Promising Directions in Chemical Processing of Methane from Coal Industry. Part 3. Catalytic Tests

Authors

  • Е.V. Matus Federal Research Center of Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, RAS, 18, pr. Sovetskiy, Kemerovo, Russia
  • M.A. Kerzhentsev Federal Research Center of Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, RAS, 18, pr. Sovetskiy, Kemerovo, Russia
  • A.P. Nikitin Federal Research Center of Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, RAS, 18, pr. Sovetskiy, Kemerovo, Russia
  • S.A. Sozinov Federal Research Center of Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, RAS, 18, pr. Sovetskiy, Kemerovo, Russia
  • Z.R. Ismagilov Federal Research Center of Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch, RAS, 18, pr. Sovetskiy, Kemerovo, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18321/ectj1559

Keywords:

coal mine methane, tri-reforming of methane, Ni-based catalyst, hydrogen production

Abstract

For the processing of coal mine methane into hydrogen-containing gas, a catalytic process of methane tri-reforming (СH4 + O2 + CO2 + H2O) was proposed and its component reactions were studied – partial oxidation (СH4 + O2, POM), dry reforming (СH4 + CO2, DRM) and steam reforming (СH4 + H2O, SRM) of methane. Promoted nickel supported on aluminum oxide was used as a catalyst. Experiments were carried out by varying temperature (600–850 ºC), contact time (0.04–0.15 s), linear feed rate (40–240 cm/min) and composition of the reaction mixture (POM – СH4 : O2 : He = 1 : (0.5–0.7) : (3.3–3.4); DRM – СH4 : CO2 : He = 1 : (0.8–1.4) : (2.6–3.2); SRM – CH4 : H2O : He = 1 : (0.8–2.0) : (2.0–3.2)). Optimal reaction conditions were determined to ensure maximum efficiency of hydrogen production by reforming methane-containing mixtures of various compositions (temperature in the range of 800–850 ºC, contact time 0.15 s, linear feed rate 160 cm/min, molar ratio of CH4 : O2 = 1 : 0.5 for POM, CH4 : CO2 = 1 : 1 for DRM and CH4 : H2O = 1 : 1.1 for SRM). The degree of catalyst carbonization during the reactions was reduced (from 3 to 1.5% for POM, from 20.7 to 2.2% for DRM, and from 15.2 to 0.4% for SRM) due to an increase in the O/C molar ratio in the initial reaction mixture. Regulation of H2/CO molar ratio was achieved over a wide range (0.9–6.5). It has been shown that the hydrogen concentration in the resulting hydrogen-containing mixture is determined by the type of process and is equal to 30±5 vol.%.

References

(1). Statistical Review of World Energy 2023. URL

(2). Global thermal coal 10-year investment horizon outlook 2023. URL

(3). Global Methane Tracker 2023. IEA. URL

(4). Coal 2023. IEA. URL

(5). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 2. Energy, Chapter 4: Fugitive Emissions. URL

(6). Driving Down Coal Mine Methane Emissions. IEA. URL

(7). Coal mine methane emissions and methane intensity of production in selected countries 2022. URL

(8). D.S.S.S. Sirigina, A. Goel, S.M. Nazir, Sci. Rep. 13 (2023) 1–15. Crossref

(9). J. Yin, S. Su, J.S. Bae, X.X. Yu, M. Cunnington, Y. Jin, Energy Fuels 34 (2020) 655–664. Crossref

(10). K. Wei, X. Wang, H. Zhu, H. Liu, S. Wang, F. Chen, F. Zhou, Y. Ling, J. Power Sources 506 (2021) 230208. Crossref

(11). H. Zhu, H. Dai, Z. Song, X. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Dai, S. He, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 31439– 31451. Crossref

(12). E.V. Matus, I.Z. Ismagilov, E.S. Mikhaylova, Z.R. Ismagilov, Eurasian Chem.-Technol. J. 24 (2022) 69–91. Crossref

(13). A.P. Nikitin, S.A. Sozinov, Е.V. Matus, Z.R. Ismagilov, Chem. Sustain, Develop. 31 (2023) 552–560. Crossref

(14). E.V. Matus, Z.R. Ismagilov, Eurasian Chem.- Technol. J. 24 (2022) 203–214. Crossref

(15). R.D. Alli, P.A.L. de Souza, M. Mohamedali, L.D. Virla, N. Mahinpey, Catal. Today 407 (2023) 107– 124. Crossref

(16). E.V. Matus, M.A. Kerzhentsev, A.P. Nikitin, S.A. Sozinov, Z.R. Ismagilov, Eurasian Chem.-Technol. J. 25 (2023) 103–113. Crossref

(17). E. Matus, M. Kerzhentsev, I. Ismagilov, A. Nikitin, S. Sozinov, Z. Ismagilov, Energies 16 (2023) 2993. Crossref

(18). S. Arora, R. Prasad, RSC Adv. 6 (2016) 108668– 108688. Crossref

(19). R. Kumar, K.K. Pant, Fuel Process. Technol. 210 (2020) 106559. Crossref

(20). M. Schmal, F.S. Toniolo, C.E. Kozonoe, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 568 (2018) 23–42. Crossref

(21). D. Pham Minh, X.H. Pham, T.J. Siang, D.V.N. Vo, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 621 (2021) 118202. Crossref

(22). P. Li, Y.H. Park, D.J. Moon, N.C. Park, Y.C. Kim, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 16 (2016) 1562–1566. Crossref

(23). T.J. Siang, T.L.M. Pham, N. Van Cuong, et al., Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 262 (2018) 122– 132. Crossref

(24). Z. Zhao, P. Ren, W. Li, B. Miao, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 6598–6609. Crossref

(25). I. Wysocka, A. Mielewczyk-Gryń, M. Łapiński, B. Cieślik, A. Rogala, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 3847–3864. Crossref

(26). C. Alvarez-Galvan, M. Melian, L. Ruiz-Matas, J.L. Eslava, R.M. Navarro, M. Ahmadi, B. Roldan Cuenya, J.L.G. Fierro, Front. Chem. 7 (2019) Art. 104. Crossref

(27). F. Pompeo, D. Gazzoli, N.N. Nichio, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 2260–2268. Crossref

(28). L. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Appl. Surf. Sci. 389 (2016) 25–33. Crossref

(29). Y. Khani, F. Bahadoran, Z. Shariatinia, M. Varmazyari, N. Safari, Ceram. Int. 46 (2020) 25122– 25135. Crossref

Downloads

Published

2024-04-20

How to Cite

Matus Е., Kerzhentsev, M., Nikitin, A., Sozinov, S., & Ismagilov , Z. (2024). Promising Directions in Chemical Processing of Methane from Coal Industry. Part 3. Catalytic Tests . Eurasian Chemico-Technological Journal, 26(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.18321/ectj1559

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>