High-Purity and Clean Syngas and Hydrogen Production From Two-Step CH4 Reforming and H2O Splitting Through Isothermal Ceria Redox Cycle Using Concentrated Sunlight

Introduction

Most hydrogen production is currently achieved via conventional steam reforming of natural gas (Equation 1) (Zheng Q. et al., 2014). The resulting product is syngas (H₂ + CO), and then water–gas shift reaction is applied to convert the produced CO into H₂ and CO₂, thus contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The reaction is endothermic, requiring heat to be supplied to the process for reactions in the temperature range 700–1,000°C (Zheng Q. et al., 2014). In general, the heat source is provided by combustion of up to 41% of the methane feedstock, causing 24% reduction in product energy content compared to the feedstock (Simakov et al., 2015; Krenzke et al., 2017), and costly catalysts are necessary to conduct such reactions (Dincer and Rosen, 2013). This unavoidably results in a significant portion of methane feedstock consumption, as well as greenhouse gas emissions (especially CO₂), which contribute to climate change and global warming (Nejat et al., 2015).

$\begin{array}{l}\text{Conventional steam reforming}:{\text{CH}}_4+{\text{H}}_2\text{O}\to 3{\text{H}}_2+\\ \text{ CO }\Delta {\text{H}}^0=+206\text{kJ}/\text{mol}& (1)\end{array}$

Alternatively, the partial oxidation of methane through metal oxide redox cycle (namely, chemical looping reforming of methane, CLRM) is a promising pathway to produce clean syngas and high-purity hydrogen (Di et al., 2019). This reaction encompasses two steps: (1) endothermic partial oxidation of methane along with metal oxide reduction to produce clean syngas and (2) exothermic re-oxidation of the oxide with steam (or CO₂) to produce high-purity H₂ (or CO). The net products of CLRM are the same as those of steam reforming (Equation 1). The advantages of CLRM through metal oxides over the conventional methane reforming process are (i) the syngas is produced with a H₂:CO ratio of 2:1 during the first step, suitable for methanol synthesis (Otsuka et al., 1998), (ii) an excess in oxidizer is not necessary, while a conventional process needs to be operated with excess steam (H₂O:CH₄ ≥ 3) (Simakov et al., 2015), which raises energy requirements and reduces process efficiency, (iii) catalysts are not required, and (iv) an isothermal operation between both steps is possible; therefore, the temperature swing between the reduction and the oxidation steps can be avoided (Chuayboon et al., 2019a), thereby resulting in fast and continuous process operation (no time wasted for cooling down to oxidation temperature) and lower sensible heat losses, thus improving the energy conversion efficiency. Among a variety of potential metal oxides (either volatile or non-volatile), cerium oxide [either pure ceria (Chueh et al., 2010; Furler et al., 2014; Marxer et al., 2017; Haeussler et al., 2019) or ceria-based (Otsuka et al., 1999; Zheng Y. et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2014; Bhosale et al., 2019)] is a particularly attractive candidate given its various beneficial physical and chemical properties. For example, ceria keeps a stable cubic fluorite structure during large changes in oxygen non-stoichiometries (reduction extents; Nair and Abanades, 2016) and exhibits rapid oxygen storage/release through lattice transfer (Furler et al., 2014). Marxer et al. (2017) tested the thermochemical splitting of CO₂ using a pure ceria reticulated porous structure and reported that 100% CO selectivity and 83% molar conversion were achieved. Besides that, 500 consecutive redox cycles were conducted under the same experimental conditions to validate pure ceria stability and structural robustness. A study on the different dopants to ceria (ceria-based ceramics) for two-step thermochemical splitting of H₂O/CO₂ was achieved to improve its stability as well as redox activity (Bhosale et al., 2019). Zhu et al. (2014) studied CLRM over a CeO₂-Fe₂O₃ oxygen carrier and found that this material displayed great performance, thanks to the chemical interaction between Ce and Fe species. The presence of CeO₂, Fe₃O₄, and CeFeO₃ formed in the recycled samples was reported. The reactions of CLRM over ceria include the following steps:

First step: the endothermic reduction reaction of ceria and simultaneous partial oxidation of methane is given in Equation (2).

$\begin{array}{ll}{\text{CeO}}_2+\delta {\text{CH}}_4{\to \text{ CeO}}_{2-\delta }+\delta \text{CO}+2\delta {\text{H}}_2& (2)\end{array}$

Second step: the exothermic oxidation reaction of oxygen-deficient ceria with H₂O is given in Equation (3).

$\begin{array}{ll}{\text{CeO}}_{2-\delta }+\delta {\text{H}}_2\text{O }\to {\text{CeO}}_2+\delta {\text{H}}_2& (3)\end{array}$

During the reduction step (Equation 2), the amount of released oxygen from ceria (δ_red) is calculated by the summation of the mole amounts of CO (main product), CO₂, and H₂O according to Equation (4).

$\begin{array}{ll}{\delta }_{red}=\frac{n_{CO}+2n_{C{O}_2}+n_{H_{2}O}}{n_{{\text{CeO}}_{\text{2}}}}& (4)\end{array}$

where n_i is the mole amount of species i.

During the oxidation step (Equation 3), the amount of oxygen uptake (δ_ox) is calculated from the total amount of H₂ produced minus the amount of H₂ produced by the side reactions with respect to the carbon gasification reaction [namely, the carbon produced from methane thermal dissociation, CH₄ → C + 2H₂, during the previous reduction step is gasified with water (C + H₂O → CO + H₂ and C + 2H₂O → CO₂ + 2H₂), producing additional CO, CO₂, and H₂] according to Equation (5).

$\begin{array}{ll}{\delta }_{ox}=\frac{n_{H_2}-n_{CO}-2n_{C{O}_2}}{n_{{\text{CeO}}_{\text{2}}}}& (5)\end{array}$

To quantify how much injected CH₄ is converted to the products regarding syngas, solid carbon, or soot, CH₄ conversion is calculated by Equation (6).

$\begin{array}{ll}{X}_{C{H}_4}=1-\frac{{ṁ}_{unreactedC{H}_4}}{{ṁ}_{C{H}_4}}& (6)\end{array}$

X_CH4 is the methane conversion, ṁ_{unreacted CH4} is the mass flow rate of unreacted methane in the off-gas, and ṁ_CH4 is the mass flow rate of injected methane.

The solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency (η_{solar−to−fuel}) indicates how well the solar energy is stored into chemical products. It is defined as the ratio of the calorific value of syngas produced by ceria redox cycle to the total energy input, which is the sum of the calorific value of converted methane and solar power in both the reduction and the oxidation steps, according to Equation (7).

$\begin{array}{ll}{\eta }_{\text{solar}-\text{to}-\text{fuel}}=\frac{{\left({ṁ}_{H_2}{·LHV}_{H_2}+{ṁ}_{CO}{·LHV}_{CO}\right)}_{cycle}}{{Ṗ}_{solar}+\left(X_{C{H}_4}{·ṁ}_{C{H}_4}·LH{V}_{C{H}_4}\right)}& (7)\end{array}$

where LHV_H2, LHV_CO, and LHV_CH4 are the lower heating values (J/kg) of H₂, CO, and CH₄, respectively, ṁ_H2 and ṁ_CO are the mass flow rates (kg/s) of H₂ and CO produced in the cycle, ṁ_CH4 is the mass flow rate of injected methane, and Ṗ_solar is the total solar power input (W).

Otsuka et al. (1993) first conducted partial oxidation of methane with ceria in an electrical furnace at 873–1,073 K, and such reaction was accelerated in the presence of Pt black (1 wt%). As a result, the produced syngas with a H₂/CO ratio of 2 and the reduced ceria oxidation with CO₂ were demonstrated. They also reported that, in the CLRM process, an excess in oxidizer was not required as carbon deposition can be precluded by limiting the reduction extent of the metal oxides (Otsuka et al., 1999). Then, the processes were coupled with concentrating solar power technologies (Abanades and Flamant, 2006; Chuayboon et al., 2020). The heat required for such endothermic reactions is thus supplied by concentrated sunlight. This offers an attractive approach to convert intermittent solar energy into storable and dispatchable chemical fuels (Nair and Abanades, 2016) as well as to eliminate CO₂ emissions from feedstock combustion, thereby offering clean and sustainable fuel production. Figure 1 presents the concept of two-step solar redox cycle with ceria porous foam reduction coupled to partial oxidation of methane (reduction step) and H₂O splitting during oxidation reaction (oxidation step). Concentrated solar energy is used as the process heat source to drive the endothermic reaction during the reduction step and also to maintain the temperature during the oxidation step for isothermal cycle at 1,000°C (T_reduction = T_oxidation). Furler et al. (2012) reported that ceria-reticulated porous foam enabled the effective volumetric absorption of concentrated sunlight and efficient heat transfer to the whole reacting structure. However, the optical thickness of the porous ceria structure needs to be properly optimized without hindering the specific surface area and density (material loading) since enhancing the latter properties adversely results in high radiative opacity and eventually causes the temperature gradient issue.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Ceria two-step redox cycle with ceria reduction coupled to the partial oxidation of methane (reduction step) and H₂O splitting during the oxidation reaction (oxidation step).

Solar CLRM over ceria has been studied both thermodynamically (Krenzke and Davidson, 2014) and experimentally (Welte et al., 2017). Krenzke and Davidson (2014) thermodynamically examined the CLRM with ceria and reported that combining the partial oxidation of methane with ceria allows isothermal cycling at temperatures as low as 1,223 K, with production of high-quality syngas during the reduction step. However, it was found that thermodynamics predicted solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency of 40%, significantly higher than the reported projected ones (e.g., 27%; Krenzke et al., 2016). Then, the same group (Hathaway et al., 2015; Fosheim et al., 2019) studied solar CLRM with CO₂ over ceria in a prototype reactor operated in a high-flux solar simulator. A fixed bed of ceria particles was placed inside six tube assemblies in the reactor. Then, the cycle was carried out by alternating the flow between CH₄ and CO₂. They reported that a higher temperature favors better performance, and the energetic upgrade factor and the solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency were 1.10 and 7%, respectively.

Welte et al. (2017) tested CLRM with ceria particles in a particle transport reactor, either in co-current or counter-current to a CH₄ flow, driven by a solar simulator. Methane conversions up to 89% at 1,300°C for residence times below 1 s and maximum extent of ceria reduction of δ = 0.25 were mentioned. The solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency reached 12%, and the produced syngas was solar-upgraded by 24% compared to feedstock. However, it should be noted that the amount of unreacted ceria exiting the reactor was significant.

Warren et al. (2017) investigated the cycle thermodynamics in comparison with the experimental investigation of the partial oxidation of methane over ceria. A theoretical solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency over 45% (with no heat recuperation) was claimed, while experimental solar-to-fuel conversion efficiencies of 9.82% (Warren et al., 2017) and later 10.6% (Warren et al., 2020) were obtained in a packed-bed-type solar reactor using solar simulator as heat source. The same research group also explored the kinetics of the partial oxidation of methane over ceria as performed under atmospheric pressure between 750 and 1,100°C using a thermogravimetric analyzer (Warren and Scheffe, 2018, 2019). The reaction kinetics were studied, and the activation energy was obtained by Arrhenius-type plots as a function of reactant composition. It was found that the activation energy varied with reaction extent between 20 and 80 kJ/mol, rising mostly for large reduction extents (δ > 0.15).

In accordance with prior thermodynamic studies and lab-scale experiments, it was demonstrated that solar CLRM over ceria (as particles or ceramic foam) is of particular interest. However, the reported performance was dependent on the reactor concept, design, and technology. Most of previous studies were likewise focused on thermodynamics (Krenzke and Davidson, 2014; Warren et al., 2017) and experiments (Krenzke et al., 2016; Warren et al., 2020) in small-scale reactors using electrical furnaces or solar simulators as the external heat source instead of real concentrated sunlight. Therefore, this present study aims to further examine the isothermal CLRM and H₂O splitting over tailor-made ceria porous foams in a scalable prototype solar reactor (1.5 kW_th) using a real solar concentrating system. The performance of this novel reactor was experimentally assessed, and the impact of transient solar radiation conditions was additionally evaluated. The influence of operating parameters considering CH₄ concentration, methane flow rate, and annealing temperature of ceria foam on thermochemical performance in a 1.5-kW_th volumetric solar reactor prototype was evaluated and demonstrated.

Materials and Methods

A schematic diagram and a photograph of the 1.5 kW_th prototype volumetric solar reactor and auxiliary components are presented in Figure 2. The solar reactor is heated by highly concentrated sunlight, delivered by a 2-m-diameter parabolic concentrator with a solar concentration ratio up to 10,551 suns [0.85 m focal distance, peak flux density of ~10.5 MW/m² for a Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI) of 1 kW/m²] and positioned above the reactor. More details on this solar reactor concept and design have been described previously (Chuayboon et al., 2019b). Three temperature measurements (B-type thermocouples) are installed inside the reactor cavity (T₁ inside alumina wool and T₃ inside ceria porous foam) and at the external cavity wall surface (T₂). A solar-blind pyrometer placed at the center of the facedown parabolic concentrator also measures the temperature inside the cavity receiver to compare it with T₁ and T₃. In addition, one pressure sensor is used to measure the pressure in the reactor cavity (P).

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Photograph (left) and schematic illustration (right) of the 1.5-kW_th prototype solar reactor driven by real high-flux solar radiation for methane reforming and H₂O splitting over the ceria redox cycle.

Two reactive ceria porous foams were synthesized via replication technique (Furler et al., 2012) using polymer scaffolds as templates, and their physical properties are shown in Table 1. The first ceria foam was annealed at 1,000°C for 6 h (labeled as CeF-1000), while the other was annealed at 1,000°C for 6 h and then at 1,400°C for 2 h (labeled as CeF-1400).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Physical properties of ceria foams.

The ceria porous foam was placed on the alumina wool support inside the volumetric ceramic cavity (metallic alloy, volume: 0.3 L and total height: 115 mm). The reactor was positioned at the focal point of the high flux solar concentrator. It was then heated by concentrated sunlight, while the solar heating rate was adjusted manually using the shutter opening system. Figure 3 shows a representative transient solar power and DNI evolution during both solar heating and isothermal ceria reduction with methane, followed by reduced ceria oxidation with water in the solar reactor (cycle #1, ceria foam CeF-1400, mass 30.963 g). During solar heating (0–45 min), a fluctuation in DNI was evidenced because of transient cloud passage, especially in the morning (10:00–11:00 am). During isothermal ceria reduction with methane, solar power input was adjusted by the shutter to 730 W at t = 45–55 min (at the beginning of reaction) and increased to 900 W at t = 55 min in order to compensate for the endothermic reaction and solar transients, with the objective to maintain the isothermal operation at 1,000°C. During oxidation, both solar power input and DNI were quite stable at 900 W and 1,037 W/m² after some transients at the beginning of the period. These variations highlighted the instabilities of real solar power input, which challenged the control of the operating temperature for isothermal operation during on-sun testing.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Solar power and direct normal irradiation evolution in the reactor during the heating phase, ceria foam reduction with methane and oxidation with H₂O (CeF-1400: mass 30.963 g, cycle #1).

Figure 4 reveals homogeneous temperatures across the ceria-reticulated porous foam, as evidenced by a minimal gap between the top foam surface temperature (T_pyrometer), middle temperature (T₃), and temperature at the bottom of the foam (T₁). In addition, the external cavity wall surface temperature of the reactor cavity receiver (T₂) was slightly lower than T_pyrometer, thereby indicating the uniform solar radiative absorption across the reactive volumetric porous absorber and the solar reactor. This is because the ceria foam exhibits low opacity, while the reactor features high volumetric incident thermal radiation absorption, thus allowing solar energy to penetrate more homogeneously through the foam and reactor cavity receiver. Besides that, the cavity pressure was stable at 0.86 bar during solar heating and rose to 0.90 bar as the reaction progressed (P_atm = 0.86 bar at site elevation). During both steps, the temperatures, especially T₃, were quite constant at around 1,000°C, demonstrating isothermal operation and satisfying temperature control in case of small DNI variations.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Temperature and pressure evolution in the reactor during the heating phase, ceria foam reduction with methane and oxidation with H₂O (CeF-1400: mass 30.963 g, cycle #1).

Once the targeted temperature was stabilized at 1,000°C, the CH₄ flow (in the range of 0.1–0.4 NL/min) was introduced along with Ar carrier gas (0.2 NL/min) at the cavity bottom until the reduction reaction was finished. Then, H₂O (0.2 g/min) was introduced along with Ar carrier gas (0.2 NL/min) for a subsequent oxidation step (liquid water was injected via a stainless steel capillary at the cavity bottom, thanks to a devoted liquid mass flow controller, and was subsequently vaporized when exiting the tube outlet). During reactor heating and reaction proceeding, Ar protective gas flows (2 NL/min) were supplied to protect the transparent window as well as to sweep product gases exiting via the outlet. The produced gases (H₂, CO, CO₂, H₂O, and CH₄ for methane-promoted redox cycle) exited the reactor via its outlet port and were then cleaned by both the gas scrubbing system and the filtering unit (in which the H₂O produced and some soot were trapped) prior to gas analysis. After that, they were continuously analyzed via online gas analyzers (thermal conductivity detector for H₂ and infrared sensors for CO, CO₂, and CH₄, calibrated with standard gases). The averaged oxygen non-stoichiometry of CeO_2−δ (δ), fuel yields, gas production rates, CH₄ conversion, and solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency were experimentally examined and compared. The outlet flow rate of each product gas species (F_i) was determined using their measured transient mole fraction (y_i) and the known total inlet Ar flow rate (F_Ar): (F_i = F_Ar·y_i/y_Ar). In addition, the syngas yields from each reaction were calculated separately. For example, the gases produced from the main reactions regarding both partial reduction of ceria by methane (Equation 2) and ceria oxidation (Equation 3) and from the side reactions regarding both the H₂ produced by methane cracking (CH₄ → 2H₂ + C) and the gases produced from C deposit gasification with steam during oxidation (C + H₂O → CO + H₂ and C + 2H₂O → CO₂ + 2H₂) were presented independently in order to highlight the impact of operating conditions on the possible reactions during cycles.

Results and Discussion

Thermodynamic Analysis

Figure 5 shows the thermodynamic equilibrium composition during the endothermic reduction of ceria and the simultaneous partial oxidation of methane as a function of temperature at 1 bar. With increasing temperature, CH₄ is thermally decomposed to H₂(g) and solid carbon, and CeO₂ is simultaneously reduced by reactive methane gas (solid–gas reaction), thereby releasing the oxygen from the structure, while partially reduced ceria species (CeO_1.81 and CeO_1.78) are formed. Meanwhile, the formation of both H₂O(g) and CO₂(g) in small amounts is observed. At above 500°C, the carbon deposition associated with CH₄ dissociation reacts with the oxygen discharged from ceria, forming CO as well as creating the ceria oxygen vacancies, which is in agreement with previous studies (Krenzke and Davidson, 2014; Warren et al., 2017). The intermediate species of ceria regarding CeO_1.72, CeO_1.83, and CeO_1.67 are produced in negligible amounts, demonstrating the overall possible reduction mechanism occurring during Ce(IV) reduction to Ce(III). At above 1,000°C, the completion of the reaction is approached, resulting in Ce₂O₃, H₂, and CO (with the H₂/CO ratio approaching 2).

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Thermodynamic equilibrium composition of ceria reduction with methane as a function of temperature at 1 bar.

Effect of Methane Concentration

The effect of methane concentration on syngas production from ceria foam [mass, 30.9630 g; annealed at 1,400°C (CeF-1400)] was examined for three cycles. Figure 6 shows the evolution of syngas species production rates and temperatures [inside sample (T₃) and upper surface sample (T_pyrometer)] as a function of time during ceria reduction (50% CH₄ concentration for cycle #1 and cycle #2 and 100% CH₄ concentration for cycle #3), followed by exothermic ceria oxidation with H₂O (0.2 g/min, 55% steam concentration for three cycles) at the isothermal temperature of 1,000°C. The variations of the syngas production rates and temperatures provided insights into the chemical reaction behavior and associated mechanism.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. Syngas production rates and reactor temperatures (T₃ and T_pyrometer) during (A,C,E) ceria reduction with CH₄ and (B,D,F) reduced ceria oxidation with H₂O for three cycles with different CH₄ concentrations of 50 and 100% at 1,000°C.

At cycle #1 during the reduction step (Figure 6A), a high-quality and energy-rich syngas was produced, with the H₂/CO molar ratio approaching 2. The maximum of CO₂ production rate of 0.04 NL/min was evidenced at the initial stage, occurring just after CH₄ injection. In fact, the H₂O production rate (theoretically doubling the CO₂ production rate, according to the following reaction: 4CeO₂ + δCH₄ → 4CeO_2−δ + δCO₂ + 2δH₂O) could also be observed according to thermodynamic analysis (Figure 5) and previous studies (Krenzke et al., 2016; Nair and Abanades, 2016). The presence of H₂O and CO₂ at the initial state of reaction was due to the large amount in the available surface oxygen that reacts with CH₄ to form both H₂O and CO₂. However, the H₂O production rate cannot be measured from gas analysis since the steam was trapped in the gas scrubbing system before the gas analysis. The CH₄ trend was inverse compared to those of H₂ and CO production rates because of concomitant CH₄ consumption. After the ceria reduction was completed (depletion of available oxygen inside the ceria structure), the syngas production then decreased progressively. At the end of the reaction, CO decreased steadily while H₂ tended to remain stable, because of the CH₄ cracking reaction. Indeed when a lack of oxygen occurs at the ceria surface compared to the constant methane feeding rate, carbon deposition is became faster, which is increasingly favored as oxygen is being depleted during the ceria reduction progress. When the CO production rate approached zero, the CH₄ flow was subsequently stopped. During subsequent oxidation (Figure 6B), a sharp increase in H₂ (0.2 NL/min peak production rate) with high purity was evidenced, thanks to fast oxidation kinetics, followed by CO (peak rate, 0.04 NL/min) and CO₂ (peak rate, 0.02 NL/min) production, which arise from the gasification of carbon deposition (stemming from CH₄ cracking in the first step).

At cycle #2, the experiment was repeated with the same operating parameters as for cycle #1 for both steps. As a result, during reduction (Figure 6C), a fluctuation in syngas and CH₄ flow rates was noticed. This variation can be explained by the fact that the reactor was sometimes heated at above 1,000°C due to the difficulty to control the temperature over 30 min with the manual shutter opening control system, as reflected by T₃ and T_pyrometer fluctuations around the setpoint. As shown in Figure 6C, the trends of H₂ and CO production rates were always consistent with those of the temperatures, demonstrating the strong influence of temperature on ceria reduction reaction. Controlling the operating temperature stably throughout the test is therefore necessary. Moreover, it is important to note that the peaks of both H₂ and CO were always occurring slightly after the peak of temperature. For example, in Figure 6C, the peak temperature was at 13 min 13 s, while the peaks of H₂ and CO were at 13 min 47 s, which means a 34-s delay, and denoting a small inertia of the reactions. At the final state after a 25-min duration, a plateau region in syngas and CH₄ evolution was evidenced due to the thermally favorable CH₄ cracking reaction caused by solar overheating (>1,000°C). During the oxidation step (Figure 6D), the H₂ peak production rate increased up to 0.21 NL/min, while the CO and CO₂ peak production rates were 0.05 and 0.02 NL/min, thus slightly higher than those measured in cycle #1, confirming the stronger effect of CH₄ cracking reaction during the reduction step.

At cycle #3 during reduction (Figure 6E), CH₄ concentration was increased to 100% (CH₄ flow rate = 0.2 NL/min without Ar carrier gas at the bottom inlet). Similar to the previous cycle, the syngas and CH₄ production rates still varied in relation to a change in temperature, implying a significant temperature effect on possible reactions. The difference of syngas production rate between 50% (cycle #2) and 100% (cycle #3) methane concentration was not obvious. However, H₂ trend seemed to be higher, while CO trend seemed to be similar as compared to those obtained from cycle #2. In addition, the nominal gas residence time (calculated from the volume of the cavity divided by the total outlet gas flow rate) was 1.87 s at 100% CH₄ concentration compared to 1.70 s at 50% CH₄ concentration, which may in turn promote CLRM over ceria. During oxidation (Figure 6F), the peak H₂ production rate was found to be the same as in cycle #2 (0.21 NL/min), but the peak CO (0.04 NL/min) and CO₂ (0.01 NL/min) production rates were lower compared to those in cycle #2, possibly because of a decline in temperature after a 5-min duration (below 1,000°C), which lowers the endothermic carbon gasification reactions (C + H₂O → CO + H₂). This might lead to solid carbon remaining inside the reactor cavity receiver.

Figure 7 presents the syngas yields during the (a) reduction and the (b) oxidation steps, quantified by time integration of the syngas production rates according to Figure 6. During the reduction step at 50% of CH₄ concentration (Figure 7A), the H₂ yield (from CH₄ cracking) from cycle #2 was considerably higher [1.72 (cycle #2) vs. 0.88 mmol/g_CeO2 (cycle #1)], thus confirming increased thermal CH₄ decomposition due to overheating as mentioned before. In contrast, the CO₂ yield was lower [0.13 mmol/g_CeO2 (cycle #1) vs. 0.10 mmol/g_CeO2 (cycle#2)], which is attributed to the fresh ceria foam that released more oxygen, as reflected by the highest δ_red (0.37). Besides that, both H₂ (from CeO₂ + CH₄) and CO (from CeO₂ + CH₄) yields remained similar between cycle #1 and cycle #2, demonstrating syngas production yield repeatability. When increasing the CH₄ concentration to 100% (cycle #3), a significant increase in H₂, associated with CH₄ cracking, was evidenced (2.40 mmol/g_CeO2), presumably due to both overheating and higher CH₄ concentration. Furthermore, at 100% CH₄ concentration (cycle #3), a small increase in CO (CeO₂ + CH₄) and H₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄) yields was noticed when compared to 50% CH₄ concentration (cycle #2), demonstrating a positive impact on the main reaction. A slight change in CO (CeO₂ + CH₄) and CO₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄) yields led to similar δ_red (0.35 at cycle #2 vs. 0.34 at cycle #3). Therefore, increasing the CH₄ concentration may favor both the main reaction (CeO₂ + CH₄), as reflected by the improvement of CO (from CeO₂ + CH₄) and H₂ (from CeO₂ + CH₄) yields along with the side reaction (CH₄ cracking) as reflected by H₂ (from CH₄ cracking).

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Syngas yield and δ for (A) reduction and (B) oxidation of ceria foam cycled isothermally at 1,000°C as a function of inlet CH₄ concentration.

During the oxidation step (Figure 7B) at 50% CH₄ concentration, H₂ (C + H₂O), H₂ (C + 2H₂O), CO (C + H₂O), and CO₂ (C + 2H₂O) yields at cycle #2 were found to be higher than those from cycle #1 as expected, confirming a higher carbon deposition amount obtained during the reduction step, which was oxidized with H₂O. Besides that, the H₂ yield associated with the main reaction (CeO_2−δ + H₂O) was stable [1.79 mmol/g_CeO2 (cycle #2) vs. 1.78 mmol/g_CeO2 (cycle #1)], leading to the same value of δ_ox (0.31). Importantly, the H₂ (C + H₂O), H₂ (C + 2H₂O), CO (C + H₂O), and CO₂ (C + 2H₂O) yields at cycle #3 were lower compared to those from cycle #2 even though the H₂ (cracking) yield was higher (Figure 7A). This is because of the decline of the oxidation temperature (below 1,000°C) that decreased the carbon deposition gasification reaction, leading to lower H₂ (C + H₂O), H₂ (C + 2H₂O), CO (C + H₂O), and CO₂ (C + 2H₂O) yields. On the other hand, a drop in the temperature during the oxidation step (cycle #3) positively influenced the exothermic reduced ceria oxidation with H₂O, leading to a higher H₂ (CeO_2−δ + H₂O) yield (1.97 mmol/g_CeO2). Moreover, at cycle #3, δ_red (0.34) exactly matched δ_ox (0.34), confirming a complete oxidation.

Figure 8 represents CH₄ conversion (X_CH4) and solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency (η_{solar−to−fuel}) for the three cycles at different CH₄ concentrations. As expected, the highest X_CH4 was found at cycle #3 (46.79%) due to the higher impact of CH₄ concentration and CH₄ cracking reaction, followed by cycle #2 (40.78%) and cycle #1 (40.14%), in agreement with the trend of the syngas yield (Figure 7A). The η_{solar−to−fuel} rose slightly with CH₄ concentration and exhibited the maximum (3.93%) at cycle #3. It was quite low as the solar power input was taken into account for both steps, including the duration of the reactor purging with Ar flow before switching to the oxidation step.

FIGURE 8

Figure 8. CH₄ conversion and solar-to-fuel efficiency as a function of inlet CH₄ concentration at 1,000°C.

Effect of Methane Flow Rate

The impact of methane flow rate on syngas production from ceria foam [mass, 18.371g; annealed at 1,000°C (CeF-1000)] was studied for four cycles. Figure 9 shows the influence of methane flow rate on the resulting syngas yields during ceria reduction with methane (Figure 9A), followed by ceria oxidation with H₂O (Figure 9B). The CH₄ flow rate was adjusted at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 NL/min, together with a constant Ar carrier gas flow of 0.2 NL/min injected from the bottom inlet, resulting in CH₄ concentrations of 33.3, 50, 60, and 66.6% in the bottom gas flow.

FIGURE 9

Figure 9. Syngas yield and δ for (A) reduction and (B) oxidation of ceria foam cycled isothermally at 1,000°C as a function of inlet CH₄ flow rate.

During the reduction step (Figure 9A), the H₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄) and CO (CeO₂ + CH₄) yields increased moderately with CH₄ flow rate, from 3.25 and 1.66 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.1 NL/min to 3.78 and 1.89 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.4 NL/min, respectively, thereby enhancing the δ_red from 0.35 to 0.38. The CO₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄) yield was found to be stable in the range 0.08–0.10 mmol/g_CeO2. Importantly, a sharp rise in the H₂ (CH₄ cracking) yield with CH₄ flow rate was observed, increasing from 0 at 0.1 NL/min (denoting the absence of the CH₄ cracking reaction) to 2.76 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.4 NL/min. This can be explained by the fact that the ceria reduction approached completion when the inlet CH₄ flow rate was increased, as reflected by δ_red that tended to level off at 0.38 above 0.2 NL/min. For these reasons, the rate of CH₄ supply exceeded the rate of oxygen released from the ceria structure, thereby leading to a favorable CH₄ cracking reaction. These phenomena usually happen when the rate of diffusion of the bulk lattice oxygen to the ceria surface is slower than methane dissociation, which leads to chemisorbed carbon being accumulated on the surface. In addition, the growth in the H₂ (CH₄ cracking) yield with CH₄ flow rate was in agreement with the growth of H₂ (CH₄ cracking) yield with CH₄ concentration, confirming that an increasing CH₄ concentration has an influence on CH₄ cracking reaction (Figure 7A).

During the oxidation step (Figure 9B), as expected the H₂ (CeO_2−δ + H₂O) yield associated with the main reaction rose constantly with CH₄ flow rate, from 2.01 at 0.1 NL/min to 2.16 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.4 NL/min. This is due to the enhancement of the reduction extent during the reduction step that increased the oxygen vacancies. Consequently, the δ_ox was improved in the range 0.35–0.37 mol_O/mol_CeO2. Regarding the resulting syngas yields associated with the side reactions, the H₂ (C + H₂O), H₂ (C + 2H₂O), CO (C + H₂O), and CO₂ (C + 2H₂O) yields increased with increasing CH₄ flow rate during the reduction step, from 0.01, 0.11, 0.01, and 0.11 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.1 NL/min to 0.04, 0.20, 0.09, and 0.20 mmol/g_CeO2 at 0.4 NL/min, respectively. This is attributed to the growth of solid carbon deposition caused by CH₄ dissociation with the increase of the CH₄ flow rate. However, this carbon can be gasified with H₂O, thus avoiding the issue of carbon remaining inside the reactor cavity receiver. For these reasons, increasing the methane flow rate enhances the extent of reaction and syngas yield; however, an excessive increase in the methane flow rate has a negative impact by increasing CH₄ dissociation, which results in the formation of CO and CO₂ during the oxidation step, thereby downgrading the H₂ purity.

The δ_red and δ_ox values were likewise similar for each tested CH₄ flow rate, indicating that the amount of oxygen being released and reversibly recovered is identical, thus again confirming complete reduced ceria re-oxidation with H₂O.

As expected, X_CH4 declined with increasing CH₄ flow rate, from 68.52% at 0.1 NL/min to 53.82% at 0.4 NL/min, according to Figure 10. This is because the rate of CH₄ supply was higher than the rate of oxygen discharged by ceria reduction reaction. The X_CH4 values reported here were comparable with those of previous studies [16−44% (Warren et al., 2020) and 13–60% (Krenzke et al., 2016)]. In addition, X_CH4 was found to be dependent on the inlet methane flow rate. This is related to the methane cracking reaction, which resulted in solid carbon deposition. Therefore, an optimal trade-off in the inlet methane flow rate needs to be considered to maximize the methane conversion, which results in high syngas yield while minimizing the methane cracking side reaction. The η_{solar−to−fuel} rose with the CH₄ flow rate and reached 5.6% at 0.4 NL/min, thanks to the improvement of the syngas yield with the CH₄ flow rate, as evidenced by Figure 9. The obtained η_{solar−to−fuel} values were found to be typical with respect to the lab-scale solar reactors and comparable to previous studies (Warren et al., 2017; Fosheim et al., 2019). It is usual that the η_{solar−to−fuel} values are lower than the theoretical ones predicted by thermodynamic analysis (Warren et al., 2017). The η_{solar−to−fuel} can be potentially enhanced by scaling up the reactors to reduce heat losses, by optimizing heat and mass transfer inside the reactor and porous medium to improve the reaction rates and shorten the cycle duration (thereby lowering solar energy input), and by operating the process at optimal conditions to maximize the conversion of CH₄ and H₂O.

FIGURE 10

Figure 10. CH₄ conversion and solar-to-fuel efficiency as a function of inlet CH₄ flow rate at 1,000°C.

Influence of Ceria Annealing Temperature

The effect of annealing temperatures (1,000 vs. 1,400°C) of ceria foam on syngas yield was examined at a constant CH₄ flow rate of 0.2 NL/min with 50% CH₄ concentration during the reduction step and subsequently at a constant H₂O flow rate of 0.2 g/min with 55% H₂O concentration during the oxidation step. The syngas yield obtained from cycle #2 (CeF-1000) was compared to that obtained from cycle #1 (CeF-1400), as presented in Figure 11. It was found that during the reduction step (Figure 11A), the ceria foam CeF-1400 showed lower H₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄) and CO (CeO₂ + CH₄) yields than those for CeF-1000, in turn resulting in a lower δ_red (0.37). Actually, the increasing annealing temperature (CeF-1400) resulted in the high densification of the ceria structure as evidenced by a decrease in density as well as porosity (Table 1), thereby leading to lower reduction extent and syngas yield. However, H₂ (CH₄ cracking) for CeF-1400 was higher (0.67 mmol/g_CeO2 for CeF-1000 vs. 0.88 mmol/g_CeO2 for CeF-1400). This is basically attributed to the longer reduction reaction duration for CeF-1400 (10-min duration for ceria mass 18.371 g of CeF-1000 vs. 30-min duration for ceria mass 30.963 g of CeF-1400), which provides an extended duration for the CH₄ cracking reaction to proceed.

FIGURE 11

Figure 11. Syngas yield and δ for (A) reduction and (B) oxidation of ceria foams cycled isothermally at 1,000°C as a function of annealing temperature.

Figure 11B, which is related to oxidation step, confirmed that the influence of CH₄ cracking reaction for CeF-1400 was higher when compared to CeF-1000, as evidenced by higher H₂ (C + H₂O), H₂ (C + 2H₂O), CO (C + H₂O), and CO₂ (C + 2H₂O) yields associated with the steam gasification of carbon. As expected, an increase in the annealing temperature significantly lowered the H₂ (CeO_2−δ + H₂O) yield associated with steam ceria oxidation (e.g., from 2.06 mmol/g_CeO2 for CeF-1000 to 1.78 mmol/g_CeO2 for CeF-1400, in turn decreasing δ_ox from 0.35 to 0.31). For these reasons, it can be summarized that the annealing temperature of ceria foam should be as low as possible in order to increase its porosity, which promotes solid–gas reactions, thereby enhancing the reaction extent.

Conclusions

Chemical looping reforming of methane and H₂O splitting from isothermal ceria redox cycle for efficient syngas and hydrogen production have been assessed thermodynamically and experimentally. A 1.5-kW_th prototype volumetric reactor has been operated with real solar concentrated energy under isothermal conditions at 1,000°C, thereby demonstrating the technical feasibility and the reliability of the innovative and ecofriendly solar-driven methane reforming system for producing clean fuels. A parametric study considering the influence of inlet CH₄ concentration, CH₄ flow rate, and annealing temperature on syngas production rate, yield, foam-averaged oxygen non-stoichiometry (δ), CH₄ conversion, and reactor performance was performed. In agreement with thermodynamic predictions, syngas yield was produced with H₂/CO ratios approaching 2, along with undesired products regarding H₂O and CO₂ at the initial state of the reduction reaction. Increasing CH₄ concentration (50 and 100%) and CH₄ flow rate (0.1–0.4 NL/min) enhanced the reduction extent and syngas and hydrogen production yields during both steps, at the expense of a favorable CH₄ cracking reaction, which formed solid carbon deposition. However, the solid carbon is not detrimental to the whole process because carbon can be gasified with H₂O in the oxidation step (although producing CO and CO₂ and thus impacting the H₂ purity). In addition, a compromise temperature during the oxidation step should be considered, favoring exothermic reduced ceria oxidation while ensuring endothermic carbon deposition gasification with H₂O. Moreover, the sensitivity of the process to the temperature during on-sun testing was found to be significant, demonstrating that the transient conditions of a real solar-driven process need to be considered in scaling up the process. Increasing the annealing temperature of ceria foam had an adverse impact on its physical properties regarding density and porosity, leading to a decrease in the reduction extent and the syngas yield. Finally, solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency was in the range 2.9–5.6%, while CH₄ conversion in the range of 40.2–68.5% was achieved. Future work will aim at performing this process using renewable gaseous feedstocks such as biomethane, biogas, as well as biohythane for purely renewable (and carbon-neutral) fuel production.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Thailand, and Campus France are gratefully acknowledged for scholarship support.

References

Abanades, S., and Flamant, G. (2006). Thermochemical hydrogen production from a two-step solar-driven water-splitting cycle based on cerium oxides. Sol. Energy. 80, 1611–1623. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2005.12.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhosale, R. R., Takalkar, G., Sutar, P., Kumar, A., AlMomani, F., and Khraisheh, M. (2019). A decade of ceria based solar thermochemical H₂O/CO₂ splitting cycle. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 34-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.04.080

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chuayboon, S., Abanades, S., and Rodat, S. (2019b). Syngas production via solar-driven chemical looping methane reforming from redox cycling of ceria porous foam in a volumetric solar reactor. Chem. Eng. J. 356, 756–770. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.09.072

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chuayboon, S., Abanades, S., and Rodat, S. (2020). Solar chemical looping reforming of methane combined with isothermal H₂O/CO₂ splitting using ceria oxygen carrier for syngas production. J. Energy Chem. 41, 60–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jechem.2019.05.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chuayboon, S., Abanades, S., and Rodat, S. (2019a). Stepwise solar methane reforming and water-splitting via lattice oxygen transfer in iron and cerium oxides. Energy Technol. doi: 10.1002/ente.201900415. [Epub ahead of print].

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chueh, W. C., Falter, C., Abbott, M., Scipio, D., Furler, P., Haile, S. M., et al. (2010). High-flux solar-driven thermochemical dissociation of CO₂ and H₂O using nonstoichiometric ceria. Science 330, 1797–1801. doi: 10.1126/science.1197834

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Di, Z., Cao, Y., Yang, F., Zhang, K., and Cheng, F. (2019). Thermodynamic analysis on the parametric optimization of a novel chemical looping methane reforming in the separated productions of H₂ and CO. Energy Convers. Manag. 192, 171–179. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dincer, I., and Rosen, M. A. (2013). Chapter 17 - Exergy Analysis of Hydrogen Production Systems. eds I. Dincer, M. A. Rosen (Elsevier), 347–362.

Fosheim, J. R., Hathaway, B. J., and Davidson, J. H. (2019). High efficiency solar chemical-looping methane reforming with ceria in a fixed-bed reactor. Energy 169, 597–612. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.037

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Furler, P., Scheffe, J., Gorbar, M., Moes, L., Vogt, U., and Steinfeld, A. (2012). Solar thermochemical CO₂ splitting utilizing a reticulated porous ceria redox system. Energy Fuels 26, 7051–7059. doi: 10.1021/ef3013757

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Furler, P., Scheffe, J., Marxer, D., Gorbar, M., Bonk, A., Vogt, U., et al. (2014). Thermochemical CO₂ splitting via redox cycling of ceria reticulated foam structures with dual-scale porosities. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 10503–10511. doi: 10.1039/C4CP01172D

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haeussler, A., Abanades, S., Jouannaux, J., Drobek, M., Ayral, A., and Julbe, A. (2019). Recent progress on ceria doping and shaping strategies for solar thermochemical water and CO₂ splitting cycles. AIMS Mater. Sci. 6, 657–684. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.5.657

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hathaway, B. J., Bala Chandran, R., Sedler, S., Thomas, D., Gladen, A., Chase, T., et al. (2015). Effect of flow rates on operation of a solar thermochemical reactor for splitting CO₂ via the isothermal ceria redox cycle. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 138:011007. doi: 10.1115/1.4032019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krenzke, P. T., and Davidson, J. H. (2014). Thermodynamic analysis of syngas production via the solar thermochemical cerium oxide redox cycle with methane-driven reduction. Energy Fuels 28, 4088–4095. doi: 10.1021/ef500610n

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krenzke, P. T., Fosheim, J. R., and Davidson, J. H. (2017). Solar fuels via chemical-looping reforming. Sol. Energy 156, 48–72. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.095

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krenzke, P. T., Fosheim, J. R., Zheng, J., and Davidson, J. H. (2016). Synthesis gas production via the solar partial oxidation of methane-ceria redox cycle: conversion, selectivity, and efficiency. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41, 12799–12811. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.095

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marxer, D., Furler, P., Takacs, M., and Steinfeld, A. (2017). Solar thermochemical splitting of CO₂ into separate streams of CO and O₂ with high selectivity, stability, conversion, and efficiency. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1142–1149. doi: 10.1039/C6EE03776C

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nair, M. M., and Abanades, S. (2016). Tailoring hybrid nonstoichiometric ceria redox cycle for combined solar methane reforming and thermochemical conversion of H₂O/CO₂. Energy Fuels 30, 6050–6058. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01063

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nejat, P., Jomehzadeh, F., Taheri, M. M., Gohari, M., and Abd. Majid, M. Z. (2015). A global review of energy consumption, CO₂ emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO₂ emitting countries). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43, 843–862. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.066

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Otsuka, K., Ushiyama, T., and Yamanaka, I. (1993). Partial oxidation of methane using the redox of cerium oxide. Chem. Lett. 22, 1517–1520. doi: 10.1246/cl.1993.1517

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Otsuka, K., Wang, Y., and Nakamura, M. (1999). Direct conversion of methane to synthesis gas through gas–solid reaction using CeO₂-ZrO₂ solid solution at moderate temperature. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 183, 317–324. doi: 10.1016/S0926-860X(99)00070-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Otsuka, K., Wang, Y., Sunada, E., and Yamanaka, I. (1998). Direct partial oxidation of methane to synthesis gas by cerium oxide. J. Catal. 175, 152–160. doi: 10.1006/jcat.1998.1985

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Simakov, D. S. A., Wright, M. M., Ahmed, S., Mokheimer, E. M. A., and Román-Leshkov, Y. (2015). Solar thermal catalytic reforming of natural gas: a review on chemistry, catalysis and system design. Catal. Sci. Technol. 5, 1991–2016. doi: 10.1039/C4CY01333F

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Warren, K. J., Reim, J., Randhir, K., Greek, B., Carrillo, R., Hahn, D. W., et al. (2017). Theoretical and experimental investigation of solar methane reforming through the nonstoichiometric ceria redox cycle. Energy Technol. 5, 2138–2149. doi: 10.1002/ente.201700083

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Warren, K. J., and Scheffe, J. R. (2018). Kinetic insights into the reduction of ceria facilitated via the partial oxidation of methane. Mater. Today Energy 9, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.mtener.2018.05.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Warren, K. J., and Scheffe, J. R. (2019). Role of surface oxygen vacancy concentration on the dissociation of methane over nonstoichiometric ceria. J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 13208–13218. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b01352

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Warren, K. J., Carrillo, R. J., Greek, B., Hill, C. M., and Scheffe, J. R. (2020). Solar reactor demonstration of efficient and selective syngas production via chemical looping dry reforming of methane over ceria. Energy Technol. doi: 10.1002/ente.202000053. [Epub ahead of print].

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Welte, M., Warren, K., Scheffe, J. R., and Steinfeld, A. (2017). Combined ceria reduction and methane reforming in a solar-driven particle-transport reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56, 10300–10308. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b02738

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, Q., Janke, C., and Farrauto, R. (2014). Steam reforming of sulfur-containing dodecane on a Rh–Pt catalyst: influence of process parameters on catalyst stability and coke structure. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 160–161, 525–533. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.05.044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, Y., Wei, Y., Li, K., Zhu, X., Wang, H., and Wang, Y. (2014). Chemical-looping steam methane reforming over macroporous CeO₂-ZrO₂ solid solution: effect of calcination temperature. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 13361–13368. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.116

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhu, X., Li, K., Wei, Y., Wang, H., and Sun, L. (2014). Chemical-looping steam methane reforming over a CeO₂-Fe₂O₃ oxygen carrier: evolution of its structure and reducibility. Energy Fuels 28, 754–760. doi: 10.1021/ef402203a

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar