Process design simulation of H₂production by sorption enhanced steam methane reforming: evaluation of potential CO₂acceptors

Co–Ni Catalysts Derived from Hydrotalcite-Like Materials for Hydrogen Production by Ethanol Steam Reforming

“…The syngas composition is further changed by the competing subsequent reactions (Eqs. [4][5][6]. The acetaldehyde production might be minimized by increasing the reaction temperature to promote the catalyst activity to decompose acetaldehyde or by integrating steam reforming with CO 2 sorption enhanced reaction, where the thermodynamic equilibrium boundary is removed.…”

“…The reaction conditions are chosen with consideration to steam reforming and SESR for further study. The reaction temperature at 575°C is likely to allow efficient and compatible kinetics between reforming activity and CO 2 sorption, and based on the thermodynamic estimation, the molar ratio of steam-to-carbon (S/C = 3) can be advantageous to hydrogen production in high yield by SESR [4]. 4 and CO 2 contents are lower.…”

“…The reaction temperature at 575°C is likely to allow efficient and compatible kinetics between reforming activity and CO 2 sorption, and based on the thermodynamic estimation, the molar ratio of steam-to-carbon (S/C = 3) can be advantageous to hydrogen production in high yield by SESR [4]. 4 and CO 2 contents are lower. The obtained high hydrogen contents show that steam reforming and water gas shift reactions in Eqs.…”

“…However, in reality, product compositions are far more complicated, due to the co-occurrence of the water gas shift reaction, methanation and other side reactions, which result in a lower efficiency of hydrogen production. Novel processes are proposed to improve the hydrogen production efficiency such as chemical looping, autothermal reforming and sorption enhanced steam reforming (SESR) [3,4]. For a SESR process, a CO 2 acceptor is installed together with the reforming catalysts for in situ removal of CO 2 generated in the reforming process.…”

Effect of catalyst activity in SMR-SERP for hydrogen production: Commercial vs. large-pore catalyst

“…Steam methane reforming Water-gas shift Calcium oxides (Balasubramanian et al, 1999;Ortiz and Harrison, 2001;Peng and Harrison, 2003;Comas et al, 2004;Kwang and Harrison, 2005;Satrio et al, 2005;Hildenbrand et al, 2006;Li et al, 2006) Lithium oxides (Ochoa-Fernandez et al, 2005;Ochoa-Fernandez et al, 2007;Rusten et al, 2007aRusten et al, , 2007bEssaki et al, 2008) Hydrotalcite (Mayorga et al, 1997;Hufton et al, 1999;Ding and Alpay, 2000;Waldron et al, 2001;Xiu et al, 2002aXiu et al, , 2002bXiu et al, , 2003aXiu et al, , 2003bXiu et al, , 2004Lee et al, 2006;Reijers et al, 2006;Cobden et al, 2007;Koumpouras et al, 2007aKoumpouras et al, , 2007bLee et al, 2007a, 2007c, 2008b) (van Selow et al, 2009Wright et al, 2009) Sodium oxides (Lee et al, 2007b;Bretado et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2008a) In order to determine the response of the layered system to different operating conditions (total pressure, feed temperature and feed flowrate), six experimental runs were performed using catalyst (Catalyst A or Degussa) and sorbent (MG30-K). The operating conditions of each of the experimental runs are reported in Table 4.…”