4.7 Article

Deactivation characteristics of Ni and Ru catalysts in tar steam reforming

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 76-83

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.045

关键词

Biomass; Gasification; Tar; Steam reforming; Deactivation

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20143030050060]
  3. Research and Development Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) [B6-2438]
  4. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20143030050060] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  5. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [KIER3-2] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tar formation resulting during lignocellulosic biomass gasification is a major impediment to utilizing biomass energy sources, in that it blocks and fouls the processing equipment; as such, any tar present in the produced syngas much be effectively removed. This study analyzes the ability of commercially available Ni and Ru based CH4 reforming catalysts to effect tar removal and compares deactivation characteristics. Toluene was used as the model biomass tar at concentrations of 30 and 100 g/Nm(3). Several additional parameters were also tested, including reaction temperatures (400-800 degrees C), space velocities (5000-30,000 h(-1)), and the steam/toluene ratios (2-20). The variation of toluene conversion and product gas composition with reaction conditions was analyzed. Overall, H2 and CO production were favored by the Ru catalyst and generally increased with temperature. Conversion also increased with temperature, with conversions higher than 90% obtained at 800 degrees C. (C) 2016 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