4.7 Article

Methane cracking using Ni supported on porous and non-porous alumina catalysts

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 37, Issue 11, Pages 9038-9048

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.001

Keywords

Hydrogen; Methane cracking; Nickel catalyst

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Egypt
  3. Department of Chemical Engineering in the National Research Centre of Egypt

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Porous and non-porous alumina catalysts were used as nickel supports to catalyze methane cracking. Different operating parameters were studied in a thermal gravimetric analyzer, including methane and hydrogen partial pressures, temperature and flow rate. During CH4 cracking, carbon builds up on the catalyst surface and therefore the catalyst requires periodic regeneration. Cycling tests were performed, using air during the regeneration phase to burn off the carbon. The results showed that the non-porous catalyst performed better than the porous catalyst in terms of cracking during the first cycle. Full regeneration of the catalysts by oxidizing the deposited carbon was achieved at 550 degrees C, while oxidation was very slow at 500 degrees C. After full regeneration, the performance of the porous catalyst became considerably better than the non-porous. The porous catalyst kept its activity for 24 cracking/regeneration cycles, while the non-porous catalyst lost half of its activity by the second cracking cycle and almost all of its activity after six cycles. NiAl2O4 formation and Ni sintering caused the non-porous catalyst activity loss. TPO results showed that two carbon types were deposited on the catalysts, namely C beta and C gamma, where CO is more active than C gamma. Copyright (C) 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available