Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GASIFICATION”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20

Small-Scale Engineered High Flexibility Gasifier

This project advances a small-scale gasification unit as the first step in syngas-based hydrogen, chemicals, and synthetic fuels production. This unit is associated with an enhanced flexibility to different carbonaceous feedstocks including different types of coals, biomass, and plastics. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate feasibility and efficiency of coal pyrolysis in an auger reactor (pyrolyzer); supplemental methane and pyrolysis gas conversion into syngas in a proprietary non-catalytic converter; combined performance of pyrolyzer and non-catalytic converter to convert coal into syngas The proposed technology is based on an application of an intermediate speed pyrolysis at the temperature range 400-600°C as the first stage of biomass processing. At an industrial scale, an incorporation of coal pyrolysis into a feeding machine – auger-reactor allows to decrease its capital cost. At a pilot scale, it permits to employ electricity to build a compact device for testing of downstream equipment. The auger-reactor (pyrolyzer) generates pyrolysis gas and char practically from any carbonaceous feedstocks but their compositions and quantities are determined by their types. Pyrolysis gas is converted into syngas (mix of H 2 and CO) in a novel, proprietary hydrogen flame assisted non-catalytic converter which employs O 2 instead of air as an oxidizer. This reactor (converter) allows an easy adjustment to different pyrolysis gas compositions and tolerates a presence of sulfur and nitrogen contaminants. Our technology assumes carbonaceous feedstocks gasification with oxygen to allow the products H 2 , CO or CO 2 to be not diluted in N 2 and ready for the following synthesis of chemicals and fuels. Due to the same reason, it permits a more efficient CO 2 capture for its transport and storage. An implementation of our small-scale gasification process may overcome economic constrains by a flexible acceptance of coal, biomass, and plastics as well as their unsorted mixtures to make syngas for the following production of pure hydrogen, chemical and/or synthetic fuels.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Pilot Testing of a Highly Efficient Pre-combustion Sorbent-based Carbon Capture System

TDA developed and demonstrated a highly efficient pre-combustion carbon capture system. The overall objective of this work was to develop a new sorbent-based pre-combustion carbon capture technology for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants. In this project our goal was to demonstrate the techno-economic viability of the new technology by 1) demonstrating it in large-scale slipstream tests, and 2) carrying out a high fidelity engineering and cost analysis. TDA’s process used an advanced physical adsorbent that selectively removes CO 2 from coal-derived synthesis gas above the dew point of the gas at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent consists of a mesoporous carbon whose surface was grafted with functional groups that remove CO 2 via a well-known acid-base interaction. As documented in bench-scale experiments and field tests with actual coal gas, the sorbent achieved a very high capacity for CO 2 at temperatures as high as 300°C. The sorbent bound CO 2 more strongly than common physical adsorbents, providing the chemical potential needed for the high temperature operation. However, because CO 2 does not form a true covalent bond with the surface sites (as is the case with chemical absorbents), the sorbent regeneration could be carried out with only a very small energy input. The heat input to regenerate our sorbent was only 4.9 kcal per mol of CO 2 , which is much lower than that for chemical absorbents (e.g., 29.9 kcal/mol CO 2 for sodium carbonate) and was similar to the requirements of physical solvents (e.g., 4 kcal/mol CO 2 for Selexol TM ). Because the sorbent operates above the dew point of the synthesis gas (unlike the Selexol TM process), a higher power cycle efficiency can be achieved. With previous DOE/NETL funding (Contract No. DE-FE-0000469), we demonstrated the techno-economic viability of the technology in bench-scale tests and slipstream demonstrations at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, Alabama and Wabash River IGCC plant in Terra Haute, Indiana. We demonstrated a stable working CO 2 capacity for over 11,650 cycles with simulated synthesis gas. We also evaluated its performance with actual synthesis gas in two test campaigns at the Wabash River IGCC Plant, Terre Haute, IN and the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL. The slipstream tests clearly showed that the actual coal gas constituents and potential contaminants (e.g. trace metals, halides, tars) had no effect on the sorbent’s ability to remove CO 2 (the same sorbent beds were used in both field tests with no sign of deactivation for 2,000 cycles with over 26,750 SCF of gas treated). As expected, due to the high temperature CO 2 removal capability and low energy needed to regenerate the sorbent, the power cycle efficiency with our process was greater than 34% on a higher heating value (HHV) basis; in comparison, the same IGCC plant equipped with the Selexol TM solvent for carbon capture can only achieve 31.4% HHV efficiency. The capital cost for an IGCC system with TDA’s process is estimated as $2,417/kW e , which is 12% lower than that of the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. The levelized cost for electricity including the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) cost for CO 2 was calculated as $\$ $92.9/MWh (lowest reported to our knowledge), which is much better than the $105.2/MWh estimated for the IGCC/ Selexol TM process. In this project (DE-FE0013105), TDA Research, in collaboration with our partners Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI), University of California, Irvine (UCI), University of Alberta (UOA), Siemens, NCCC and Sinopec advanced the technical maturity of the technology; scaling it up by a factor of 100. We optimized the reactor design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD); using adsorption modeling we improved the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) cycle sequence. We carried out two field test campaigns with a fully-equipped 0.1 MW e prototype unit (for a total of 844 hours) using actual synthesis gas to prove the viability of the new technology. A successful 30 day (707 hrs) evaluation was completed at NCCC under air blown gasification conditions. We demonstrated 97.3% carbon capture at 1,500 SLPM, 93% carbon capture at 1,800 SLPM, and 90% carbon capture at 2,100 SLPM in the NCCC tests. We also demonstrated the system for 137 hours at a Sinopec petrochemical plant under oxygen blown gasification, demonstrating 86% carbon capture at 2,660 SLPM. In collaboration with University of California, Irvine (UCI), we completed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for TDA’s warm gas cleanup technology integrated to IGCC power plant. The net plant efficiencies (on a coal HHV basis) for the warm gas cleanup cases were estimated to be 34.0% for E-GasTM gasifier, 34.4% for GE gasifier, 33.4 for the Shell gasifier and 34.2 for the TRIG TM gasifier (Cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this study) with a catalytic combustor for CO 2 purification, which are significantly higher than those for the Cold Gas Case, or an increase of as much as 12% in the heat rate for Case 2, 6% for Case 4, 9% for Case 6, and 9% for Case 8. The 1st year cost of electricity with the transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs for the CO 2 included was $\$ $129.2/MWh for the E-GasTM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $131.9/MWh for the GE gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, $\$ $146.8/MWh for the Shell Gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case, and $\$ $129.9/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier Warm Gas Cleanup Case. For comparison, the costs for the baseline Cold Gas CO 2 removal with Selexol for the different gasifiers were: $\$ $146.6/MWh for the E-Gas TM gasifier, $\$ $142.2/MWh for the GE gasifier, $\$ $159.0/MWh for the Shell gasifier and $\$ $144.3/MWh for the TRIG TM gasifier. In summary, the costs for our system were 7 to 12% lower than the corresponding Cold Gas Cleanup cases. The results of this techno-economic analysis suggested that TDA’s high temperature PSA-based Warm Gas Clean-up Technology can make a substantial improvement in the IGCC plant thermal performance for achieving near zero CO 2 emissions for E-Gas TM , GE, Shell and TRIG TM gasifier based IGCC power plants. The capital expenses were estimated to be lower than that of Selexol’s™. Taken together, the higher net plant efficiency and lower capital and operating costs resulted in substantial reduction in the cost of carbon capture for the IGCC plant equipped with TDA’s high temperature PSA-based carbon capture system. Finally, in collaboration with Gas Technology Institute (GTI) we completed the environmental health and safety assessment for TDA’s warm gas carbon capture technology.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

From Waste to Clean Fuel: Using Microwave Chemistry to Achieve Process Decarbonization

Microwave co-gasification of plastics and biomass has several advantages over conventional gasification, including enhanced hydrogen production and greater solid-to-gas conversion, as opposed to undesirable char and tar -- via process electrification route. A previous study at NETL has revealed the efficient role of microwave heating, which can liberate the oxygenated free radicals and encourage bond cleavage in non-microwave active plastics, if combined with microwave-active corn stover. However, further reduction of the unwanted tar must be achieved for future process scale-up and higher energy efficiency, which can be realized via a microwave-assisted catalytic approach. This continuous study investigates a series of microwave-active Fe catalysts that can efficiently enhance H2 production and reduce tar for plastic-corn stover co-gasification. The results suggest that in presence of magnetite, hydrogen yield increase 100% as compared to non-catalytic system at similar reaction conditions.

Abedin, Ashraf↗

Development of a machine learning model for polyethylene pyrolysis using a detailed reaction mechanism

Waste plastics have recently received significant attention as the issue of waste generation continues to increase. Thermal conversion processes, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are attractive potential technologies for utilizing waste plastics and reducing overall waste generation. Efficient utilization of plastics requires a detailed understanding of the conversion process such as pyrolysis and gasification. However, a mechanistic understanding of these processes lead to large and complex kinetic schemes that are not suited for large-scale and long-time simulation methods. Currently, most modeling approaches for pyrolysis and gasification rely on globally lumped, simplified kinetic schemes that provide results that are classified by their product type and not individual species, which limit the level of fidelity achieved via modeling. A machine learning (ML) model has been developed for the primary reactions of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in an attempt to increase computational efficiency while still maintaining a high level of detail and accuracy. The ML model is trained on a detailed reaction mechanism containing 42 total species and 737 chemical reactions. A DeepONet branch and trunk architecture was adopted to train the model using time-steps relevant to computational fluid dynamics simulations. The ML used physics-informed loss functions to ensure mass conservation. The surrogate model has been deployed in simple MFiX CFD simulations, single particle and an experimental drop tube reactor, and has shown promising performance compared to the original scheme.

Houston, Ross↗

U-gas +Cool GTL™ - A New Integrated Process for Direct Biomass Conversion to Liquid Fuels

The U-Gas gasification technology, marketed by Sungas, is a proven fluid bed gasification technology for biomass conversion. U-Gas has been tested on a wide variety of biomass feeds including wood and waste streams. The U-Gas Technology has successfully converted wood for more than 20 years in a gasification plant in Skive Denmark at the 150t/d size. GTI has also recently developed the Cool GTL process for converting biogas to high quality gasoline, jet, and diesel fuels. The technoeconomics and LCA for the combination of the two technologies results an integrated optimized process, which will be discussed. The Cool GTL process is still in development and the development should be complete by 2023. Cool GTL converts high CO2 content feeds to synthesis gas with a 2-2.4/1 H2/CO ratio suitable for fuels synthesis. The process is based on a novel, highly stabile CO2/steam reforming catalyst. The 2.0-2.4/1 H2/CO synthesis gas ratio is always achieved, independently of feed CO2 content, by adjusting the amount of water added according to the amount of CO2 in the feed. The reformer catalyst has been tested for 500 hours and shows no measurable deactivation. The product from the reformer then goes directly to a low temperature slurry bed Fischer Tropsch reactor with an integrated finishing hydroisomerization reactor which makes hydrocarbon liquids from the synthesis gas. With this configuration no wax is produced. The technoeconomics and carbon intensity for the integration of UGas and the Cool GTL processes will be compared to other biomass conversion approaches. The use of electrolysis to boost H2 in the feed and increase liquid production will also be analyzed as a potential process improvement with sensitivities to the cost of electricity and the use of renewable electricity.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Calculating the Effects of Solids Input and Removal as a Temperature Control in the Advanced Scale Up Reactor Experiment (ASURE) Facility at NETL Using Aspen

The Advanced Scale Up Reactor Experiment (ASURE) facility at NETL is being designed to be a fuel-flexible multi-purpose reactor that can be used for pyrolysis/gasification or evaluation of other high pressure “circulating fluidized bed” (CFB) chemical processes. The initial system design calculations for pyrolysis/gasification are presented in this work showing the expected performance of the ASURE facility when used as a biomass conversion reactor. Several other areas of application include gasification of any carbonaceous fuel including biomass, coal, plastics, and other waste materials. The reactor can therefore be used to produce SYNGAS of various compositions and hydrogen as well as other high value chemicals resulting from a typical tuned gasification process. This paper discusses an ASPEN model of the facility, focusing on the riser of the CFB reactor and the solids recirculation loop. The ASPEN model divides the riser into two sections. A bottom section which receives ash, char and sand which have been recirculated from a return loop. In this section an inert fluidization gas, (N2 or CO2), is introduced which acts as the primary mover of the solids through the system. The bottom section is equipped with a restricted air feed so that the recirculated char can be partially oxidized. This oxidation process along with the inventory of recirculating sand are used to effectively control the temperature in the following two chemical conversion sections of the reactor which are the pyrolysis zone followed by a tar cracking zone. Fresh fuel is added to the pyrolysis zone and undergoes drying and devolatilization. The products ash, char, volatile matter, and water vapor exit the pyrolysis zone and enter the reaction block for tar cracking. Steam and CO2 gasification reactions will be incorporated into the tar cracking zone, however at the design operating temperature, conversion from these reactions is expected to be essentially zero. The unit when completed in 2026 will test mixtures of biomass, plastics, and waste coal. This presentation discusses the basic ASPEN engineering design model for this project and provides preliminary sensitivity studies to determine how the various parts of the reactor will perform.

ASSURE↗

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO 2 . We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO 2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO 2 or greater), CO 2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO 2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO 2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $\$ 36$/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO 2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO 2 pipelines are employed.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Feasibility of using nuclear microreactor process heat for bioconversion and agricultural processes

Introduction There is a global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2023. Nuclear microreactors, a subset of small modular reactors, offer a potential solution due to their compact size, transportability, and carbon-neutral power generation capabilities. Methods This study explores the feasibility of using heat from nuclear microreactors for bioconversion and agricultural processes, including transforming biomass into energy carriers and products such as syngas, bio-oil, and pasteurized milk. Operating requirements for gasification, pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization, hydrothermal liquefaction, hydrothermal gasification, ethanol production, anaerobic digestion, and pasteurization were obtained through a literature review. A Brayton cycle model based on the eVinci TM microreactor was developed to assess the feasibility of powering these processes using nuclear microreactor heat. Results and Discussion Exergetic efficiency values for high-temperature processes ranged from 72% to 100%, whereas lower-temperature processes ranged from 2% to 53%. These efficiencies depend on the available source temperature for each microreactor design. There were trade-offs between producing net power and using process heat, particularly for high-temperature processes. Three heat exchanger locations were considered: before the turbine (600 ℃ ), between the turbine and regenerator (370 ℃ ), and after the regenerator (192 ℃ ). High-temperature processes like gasification require temperatures too high for feasibility. Middle temperature processes are better suited to a heat exchanger between the turbine and regenerator, while also operable before the turbine. Lower-temperature processes like pasteurization and anaerobic digestion can use waste heat after the regenerator and do not impact power production. These findings are valuable for optimizing nuclear microreactor heat use and aligning with global climate initiatives.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Performance characteristics of a slagging gasifier for MHD combustor systems

The performance of a two stage, coal combustor concept for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) systems was investigated analytically. The two stage MHD combustor is comprised of an entrained flow, slagging gasifier as the first stage, and a gas phase reactor as the second stage. The first stage was modeled by assuming instantaneous coal devolatilization, and volatiles combustion and char gasification by CO2 and H2O in plug flow. The second stage combustor was modeled assuming adiabatic instantaneous gas phase reactions. Of primary interest was the dependence of char gasification efficiency on first stage particle residence time. The influence of first stage stoichiometry, heat loss, coal moisture, coal size distribution, and degree of coal devolatilization on gasifier performance and second stage exhaust temperature was determined. Performance predictions indicate that particle residence times on the order of 500 msec would be required to achieve gasification efficiencies in the range of 90 to 95 percent. The use of a finer coal size distribution significantly reduces the required gasifier residence time for acceptable levels of fuel use efficiency. Residence time requirements are also decreased by increased levels of coal devolatilization. Combustor design efforts should maximize devolatilization by minimizing mixing times associated with coal injection.

Smith, K. O.↗

Coal conversion and synthetic-fuel production

Report evaluates potential coal gasification and synthetic-fuel production technologies for 1985 to 1990. Book includes overview of present and future technical and economic potential, ways of evaluating gasification facility designs, discussion of promising processes, characterization of potential markets, and list of available gasification systems.

Bradford, R.↗

Coal conversion processes and analysis methodologies for synthetic fuels production

Information to identify viable coal gasification and utilization technologies is presented. Analysis capabilities required to support design and implementation of coal based synthetic fuels complexes are identified. The potential market in the Southeast United States for coal based synthetic fuels is investigated. A requirements analysis to identify the types of modeling and analysis capabilities required to conduct and monitor coal gasification project designs is discussed. Models and methodologies to satisfy these requirements are identified and evaluated, and recommendations are developed. Requirements for development of technology and data needed to improve gasification feasibility and economies are examined.

Source record↗

Addition to the Lewis Chemical Equilibrium Program to allow computation from coal composition data

Changes made to the Coal Gasification Project are reported. The program was developed by equilibrium combustion in rocket engines. It can be applied directly to the entrained flow coal gasification process. The particular problem addressed is the reduction of the coal data into a form suitable to the program, since the manual process is involved and error prone. A similar problem in relating the normal output of the program to parameters meaningful to the coal gasification process is also addressed.

Sevigny, R.↗

Literature survey of properties of synfuels derived from coal

A literature survey of the properties of synfuels for ground-based turbine applications is presented. The four major concepts for converting coal into liquid fuels (solvent extraction, catalytic liquefaction, pyrolysis, and indirect liquefaction), and the most important concepts for coal gasification (fixed bed, fluidized bed, entrained flow, and underground gasification) are described. Upgrading processes for coal derived liquid fuels are also described. Data presented for liquid fuels derived from various processes, including H-coal, synthoil, solvent refined coal, COED, donor solvent, zinc chloride hydrocracking, co-steam, and flash pyrolysis. Typical composition, and property data is also presented for low and medium-BTU gases derived from the various coal gasification processes.

Flores, F.↗

IGCC performance comparison for variations in gasifier type and gas turbine firing temperature

Performance estimates were made for a series of integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power systems using three generic types of coal gasification subsystems. The objectives of this study were (1) to provide a self consistent comparison of IGCC systems using different types of gasifiers and different oxidants and (2) to use this framework of cases to evaluate the effect of a gas turbine firing temperature and cooling approach an overall system efficiency. The basic IGCC systems considered included both air and oxygen blown versions of a fluidized bed gasifier, represented by the Westinghouse design, and an entrained bed gasifier, represented by the Texaco design. Also considered were systems using an oxygen blown, fixed bed gasifier, represented by the British Gas Corporation (BGC) slagging gasifier. All of these gasifiers were integrated with a combined cycle using a gas turbine firing temperature of 1700 K (2600 F) and a compressor pressure ratio of 16:1. Steam turbine throttle conditions were chosen to be 16.6 MPa/811 K (2400 psia/1000 F) with a single reheat to 810 K (1000 F). Some of these cases were modified to allow the evaluation of the effect of gas turbine firing temperature. Turbine firing temperatures from state of the art 1365 K (2000 F) to an advanced technology 1920 K (3000 F) were analyzed. A turbine cooling technology that maintains metal temperatures below acceptable limits was assumed for each level of firing temperature. System performance comparisons were made using three advanced turbine cooling technologies for the 1920 K (3000 F) firing temperature. The results indicate that the IGCC using the BGC gasifier had the highest net system efficiency (42.1 percent) of the five gasification cases considered.

Stochl, R. J.↗

Effects of droplet interactions on droplet transport at intermediate Reynolds numbers

Effects of droplet interactions on drag, evaporation, and combustion of a planar droplet array, oriented perpendicular to the approaching flow, are studied numerically. The three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, with variable thermophysical properties, are solved using finite-difference techniques. Parameters investigated include the droplet spacing, droplet Reynolds number, approaching stream oxygen concentration, and fuel type. Results are obtained for the Reynolds number range of 5 to 100, droplet spacing from 2 to 24 diameters, oxygen concentrations of 0.1 and 0.2, and methanol and n-butanol fuels. The calculations show that the gasification rates of interacting droplets decrease as the droplet spacings decrease. The reduction in gasification rates is significant only at small spacings and low Reynolds numbers. For the present array orientation, the effects of interactions on the gasification rates diminish rapidly for Reynolds numbers greater than 10 and spacings greater than 6 droplet diameters. The effects of adjacent droplets on drag are shown to be small.

Shuen, J. S.↗

Effects of droplet interactions on droplet transport at intermediate Reynolds numbers

Effects of droplet interactions on drag, evaporation, and combustion of a planar droplet array, oriented perpendicular to the approaching flow, are studied numerically. The three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, with variable thermophysical properties, are solved using finite-difference techniques. Parameters investigated include the droplet spacing, droplet Reynolds number, approaching stream oxygen concentration, and fuel type. Results are obtained for the Reynolds number range of 5 to 100, droplet spacings from 2 to 24 diameters, oxygen concentrations of 0.1 and 0.2, and methanol and n-butanol fuels. The calculations show that the gasification rates of interacting droplets decrease as the droplet spacings decrease. The reduction in gasification rates is significant only at small spacings and low Reynolds numbers. For the present array orientation, the effects of interactions on the gasification rates diminish rapidly for Reynolds numbers greater than 10 and spacings greater than 6 droplet diameters. The effects of adjacent droplets on drag are shown to be small.

Shuen, Jian-Shun↗

Systems Analysis Of Advanced Coal-Based Power Plants

Report presents appraisal of integrated coal-gasification/fuel-cell power plants. Based on study comparing fuel-cell technologies with each other and with coal-based alternatives and recommends most promising ones for research and development. Evaluates capital cost, cost of electricity, fuel consumption, and conformance with environmental standards. Analyzes sensitivity of cost of electricity to changes in fuel cost, to economic assumptions, and to level of technology. Recommends further evaluation of integrated coal-gasification/fuel-cell integrated coal-gasification/combined-cycle, and pulverized-coal-fired plants. Concludes with appendixes detailing plant-performance models, subsystem-performance parameters, performance goals, cost bases, plant-cost data sheets, and plant sensitivity to fuel-cell performance.

Ferrall, Joseph F.↗

The applicability of the catalytic wet-oxidation to CELSS

The wet oxidation catalysis of Au, Pd, Pt, Rh or Ru on a ceramic honeycomb carrier was traced in detail by 16 to 20 repetitive batch tests each. As a result, Pt or Pd on a honeycomb carrier was shown to catalyze complete nitrogen gasification as N2. Though the catalysts which realize both complete nitrogen gasification and complete oxidation could not be found, the Ru+Rh catalyst was found to be most promising. Ru honeycomb catalyzed both nitrification and nitrogen gasification.

Takahashi, Y.↗