4.7 Article

Catalytic decomposition of biogas to produce hydrogen rich fuels for SI engines and valuable nanocarbons

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 38, 期 35, 页码 15084-15091

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.09.086

关键词

Biogas; Catalytic decomposition; Nanostructured carbon; Graphite precursor; Internal combustion engine

资金

  1. Spanish Economy and Competitiveness Ministry (MINECO)
  2. ERDF funds [ENE2011-28318]
  3. Diputacion General de Aragon and the MINECO [BES-2012-052711]
  4. Spanish Research Council for Scientific Research (CSIC)
  5. European Social Fund (ESF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Catalytic Decomposition of Biogas (CDB), producing simultaneously syngases (SG), with high hydrogen contents, for spark ignition (SI) engines and bio-carbon nanofibers (BCNFs) to be further used as precursor of synthetic graphite, is presented as an alternative to the usual direct combustion. Synthetic biogas mixtures were decomposed in the presence of a Ni catalyst at different temperatures and the SG thus produced were further tested as fuel in a specifically designed SI engine, whereas the BCNFs were subjected to heat treatment to graphitize. The influence of CDB process conditions on product yields and properties, the effect of SG composition/quality in SI engine performance and emissions, as compared with the use of raw biogas and the influence of BCNFs characteristics on the structural and textural properties of the graphitic materials have been studied. The syngases presented better combustion characteristics than biogas resulting in higher engine brake thermal efficiencies and lower exhaust emissions. Furthermore, high added value graphite-like materials, with a crystalline structure similar to that of oil-derived graphite which is currently commercialized to be used as anode in rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, were prepared. Copyright (C) 2013, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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