4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Numerical analysis on autothermal steam methane reforming: Effects of catalysts arrangement and metal foam insertion

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 39, 页码 22455-22466

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.203

关键词

Steam methane reforming; Catalytic combustion; Hydrogen production; Catalyst; Chemical kinetics; Metal foam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a numerical study of hydrogen production from methane. An auto thermal reforming (ATR) process which belongs to the wall coated reactors family is adopted. A methane combustion (MC) over Pt/Al2O3 catalyst provides the required heat to steam methane reforming (SMR) over Ni/Al2O3 catalyst. Aiming to attain smooth and low temperature profiles with an improvement of the reactor performances, three configurations were designed to be analyzed and compared with the same amounts of the used catalysts. In the first configuration, the MC and SMR catalysts are coated successively (similar to conventional dual-bed ATR design). In the second configuration the catalysts are parallelly deposed. Finally, in the third configuration a copper foam (CF) is inserted in the reactor to promote the heat conduction. The obtained results show that the simultaneous depletion of methane in the parallel combustor and reformer catalysts causes a smooth temperature profile. In the first arrangement, the temperature can reach a high value of 1300 degrees C, which can be reduced by 42.63% when using the second configuration and by 45.38% with the use of the CF. However, the hydrogen yield is not affected significantly. In fact, it is improved from 32.19% to 32.96% and 33.48% when using the first, second and third configuration respectively. Furthermore, when using the CF, the catalysts length can be reduced by 10.71% with almost the same results than that of the second configuration. (C) 2019 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