4.6 Article

Synthesis gas production to desired hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratios by tri-reforming of methane using Ni-MgO-(Ce,Zr)O2 catalysts

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 445, 期 -, 页码 61-68

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2012.08.015

关键词

Gas-to-liquid; Fischer Tropsch synthesis; Energy; Biofuel; Hydrogen production

资金

  1. Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
  2. Florida Energy Systems Consortium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper highlights the performance of Ni-MgO-(Ce,Zr)O-2 tri-reforming catalysts under various reaction conditions and explains results using catalyst characterization. Testing under controlled reaction conditions and the use of several catalyst characterization techniques (BET, XRD, TPR, SEM-EDS, and XPS) were employed to better explain the effects of the synthesis parameters on the reaction performances. The support Ce:Zr ratio, metal loading techniques, metal wt%, and Ni:Mg ratios all had a pronounced influence on the catalyst performance. An even ratio of Ce:Zr for the support and an even ratio of Ni:Mg gave the best performance. The wet impregnation method consistently showed more resistance to coke formation when compared to the deposition precipitation method, but the difference was attributed to a better ability to load Mg by wet impregnation. Lower than previously reported H2O concentrations in the feed gas composition also led to desired H-2:CO ratios needed for FT synthesis while maintaining high conversions of CO2 and resistance to coke formation. High GHSV (61,000 h(-1)) yielded significantly higher H-2:CO ratios when compared to reactions run at lower GHSV (25,000 h(-1)). These results suggest that steam reforming reactions are kept further from equilibrium at higher GHSV and result in higher H2 production. The tested tri-reforming catalyst produced desired H2 :CO ratios with minimal deactivation, high reactant conversions, and extended catalyst lifetime. (C) 2012 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据