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

Е.V. Matus; M.A. Kerzhentsev; A.P. Nikitin; S.A. Sozinov; Z.R. Ismagilov

doi:10.18321/ectj1559

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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44582-w

(9). J. Yin, S. Su, J.S. Bae, X.X. Yu, M. Cunnington, Y. Jin, Energy Fuels 34 (2020) 655–664. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b03076

(10). K. Wei, X. Wang, H. Zhu, H. Liu, S. Wang, F. Chen, F. Zhou, Y. Ling, J. Power Sources 506 (2021) 230208. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230208

(11). H. Zhu, H. Dai, Z. Song, X. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Dai, S. He, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 31439– 31451. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.036

(12). E.V. Matus, I.Z. Ismagilov, E.S. Mikhaylova, Z.R. Ismagilov, Eurasian Chem.-Technol. J. 24 (2022) 69–91. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.18321/ectj1320

(13). A.P. Nikitin, S.A. Sozinov, Е.V. Matus, Z.R. Ismagilov, Chem. Sustain, Develop. 31 (2023) 552–560. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.15372/CSD2023500

(14). E.V. Matus, Z.R. Ismagilov, Eurasian Chem.- Technol. J. 24 (2022) 203–214. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.18321/ectj1433

(15). R.D. Alli, P.A.L. de Souza, M. Mohamedali, L.D. Virla, N. Mahinpey, Catal. Today 407 (2023) 107– 124. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2022.02.006

(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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18321/ectj1500

(17). E. Matus, M. Kerzhentsev, I. Ismagilov, A. Nikitin, S. Sozinov, Z. Ismagilov, Energies 16 (2023) 2993. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16072993

(18). S. Arora, R. Prasad, RSC Adv. 6 (2016) 108668– 108688. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA20450C

(19). R. Kumar, K.K. Pant, Fuel Process. Technol. 210 (2020) 106559. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106559

(20). M. Schmal, F.S. Toniolo, C.E. Kozonoe, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 568 (2018) 23–42. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2018.09.017

(21). D. Pham Minh, X.H. Pham, T.J. Siang, D.V.N. Vo, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 621 (2021) 118202. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2021.118202

(22). P. Li, Y.H. Park, D.J. Moon, N.C. Park, Y.C. Kim, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 16 (2016) 1562–1566. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2016.12006

(23). T.J. Siang, T.L.M. Pham, N. Van Cuong, et al., Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 262 (2018) 122– 132. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.11.028

(24). Z. Zhao, P. Ren, W. Li, B. Miao, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 6598–6609. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.144

(25). I. Wysocka, A. Mielewczyk-Gryń, M. Łapiński, B. Cieślik, A. Rogala, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 3847–3864. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.189

(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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2019.00104

(27). F. Pompeo, D. Gazzoli, N.N. Nichio, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 2260–2268. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.12.057

(28). L. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Appl. Surf. Sci. 389 (2016) 25–33. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.07.063

(29). Y. Khani, F. Bahadoran, Z. Shariatinia, M. Varmazyari, N. Safari, Ceram. Int. 46 (2020) 25122– 25135. Crossref DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.06.299