4.7 Article

Direct electrification of Rh/Al2O3 washcoated SiSiC foams for methane steam reforming: An experimental and modelling study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 48, 期 39, 页码 14681-14696

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.12.346

关键词

Electrified methane steam; reforming; Hydrogen production; Decarbonization; Structured catalysts; Process intensification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrified methane steam reforming (eMSR) is a promising concept for low-carbon hydrogen production. The innovative eMSR reactor uses SiSiC foams coated with Rh/Al2O3 catalyst as electrical resistances to generate reaction heat. The system achieves complete methane conversions even at a high space velocity of 200000 Nl/h/kgcat, with a specific energy demand as low as 1.24 kWh/Nm3H2 and an unprecedented energy efficiency of 81%.
Electrified methane steam reforming (eMSR) is a promising concept for low-carbon hydrogen production. We investigate an innovative eMSR reactor where SiSiC foams, coated with Rh/Al2O3 catalyst, act as electrical resistances to generate the reaction heat via the Joule effect. The novel system was studied at different temperatures, space velocities, operating pressures and catalyst loadings. Thanks to efficient heating, active catalyst and optimal substrate geometry, complete methane conversions were observed even at a high space velocity of 200000 Nl/h/kgcat. A specific energy demand as low as 1.24 kWh/Nm3H2, with an unprecedented energy efficiency of 81%, was achieved on a washcoated foam with catalyst density of 86.3 g/L (GHSV = 150000 Nl/h/kgcat, S/C = 4.1, ambient pressure). A mathematical model was validated against measured performance indicators and used to design an intensified eMSR unit for small scale H2 production.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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