4.8 Article

Lithium and lanthanum promoted Ni-Al2O3 as an active and highly coking resistant catalyst layer for solid-oxide fuel cells operating on methane

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 196, 期 1, 页码 90-97

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.07.033

关键词

Solid-oxide fuel cells; Anode; Catalyst layer; Methane; Carbon deposition

资金

  1. Outstanding Young Scholar Grant at Jiangsu Province [2008023]
  2. New Century Excellent Talents in Chinese Ministry of Education
  3. National basic research program of China [200703209704]
  4. National 863 Program [2007AA05Z133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ni-Al2O3 catalyst is modified with Li2O3, La2O3 and CaO promoters to improve its resistance to coking. These catalysts are used as the materials of the anode catalyst layer in solid-oxide fuel cells operating on methane. Their catalytic activity for the partial oxidation, steam reforming and CO2 reforming of methane at 600-850 degrees C is investigated. Their catalytic stability and carbon deposition properties are also studied. The LiLaNi-Al2O3 catalyst shows a catalytic activity that is comparable to those of LaNi-Al2O3 and LiNi-Al2O3 catalysts for all three reactions. However, it displays a higher catalytic activity than those of CaLaNi-Al2O3 and CaNi-Al2O3 catalysts. Among the various catalysts, the LiLaNi-Al2O3 catalyst presents the highest catalytic stability. O-2-TPO profiles indicate that the modification of the Ni-Al2O3 catalyst with Li and La greatly reduces carbon deposition under pure methane atmosphere. The LiLaNi-Al2O3 catalyst is applied as the anode functional layer of a Ni + ScSZ anode-supported fuel cell. The cell is operated on methane-O-2, methane-H2O or methane-CO2 gas mixtures and yields peak power densities of 538,532 and 529 mW cm(-2) at 850 degrees C, respectively, comparable to that of hydrogen fuel. In sum, the LiLaNi-Al2O3 is highly promising as a highly coking resistant catalyst layer for solid-oxide fuel cells. (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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