IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i11p2792-d365891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on CO 2 Methanation and Steam Methane Reforming over Commercial Ni/Calcium Aluminate Catalysts

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriella Garbarino

    (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genova, Chemical Engineering Pole, via Opera Pia 15, I-16145 Genova, Italy
    INSTM, UdR Genova, via Dodecaneso 31, I-16146 Genova, Italy)

  • Federico Pugliese

    (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genova, Chemical Engineering Pole, via Opera Pia 15, I-16145 Genova, Italy)

  • Tullio Cavattoni

    (Department of Chemistry and Industrial, Chemistry University of Genova, via Dodecaneso 31, I-16146 Genova, Italy)

  • Guido Busca

    (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genova, Chemical Engineering Pole, via Opera Pia 15, I-16145 Genova, Italy
    INSTM, UdR Genova, via Dodecaneso 31, I-16146 Genova, Italy)

  • Paola Costamagna

    (Department of Chemistry and Industrial, Chemistry University of Genova, via Dodecaneso 31, I-16146 Genova, Italy)

Abstract

Three Ni-based natural gas steam reforming catalysts, i.e., commercial JM25-4Q and JM57-4Q, and a laboratory-made catalyst (26% Ni on a 5% SiO 2 –95% Al 2 O 3 ), are tested in a laboratory reactor, under carbon dioxide methanation and methane steam reforming operating conditions. The laboratory catalyst is more active in both CO 2 methanation (equilibrium is reached at 623 K with 100% selectivity) and methane steam reforming (92% hydrogen yield at 890 K) than the two commercial catalysts, likely due to its higher nickel loading. In any case, commercial steam reforming catalysts also show interesting activity in CO 2 methanation, reduced by K-doping. The interpretation of the experimental results is supported by a one-dimensional (1D) pseudo-homogeneous packed-bed reactor model, embedding the Xu and Froment local kinetics, with appropriate kinetic parameters for each catalyst. In particular, the H 2 O adsorption coefficient adopted for the commercial catalysts is about two orders of magnitude higher than for the laboratory-made catalyst, and this is in line with the expectations, considering that the commercial catalysts have Ca and K added, which may promote water adsorption.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriella Garbarino & Federico Pugliese & Tullio Cavattoni & Guido Busca & Paola Costamagna, 2020. "A Study on CO 2 Methanation and Steam Methane Reforming over Commercial Ni/Calcium Aluminate Catalysts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:11:p:2792-:d:365891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/11/2792/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/11/2792/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlos E. Gómez-Camacho & Bernardo Ruggeri, 2019. "Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H 2 Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gabriella Garbarino & Giovanni Pampararo & Thanh Khoa Phung & Paola Riani & Guido Busca, 2020. "Heterogeneous Catalysis in (Bio)Ethanol Conversion to Chemicals and Fuels: Thermodynamics, Catalysis, Reaction Paths, Mechanisms and Product Selectivities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Szablowski, Lukasz & Wojcik, Malgorzata & Dybinski, Olaf, 2025. "Review of steam methane reforming as a method of hydrogen production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 316(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.
    2. Diankai Wang & Inna Gryshova & Anush Balian & Mykola Kyzym & Tetiana Salashenko & Viktoriia Khaustova & Olexandr Davidyuk, 2022. "Assessment of Power System Sustainability and Compromises between the Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Mohammed Siddig H. Mohammed & Abdulsalam Alhawsawi & Abdelfattah Y. Soliman, 2020. "An Integrated Approach to the Realization of Saudi Arabia’s Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Radhanon Diewvilai & Kulyos Audomvongseree, 2022. "Possible Pathways toward Carbon Neutrality in Thailand’s Electricity Sector by 2050 through the Introduction of H 2 Blending in Natural Gas and Solar PV with BESS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-26, May.
    5. Rajesh Nandi & Chayan Kumer Saha & Shiplu Sarker & Md. Sanaul Huda & Md. Monjurul Alam, 2020. "Optimization of Reactor Temperature for Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of Cow Manure: Bangladesh Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Bin Yan & Qiuxuan Wu & Xiaoni Chi & Chenxi Wu & Ping Luo & Yanbin Luo & Pingliang Zeng, 2022. "Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Photovoltaic/Thermal Systems: Parameter Analysis and Determination of Optimum Flow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Rosario Carbone & Concettina Marino & Antonino Nucara & Maria Francesca Panzera & Matilde Pietrafesa, 2019. "Electric Load Influence on Performances of a Composite Plant for Hydrogen Production from RES and its Conversion in Electricity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Rafael Ninno Muniz & Stéfano Frizzo Stefenon & William Gouvêa Buratto & Ademir Nied & Luiz Henrique Meyer & Erlon Cristian Finardi & Ricardo Marino Kühl & José Alberto Silva de Sá & Brigida Ramati Per, 2020. "Tools for Measuring Energy Sustainability: A Comparative Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:11:p:2792-:d:365891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.