Thermal modeling and simulation of an integrated solid oxide fuel cell and charcoal gasification system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study we propose a novel integrated charcoal gasification and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system, which is intended to produce electricity and heat simultaneously. This system mainly consists of an updraft gasifier using air and steam as the gasification agents, a planar and direct internal reforming SOFC and a low temperature gas cleanup system. The performance of this system is assessed through numerical modeling using a pre‐developed and validated heat transfer model of the SOFC and thermodynamic models for the rest of the components. These models are used to simulate the performance of the cell and system for a case study. In addition, a parametric study is conducted to assess the effect of Reynolds number at the fuel channel inlet of the SOFC on the cell performance, e.g., fuel utilization and power density, and the system performance, e.g., electrical efficiency, exergetic efficiency, and power to heat ratio. The number of stacks is also calculated for different Reynolds numbers to discuss the economical feasibility of the integrated system. The results show that the electrical efficiency, exergetic efficiency and power to heat ratio of this system are 33.31%, 45.72%, and 1.004, respectively, for the base case. The parametric study points out that taking the Reynolds number low yields higher electrical and exergetic efficiencies for the system, but it also increases the cost of the system. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2009
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".