Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Individual Assignment 1
“I declare that this report is solely my own work. All contributions made by others have been
duly acknowledged.”
Marking Criteria
4. BFD
5. PFD
6. Presentation of report
Total
1
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
2
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…………… 5
5. Methanol Purification
5.1. Distillation Column System Comparison, Selection, & Justification…………………… 13
References……………………………………………………………………………………. 17-18
3
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
List of Figures
4
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
1. Introduction
For many years, methanol has been regarded as one of the most easily and widely
available chemical product, as well as possible energy source. Four main sections in methanol
production involve the generation of synthesis gas (syngas), improvement of syngas quality,
conversion of syngas into methanol, and purification of methanol. The production of methanol
is considerably convenient as the feedstock is syngas. Principally, so long as the material
contains carbon, it can be converted into syngas.
Syngas primarily contains of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (along with some
carbon dioxide). This particular set of gases earns its’ name due to its flexibility, serving as an
intermediate to synthesize various products. The discovery of syngas, as described by J. Ebert
(2007) is attributed to engineers tinkering with the deforming powers of heat and pressure.
With the aim to recover the energy within the chemical bonds of agricultural residues or any
other profusion of carbohydrate-consisting leftovers, engineers attempted to break these
linkages and capture the energy released in the process (Jessica Ebert, 2007).
Latest discoveries have presented a more renewable and eco-friendly option of biomass
for conversion to syngas. However, coal remains popular as it is still the more efficient and
cost-effective resource in the industrial scale. Essentially, this is because biomass requires pre-
treatment to take full advantage of the more advanced coal-based technologies (A. van der
Drift & H. Boerrigter, 2006).
This report aims to device a process of methanol production using coal as feedstock.
The construction will compare available technologies in each of the four main sections.
Through advantage-disadvantage analysis, every choice can be properly justified and the
overall process can be formed. Cost and efficiency of the plant are typically the ultimate
criteria for selection. Along with a written description, a block flow diagram (BFD) and
process flow diagram (PFD) is developed as well.
5
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Figure 1: Types of gasifiers: (a) fixed-bed (dry ash), (b) fluidized-bed, and (c) entrained flow
(Herbden, D. & Stroud, H. J. F., 1945)
6
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
gasifier, ash cooling and air preheat occurs. The order between combustion and gasification may
be switched as displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 3: Schematic of Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (Food & Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, 1986)
7
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
8
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
On the other hand, Fluidized-Bed is prone to slagging that reduces the fluidization itself.
While it is well known to promote better mixing and uniform temperatures, it still has a drawback
on the high temperature of the fuel gas exiting the reactor. Fine particles can escape with raw
syngas and this would require extra energy to clean. Moreover, ash may reside along with
partially reacted carbon in the vessel., causing slags within the system.
In the case of Entrained Flow Reactors, it provides high feed flexibility compared to the other
two reactors, at the expense of higher temperature and oxygen requirement. It requires very little
residence time as the combustion process is rapid fast. Higher oxygen demand is due to its’ low
heat transfer. However, this means that methane and tar would not form or reside in exiting
syngas. Overall, despite being more expensive, entrained flow reactor is a more practical choice
with not much caution for maintenance, making it an ideal process for coal gasification. Thus,
Entrained Flow Gasifier is the opted route for this plant.
9
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
can also stand against impurity contamination in the raw gas. Therefore, considering the need for
versatility in this practice, sour shift is the most suitable technique for this plant design.
Figure 5: Schematic of ICI Lozenge Quench Converter (GBH Enterprises Ltd., 2013)
10
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
11
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
12
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
5. Methanol Purification
Further treatment of methanol is based on distillation technology. The arrangement for
number of columns is dependent on the grade of methanol demanded. For fuel grade methanol,
use of single column (only topping column) should suffice. However, to fulfil AA grade (approx.
99.5% purity) and IMPCA specifications, multiple columns are required, usually two or three
would be used (Johnson Matthey, 2017). The multiple column would include a topping column
and one or two refining columns. A topping column is designated to remove low boiling
impurities (light ends). Through a direct sequence, the light ends (dimethyl ether, methyl formate,
acetone, dissolved gases) are removed from the distillate. A refining column is used through to
separate refined methanol from the heavy ends. Via a direct sequence, the desired methanol
product is released through the distillate, whilst fusel oil (ethanol, propanol, butanol) and water
are released in the bottoms. When using a two-column system, the fusel oil can either be removed
along with the water, or a bottom side stream could be introduced. The latter could be more
economical as it can result in a valuable by-product in fusel oil, without adding another expensive
column. However, this fusel oil would have a considerable amount of water still intact. Adding
another refining column for a three-column system could serve several purposes. It can be used to
further separate fusel oil from water for a purer by-product, or it can be used to break down the
components within the fusel oil itself for a more specific by-product component.
13
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
the gasifier. Despite the entrained flow gasifier’s capability to receive any type of coal, it has been
calculated by W. C Morel (1977) that at the same efficiency, slurry feeding system is more
economical than the lock hopper system. Moreover, the combination of slurry and entrained flow
gasifier is used by Texaco, a highly reputable utilizer of coal. After passing through the crusher
and wet milling machine (WMR), the slurry is conveyed straight to the gasifier without prior
drying. This is done to save cost as entrained flow gasifier is already operated at high temperature,
pressure, as well as having high oxygen requirement.
After the combustion and water quenching (to recover slag) inside the gasifier, raw syngas
leaves the vessel and undergoes cooling before entering the water scrubber. The post-gasification
slag is separated to obtain fine slag, which is put into a clarifier along with char residue from
scrubbing. The fine slag and char obtained can either be disposed or put on a recycle stream to be
milled again. Water separated from the clarifier is recycled back for scrubbing again. Afterwards,
syngas still must undergo sour shift and acid gas removal before being converted into methanol.
Sour shift is done to adjust the syngas to its’ most optimum condition for methanol conversion.
The most appropriate H2/CO ratio to produce methanol is 2:1. Acid Gas Removal (AGR) is done
in two steps. The first column functions as the H2S absorber to result in sweet gas. The second
column functions as the CO2 absorber, thus completing the syngas purification stage.
Furthermore, pure syngas is stored in a holding tank prior to conversion. In the conversion stage,
the syngas is pumped into a reactor which results in raw methanol. The product of the reaction is
still comprised of 20% water and other impurities.
For the methanol purification stage, it has been decided for a two-column distillation
system to be conducted. So, one topping column and one refining column is utilized for this
process. First, the topping column would remove vent gases in the distillate. The bottoms stream
would still comprise of around 79% methanol, 20% water, and some fusel oil (mostly ethanol).
After entering the refining column, pure (99.9%) methanol would be the top product, which is
valuable and desired from the purpose of this design. It is also decided that a side-exit stream is to
exert the fusel oil, which can be valuable for fuel related processes. Water would be the bottom
product with methanol still comprised in it, typically at below 10 ppm. In this condition, the water
can be re-utilized for some parts of the process. Therefore, it is wise to recycle the purge water
into the storage tank to be redistributed to other processes. Filtration might be required over time
to improve upon the water quality.
14
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
15
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
16
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
References
Zheng, L. & E. Furinsky. 2004. “Comparison of Shell, Texaco, BGL and KRW gasifiers as part of
IGCC plant computer simulations.” Energy Conversion and Management 46 (1): 1767-1779.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2004.09.004.
J. B. Hansen. 2015. “Methanol Production Technology: Todays and Future Renewable Solutions.”
Powerpoint presentation presented at Methanol Workshop, Lund University, March 17.
http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/mot2030/filer/9._Bogild_Hansen_-
_Methanol_Production_Technology_Todays_and_Future.pdf
D. H. Eastland. 1975. “Methanol from Coal.” ACS Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 22 (6): 191-212.
https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/20_3_CHICAGO_08-75_0191.pdf
Salalah Methanol Company, L.L.C. 2017. Methanol Manufacturing Process. Accessed September
15, 2017.
http://www.smc.co.om/SitePages/Methanol.aspx
Johnson Matthey. 2017. Water Gas Shift Cataysts. Accessed September 15, 2017.
http://www.jmprotech.com/water-gas-shift-catalysts-katalco-johnson-matthey
17
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Johnson Matthey. 2017. Methanol Distillation Technology. Accessed September 15, 2017.
http://www.jmprotech.com/methanol-distillation-technology-johnson-matthey
G. B. Hawkins. 2013. Methanol Plant Theory of Distillation. Accessed September 15, 2017.
https://www.slideshare.net/GerardBHawkins/methanol-plant-theory-of-distillation
National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2017. Entrained Flow Gasifiers. Accessed September 15,
2017
https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/entrainedflow
18