Byproducts and reaction pathways for integration of the Cu–Cl cycle of hydrogen production

Towards integration of hydrolysis, decomposition and electrolysis processes of the Cu–Cl thermochemical water splitting cycle

“…There exists an alternative reaction to produce oxygen with the mixture of CuO and CuCl 2 rather than the single compound Cu 2 OCl 2 [25,26]: Since the mixing of CuO and CuCl 2 is not ideal for the full reaction, the following decomposition reaction will consume a portion of CuCl 2 before it reacts with CuO: CuCl 2 ¼ CuCl þ 1/2Cl 2 , at 300 C and higher temperatures (3) Consequently, there will be some unreacted CuO in the oxygen production reaction, which was observed in past experiments [25]. Since the unreacted CuO is distributed within the molten CuCl product, it will be carried by CuCl into the electrolytic cell, wherein CuO will react with HCl:…”

Interfacial thermodynamics and X-ray diffraction of hydrolysis products in multiphase reacting flow of the Cu–Cl cycle

“…Premature solid decomposition will significantly disrupt the mass balance of the downstream reactors in the cycle. Incomplete solid decomposition in the hydrolysis reactor will lead to difficulties in the downstream Cu 2 OCl 2 decomposition process [17]. In a study of an experimental CuCl 2 hydrolysis spray reactor [15], chlorine gas production was detected with reaction temperatures beyond 400 C. The result was confirmed by investigating the equilibrium conditions of the decomposition of CuCl 2 and the reverse Deacon reaction during the hydrolysis reaction, whereby the study predicted 400 C as the optimal temperature for the reactor operation [16].…”

Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy

“…Fig. 6.61 Scaled-up thermolysis reactor at UOIT, charged with copper oxychloride 6.6 Thermolysis Reaction Step At the sample temperature of 723 K, further addition of reactants is initiated depending on the goal of the experiments (see Marin et al 2011b). …”

“…The theoretical and measured yields of copper oxychloride decomposition were compared in Marin et al (2011b), as shown in Fig. 6.67, where the predictions represent the predicted equilibrium yield.…”