How is Methane Produced from Hydrogen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter swish4fish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hydrogen Methane
AI Thread Summary
Methane can be produced from hydrogen through a chemical reaction involving carbon monoxide (CO) and water (H2O) in a process known as the water gas shift reaction. This reaction can be followed by the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, which combines hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form hydrocarbons, including methane. Catalysts are essential for these reactions, although specific catalysts were not detailed in the discussion. The conversation also touched on the potential confusion between producing methane from hydrogen versus the reverse process. Understanding these chemical processes is crucial for anyone interested in methane production from hydrogen.
swish4fish
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Puting aside politics and energy considerations, what is the chemistry of producing Methane from Hydrogen? What catalyst or special equipment would be needed? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you want to produce methane from hydrogen, and not the opposite?!
 
Check making gasoline from coal (gasification), while that's not exactly the same, similar methods apply.
 
One could take hydrogen and CO2 and react it in the following manner (search "water gas shift"):

CO + H2O <---> CO2 + H2

and combine it in the following sequence (search "Fischer-Tropsch"):

(2n+1)H2 + nCO → CnH(2n+2) + nH2O
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top