than it takes if the gas is pure natural gas. The paper does not address the issue of equipment or material, it only compares the influence of hydrogen gas on the network capacity and the transport efficiency. This paper doesn’t take into account the limits of the equipment. All equipment is considered as compatible with any load of hydrogen blending.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信