수소 생산 규모 300 m3 h-1급 글리세롤 수증기 개질반응에 대한 경제적 불확실성 분석

허주헌; 이보름; 김세화; 강성묵; 임한권; Juheon Heo; Boreum Lee; Sehwa Kim; Sung-Mook Kang; Hankwon Lim

Applied Chemistry for Engineering, Vol.29, No.5, 589-593, October, 2018

DOI10.14478/ace.2018.1053 Export Citation

수소 생산 규모 300 m3 h-1급 글리세롤 수증기 개질반응에 대한 경제적 불확실성 분석

Economic Evaluation with Uncertainty Analysis of Glycerol Steam Reforming for the H2 Production Capacity of 300 m3 h-1

허주헌, 이보름, 김세화, 강성묵^{1, †}, 임한권^{2, †}

대구가톨릭대학교 신소재화학공학과
¹대구가톨릭대학교 전자전기공학부
²울산과학기술원 에너지 및 화학공학부

Juheon Heo, Boreum Lee, Sehwa Kim, Sung-Mook Kang^{1, †}, and Hankwon Lim^{2, †}

Department of Advanced Materials and Chemical Engineering, Catholic University of Daegu, 13-13 Hayang-ro, Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 38430, Republic of Korea
¹School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Catholic University of Daegu, 13-13 Hayang-ro, Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 38430, Republic of Korea
²School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea

E-mail:,

초록

본 논문에서는 수소 생산 규모 300 m3 h-1급 글리세롤 수증기 개질반응에 대한 경제적 불확실성 분석을 Monte-Carlo 시뮬레이션 방법을 이용하여 수행하였다. 핵심 경제적 인자의 변동(± 10 - ± 40%)에 따른 수소 생산 단가의 변동을 확인하였으며, 기존 수소 생산 단가인 5.10 $ kgH2 -1를 얻기 위한 확률인 30.9%를 구하였다. 또한 설비투자비용(± 20%), 연간운영비용(± 20%), 수익(± 20%) 및 할인율의 변동(2-10%)에 따른 비용 편익비의 변동을 확인하였으며, 본 공정이 경제적 타당성이 있기 위해서는 비용 편익비의 값이 1 이상이여야 하며 이를 얻기 위한 확률 범위는 할인율의 변동에 따라 17-55%로 나타났다.

In this paper, an economic evaluation with the uncertainty analysis using a Monte-Carlo simulation method was performed for the glycerol steam reforming to produce H2 at a capacity of 300 m3 h-1. Fluctuations in a unit H2 production cost were identified based on the variation of key economic factors at ± 10 - ± 40% and the probability of 30.9% was obtained for a previously reported unit H2 production cost of 5.10 $ kgH2 -1. In addition, fluctuations in the B/C ratio were obtained by varying the fixed capital investment (± 20%), cost of manufacturing (± 20%), revenue (± 20%), and discount rate (2-10%) and the probability ranging from 17 to 55% was observed to meet a minimum B/C ratio of 1 for the economic feasibility of the glycerol steam reforming to produce H2.

Keywords:glycerol steam reforming;economic evaluation;uncertainty analysis;hydrogen production

[References]

Sad ME, Duarte HA, Vignatti C, Padro CL, Apesteguia CR, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 40(18), 6097 (2015)
Masnadi MS, Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Hill JM, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Ellis N, Grace JR, Fuel, 117, 1204 (2014)
Vaidya PD, Rodrigues AE, Chem. Eng. Technol., 32(10), 1463 (2009)
Lv XJ, Lin JH, Luo L, Zhang D, Lei SL, Xiao WJ, Xu Y, Gong YX, Liu ZH, Bioresour. Technol., 249, 226 (2018)
Hejna A, Kosmela P, Formela K, Piszczyk L, Haponiuuk JT, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 66, 449 (2016)
Yus M, Soler J, Herguido J, Menendez M, Catal. Today, 299, 317 (2018)
Veiga S, Faccio R, Segobia D, Apesteguia C, Bussi J, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(52), 30525 (2017)
Pastor-Perez L, Sepulveda-Escribano A, Fuel, 194, 222 (2017)
Voldsund M, Jordal K, Anantharaman R, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 41(9), 4969 (2016)
Hajjaji N, Chahbani A, Khila Z, Pons MN, Energy, 64, 473 (2014)
Buffoni IN, Gatti MN, Santori GF, Pompeo F, Nichio NN, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(18), 12967 (2017)
Cormos AM, Cormos CC, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(12), 7798 (2017)
Ou L, Li B, Dang Q, Jones S, Brown R, Wright MM, Energy Technol., 4, 441 (2016)
Di Lorenzo G, Pilidis P, Witton J, Probert D, Appl. Energy, 98, 467 (2012)
Lee B, Heo J, Choi NH, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(39), 24612 (2017)
Heo JH, Lim HK, Appl. Chem. Eng., 29(2), 209 (2018)
Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D, Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, 4th ed., Pearson Press, New Jersey, USA (2013).

[1] Sad ME, Duarte HA, Vignatti C, Padro CL, Apesteguia CR, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 40(18), 6097 (2015)

[2] Masnadi MS, Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Hill JM, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Ellis N, Grace JR, Fuel, 117, 1204 (2014)

[3] Vaidya PD, Rodrigues AE, Chem. Eng. Technol., 32(10), 1463 (2009)

[4] Lv XJ, Lin JH, Luo L, Zhang D, Lei SL, Xiao WJ, Xu Y, Gong YX, Liu ZH, Bioresour. Technol., 249, 226 (2018)

[5] Hejna A, Kosmela P, Formela K, Piszczyk L, Haponiuuk JT, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 66, 449 (2016)

[6] Yus M, Soler J, Herguido J, Menendez M, Catal. Today, 299, 317 (2018)

[7] Veiga S, Faccio R, Segobia D, Apesteguia C, Bussi J, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(52), 30525 (2017)

[8] Pastor-Perez L, Sepulveda-Escribano A, Fuel, 194, 222 (2017)

[9] Voldsund M, Jordal K, Anantharaman R, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 41(9), 4969 (2016)

[10] Hajjaji N, Chahbani A, Khila Z, Pons MN, Energy, 64, 473 (2014)

[11] Buffoni IN, Gatti MN, Santori GF, Pompeo F, Nichio NN, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(18), 12967 (2017)

[12] Cormos AM, Cormos CC, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(12), 7798 (2017)

[13] Ou L, Li B, Dang Q, Jones S, Brown R, Wright MM, Energy Technol., 4, 441 (2016)

[14] Di Lorenzo G, Pilidis P, Witton J, Probert D, Appl. Energy, 98, 467 (2012)

[15] Lee B, Heo J, Choi NH, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(39), 24612 (2017)

[16] Heo JH, Lim HK, Appl. Chem. Eng., 29(2), 209 (2018)

[17] Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D, Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, 4th ed., Pearson Press, New Jersey, USA (2013).