Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Production of hydrogen from fossil fuel: A review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Frontiers in Energy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Production of hydrogen, one of the most promising alternative clean fuels, through catalytic conversion from fossil fuel is the most technically and economically feasible technology. Catalytic conversion of natural gas into hydrogen and carbon is thermodynamically favorable under atmospheric conditions. However, using noble metals as a catalyst is costly for hydrogen production, thus mandating non-noble metal-based catalysts such as Ni, Co, and Cu-based alloys. This paper reviews the various hydrogen production methods from fossil fuels through pyrolysis, partial oxidation, autothermal, and steam reforming, emphasizing the catalytic production of hydrogen via steam reforming of methane. The multicomponent catalysts composed of several nonnoble materials have been summarized. Of the Ni, Co, and Cu-based catalysts investigated in the literature, Ni/Al2O3 catalyst is the most economical and performs best because it suppresses the coke formation on the catalyst. To avoid carbon emission, this method of hydrogen production from methane should be integrated with carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Carbon capture can be accomplished by absorption, adsorption, and membrane separation processes. The remaining challenges, prospects, and future research and development directions are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van Renssen S. The hydrogen solution? Nature Climate Change, 2020, 10(9): 799–801

    Google Scholar 

  2. Malaika A, Krzyzyńska B, Kozłowski M. Catalytic decomposition of methane in the presence of in situ obtained ethylene as a method of hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(14): 7470–7475

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pivovar B S, Ruth M F, Myers D J, et al. Hydrogen: Targeting $1/kg in 1 decade. Electrochemical Society Interface, 2021, 30(4): 61–66

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shiva Kumar S, Himabindu V. Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis—A review. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 2019, 2(3): 442–454

    Google Scholar 

  5. Megía P J, Vizcaino A J, Calles J A, et al. Hydrogen production technologies: From fossil fuels toward renewable sources. A mini review. Energy & Fuels, 2021, 35(20): 16403–16415

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hosseini S E, Abdul Wahid M, Jamil M M, et al. A review on biomass-based hydrogen production for renewable energy supply. International Journal of Energy Research, 2015, 39(12): 1597–1615

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 67: 597–611

    Google Scholar 

  8. Solarte-Toro J C, González-Aguirre J A, Poveda Giraldo J A, et al. Thermochemical processing of woody biomass: A review focused on energy-driven applications and catalytic upgrading. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 136: 110376

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2015, 40(34): 11094–11111

    Google Scholar 

  10. Agyekum E B, Nutakor C, Agwa A M, et al. A critical review of renewable hydrogen production methods: Factors affecting their scale-up and its role in future energy generation. Membranes (Basel), 2022, 12(2): 173

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmed S F, Mofijur M, Nahrin S N, et al. Biohydrogen production from wastewater-based microalgae: Progresses and challenges. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(88): 37321–37342

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sovacool B K, Schmid P, Stirling A, et al. Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power. Nature Energy, 2020, 5(11): 928–935

    Google Scholar 

  13. Anwar S, Khan F, Zhang Y, et al. Recent development in electrocatalysts for hydrogen production through water electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(63): 32284–32317

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sebbahi S, Nabil N, Alaoui-Belghiti A, et al. Assessment of the three most developed water electrolysis technologies: Alkaline water electrolysis, proton exchange membrane and solid-oxide electrolysis. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 66: 140–145

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chatenet M, Bruno G, Pollet D R, et al. Water electrolysis: From textbook knowledge to the latest scientific strategies and industrial developments. Chemical Society Reviews, 2022, 51(11): 4583–4762

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nnabuife S G, Ugbeh-Johnson J, Okeke N E, et al. Present and projected developments in hydrogen production: A technological review. Carbon Capture Science & Technology, 2022, 3: 100042

    Google Scholar 

  17. Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from renewable and non-renewable sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(1): 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rand D A J. A journey on the electrochemical road to sustainability. Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 2011, 15(7–8): 1579–1622

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cipriani G, Di Dio V, Genduso F, et al. Perspective on hydrogen energy carrier and its automotive applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(16): 8482–8494

    Google Scholar 

  20. van de Loosdrecht J, Niemantsverdriet J W. Synthesis gas to hydrogen, methanol, and synthetic fuels. In: Schlögl R, ed. Chemical Energy Storage. Boston: De Gruyter, 2013, 443–458

    Google Scholar 

  21. Balat M, Balat M. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biomass-based hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2009, 34(9): 3589–3603

    Google Scholar 

  22. Koumi Ngoh S, Njomo D. An overview of hydrogen gas production from solar energy. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2012, 16(9): 6782–6792

    Google Scholar 

  23. Karchiyappan T. A review on hydrogen energy production from electrochemical system: Benefits and challenges. Energy Sources. Part A, Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2019, 41(7): 902–909

    Google Scholar 

  24. The International Energy Agency. Global hydrogen review 2022. 2023-6-28, available at website of IEA

  25. Natural Resources Canada. Hydrogen strategy of Canada: Seizing the opportunities for hydrogen. 2023-6-28, available at website of Government of Canada

  26. The International Renewable Energy Agency. Global energy transformation: A roadmap to 2050. 2023-6-28, available at website of IRENA

  27. France Hydrogène. Hydrogen scaling up: A sustainable pathway for the global energy transition. 2023-6-28, available at website of France Hydrogène

  28. Energy Transitions Commission. Mission possible: Reaching net-zero carbon emissions from harder-to-abate sectors. 2023-6-28, available at website of Energy Transitions Commission

  29. Muradov N Z. How to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels without CO2 emission. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 1993, 18(3): 211–215

    Google Scholar 

  30. International Energy Agency. Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector. 2023-6-28, available at website of IEA

  31. Khan M A, Zhao H, Zou W, et al. Recent progresses in electrocatalysts for water electrolysis. Electrochemical Energy Reviews, 2018, 1: 483–530

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chi J, Yu H. Water electrolysis based on renewable energy for hydrogen production. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2018, 39(3): 390–394

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zeng K, Zhang D. Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production and applications. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2010, 36(3): 307–326

    Google Scholar 

  34. Achten W M J, Verchot L, Franken Y J, et al. Jatropha biodiesel production and use. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008, 32(12): 1063–1084

    Google Scholar 

  35. Milazzo M F, Spina F, Primerano P, et al. Soy biodiesel pathways: Global prospects. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 26: 579–624

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ahmed A, Al-Amin A Q, Ambrose A F, et al. Hydrogen fuel and transport system: A sustainable and environmental future. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(3): 1369–1380

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pinsky R, Sabharwall P, Hartvigsen J, et al. Comparative review of hydrogen production technologies for nuclear hybrid energy systems. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2020, 123: 103317

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lee B, Heo J, Kim S, et al. Economic feasibility studies of high-pressure PEM water electrolysis for distributed H2 refueling stations. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 162: 139–144

    Google Scholar 

  39. Collodi G, Azzaro G, Ferrari N, et al. Techno-economic evaluation of deploying CCS in SMR based merchant H2 production with NG as feedstock and fuel. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 2690–2712

    Google Scholar 

  40. Leal Pérez B J, Medrano Jiménez J A, Bhardwaj R, et al. Methane pyrolysis in a molten gallium bubble column reactor for sustainable hydrogen production: Proof of concept & technoeconomic assessment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(7): 4917–4935

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rudolph C, Atakan B. Pyrolysis of methane and ethane in a compression–expansion process as a new concept for chemical energy storage: A kinetic and exergetic investigation. Energy Technology (Weinheim), 2021, 9(3): 2000948

    Google Scholar 

  42. Palmer C, Bunyan E, Gelinas J, et al. CO2-free hydrogen production by catalytic pyrolysis of hydrocarbon feedstocks in molten Ni-Bi. Energy & Fuels, 2020, 34(12): 16073–16080

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fakeeha A, Ibrahim A A, Aljuraywi H, et al. Hydrogen production by partial oxidation reforming of methane over Ni catalysts supported on high and low surface area alumina and zirconia. Processes (Basel, Switzerland), 2020, 8(5): 499

    Google Scholar 

  44. Huang H K, Chih Y K, Chen W H, et al. Synthesis and regeneration of mesoporous Ni–Cu/Al2O4 catalyst in sub-kilogram-scale for methanol steam reforming reaction. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(88): 37542–37551

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zukowski W, Berkowicz G. Hydrogen production through the partial oxidation of methanol using N2O in a fluidised bed of an iron-chromium catalyst. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(47): 28247–28253

    Google Scholar 

  46. Abdul Ghani A, Torabi F, Ibrahim H. Autothermal reforming process for efficient hydrogen production from crude glycerol using nickel supported catalyst: Parametric and statistical analyses. Energy, 2018, 144: 129–145

    Google Scholar 

  47. Matus E V, Ismagilov I Z, Yashnik S A, et al. Hydrogen production through autothermal reforming of CH4: Efficiency and action mode of noble (M = Pt, Pd) and non-noble (M = Re, Mo, Sn) metal additives in the composition of Ni-M/Ce0.5Zr0.5O2/Al2O3 catalysts. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(58): 33352–33369

    Google Scholar 

  48. Matus E, Sukhova O, Ismagilov I, et al. Hydrogen production through autothermal reforming of ethanol: Enhancement of Ni catalyst performance via promotion. Energies, 2021, 14(16): 5176

    Google Scholar 

  49. Noh Y S, Lee K Y, Moon D J. Hydrogen production by steam reforming of methane over nickel based structured catalysts supported on calcium aluminate modified SiC. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(38): 21010–21019

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lima D S, Calgaro C O, Perez-Lopez O W. Hydrogen production by glycerol steam reforming over Ni based catalysts prepared by different methods. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2019, 130: 105358

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zeng Z, Liu G, Geng J, et al. A high-performance PdZn alloy catalyst obtained from metal-organic framework for methanol steam reforming hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(45): 24387–24397

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schneider S, Bajohr S, Graf F, et al. State of the art of hydrogen production via pyrolysis of natural gas. ChemBioEng Reviews, 2020, 7(5): 150–158

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bhaskar A, Assadi M, Somehsaraei H N. Can methane pyrolysis based hydrogen production lead to the decarbonisation of iron and steel industry? Energy Conversion and Management: X, 2021, 10: 100079

    Google Scholar 

  54. Parkinson B, Balcombe P, Speirs J F, et al. Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes. Energy & Environmental Science, 2019, 12(1): 19–40

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ahmed S F, Mofijur M, Nuzhat S, et al. Sustainable hydrogen production: Technological advancements and economic analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(88): 37227–37255

    Google Scholar 

  56. Djimasbe R, Ilyasov I R, Kwofie M, et al. Direct hydrogen production from extra-heavy crude oil under supercritical water conditions using a catalytic (Ni-Co/Al2O3) upgrading process. Catalysts, 2022, 12(10): 1183

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kertthong T, Schmid M, Scheffknecht G. Non-catalytic partial oxidation of methane in biomass-derived syngas with high steam and hydrogen content optimal for subsequent synthesis process. Journal of Energy Institute, 2022, 105: 251–261

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kim J, Byeon J, Seo I G, et al. Temperature oscillations in methanol partial oxidation reactor for the production of hydrogen. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2013, 30(4): 790–795

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lian Z, Wang Y, Zhang X, et al. Hydrogen production by fluidized bed reactors: A quantitative perspective using the supervised machine learning approach. Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 2021, 4(3): 266–287

    Google Scholar 

  60. Nam H, Wang S, Sanjeev K C, et al. Enriched hydrogen production over air and air-steam fluidized bed gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor with CaO: Effects of biomass and bed material catalyst. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 225(1): 113408

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yaghoubi E, Xiong Q, Doranehgard M H, et al. The effect of different operational parameters on hydrogen rich syngas production from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed gasifier. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 2018, 126: 210–221

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hanchate N, Malhotra R, Mathpati C S. Design of experiments and analysis of dual fluidized bed gasifier for syngas production: Cold flow studies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(6): 4776–4787

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dawood F, Anda M, Shafiullah G M. Hydrogen production for energy: An overview. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(7): 3847–3869

    Google Scholar 

  64. Amiri T Y, Ghasemzageh K, Iulianelli A. Membrane reactors for sustainable hydrogen production through steam reforming of hydrocarbons: A review. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 2020, 157: 108148

    Google Scholar 

  65. Poirier M G, Sapundzhiev C. Catalytic decomposition of natural gas to hydrogen for fuel cell applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 1997, 22(4): 429–433

    Google Scholar 

  66. Surer M G, Arat H T. State of art of hydrogen usage as a fuel on aviation. European Mechanical Science, 2018, 2(1): 20–30

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang H, Sun Z, Hu Y H. Steam reforming of methane: Current states of catalyst design and process upgrading. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 149: 111330

    Google Scholar 

  68. BP Energy Economics. BP energy outlook 2019 edition. 2023-6-28, available at website of BP

  69. Ashik U P M, Wan Daud W M A, Abbas H F. Production of greenhouse gas free hydrogen by thermocatalytic decomposition of methane—A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 44: 221–256

    Google Scholar 

  70. Chen L, Qi Z, Zhang S, et al. Catalytic hydrogen production from methane: A review on recent progress and prospect. Catalysts, 2020, 10(8): 858

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mahajan D, Taylor C E, Mansoori G A. An introduction to natural gas hydrate/clathrate: The major organic carbon reserve of the Earth. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 2007, 56(1–3): 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  72. Simpson A P, Lutz A E. Exergy analysis of hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2007, 32(18): 4811–4820

    Google Scholar 

  73. Iulianelli A, Liguori S, Wilcox J, et al. Advances on methane steam reforming to produce hydrogen through membrane reactors technology: A review. Catalysis Reviews. Science and Engineering, 2016, 58(1): 1–35

    Google Scholar 

  74. Barelli L, Bidini G, Gallorini F, et al. Hydrogen production through sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming and membrane technology: A review. Energy, 2008, 33(4): 554–570

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wilhelm D J, Simbeck D R, Karp A D, et al. Syngas production for gas-to-liquids applications: Technologies, issues and outlook. Fuel Processing Technology, 2001, 71(1–3): 139–148

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rouwenhorst K H R, Engelmann Y, van’t Veer K, et al. Plasma-driven catalysis: Green ammonia synthesis with intermittent electricity. Green Chemistry, 2020, 22(19): 6258–6287

    Google Scholar 

  77. Adris A M, Pruden B B, Lim C J, et al. On the reported attempts to radically improve the performance of the steam methane reforming reactor. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1996, 74(2): 177–186

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tuza P V, Souza M M V M. Steam reforming of methane over catalyst derived from ordered double perovskite: Effect of crystalline phase transformation. Catalysis Letters, 2016, 146(1): 47–53

    Google Scholar 

  79. Feio L S F, Hori C E, Damyanova S, et al. The effect of ceria content on the properties of Pd/CeO2/Al2O3 catalysts for steam reforming of methane. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2007, 316(1): 107–116

    Google Scholar 

  80. Zhang L, Roling L T, Wang X, et al. Platinum-based nanocages with subnanometer-thick walls and well-defined, controllable facets. Science, 2015, 349(6246): 412–416

    Google Scholar 

  81. Qiao B, Wang A, Yang X, et al. Single-atom catalysis of CO oxidation using Pt1/FeOx. Nature Chemistry, 2011, 3(8): 634–641

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sun P, Young B, Elgowainy A, et al. Criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen production in U.S. steam methane reforming facilities. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53(12): 7103–7113

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bobrova I I, Bobrov N N, Chesnokov V V, et al. Catalytic steam reforming of methane: New data on the contribution of homogeneous radical reactions in the gas phase: II. A ruthenium catalyst. Kinetics and Catalysis, 2001, 42(6): 805–812

    Google Scholar 

  84. Tomishige K, Li D, Tamura M, et al. Nickel-iron alloy catalysts for reforming of hydrocarbons: Preparation, structure, and catalytic properties. Catalysis Science & Technology, 2017, 7(18): 3952–3979

    Google Scholar 

  85. Soloviev S O, Gubareni I V, Orlyk S M. Oxidative reforming of methane on structured nickel–alumina catalysts: A review. Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry, 2018, 54(5): 293–315

    Google Scholar 

  86. Li D, Nakagawa Y, Tomishige K. Methane reforming to synthesis gas over Ni catalysts modified with noble metals. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2011, 408(1–2): 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  87. Msheik M, Rodat S, Abanades S. Methane cracking for hydrogen production: A review of catalytic and molten media pyrolysis. Energies, 2021, 14(11): 3107

    Google Scholar 

  88. Meloni E, Martino M, Palma V. A short review on Ni-based catalysts and related engineering issues for methane steam reforming. Catalysts, 2020, 10(3): 352

    Google Scholar 

  89. Summa P, Samojeden B, Motak M. Dry and steam reforming of methane. Comparison and analysis of recently investigated catalytic materials. A short review. Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, 2019, 21(2): 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  90. Christofoletti T, Assaf J M, Assaf E M. Methane steam reforming on supported and non-supported molybdenum carbides. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2005, 106(2): 97–103

    Google Scholar 

  91. Watanabe F, Kaburaki I, Shimoda N, et al. Sulfur tolerance of noble metal catalysts for steam methane reforming. Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 2017, 60(3): 137–145

    Google Scholar 

  92. Maestri M, Vlachos D G, Beretta A, et al. Steam and dry reforming of methane on Rh: Microkinetic analysis and hierarchy of kinetic models. Journal of Catalysis, 2008, 259(2): 211–222

    Google Scholar 

  93. Fan C, Zhu Y A, Yang M L, et al. Density functional theory-assisted microkinetic analysis of methane dry reforming on Ni catalyst. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2015, 54(22): 5901–5913

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kathiraser Y, Oemar U, Saw E T, et al. Kinetic and mechanistic aspects for CO2 reforming of methane over Ni based catalysts. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 278: 62–78

    Google Scholar 

  95. Wang Z, Cao X M, Zhu J, et al. Activity and coke formation of nickel and nickel carbide in dry reforming: A deactivation scheme from density functional theory. Journal of Catalysis, 2014, 311: 469–480

    Google Scholar 

  96. Niu J, Guo F, Ran J, et al. Methane dry (CO2) reforming to syngas (H2/CO) in catalytic process: From experimental study and DFT calculations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(55): 30267–30287

    Google Scholar 

  97. Fujimoto Y, Ohba T. Size-dependent catalytic hydrogen production via methane decomposition and aromatization at a low-temperature using Co, Ni, Cu, Mo, and Ru nanometals. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2022, 24(47): 28794–28803

    Google Scholar 

  98. Hasnan N S N, Timmiati S N, Lim K L, et al. Recent developments in methane decomposition over heterogeneous catalysts: An overview. Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2020, 9(2): 8–18

    Google Scholar 

  99. Gonçalves J F, Souza M M V M. Effect of doping niobia over Ni/Al2O3 catalysts for methane steam reforming. Catalysis Letters, 2018, 148(5): 1478–1489

    Google Scholar 

  100. Lertwittayanon K, Youravong W, Lau W J. Enhanced catalytic performance of Ni/A-Al2O3 catalyst modified with CaZrO3 nanoparticles in steam-methane reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(47): 28254–28265

    Google Scholar 

  101. Xu J, Chen L, Tan K F, et al. Effect of boron on the stability of Ni catalysts during steam methane reforming. Journal of Catalysis, 2009, 261(2): 158–165

    Google Scholar 

  102. Barati Dalenjan M, Rashidi A, Khorasheh F, et al. Effect of Ni ratio on mesoporous Ni/MgO nanocatalyst synthesized by one-step hydrothermal method for thermal catalytic decomposition of CH4 to H2. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(22): 11539–11551

    Google Scholar 

  103. Hu Y H. Solid-solution catalysts for CO2 reforming of methane. Catalysis Today, 2009, 148(3–4): 206–211

    Google Scholar 

  104. Park Y S, Kang M, Byeon P, et al. Fabrication of a regenerable Ni supported NiO-MgO catalyst for methane steam reforming by exsolution. Journal of Power Sources, 2018, 397: 318–324

    Google Scholar 

  105. Dehghan-Niri R, Walmsley J C, Holmen A, et al. Nanoconfinement of Ni clusters towards a high sintering resistance of steam methane reforming catalysts. Catalysis Science & Technology, 2012, 2(12): 2476–2484

    Google Scholar 

  106. Zhai X, Ding S, Liu Z, et al. Catalytic performance of Ni catalysts for steam reforming of methane at high space velocity. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36(1): 482–489

    Google Scholar 

  107. Li J, Zhu Q, Peng W, et al. Novel hierarchical Ni/MgO catalyst for highly efficient CO methanation in a fluidized bed reactor. AIChE Journal, 2017, 63(6): 2141–2152

    Google Scholar 

  108. Do J Y, Chava R, Son N, et al. Effect of Ce doping of a Co/Al2O3 catalyst on hydrogen production via propane steam reforming. Catalysts, 2018, 8(10): 413

    Google Scholar 

  109. Lee S Y, Lim H, Woo H C. Catalytic activity and characterizations of Ni/K2TixOy-Al2O3 catalyst for steam methane reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(31): 17645–17655

    Google Scholar 

  110. Roh H S, Eum I H, Jeong D W. Low temperature steam reforming of methane over Ni-Ce1−xZrxO2 catalysts under severe conditions. Renewable Energy, 2012, 42: 212–216

    Google Scholar 

  111. Takehira K, Shishido T, Wang P, et al. Autothermal reforming of CH4 over supported Ni catalysts prepared from Mg-Al hydrotalcite-like anionic clay. Journal of Catalysis, 2004, 221(1): 43–54

    Google Scholar 

  112. Morales-Cano F, Lundegaard L F, Tiruvalam R R, et al. Improving the sintering resistance of Ni/Al2O3 steam-reforming catalysts by promotion with noble metals. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2015, 498: 117–125

    Google Scholar 

  113. Yang X, Da J, Yu H, et al. Characterization and performance evaluation of Ni-based catalysts with Ce promoter for methane and hydrocarbons steam reforming process. Fuel, 2016, 179: 353–361

    Google Scholar 

  114. Fukuhara C, Yamamoto K, Makiyama Y, et al. A metal-honeycomb-type structured catalyst for steam reforming of methane: Effect of preparation condition change on reforming performance. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2015, 492: 190–200

    Google Scholar 

  115. You X, Wang X, Ma Y, et al. Ni-Co/Al2O3 bimetallic catalysts for CH4 steam reforming: Elucidating the role of Co for improving coke resistance. ChemCatChem, 2014, 6(12): 3377–3386

    Google Scholar 

  116. Miura S, Umemura Y, Shiratori Y, et al. In situ synthesis of Ni/MgO catalysts on inorganic paper-like matrix for methane steam reforming. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2013, 229: 515–521

    Google Scholar 

  117. Katheria S, Gupta A, Deo G, et al. Effect of calcination temperature on stability and activity of Ni/MgAl2O4 catalyst for steam reforming of methane at high pressure condition. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(32): 14123–14132

    Google Scholar 

  118. Jiménez-González C, Boukha Z, De Rivas B, et al. Behavior of coprecipitated NiAl2O4/Al2O3 catalysts for low-temperature methane steam reforming. Energy & Fuels, 2014, 28(11): 7109–7121

    Google Scholar 

  119. Zhang Y, Wang W, Wang Z, et al. Steam reforming of methane over Ni/SiO2 catalyst with enhanced coke resistance at low steam to methane ratio. Catalysis Today, 2015, 256(1): 130–136

    Google Scholar 

  120. Kho E T, Scott J, Amal R. Ni/TiO2 for low temperature steam reforming of methane. Chemical Engineering Science, 2016, 140: 161–170

    Google Scholar 

  121. Bej B, Pradhan N C, Neogi S. Production of hydrogen by steam reforming of methane over alumina supported nano-NiO/SiO2 catalyst. Catalysis Today, 2013, 207: 28–35

    Google Scholar 

  122. Ma Y, Wang X, You X, et al. Nickel-supported on La2Sn2O7 and La2Zr2O7 pyrochlores for methane steam reforming: Insight into the difference between tin and zirconium in the b site of the compound. ChemCatChem, 2014, 6(12): 3366–3376

    Google Scholar 

  123. Fang X, Zhang X, Guo Y, et al. Highly active and stable Ni/Y2Zr2O7 catalysts for methane steam reforming: On the nature and effective preparation method of the pyrochlore support. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(26): 11141–11153

    Google Scholar 

  124. Zhang X, Peng L, Fang X, et al. Ni/Y2B2O7 (B=Ti, Sn, Zr and Ce) catalysts for methane steam reforming: On the effects of B site replacement. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2018, 43(17): 8298–8312

    Google Scholar 

  125. Palma S, Bobadilla L F, Corrales A, et al. Effect of gold on a NiLaO3 perovskite catalyst for methane steam reforming. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2014, 144: 846–854

    Google Scholar 

  126. Lian J, Fang X, Liu W, et al. Ni supported on LaFeO3 perovskites for methane steam reforming: On the promotional effects of plasma treatment in H2–Ar atmosphere. Topics in Catalysis, 2017, 60(12–14): 831–842

    Google Scholar 

  127. Angeli S D, Turchetti L, Monteleone G, et al. Catalyst development for steam reforming of methane and model biogas at low temperature. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2016, 181: 34–46

    Google Scholar 

  128. Homsi D, Aouad S, Gennequin C, et al. The effect of copper content on the reactivity of Cu/Co6Al2 solids in the catalytic steam reforming of methane reaction. Comptes Rendus Chimie, 2014, 17(5): 454–458

    Google Scholar 

  129. Itkulova S S, Boleubayev Y A, Valishevskiy K A. Multicomponent Co-based sol-gel catalysts for dry/steam reforming of methane. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 2019, 92(2): 331–341

    Google Scholar 

  130. Profeti L P R, Ticianelli E A, Assaf E M. Co/Al2O3 catalysts promoted with noble metals for production of hydrogen by methane steam reforming. Fuel, 2008, 87(10–11): 2076–2081

    Google Scholar 

  131. Lucrédio A F, Filho G T, Assaf E M. Co/Mg/Al hydrotalcite-type precursor, promoted with La and Ce, studied by XPS and applied to methane steam reforming reactions. Applied Surface Science, 2009, 255(11): 5851–5856

    Google Scholar 

  132. Lucrédio A F, Assaf E M. Cobalt catalysts prepared from hydrotalcite precursors and tested in methane steam reforming. Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 159(1): 667–672

    Google Scholar 

  133. Narkiewicz U, Podsiadly M, Jędrzejewski R, et al. Catalytic decomposition of hydrocarbons on cobalt, nickel and iron catalysts to obtain carbon nanomaterials. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2010, 384(1–2): 27–35

    Google Scholar 

  134. Brykin A V, Artemov A V, Kolegov K A. Analysis of the market of rare-earth elements (REEs) and REE catalysts. Catalysis in Industry, 2014, 6(1): 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  135. Avdeeva L B, Kochubey D I, Shaikhutdinov S K. Cobalt catalysts of methane decomposition: Accumulation of the filamentous carbon. Applied Catalysis A, General, 1999, 177(1): 43–51

    Google Scholar 

  136. Abdelbaki Y, de Arriba A, Solsona B, et al. The nickel-support interaction as determining factor of the selectivity to ethylene in the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane over nickel oxide/alumina catalysts. Applied Catalysis A, General, 2021, 623: 118242

    Google Scholar 

  137. Italiano G, Delia A, Espro C, et al. Methane decomposition over Co thin layer supported catalysts to produce hydrogen for fuel cell. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(20): 11568–11575

    Google Scholar 

  138. Awadallah A E, Aboul-Enein A A, Aboul-Gheit A K. Impact of group VI metals addition to Co/MgO catalyst for non-oxidative decomposition of methane into COx-free hydrogen and carbon nanotubes. Fuel, 2014, 129: 27–36

    Google Scholar 

  139. Nazari M, Alavi S M. An investigation of the simultaneous presence of Cu and Zn in different Ni/Al2O3 catalyst loads using Taguchi design of experiment in steam reforming of methane. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(1): 691–702

    Google Scholar 

  140. Sajjadi S M, Haghighi M, Eslami A A, et al. Hydrogen production via CO2-reforming of methane over Cu and Co doped Ni/Al2O3 nanocatalyst: Impregnation versus sol-gel method and effect of process conditions and promoter. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 2013, 67(3): 601–617

    Google Scholar 

  141. Bayat N, Meshkani F, Rezaei M. Thermocatalytic decomposition of methane to COx-free hydrogen and carbon over Ni–Fe–Cu/Al2O3 catalysts. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(30): 13039–13049

    Google Scholar 

  142. Saraswat S K, Pant K K. Synthesis of hydrogen and carbon nanotubes over copper promoted Ni/SiO2 catalyst by thermocatalytic decomposition of methane. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2013, 13: 52–59

    Google Scholar 

  143. Takenaka S, Shigeta Y, Tanabe E, et al. Methane decomposition into hydrogen and carbon nanofibers over supported Pd-Ni catalysts: Characterization of the catalysts during the reaction. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2004, 108(23): 7656–7664

    Google Scholar 

  144. Chen J, Li X, Li Y, et al. Production of hydrogen and nanocarbon from direct decomposition of undiluted methane on high-nickeled Ni-Cu-alumina catalysts. Chemistry Letters, 2003, 32(5): 424–425

    Google Scholar 

  145. Snoeck J W, Froment G F, Fowles M. Filamentous carbon formation and gasification: Thermodynamics, driving force, nucleation, and steady-state growth. Journal of Catalysis, 1997, 169(1): 240–249

    Google Scholar 

  146. Rahman M S, Croiset E, Hudgins R R. Catalytic decomposition of methane for hydrogen production. Topics in Catalysis, 2006, 37(2–4): 137–145

    Google Scholar 

  147. Wang S, Nabavi S A, Clough P T. A review on bi/polymetallic catalysts for steam methane reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2023, 48(42): 15879–15893

    Google Scholar 

  148. Ali Khan M H, Daiyan R, Neal P, et al. A framework for assessing economics of blue hydrogen production from steam methane reforming using carbon capture storage & utilisation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(44): 22685–22706

    Google Scholar 

  149. The International Energy Agency. The future of hydrogen. 2023-6-28, available at website of IEA

  150. Soltani R, Rosen M A, Dincer I. Assessment of CO2 capture options from various points in steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(35): 20266–20275

    Google Scholar 

  151. Power G, Busse A, MacMurray J. Demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration of steam methane reforming process gas used for large-scale hydrogen production. USDOE Technical Report 1437618, 2018

  152. Voldsund M, Jordal K, Anantharaman R. Hydrogen production with CO2 capture. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(9): 4969–4992

    Google Scholar 

  153. Wiheeb A D, Helwani Z, Kim J, et al. Pressure swing adsorption technologies for carbon dioxide capture. Separation and Purification Reviews, 2016, 45(2): 108–121

    Google Scholar 

  154. Pires J, de Carvalho M B, Ribeiro F R, et al. Carbon dioxide in Y and ZSM-20 zeolites: Adsorption and infrared studies. Journal of Molecular Catalysis, 1993, 85(3): 295–303

    Google Scholar 

  155. Yang S, Choi D Y, Jang S C, et al. Hydrogen separation by multi-bed pressure swing adsorption of synthesis gas. Adsorption, 2008, 14(4–5): 583–590

    Google Scholar 

  156. Gomes V G, Yee K W K. Pressure swing adsorption for carbon dioxide sequestration from exhaust gases. Separation and Purification Technology, 2002, 28(2): 161–171

    Google Scholar 

  157. Chou C T, Chen C Y. Carbon dioxide recovery by vacuum swing adsorption. Separation and Purification Technology, 2004, 39(1–2): 51–65

    Google Scholar 

  158. Othman M R, Tan S C, Bhatia S. Separability of carbon dioxide from methane using MFI zeolite-silica film deposited on gamma-alumina support. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2009, 121(1–3): 138–144

    Google Scholar 

  159. Sebastián V, Kumakiri I, Bredesen R, et al. Zeolite membrane for CO2 removal: Operating at high pressure. Journal of Membrane Science, 2007, 292(1–2): 92–97

    Google Scholar 

  160. Aroua M K, Daud W M A W, Yin C Y, et al. Adsorption capacities of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen and methane on carbon molecular basket derived from polyethyleneimine impregnation on microporous palm shell activated carbon. Separation and Purification Technology, 2008, 62(3): 609–613

    Google Scholar 

  161. Riboldi L, Bolland O. Overview on pressure swing adsorption (PSA) as CO2 capture technology: State-of-the-art, limits and potentials. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 2390–2400

    Google Scholar 

  162. Harlick P J E, Tezel F H. An experimental adsorbent screening study for CO2 removal from N2. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2004, 76(1–3): 71–79

    Google Scholar 

  163. Liu Z, Grande C A, Li P, et al. Multi-bed vacuum pressure swing adsorption for carbon dioxide capture from flue gas. Separation and Purification Technology, 2011, 81(3): 307–317

    Google Scholar 

  164. Merel J, Clausse M, Meunier F. Experimental investigation on CO2 post-combustion capture by indirect thermal swing adsorption using 13X and 5A zeolites. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008, 47(1): 209–215

    Google Scholar 

  165. Sumida K, Rogow D L, Mason J A, et al. Carbon dioxide capture in metal-organic frameworks. Chemical Reviews, 2012, 112(2): 724–781

    Google Scholar 

  166. Casas N, Schell J, Blom R, et al. MOF and UiO-67/MCM-41 adsorbents for pre-combustion CO2 capture by PSA: Breakthrough experiments and process design. Separation and Purification Technology, 2013, 112: 34–48

    Google Scholar 

  167. Reynolds S P, Ebner A D, Ritter J A. Stripping PSA cycles for CO2 recovery from flue gas at high temperature using a hydrotalcite-like adsorbent. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006, 45(12): 4278–4294

    Google Scholar 

  168. Sircar S, Golden T C. Pressure swing adsorption technology for hydrogen production. In: Liu K, Song C, Subramani V, eds. Hydrogen and Syngas Production and Purification Technologies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009, 414–450

    Google Scholar 

  169. Ritter J A, Ebner A D. State-of-the-art adsorption and membrane separation processes for hydrogen production in the chemical and petrochemical industries. Separation Science and Technology, 2007, 42(6): 1123–1193

    Google Scholar 

  170. Kohl A L, Nielsen R B. Introduction. In: Kohl A L, Nielsen R B, eds. Gas Purification. 5th ed. Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 1997, 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  171. Hochgesand G D. Rectisol and purisol. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 1970, 62: 37–43

    Google Scholar 

  172. Lu G Q, Diniz da Costa J C, Duke M, et al. Inorganic membranes for hydrogen production and purification: A critical review and perspective. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2007, 314(2): 589–603

    Google Scholar 

  173. Adhikari S, Fernando S. Hydrogen membrane separation techniques. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006, 45(3): 875–881

    Google Scholar 

  174. Ockwig N W, Nenoff T M. Membranes for hydrogen separation. Chemical Reviews, 2007, 107(10): 4078–4110

    Google Scholar 

  175. Van de Graaf T, Overland I, Scholten D, et al. The new oil? The geopolitics and international governance of hydrogen energy Research & Social Science, 2020, 70: 101667

    Google Scholar 

  176. Global CCS Institute. Global status and CCS report: 2019. 2023-6-28, available at website of Global CCS Institute

  177. Dou B, Wu K, Zhang H, et al. Sorption-enhanced chemical looping steam reforming of glycerol with CO2in-situ capture and utilization. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2023, 452(4): 139703

    Google Scholar 

  178. Ren R, Dou B, Zhang H, et al. Syngas production from CO2 reforming of glycerol by mesoporous Ni/CeO2 catalysts. Fuel, 2023, 341: 127717

    Google Scholar 

  179. Dou B, Zhang H, Cui G, et al. Hydrogen production by sorption-enhanced chemical looping steam reforming of ethanol in an alternating fixed-bed reactor: Sorbent to catalyst ratio dependencies. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018, 155: 243–252

    Google Scholar 

  180. Gonzalez-Diaz A, Jiang L, Gonzalez-Diaz M O, et al. Hydrogen production via ammonia from methane integrated with enhanced oil recovery: A techno-economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2021, 9(2): 105050

    Google Scholar 

  181. Katebah M, Al-Rawashdeh M, Linke P. Analysis of hydrogen production costs in steam-methane reforming considering integration with electrolysis and CO2 capture. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 2022, 10: 100552

    Google Scholar 

  182. Meerman J C, Hamborg E S, van Keulen T, et al. Technoeconomic assessment of CO2 capture at steam methane reforming facilities using commercially available technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2012, 9: 160–171

    Google Scholar 

  183. Collodi G. Hydrogen production via steam reforming with CO2 capture. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2010, 19: 37–42

    Google Scholar 

  184. Yang H, Kaczur J J, Sajjad S D, et al. Electrochemical conversion of CO2 to formic acid utilizing Sustainion™ membranes. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 2017, 20: 208–217

    Google Scholar 

  185. Mukherjee A, Okolie J A, Abdelrasoul A, et al. Review of postcombustion carbon dioxide capture technologies using activated carbon. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2019, 83: 46–63

    Google Scholar 

  186. Irabien A, Alvarez-Guerra M, Albo J, et al. Electrochemical conversion of CO2 to value-added products. In: Martínez-Huitle C A, Rodrigo M A, Scialdone O, eds. Electrochemical Water and Wastewater Treatment. Butterworth: Heinemann, 2018, 29–59

    Google Scholar 

  187. Verma S, Kim B, Jhong H R M, et al. A gross-margin model for defining technoeconomic benchmarks in the electroreduction of CO2. ChemSusChem, 2016, 9(15): 1972–1979

    Google Scholar 

  188. Jouny M, Luc W, Jiao F. General techno-economic analysis of CO2 electrolysis systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2018, 57(6): 2165–2177

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) via a Discovery Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Fuel Cell and Green Energy, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L3G1, Canada

    Shams Anwar & Xianguo Li

Authors
  1. Shams Anwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xianguo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xianguo Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anwar, S., Li, X. Production of hydrogen from fossil fuel: A review. Front. Energy 17, 585–610 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-023-0886-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-023-0886-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation