4.6 Review

Recent Advances in Catalysis for Methanation of CO2 from Biogas

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal12040374

关键词

CO2 methanation; biogas; catalysts; deactivation; sulfur resistance

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport
  2. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct biogas methanation faces challenges regarding the influence of high methane content on the reaction and overall efficiency, as well as improving the resistance of catalysts to sulfur-containing compounds. Materials with two active metals and binary oxide support seem to offer technically applicable solutions for these challenges.
Biogas, with its high carbon dioxide content (30-50 vol%), is an attractive feed for catalytic methanation with green hydrogen, and is suitable for establishing a closed carbon cycle with methane as energy carrier. The most important questions for direct biogas methanation are how the high methane content influences the methanation reaction and overall efficiency on one hand, and to what extent the methanation catalysts can be made more resistant to various sulfur-containing compounds in biogas on the other hand. Ni-based catalysts are the most favored for economic reasons. The interplay of active compounds, supports, and promoters is discussed regarding the potential for improving sulfur resistance. Several strategies are addressed and experimental studies are evaluated, to identify catalysts which might be suitable for these challenges. As several catalyst functionalities must be combined, materials with two active metals and binary oxide support seem to be the best approach to technically applicable solutions. The high methane content in biogas appears to have a measurable impact on equilibrium and therefore CO2 conversion. Depending on the initial CH4/CO2 ratio, this might lead to a product with higher methane content, and, after work-up, to a drop in-option for existing natural gas grids.

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