4.6 Article

Hydrogen Production by Sorption Enhanced Steam Reforming (SESR) of Biomass in a Fluidised-Bed Reactor Using Combined Multifunctional Particles

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma11050859

关键词

hydrogen; sorption enhanced steam reforming; combined multifunctional particles; fluidised bed reactor; biomass

资金

  1. Peter T. Clough's studentship through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council UK's Doctoral Training Partnership
  2. EPSRC (UKCCSRC) [EP/P026214/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of combined CO2-sorbent/catalyst particles for sorption enhanced steam reforming (SESR), prepared via a simple mechanical mixing protocol, was studied using a spout-fluidised bed reactor capable of continuous solid fuel (biomass) feeding. The influence of particle size (300-500 and 710-1000 mu m), CaO loading (60-100 wt %), Ni-loading (10-40 wt %) and presence of dicalcium silicate support (22.6 wt %) on SESR process performance were investigated. The combined particles were characterised by their density, porosity and CO2 carrying capacity with the analysis by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET), Barrett-Joyner-Halenda (BJH) and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). All experiments were conducted with continuous oak biomass feeding at a rate of 0.9 g/min +/- 10%, and the reactor was operated at 660 +/- 5 degrees C, 1 atm and 20 +/- 2 vol % steam which corresponds to a steam-to-carbon ratio of 1.2:1. Unsupported combined particles containing 21.0 wt % Ni and 79 wt % CaO were the best performing sorbent/catalyst particle screened in this study, when accounting for the cost of Ni and the improvement in H-2 produced by high Ni content particles. SESR tests with these combined particles produced 61 mmol H-2/g(biomass) (122 g H-2/kg(biomass)) at a purity of 61 vol %. Significant coke formation within the feeding tube and on the surfaces of the particles was observed which was attributed to the low steam to carbon ratio utilised.

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