University of Adelaide

Disclaimer
The contents and ideas contained in this report are the properties of the authors involved in this group project, except where there is a clear acknowledgement and reference of the work of other authors

Aakriti Bhandari

Chen Ying Yeo

Euu Min Mah

A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

ii A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

Executive summary
The aim of this project was to design a production facility to produce 5 million litters of ethanol per year. The ethanol was produced by reacting ethylene with steam over a catalyst. The main objective was to design a production unit minimizing the operating costs and maximizing the profit. This was done using Microsoft Excel using the various capabilities of it such as the iteration and solver functions.

There were flexibilities available to reach the goal of maximum profit and minimum costs. The reactor pressure could be varied from 10 to 40 bars. The steam to ethylene feed ratio could be adjusted from 1:1 to 5:1 and the recycle to purge ratio can be changed from 20:1 to 80:1.

The ideal reactant pressure obtained after solving the problem and optimizing all of the above conditions was 40 bars. High pressure caused the increase in rate of reaction which in turn increased the production level and also contributed to the costs and profit.

The ideal steam to feed ratio was calculated to be 2.7:1. This directly affected the costs as blah blah blah. The model recycle to purge ratio that results in maximum ammonia production and in turn maximum profit was 80:1. The recycle to purge ratio directly impacted the costs and profits as the recycling material reduced the overall costs of the reactants. This played a vital role in reducing the feed in to the process as a higher recycle meant less stress on the feed.

The ideal value parameters that obtained a maximum profit and minimum costs are listed in the table below: Total operating cost Total Product value Overall Profit Table 1 The above figures show that the main objective of the task was reached. Utilizing the given variability this production process was successful in production the required amount of ammonia of 5 million litters per year. The maximum profit made was $ 1.3 million per year and the minimum cost price was calculated to be $2.7 million per year. $ 2,745,485.50 $ 4,076,265.58 $ 1,330,780.07

iii A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

iv A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1.1. Problem Statement 1.1.1. Problem Specification 1.2. Background Information 1.3. Key Constraints 1.4. How the Problem was Attacked 2. Results 2.1.1._____________Revenues and Operating Costs at 3:1 Steam to Feed Ratio 2.1.2. Revenues and Operating Costs at 80:1 Recycle to Purge Ratio 2.1.3. Final Decision 2.2. Results for the Optimum Conditions 2.2.1. Process Flow Diagram 2.2.2. Flow Summary Table 2.2.3. System Balances 2.2.3.1. Material Balance 2.2.3.2. Energy Balance 2.2.4. Raw Materials and Operating costs 2.2.5. Revenues 2.2.6. Profit 2.2.7. Investment Summary 3. Discussion 3.1. Key Assumptions 3.2. Key Decisions 3.2.1. Reasons for making Choices 3.2.2. Reasons for Discarding Alternatives 3.3. Computation of Results 3.4. Results Analysis and Effects of the variables on the Profit 3.4.1. Pressure 3.4.2. Steam to Feed Ratio 3.4.3. Recycle to Purge Ratio 4. Conclusion

A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
4.1. The Optimum State 4.2. Further Study and safety considerations 5. Appendix 5.1. Blah 5.1.1. Blah 5.1.2.Blah 5.1.3.Blah 5.2. Blah 5.2.1.Blah 5.2.2.Blah 5.2.3.Blah 5.3. Blah 5.4. Blah 6. References

vi A. Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E. M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement The key purpose of this design project was to produce a preliminary design for an ethanol production unit in order to produce 5 million litres per year. The design should be such that the cost of the production is kept to a minimum and the profit collected from the overall sales should be maximum. 1.1.1. Problem Specification The objectives for this problem can be reached by varying the reactor pressure, the ratio of steam to ethylene feed and the recycle to purge ratio. According to Le Chateliers Principle, if the pressure is increased in a high rate, the system will respond by shifting the equilibrium to the right. On one hand, this will increase the production of ethanol, whereas on the other it will also add to the cost of the equipment as the structure has to be extremely robust1. Therefore a cost analysis is done on the effects of increasing the pressure in order to identify the most economical state. There is flexibility in altering the steam to feed between 1:1 to 5:1. The price of the saturated steam is significantly low compared to the price of the ethylene feed. So, an excess of steam can be used in order to move the position of equilibrium to the right. However this could also decrease the concentration of ethylene which can affect the production rate and ultimately the cost. The recycle if to purge ratio can also be altered to reach the goal of this production. This ratio has a direct impact on the costs and the profits as the recycling material will cut costs for the amount of reactants required. However, there needs to be a balance between the two to obtain the optimum results required. 1.2. Background Information Ethylene, also known as ethene, is produced in petro-chemical industry by converting large organic hydrocarbons into smaller compounds and obtaining a distillate. (more on ethylene?) The hydration of this ethylene produced ethanol. Ethanol also known as ethyl alcohol is volatile liquid which serves for various purposes.2 It has a chemical formula of C2H5OH. A vapour-phase hydration of ethylene is the process through with ethanol as a pure substance can be produced. The hydration reaction shown below produces ethanol but in the presence of a catalyst:

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

The above reaction is reversible and the process of formation of ethanol is exothermic. 1 In order to produce the maximum possible amount of ethanol, the equilibrium position has to be shifted as far to the right as possible. As the hydration reaction is exothermic, if the temperature is lowered, the forward reaction is favoured according to Le Chateliers Principle. The system will shift to the right and will produce a higher amount of ethanol. This seems theoretically possible, but in reality, lowering the temperate will lower the rate of the reaction. This is not economical as it takes longer time and energy. So, in order to conserve time, a compromise has to be made. This plant uses a compromise temperature of 250C. This produces an acceptable proportion of ethanol but in a very short time. Pressure is another variable that will have an effect on the rate of this reaction. According to Le Chateliers Principle, an increase in pressure will cause the system to respond by favouring the reaction which produces fewer molecules in order to decrease the pressure. That will be the right hand side on this reaction. The pressure has to be as high as possible in order to increase the rate of production of ethanol. However, high pressure cause number of problems such as the increase in cost and polymerisation of ethylene to make polyethylene

The ethanol produced from this production plant is used hugely worldwide as an alternative to gasoline to internal combustion engines. It is renewable and has various environmental advantages over fossil fuel.3 Ethanol is also sold commercially as alcoholic beverages. However, most of the ethanol in alcoholic beverages is produced through fermentation. Ethanol is not very harmful and is used in cosmetic industry for preservation reasons. It can be denatured and changed into methylated spirits and can be used as commercial disinfectant, spirit burners, general industrial solvents and for cleaning purposes.3 It can also be sold to pharmaceutical and research companies that utilize ethanol to preserve liquid drugs as well as for other purposes. 1.3. Key Constraints The optimal condition depends on the production rate and the feed rate as well as various other constraints. The key constraints for this process were presented in terms of the flexibility in the operation of this unit. The flexibility include variation in reactor pressure from 10 to 40 bar, the variation in steam to feed ratio from 1:1 to 5:1 and the variation in the recycle to purge ratio from 20:1 to 80:1. 1.4. How the Problem was Attacked Firstly, a block flow diagram was drawn of the process given in order to visualise the problem better. After the block flow diagram was drawn, material balance was performed on a randomly

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
chosen set of parameter(pressure:10bar, recycle to purge ratio: 20:1 and steam to feed ratio of 1:1) by taking a basis of 1000mols. Microsoft Excel was used to perform these calculations. Cost was then optimized for the obtained results of the material balance. Various graphs were drawn in order to identify the optimum state. Energy balance was then conducted on the optimum state. Lastly, process flow diagram was then drawn and labelled to present the overall design of the production facility.

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

2. Results
The first section of this part presents the economic analysis of the optimum condition and how it was obtained and the most profitable operating conditions are presented in the second section. The maximum profit was $1.33 million, and the optimum conditions were 40 bar operating pressure, 2.7:1 steam to feed ratio and 80:1 recycle to purge ratio. Ethanol was sold for $0.99 per kg which made annual revenue of $4.04 million. The fuel gas was also sold annually for $38 thousand that contributed towards the total revenue. The annual operating cost cleared at $2.8 million. The difference between the revenues and operating costs resulted in the obtained profit.

2.2.1 Economic Analysis 2.2.1.1 Optimum Steam to Feed Ratio The optimum steam to feed ratio was calculated to be approximately 2.7:1 using Solver in Microsoft excel. This can be found in more detail in the appendix section of this report.

2.2.1.2 Recycle to Purge Ratio Determination

180 160 140 Net Profit ($/hour) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

3:1 Steam to feed ratio graph to find the recycle to purge ratio
Recycle to Purge
20:01 30:01 40:01 50:01 60:01 70:01 80:1 10 20 30 Pressure (bar) 40 50

Figure 2.2.1.2: 3:1 Steam to feed ratio graph The steam to feed ratio was determined to be 2.7:1. So, in this section, all the net profits were graphed for all the 3:1 steam to feed ratio against pressure to identify the optimum Recycle to purge ratio. This graph shows that there is almost a logistic relationship between the profit at 3:1 S/F and

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
pressure. The profit gradually increases until it reaches a maximum point. The maximum profit for the graph is when the recycle to purge ratio is 20:1.

2.2.1.3 Pressure optimization

180 160 Net Profit ($/hour) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

80:1 Recycle to Purge

Steam to feed
3:01

10

20

30

40

50

Pressure(bars)

Figure 2.2.1.2: 3:1 Recycle to purge ratio The Graph above shows net profit for all pressure range for 80:1 recycle to purge ratio (which was determined to be one of the optimum conditions from 2.2.1.) and steam to feed ratio of 3:1. This graph shows that the profit is greater for a greater pressure. The flexibility in pressure was between 10-40 bar. It was predicted that increasing pressure will increase the revenue but will also add to the cost causing a decrease in profit. However, in this case, we can see that the pressure of 40 bar isnt high enough to add to the cost. So, the optimum operating pressure for the reactor is 40 bar. 2.2.1.4 Final Decision The results found from the graphs above support the values obtained using solver which can be found in more detail in the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets. The optimum condition determined from this project was a pressure of 40 bar, steam to feed ratio of 2.7:1 and recycle to purge ratio of 80:1.

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

2.2. Results for the Optimum Conditions 2.2.1. Process Flow Diagram

Figure 2.2.1- Process flow diagram for the production of ethanol

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
2.2.4. System Balances Material Balance on various parameters as well as energy balance in required sector were used to find the optimum conditions for this system. Microsoft excel was used in order to solve the problem. All detailed calculations are available in the appendix section of this report.

2.2.4.1 Material Balance Material balance was conducted with on the system using Microsoft Excel to find the optimum condition. A basis of 1000 mol/h of ethylene feed is taken in order to find the composition and flow rates of various other streams. Detailed material balance calculations can be found in appendix.

The tables below consists the material balance calculation for the optimum condition, with pressure 40, recycle to purge ratio of 80:1 and steam to feed ratio of 2.7:1:

A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

10 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
2.2.4.2 Energy Balance Energy balance was done on the optimum condition of 40 bar, 80:1 recycle to purge ratio and 2.7:1 steam to feed ratio. The detailed calculation on each system is included in the appendix. This section consists a summary of results of the energy balances determined. Sysytem Heater Reactor Heat Exchanger Compressor Condensor Reboilers Q (kW) -0.0757 -0.758 -0.245 0 -1739.6 192.5 Ws (kw) 93 -

Table 2.2.4.2: Energy balance Summary Table

2.2.5. Raw Materials and Operating costs The raw materials for the optimum state are calculated according to the flow rates presented in tables 2.2.4.1 (a) and (b). Raw materials included Ethylene and steam and the process included cooling after reactor, distillation, recycle compressor and waste water treatment.

2.2.5.1. Raw Material Costs Material Ethylene Steam Table 2.2.5.1 Raw Materials Costs Cost($/kg) 0.77 0.00245 Total Cost($) 1,876,160 10,379

2.2.5.2. Operating Costs Process Distillation Cooling after reactor Reycle compressor Wastewater Table: 2.2.5.2 Operating Costs The total operating costs is $2.7million Cost($) 0.1/kmol 0.47/kmol 0.008(p in bar)/kmol 100/1000m3 Total Cost($) 732,916 50,438 75327 261.34

11 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
2.2.6. Revenues The table below shows the revenues generated per year: Component Ethanol Fuel Gas Table 2.2.8: Revenues The total revenues is $4.07 million 2.2.7. Profit The total profit made by subtracting the revenue from the total cost was approximately $1.3 million. 2.2.8 Investment Summary Careful research must be done before making investment in the project. Capital cost has to be calculated before constructing the plant. Value ($/kg) 0.99 0.4 Total Value($) 4038299 37966

12 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

3. Discussion
3.1 Key Assumptions There were various assumptions made throughout this project. When solving the problem, it was assumed that the process unit operates for 8000 hours a year. It is a realistic as this is about 330 days, which allows for periodic shutdown and maintenance. When calculating the operating costs, employee wages, utility costs and energy costs were neglected. These costs werent part of the preliminary design and can be deducted from the profit depending on the number of employees and consumption rate. So, the profit calculated was just an estimate and investment shouldnt be based solely on the findings of this report. Also, in this report the effect of side reactions are neglected. The question suggests that the side reactions should be considered, but it was over looked in the material balance and energy balance calculations and due to lack of time, its effects were assumed to be negligible. So, the profit again, is just an estimate as the side reactions could have an impact on the profit.

3.2 Key Decisions This reports contains decisions about that the pressure, the steam to feed and recycle to purge ratio to use in the ethanol production facility. The aim was to minimize costs and mazimize profits in order to produce 5 million litters of ethanol per year. Decisions were also made on operating conditions for various systems such as the compressor, heat exchanger, etc which is all summarised in the process flow diagrams (Figure 2.2.1).

3.2.1. Reasons for making choices Microsoft excel was used to solve this problem as it was the program the group members were most familiar with and it also was the easiest. It was also the most accurate. The solver capability of excel was most helpful when it came to making an estimate mostly about the steam to feed ratio. The decisions made about the pressure and the ratios of steam to feed and recycle to purge were all obtained after an extensive work on the material balance, cost optimization and energy balance. The obtained result seems all reasonable with respect to the assumptions made. The profit calculated per annum also seems reasonable. This profit could fluctuate depending on the world trade and also the advances in technology.

13 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
3.2.2. Reason for discarding alternatives While calculating the optimization, trial and error methods or algebraic methods couldve been used. These methods were however discarded as they would not provide accurate values. The only suitable method was to use was computational method and Microsoft Excel. In the final Process Flow Diagram, (Figure 2.1.1), it was decided that the hot recycle stream, ethanol feed stream and the steam stream were all mixed at a single point before entering the heat exchanger. The alternative was to have different mixing point, so exact composition of each material at a certain stage could be calculated. This was discarded it was easier to have a single mixing point to calculate the energy balance and material balance. Finally, the by-product obtained due to side reaction was discarded. It was assumed that the byproduct was minimum and it did not make any significant difference in the profit. (This mightve not been the case, but due to lack of time, it was simply discarded in the calculations)

3.3. Computation of results A basis of 1000 moles/h of feed stream was taken in order to solve this problem. The initial basis did not affect any of the optimization as it was scaled later using a scaling factor. The scaled basis was 10850 moles/h. Moles of individual reactants were determined using this basis. Using Microsoft excel, the mass flow rate of ethanol production was deduced and the process was scaled to produce 5 million litters per year. This is given in more detail in the appendix. The total cost to produce the required amount of ethanol was calculated by using the amount of feed required and the prices given. The overall revenue was calculated likewise. The total cost was then subtracted from the revenue to calculate the total profit. The range of profit values for varying parameters was obtained. Solver was used in Microsoft Excel to calculate the steam to feed ratio. The profits were graphed against the pressure to determine the optimum pressure and a similar method was conducted to obtain the optimum recycle to purge ratio. After analysing the graph, it was decided the optimum pressure was 40 bar, the optimum recycle to purge ratio was 80:1 and the optimum steam to feed ratio was 2.7:1.

3.4. Result Analysis and Effects of Variables on the Profit 3.4.1. Effect of Pressure According to Le Chateliers Principle, for the given equilibrium reaction, an increase in pressure will cause an equilibrium shift to the right, producing a higher amount of ethanol. This can be implied for this reaction. Figures 2.2.1.2and 2.2.1 show that the with the change in pressure the profit also increases. This shows that with a higher pressure, the production of ethanol is also high which will

14 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
increase the profit. This is generally not the case. If the pressure is extremely high, the rate of production of ethanol is also high but this increase in pressure will also add to the cost as system has to extremely robust in order to operate in high pressure. This means that the equipments will be expensive than usual. This however is not the case for this report. The flexibility in pressure is between 10-40 bar. These pressures are not high enough to contribute to the increase in the equipment costs.

3.4.2 Steam to Feed Ratio As steam is cheaper than the feed, ethylene, is generally used in excess. Increasing the concentration of steam in the system will lead to shift in the equilibrium to the right, according to the Le Chateliers Principle. So, we can see from the calculated profit, (refer to the appendix), that there is an increase in profit from steam to feed ratio of 1:1 to 3:1. After this, the profit starts declining. This is because, as the steam concentration increases, the ethanol being produced also increases which cause a decrease in ethylene. In order to overcome this decrease, the equilibrium position shifts to the right to produce more ethylene which decreases the production of ethanol and also decreases the profit.

3.4.3. Recycle to Purge Ratio With the increase in recycle to purge ratio, the profit increases. This will decrease the stress on the feed which will decrease the overall cost. This is because by increasing the recycle to purge ratio, more ethanol can be produced which will add to the profit.

15 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

4. Conclusion
4.1 Optimum State The production of ethanol is widely influences and manipulated by several parameter. Those include pressure, ratio of feed streams and the ratio of recycle to purge. Each of them parameters have an impact on the economics of the production plant. To maximise the profit, the react should run at a pressure of 40 bars, with steam to feed ratio of 2.7:1 and recycle to purge ratio of 80:1. If run under these circumstances, the plant is capable of producing 5 million litters of ethanol per annum. This will have a total cost of $2.75 million per year. The total revenue collected will add up to $4.08 million which will lead to a net profit of 1.33 million.

4.2 Further Study and Safety Considerations Before making any major financial decisions regarding this production facility, an extensive further study has to be done. The factors that need study are: the current market, employee figures, location of the plant, maintenance and energy costs, environmental impacts, variation in the costs of raw materials. The demand of ethanol in the current and future market has to be closely analysed. The plant should be able to make profit for its entire life time. Costs involved in the operation of employees are fluctuating. In this report, such costs are not considered. These could alter the profit. Location of the plant and its environmental impacts are also of concern. As it produces by-products and they could potentially be toxic, this plant should not be built in the urban setting. And the byproducts and the wastes have to be completely treated before releasing them into the surrounding as they could pollute the aquifers and affect a large number of population. Various Safety Considerations include: The pressure can range from 10-40 bar. These are really high pressures. So appropriate spending has to be made to make this plant a safe work place. The reactor is operating at a very high temperature, so protection has to employed for the safety. Risk assessment, also has to be conducted in the design phase to determine whether it is actually logical to implement the design.

16 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

5. Appendix
5.1

17 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
5.1 Block Flow Diagram

18 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
5.2 Material Balance A basis of 1000 moles/h fresh feed of ethylene was taken in order to solve the material balance. There were three parameter that could be changed are: pressure between 10-40 bar, recycle to purge ratio between 20:1 to 80:1 and steam to feed ratio between 1:1 to 5:1. Initially, the material balance was solved taking a set values for each flexible. They were steam to feed ratio of 1:1, recycle to purge ratio of 20:1 and the pressure at the reactor as 10. The problem states that: The feed stream is 99 mol% pure with 1 mol% ethane that was non-reactive throughout The equilibrium constant is k=0.0425 bar-1

The reactants reacted stoichiometrically according to the reaction: (1) The individual molar flow rates:

Using 1:1 ratio for steam to feed,

At this stage, the molar flow rates of fresh feed and reactor inlet streams are:

The equilibrium constant at 250C is 0.0425 bar-1 The extend of reaction is assumed to be moles, ie the amount of reactants reacted is moles. So, the molar flow rates, out of the reactor are:
mol

mol For this situation, the pressure is taken as 10 bar so,

Now, finding the extend using the equilibrium constant. (Where x is the extend of reaction)

19 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

Substituting in the numbers gives,

This quadratic equation can be solved using the quadratic formula,

20 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
The table below shows the reactor-in and out balance Ethylene Ethane Water Ethanol Total Table 121 Into Reactor(mol/hr) 990 10 1000 0 2000 Out of Reactor(mol/hr) 829.2 10 839.2 160.8 1839.2

The above table is for a 100% conversion. For a 90% conversion, the adjusted values are: Into Reactor(mol) Ethylene Ethane Water Ethanol Total Into the Flash Separator, Into Flash Separator(mol) Ethylene Ethane Water Ethanol Total 845.3 210 855.3 144.7 1855.53 Flash separator, over head (mol) 845.3 210 990 210 1000 0 2000 Out of Reactor(mol) 829.2 210 839.2 160.8 1839.2 Out of Reactor 90%(mol) 845.3 210 855.3 144.7 1855.53

Now, Calculating the Purge,

mol Purge(mol) Ethylene Ethane Water 40.3 10 -

21 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Ethanol Total 50.3

Calculating the Recycle,

mol Into Recycle Recycle(mol) Ethylene Ethane Water Ethanol Total 805.0 200 1005.0

Now, Iteration is performed in Excel to iterate and solve the problem. The obtained solution is: The equilibrium reactions reaches a state of near completion due to a higher rate of recycle.

22 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

23 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Distillation The facts given in the question sheet about the distillation columns include: Feed: The feed into the distillation column Two percent of the total number of moles entering the distillation column is refluxed in the bottoms. The re-boiler is assumed to be a splitter. Two percent of the total number of moles of ethanol entering the distillation column exits in the wastewater stream. The condenser is assumed to be a splitter The ratio in the overhead stream for product to reflux is 12:1.

So, the overall feed stream for the distillation column is listed below in mass: H20 Flow rates kg/h Mass fractions 342108.5581 0.415703694 C2H5OH 480853.9581 0.584296306

Refer to the Microsoft Excel Document for more details.

After calculating the Overhead, Bottoms, Product, Wastewater, Reflux, the overall flow into and out of the distillation column is listed in the table below:

24 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
H20 Flow Rates (kg/h) Into Distillation Into Condenser Out of Condenser Reflux Waste water Into Reboiler Out of Reboiler 342108.56 502441.9179 38649.4 463792.5396 303459.2 606918.4 303459.2 Mass fraction 0.456 0.0758 0.0758 0.0758 0.9693 0.9693 0.9693 C2H5OH Flow Rates (kg/h) 480854 6126079.427 471236.879 5654843 9617.079 19234.16 9617.079 Mass Fraction 0.584 0.9249 0.9249 0.9249 0.0307 0.0307 0.0307

Scaling up The target for the production unit is to produce 5 million litters per year. The results using a basis of 1000 mol is not able to produce this required target. So, in order o obtain the required target, the values have to be scaled up. This scaled up value of 10850 moles feed is used to determine the cost. Assuming 8000 hours add up to a year, the scaling up value cam be determined hence. Scaling Minimum value 5000000 =Minimum value/hours =625 =Minimum value /density =4079100 509.8875 509886.3 Before 0.01085 10.85036 10850.36 L L per year per hour

kg

per year

Ethanol production target Ethanol We Calculated Scaling factor scale basis Basis Scaled After 0.001 1.000002 1000.002

kg kg

per hour per hour

25 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Cost Analysis Raw Materials and Operating Cost The provided valued for the raw materials and the operating costs are listed below as follows: Ethylene Feed Saturated Steam Cooling after reactor Distillation Recycle Compressor : $0.77/kg : $0.00245/kg : $0.1/kmol : $0.47/kmol : $0.008 (p in bar)/kmol, pin = 5 bar, pout = 40 bar

Wastewater treatment : $100/1000m3 Assume 1 year = 8000hours

Raw Materials ( per year ) $1,876,162.48

$10,379.42 The total cost of the raw materials was: $1886541.9 Operating costs (per year)

= $50,438.69 =$732,916.36 ( ) =$75,327.22 =$261.34

The overall operating costs was $858943.61

Revenue The overall revenue calculated is the sum of the gain from selling all the ethanol produced as well as the fuel gas, which was not the primary product of this production facility.

The values of Ethanol and Fuel gas provided in the question sheet are as follows: Ethanol Fuel gas : 0.99/kg :0.4/kg

26 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

The overall revenue was: $4,076,265.58

Profit The profit calculated was : $1,330,780.07 Profit for Pressure 40 bar Recycle to 30 30 Purge Ratio: Steam:Ethylene Feed Ratio (Y:1) 1 17.82822154 1.880512734 2 3 4 5 40 50 60 70 80

-85.5536459 15.06207235 32.43189545 50.02428785 67.74734343 141.8819265 148.0413424 151.0631507 152.607949 153.3309078 153.5465283 153.4257696 154.1505955 159.7928337 162.5870615 164.1189043 164.9797891 165.4412425 165.6455781 148.5132214 153.3583313 155.7001009 156.9578739 157.6481755 158.0042511 158.1468936 139.4134511 143.8409261 145.9550074 147.0768196 147.6822261 147.984705 148.0943053

The Overall Cost analysis: Process Material Ethylene Feed Saturated Steam Cooling after reactor Distillation Recycle Compressor Wastewater treatment Ethanol (95vol%) Fuel Gas Total Annual Costs $1,876,162.48 $10,379.42 $50,438.69 $732,916.36 $75,327.22 $261.34 $0.00 $0.00 $2,745,485.50 Annual Revenue $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,038,299.16 Annual Profit $1,876,162.48 -$10,379.42 -$50,438.69 -$732,916.36 -$75,327.22 -$261.34 $4,038,299.16

$37,966.42 $37,966.42 $4,076,265.58 $1,330,780.07

27 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

28 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
ENERGY BALANCE
Heater Stream 1 C2H6 108.50362 mol C2H4 10741.858 mol Stream 2 H2O 29420.135 mol Stream 20 C2H4 24532.76877 mol C2H6 8680.289579 mol

T=250C, P=30bar 20 1 2 3 Heater

T=50C, P=30bar
Stream 4 C2H6 8788.793199 mol C2H4 35274.62713 mol H2O 29420.13537 mol

Basis : 1hour Assume Ideal Gas and process is steady -state. General energy balance equation on a continuous process, open system: Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws where Ek: kinetic energy Ep: potential energy H: enthalpy change Q : heat flow Ws : shaft work Assume all components in stream 1,2 and 20 are not mixed. Ek ,Ep , Ws = 0 Q= H Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s Stream Component Flowrate/h Flowrate/s Stream Component Flowrate/h Flowrate/s 1 C2H6 108.50362 0.0301399 3 C2H6 8788.793199 2.4413314 2 H2O 29420.135 8.1722597 H2O 29420.13537 8.1722598 20 C2H6 24532.76877 6.8146579 4 C2H6 8788.793199 2.4413314

C2H4 10741.858 2.9838494 C2H4 35274.62713 9.7985075

C2H4 8680.289579

2.41119155
C2H4 35274.62713 9.7985075

H2O 29420.13537 8.1722598

Cp (kJ/mol) HC2H6 HC2H4 HC2H5OH H H2O Calculation for Input

Table B.2 49.373x10-3+13.92x10-5T-5.816 x10-8T2+7.28 x10-12T3 40.75x10-3+11.47x10-5T-6.891 x10-8T2+17.66 x10-12T3 38.58 33.46x10-3+0.6880x10-5T+0.7604 x10-8T2-3.593 x10-12T3

Treference =25C, Tfresh feed = 25C , Trecycle = 312.4C (as calculated @ Compressor balance) Tfresh-reference= 287.4 C, Tfeed-reference= 0 C From Table B.6, Temperature of saturated steam is found to be 250.3C at P=40bar. Tsteam-reference= 225.3C

Hin=

29 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
=0+2.41119155 [40.75x10-3 Tfresh-reference +(11.47x10-5 Tfresh-reference 2)/2- (6.891 x10-8 Tfresh-reference 3)/3+ (17.66 x10-12Tfresh-reference 4)/4] +0+ 6.8146579 [49.37x10-3 Tfresh-reference +(13.92x10-5 Tfresh-reference 2)/2-(5.816 x10-8 Tfresh-reference 3)/3+(7.28 x10-12 Tfresh-reference 4)/4] +8.1722597 [33.46x10-3 Tsteam-reference +(0.6880x10-5 Tsteam-reference 2 )/2+(0.7604 x10-8 Tsteam-reference 3)/3-(3.593 x10-12 Tsteam-reference 4)/4] = 38.4185477 + 132.8177569 + 63.25186294 = 234.488 kW Calculation for Output Treference =25C, Treactor= 250C (as calculated @ Compressor balance) Treactor-reactor = 225 C Hout= =9.7985075 [40.75x10-3 Treactor-reactor +(11.47x10-5 Treactor-reactor 2)/2- (6.891 x10-8 Treactor-reactor 3)/3+ (17.66 x10-12 Treactor-reactor 4)/4] +2.4413314 [49.37x10-3 Treactor-reactor +(13.92x10-5 Treactor-reactor 2)/2-(5.816 x10-8 Treactor-reactor 3)/3+(7.28 x10-12 Treactor-reactor 4)/4] +8.1722597 [33.46x10-3 Treactor-reactor +(0.6880x10-5 Treactor-reactor 2 )/2+(0.7604 x10-8 Treactor-reactor 3)/3-(3.593 x10-12 Treactor-reactor 4)/4] = 115.8356653 + 35.19322815 + 7.729219321 = 158.758 kW Q= Hout Hin = 158.758 - 234.488 = -75.73 kW

30 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Reactor Analysis

Stream 4 T=250C, P=30bar

Stream 5 Reactor T=250C, P=30bar

Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Basis: 1hour Assume Ideal Gas and process is steady -state. General energy balance equation on a continuous process, open system: Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Q=0 (adiabatic), Assume Ek ,Ep , General energy balance equation on reactive process: where , : heat of reaction at reference condition (25C , 1 atm) : enthalpy change of species i/j relative to reference condition

Heat of reaction
Reaction : C2H4 (aq) + H2O (l) where : extent of reaction : specific heat of reaction Component C2H5OH = -38.58 kJ/mol = 11594.66527 mol/hour Specific heat of formation (kJ/mol) [Table B.1] -235.31 C2H5OH (aq)

= 3.2207 mol/ s = -235.31x 3.2207 = - 757.872 kW

31 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Enthalpy of reactant, H H= Where = number of moles, Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s 4 C2H6

= specific enthalpy of species

C2H4

H2 O

8788.793199 2.441331444
5 C2H6

35274.62713 9.798507535
C2H4

29420.13537 8.172259826
H2 O C2H5OH

8788.793199 2.441331444

24839.42838 6.899841217

18984.93663 5.273593508

10435.19874 2.898666318

Cp (kJ/mol)

Table B.2

HC2H6 49.37x10-3+13.92x10-5T-5.816 x10-8T2+7.28 x10-12T3 HC2H4 40.75x10-3+11.47x10-5T-6.891 x10-8T2+17.66 x10-12T3 H H2O 33.46x10-3+0.6880x10-5T+0.7604 x10-8T2-3.593 x10-12T3 H C2H5OH 61.34 x10-3 + 15.72 x10-5T -8.749 x10-8T2 +19.83 x10-12T3 Using 25C as a reference temperature T=250C -25C = 225C H = H C2H4 =9.798507535 [40.75x10-3 T +(11.47x10-5 T2)/2-(6.891 x10-8T3)/3+(17.66 x10-12T4)/4] = 118.29 kW H C2H6 =2.441331444 [49.37x10-3T+(13.92x10-5 T2)/2-(5.816 x10-8T3)/3+(7.28 x10-12T4)/4] = 35.72 kW H H2O =8.172259826 [33.46x10-3T+(0.6880x10-5 T2)/2+(0.7604 x10-8T3)/3-(3.593 x10-12T4)/4] = 62.95 kW HTotal = 118.29 kW + 35.72 kW + 62.95 kW = 216.96 kW Using the same method, but different number of moles to calculate the enthalpy of the product, Enthalpy of the product H C2H4 = 83.30 kW H C2H6 = 35.72 kW H H2O = 40.62 kW H C2H5OH = 51.54 kW HTotal = 83.30 + 35.72 + 40.62 + 51.54 = 211.18 kW Hfinal = + Hproduct Hreactant = - 757.872 kW + 211.18 kW 216.96 kW = - 763.65 kW Q = -763.65 kW

32 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
Heat Exchanger Analysis

T=250C, P=30bar Stream 5 Heat Exchanger

T=50C, P=30bar Stream 6

The reactor outlet stream is cooled to the operating temperature of the flash separator 50C
Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Assume Ek ,Ep , Ws = 0 Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s Stream Component Flowrate mol /h Flowrate mol /s 5 C2H6 C2H4 H2O C2H5OH

8788.793199 2.441331444
6 C2H6

24839.42838 6.899841217
C2H4

18984.93663 5.273593508
H2O

10435.19874 2.898666318
C2H5OH

8788.793199 2.441331444

24839.42838 6.899841217
Table B.2

18984.93663 5.273593508

10435.19874 2.898666318

Cp (kJ/mol) HC2H6 HC2H4 HC2H5OH(g) HC2H5OH(l) H H2O (g) H H2O (l) Q= H

49.373x10-3+13.92x10-5T-5.816 x10-8T2+7.28 x10-12T3 40.75x10-3+11.47x10-5T-6.891 x10-8T2+17.66 x10-12T3 61.34 x10-3 + 15.72 x10-5T -8.749 x10-8T2 +19.83 x10-12T3 103.1 x10-3 33.46x10-3+0.6880x10-5T+0.7604 x10-8T2-3.593 x10-12T3 75.4 x10-3

, since T=250C - 250C = 0

Ethanol Information (Table B.1) : Tb = 78.5C, Hv =38.58 kJ/mol Water Information ( Table B.1) : Hv = 40.656 kJ/mol T1=250C -78.5C = 171.5C T2=78.5C - 50C = 28.5 C T3 = 250C -50C = 200C T4 = 250C -100C = 150C T5 = 100C-50C = 50C Hout= = H 1 + H 2 + H 3 + H4 + H 5 H 1 = 2.898666318 [61.34 x10-3 T2+( 15.72 x10-5 T22)/2+(-8.749 x10-8 T23)/3 + (19.83 x10-12 T24)/4] + 38.58 + 2.898666318 [103.1 x10-3 T2] = 48.848 kW

33 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
H 2 = 6.899841217 [40.75x10-3 T3 +(11.47x10-5 T32)/2-(6.891 x10-8 T33)/3+(17.66 x10-12 T34)/4] = 70.843 kW H 3 = 2.441331444 [49.37x10-3 T3+(13.92x10-5 T32)/2-(5.816 x10-8 T33)/3+(7.28 x10-12 T34)/4] = 30.531 kW H4 = 5.273593508 [33.46x10-3 T4 +(0.6880x10-5 T4 2)/2+(0.7604 x10-8 T4 3)/3-(3.593 x10-12 T4 4)/4] + 40.656 + 5.273593508 [103.1 x10-3 T5] = 94.76 kW Q = -(H 1 + H 2 + H 3 + H4 ) = -(48.848 + 70.843 + 30.531 + 94.76 ) = - 244.982 kW

Compressor Analysis

T=50C, P=5bar
Stream 19 Total

T=250C, P=40bar Stream 20 Total = 9.225849542 mol/s

Compressor 34 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide
= 9.225849542 mol/s

Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Assume Ek ,Ep , Q = 0 Ws =12,500 (kmol /min)[( [( ) ] [( ) ]---(2) ) ] ---(1)

Using (1), Ws =12,500 x 9.225849542 x [(40/5)0.286-1] =93702.788 W = 93.702 kW Tout=[(40/5)0.286]x (50+273) = 585.4 K =312.4 C

Condenser Analysis

12

T=50C, P=1bar Condenser 10 35 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah, 11 13

P=1bar Tdew = 78.68C

University of Adelaide

Q= heat of vaporisation of water Temperature change between bubble point and dew point of ethanol is found to be 0.11, which is relatively small. Hence, we assume enthalpy change of ethanol to be zero. Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Assume Ek ,Ep , Ws = 0 Stream Component Flowrate kg/h Flowrate kg /s Flowrate mol/s 10 H 2O 12 H2O 13 H2O

C2H5OH

C2H5OH

C2H5OH

502441.9179 6126079.427 463792.5396 5654843 606918 19234.2 139.5671994 1701.68873 128.831261 1570.789597 10.73593842 130.899133 7745.13 36929 7149.35 34088.3 595.779 2840.69

(kJ/kmol) HC2H5OH H H2O

Table B.1 38.58 40.656

Q= H niHi = -[38.58(36929) + 40.656(7745.13)] = -1739606.825 W = -1739.607 kW

36 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

Reboiler

T=100C, P=1bar T=100C, P=1bar Stream 16 Reboiler Stream 17

Stream Component Flowrate kg/h Flowrate kg /s Flowrate mol/s

16 H2O

C2H5OH

17 H2O

C2H5OH

303459 84.2942 4677.81

9617.08 2.67141 57.9733

303459 84.2942 4677.81

9617.08 2.67141 57.9733

Energy Equation : Ek + Ep + H = Q Ws Assume Ek ,Ep , Ws = 0 Heat of vaporisation of water at 100C and 1atm is found to be (kJ/kmol) H H2O Q= H niHi = (4677.81+ 57.9733) x 40.656 = 192538.006 W = 192.538 kW Table B.1 40.656

37 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,

University of Adelaide

References http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/ethanol_fuel.htm 3 31/5 http://www.agar.com.au/site/files/ul/data_text01/1804309.pdf 3-8 31/5

http://cbau2058.wordpress.com/declaration-of-originality-and-disclaimer/ 4 6/7 Journal of chemical and engineering data, Vol. 20, No.1, 1975, pg 104, Table IV 5 Lecture Notes (7) http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/ethanol.html (1) 9/7 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194354/ethyl-alcohol 2 11/7

38 A.Bhandari , C.Y. Yeo, E.M.Mah,