INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734

Published online 27 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1390

System study on natural gas-based polygeneration system

of DME and electricity

Chen Bin1,2,*,y, Jin Hongguang1 and Gao Lin1

1
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2706, Beijing 100080, People’s Republic of China
2
Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, People’s Republic of China

SUMMARY

An innovative system for the polygeneration of dimethyl ether (DME) and electricity was proposed in this paper. The
system uses natural gas as the raw material. Polygeneration is sequential, with one-step and once-through DME
synthesis. Syngas is made to react to synthesize DME first, and then the residual syngas is sent to the power generation
unit as fuel. The exergy analysis from the view of cascade utilization was executed for individual generation and for
polygeneration. The analysis results showed that both chemical energy and thermal energy in polygeneration were
effectively utilized, and both chemical exergy destruction and thermal exergy destruction in polygeneration were
decreased. The cause of the decrease in exergy destruction was revealed. The analysis showed that hydrogen-rich
(natural gas-based) polygeneration was as desirable as carbon-rich (coal-based) polygeneration. The energy saving ratio
of polygeneration was about 10.2%, which demonstrated that high efficiency natural gas-based polygeneration is
attainable, and the cascade utilizations of both chemical energy and thermal energy are key contributors to the
improvement of performance. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: natural gas based; DME/electricity polygeneration; cascade utilization of chemical energy

1. INTRODUCTION destruction is caused by the large level of

Natural gas is a clean fuel for combined cycle
(CC). According to BP company report, in 2005,
the worldwide consumption of natural gas grew by
2.3%, accounting for 23.5% of the consumption of
total primary energy [1]. In CC tremendous exergy
difference between the fuel and combustion
temperatures.
Dimethyl ether (DME) is regarded as an
alternative and clean fuel of the 21st century.
DME has potential applications as a diesel
substitute or as a domestic fuel. Ohno et al.

*Correspondence to: Chen Bin, Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2706, Beijing 100080,
People’s Republic of China.
y
E-mail: chenbin7708@yahoo.com.cn

Contract/grant sponsor: National Key Projects Fund; contract/grant number: 90210032

Contract/grant sponsor: National Basic Research Program; contract/grant number: 2005CB221207.

Received 28 March 2007

Revised 18 October 2007
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 21 October 2007
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY
regarded DME as a clean fuel that does not
produce toxic gases or particulate matter (PM) on
burning [2]. NKK company researched in the
manufacture of a catalyst for DME preparation
and manufacture of DME [3]. Haldor Topsoe
company (1996) proposed a process for the
preparation of fuel grade DME [4]. Gogate et al.
point out that favorable results have been obtained
for liquid phase dimethyl ether (LPDME) synth-
esis in laboratory experiments [5]. Paul et al.
concluded research progress in LPDME of air
products company [6]. Wang et al. found that
although the energy consumption has been sig-
nificantly reduced, it is difficult to make further
improvements with traditional methods [7].
The same materials provide the possibility of
integrating DME generation and power genera-
tion. It is clear that polygeneration, which
integrates DME production and the CC, is an
advantageous method. Polygeneration uses syn-
gas, which is yielded from coal, heavy oil, and
other hydrocarbons, to produce electricity and
chemical products simultaneously. Research of
Jackson et al. shows that polygeneration provides
higher efficiency and lower pollution [8]. In a
report to the president, the US Department of
Energy (DOE) proposed the Vision 21 energy
program [9]. Shell Company (1999) has proposed
the idea of a Syngas Park [10]. Eric and Ren found
that once-through polygeneration has the highest
efficiency for the polygeneration of both methanol
and DME [11]. Ni et al. reported that the energy
consumption of recycled syngas is decreased in
Figure 1. Flow sheet of DME individual generation.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
723
polygeneration [12]. Gao et al. found that thermal
energy matching and energy utilization are better
in polygeneration [13].
Jin et al. indicated that both chemical energy
cascade utilization and thermal energy cascade
utilization exist in polygeneration [14]. It is
necessary to take both chemical energy cascade
utilization and thermal energy cascade utilization
into consideration in polygeneration research. And
the differences are so great that it is necessary to
study natural gas-based polygeneration as ser-
iously as coal-based polygeneration.
The purpose of this paper is to propose an
innovative once-through natural gas-based DME-
power polygeneration system to analyze the
system with exergy destruction analysis and
EUD method and to reveal the reason for the
high efficiency of the system.
2. DME INDIVIDUAL GENERATION AND
DME–CC POLYGENERATION
A vapor phase one-step natural gas DME synth-
esis flowchart is presented in Figure 1. Reforming
natural gas (NGR) is mixed with reforming steam
(RS). The mixture is reformed in REFO. FLAME
provides heat for reforming. Fresh syngas is mixed
with recycled unreacted syngas. Mixed syngas (10)
is fed into the synthesis reactor (SYN) and is
converted to DME with a bi-functional catalyst.
Methanol synthesis and methanol dehydration
take place in the reactor simultaneously. Released
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
724 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN
heat generates the steam for distillation. Product
(11) from the synthesis reactor is a mixture of
methanol, DME, water, and unreacted syngas.
The recycling of unreacted syngas improves the
conversion of syngas, but decreases the concentra-
tion of DME in the product. The mixture is
divided into gas phase (12) and liquid phase (13).
The gas phase is sent to an absorption unit (ABS),
where most of the DME and CO2 in the gas are
absorbed. The concentration decrease of DME in
the product results in an increase in the quantity of
the absorbent. Most of the unreacted syngas (15) is
returned to the SYN, and a small part of it is sent
to FLAME as fuel. Liquid phase (13) and
absorbed phase (18) are separated in the distilla-
tion towers (DIST1, DIST2, and DIST3). CO2 and
other light components, such as DME, water, and
methanol, are separated in turn, and the absorbent
is regenerated. Methanol is dehydrated in the
dehydration reactor (DEH), and then sent to
DIST1. Part of the unreacted syngas (16), natural
gas (NGC), and air are combusted in FLAME.
The heat from the high-temperature gas (30) is
recovered to generate steam (36).
A flowchart of the CC is presented in Figure 2.
Air is compressed in COMP. High-pressure air (1)
and NG are mixed and sent to COMB to be
combusted. High-temperature and high-pressure
gas (2) is expanded to generate power in TURG.
The heat from the middle temperature exhaust gas
(3) is recovered in the heat recovery steam
Figure 2. Flow sheet of CC individual generation.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
generator (HRSG) to generate steam. The steam
from the HRSG is sent to the two steam turbines
(TUR1 and TUR2) to generate power. The steam
system is a dual pressure reheat HRSG.
The characteristics of individual generation can
be distinctly revealed from the view of cascade
utilization. Natural gas is reformed to syngas,
syngas is made to react in DME synthesis, and
unreacted syngas is combusted finally. The level of
fuel is decreased stage by stage in DME produc-
tion. The aim of heat exchange is to meet the needs
of DME production, and the utilization of
combustion heat is badly arranged. This leads to
tremendous thermal exergy destruction. In CC, the
utilization of combustion heat is excellent, while
the direct combustion of natural gas results in
huge loss of fuel exergy. It is logical to design a
polygeneration method that combines the virtues
of DME production and those of CC. With this
combination, the advantages of the two systems
are integrated and their shortcomings are avoided.
This improvement is shown clearly in Figure 3.
The polygeneration system, which achieved
chemical energy cascade utilization and thermal
energy cascade utilization, is shown in Figure 4.
Polygeneration is a one-step once-through DME
synthesis. The syngas preparation is almost the
same as in individual generation, except for the
heat recovery. The heat of hot syngas is exchanged
with RS and NG in HX4, and then is recovered in
HX2. The recycled unreacted syngas is not
Figure 3. Sketch map of natural gas-based
polygeneration.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY
Figure 4. Flow sheet of DME–CC polygeneration.
presented here; only fresh syngas (6) enters the
SYN to synthesize DME. The product from SYN
is divided into gas and liquid phases (8). The
separation process is similar to individual genera-
tion. The unreacted syngas, which is larger in
quantity than in individual generation, is not
recycled. It is divided into two parts: one part
(25) is sent to the combustor (COMB) of the gas
turbine (GT) as fuel; the other is mixed with
stream 37, and then is sent to FLAME as fuel.
Heat from the SYN reactor is sent to BO to
evaporate water, and the pressure is higher than in
individual generation. Steam for distillation (36)
and reforming (RS) are drawn from TUR1 at the
corresponding pressure. The heat of hot syngas
and flue gas is recovered in HX1, HX2, HX3, and
HX4. Compared with individual generation, the
temperature differences of heat exchange are
decreased.
3. COMPARISON OF DME INDIVIDUAL
GENERATION AND DME–CC
POLYGENERATION
The integration of DME production and CC
follows the principles of cascade utilization of
chemical energy and of thermal energy. Individual
generation and polygeneration are simulated with
the assumptions listed in Table IV. The flow rates
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
725
and compositions of DME individual generation
system, CC, and polygeneration system are listed
in Tables I–III, respectively. The study is based on
a large-scale individual DME generation of
approximately two hundred thousand tons per
year. The large-scale application provided
full opportunity for system integration between
chemical production and power generation.
There are several differences between polyge-
neration and individual generation. First, the
conversion of syngas in individual generation is
higher than that in polygeneration. Natural gas-
based syngas is hydrogen rich, so a key component
of the conversion is carbon. In individual genera-
tion, the carbon conversion is kept as high as
possible to acquire the highest product quantity.
In order to obtain this goal, the cycle ratio of
syngas is increased. The cycle ratio is 0.552 and the
carbon conversion is 0.855. In polygeneration, the
unreacted syngas can be utilized on the power side,
so a moderate conversion is preferred. The
conversion of once-through polygeneration is
0.632, and unreacted syngas is not recycled.
Secondly, the fuel of the power side in individual
generation is different from the one in polygenera-
tion. In individual generation, the fuel of the
power side is natural gas; in polygeneration, the
fuel of the power side is unreacted syngas. Thirdly,
the heat exchange in individual generation is not as
good as in polygeneration. The different carbon
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
726 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN

Table I. Stream flow rates and compositions in DME individual generation.

Mole fraction
Temperature Pressure Mole flow
ð8CÞ (bar) ðkmol h
1 Þ H2 N2 CO CO2 CH4 O H2 O DME O2 CH4 C2 H6
1 38.2 10 1496.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 184.9 10 1496.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 179.9 10 1496.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
4 219.8 25.8 4028.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.767 0 0 0.209 0.023
5 510 25.8 4028.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.767 0 0 0.209 0.023
6 950 23.478 5962.9 0.516 0 0.117 0.046 0 0.311 0 0 0.011 0
7 163 23.478 5962.9 0.516 0 0.117 0.046 0 0.311 0 0 0.011 0
8 38 23.478 4120.2 0.747 0 0.169 0.066 0 0.003 0 0 0.015 0
9 46.4 25.331 4120.2 0.747 0 0.169 0.066 0 0.003 0 0 0.015 0
10 32.9 25.331 9359.4 0.84 0 0.078 0.05 0 0.002 0 0 0.029 0
11 85 40 9359.4 0.84 0 0.078 0.05 0 0.002 0 0 0.029 0
12 35 34.9 6908.4 0.867 0 0.006 0.042 0.002 0.001 0.042 0 0.039 0
13 35 34.9 747.8 0.003 0 0 0.015 0.137 0.728 0.114 0 0.003 0
14 22.3 25.331 6549.0 0.913 0 0.007 0.038 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.04 0
15 22.3 25.331 5239.2 0.913 0 0.007 0.038 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.04 0
16 160 20 1541.5 0.785 0 0.006 0.069 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.129 0.01
17 39.8 25.331 5391.8 0.002 0 0 0.008 0.085 0.85 0.053 0 0.002 0
18 165.7 20 6057.6 0 0 0 0 0.093 0.846 0.061 0 0 0
19 149.8 7 5813.7 0 0 0 0 0.104 0.895 0 0 0 0
20 20 7 4347.4 0 0 0 0 0.104 0.895 0 0 0 0
21 20 7 1466.4 0 0 0 0 0.104 0.895 0 0 0 0
22 164.3 7 1288.2 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.997 0 0 0 0
23 164.3 7 685.2 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.997 0 0 0 0
24 164.3 7 602.9 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.997 0 0 0 0
25 125.8 7 178.2 0 0 0 0 0.835 0.165 0 0 0 0
26 174 20 178.2 0 0 0 0 0.251 0.457 0.292 0 0 0
27 20.7 25.331 5032.6 0 0 0 0 0.091 0.909 0 0 0 0
28 300 1 7087.0 0 0.763 0 0 0 0.034 0 0.203 0 0
29 950 1 8027.9 0 0.674 0 0.043 0 0.237 0 0.047 0 0
30 784.4 1 8027.9 0 0.674 0 0.043 0 0.237 0 0.047 0 0
31 114.8 1 8027.9 0 0.674 0 0.043 0 0.237 0 0.047 0 0
32 39.4 110 3884.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
33 303.1 110 3884.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
34 328.1 110 3884.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
35 440 110 3884.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
36 273.5 30 793.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
37 38 23.478 1842.711 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
AIR 25 1 7087.0 0 0.763 0 0 0 0.034 0 0.203 0 0
CO2
29.8 20 82.0 0.166 0 0.01 0.684 0 0 0.001 0 0.139 0
DME 30.9 7 422.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
NGC 38 25.8 149.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1
NGR 38 25.8 937.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1
RS 287.1 30 3091.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

conversion results in different concentrations of The general results of individual generation

DME in the product, so separation is different in and of polygeneration are listed in Table V. The
individual generation and in polygeneration. All energy consumption of DME in individual
these differences influence the system efficiency, generation was 48:4 GJ t
1 : The thermal efficiency
and result in the variation of system performance. of the CC was 56.5%. The energy saving ratio of

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY 727

Table II. Stream flow rates and compositions in CC individual generation.

Mole fraction

1
Temperature ð8CÞ Pressure (bar) Mole flow ðkmol h Þ N2 O2 CO2 H2 O CH4 C2 H6
1 436.0 16.03 10620.3 0.79 0.21 0 0 0 0
2 1260.0 16.03 11016.3 0.762 0.129 0.038 0.072 0 0
3 611.5 1.03 11016.3 0.762 0.129 0.038 0.072 0 0
4 40.1 120 2063.9 0 0 0 1 0 0
5 39.1 5 802.6 0 0 0 1 0 0
6 535.0 120 2063.9 0 0 0 1 0 0
7 369.5 39 2063.9 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 535.0 39 2063.9 0 0 0 1 0 0
9 265.1 5 2063.9 0 0 0 1 0 0
10 260.0 5 802.6 0 0 0 1 0 0
11 39.0 0.07 2866.5 0 0 0 1 0 0
AIR 25.0 1 10620.3 0.79 0.21 0 0 0 0
FLUE 108.1 1.03 11016.5 0.762 0.129 0.038 0.072 0 0
NG 38.0 25.8 377.2 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1

polygeneration was 10.2%. The performance of
polygeneration was enhanced obviously. Exergy
destructions were classified for further analysis.
Table VI illustrates the categorized exergy
destruction. For the convenience of comparison,
the outputs of DME and electricity in individual
generation were assumed to be the same as in
polygeneration. The categorized exergy destruc-
tions were listed, and the improvement in poly-
generation was shown. The exergy destruction
decrease of reforming accounted for 29.2% of the
total decrease. Separation, synthesis, GT combus-
tion, and heat recovery on the chemical
side accounted for 23:5; 4:3; 15:8; and 27.8% of
the total exergy destruction decrease, respectively.
Exergy destruction of the compressor and the
turbine were slightly increased. Exergy destruction
decreases of the other parts were relatively small.
Heat recovery on the thermal side was responsible
for 1.2% of the exergy destruction decrease.
The system can be divided into two sides by
function: the chemical production side and the
power generation side. Exergy destruction is also
classified under two categories: the destruction on
the chemical side and the destruction on the
thermal side. According to the categorization, the
reforming (including the reforming reaction and
combustion for the reforming reaction) and the
synthesis heat recovery are on the chemical side,
and the separation also belongs to the chemical
side. Heat recovery in the HRSG, compressor and
turbine, the combustion in GT and other parts
belong to the thermal side.
In this DME polygeneration system, the sum of
exergy destruction decrease on the chemical side
accounts for 84.8% of the total decrease, while the
sum of exergy destruction decrease on the thermal
side accounts only for 15.2% of the total decrease.
It was shown that the performance enhancement
of polygeneration was the result of both the
chemical production side integration and of the
power generation side integration, and the cascade
utilization on the chemical production side was the
primary factor.
Table VI shows a rough description of the
exergy destruction decrease. It shows that natural
gas-based DME polygeneration was highly effi-
cient, but the reasons for the exergy destruction
decrease are not illustrated clearly. It is necessary
to introduce another exergy analysis method for
further analysis.
4. GRAPHICAL EXERGY ANALYSIS OF
THE SYSTEMS
The energy utilization diagram (EUD) is a
convenient exergy analysis method. Ishida and
Nakagawa proposed the EUD method [15]. Zheng
et al. applied the EUD method for two types of

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
728 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN

Table III. Stream flow rates and compositions in polygeneration.

Mole fraction
Temperature Pressure Mole flow
ð8CÞ (bar) ðkmol h
1 Þ H2 N2 CO CO2 CH4 O H2 O DME O2 CH4 C2 H6
1 279.8 23.22 5652 0 0 0 0 0 0.767 0 0 0.209 0.023
2 900 23.22 5652 0 0 0 0 0 0.767 0 0 0.209 0.023
3 950 20.898 8365.2 0.516 0 0.117 0.046 0 0.311 0 0 0.011 0
4 38 20.898 2585.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5 38 20.898 5780.1 0.747 0 0.169 0.066 0 0.003 0 0 0.015 0
6 115.7 40 5780.1 0.747 0 0.169 0.066 0 0.003 0 0 0.015 0
7 134.2 35 4066.735 0.658 0 0.012 0.111 0.022 0.081 0.094 0 0.022 0
8 35 34.9 576.92 0.003 0 0 0.049 0.144 0.565 0.236 0 0.002 0
9 45.1 25.331 2941.694 0.002 0 0 0.023 0.082 0.81 0.083 0 0.001 0
10 150.2 20 3410.614 0 0 0 0 0.095 0.794 0.111 0 0 0
11 148.9 7 3148.514 0 0 0 0 0.114 0.886 0 0 0 0
12 60 1 2069.555 0 0 0 0 0.114 0.886 0 0 0 0
13 99.6 1 918.959 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
14 99.6 1 549.568 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
15 67.7 1 160 0 0 0 0 0.77 0.23 0 0 0 0
16 174 20 160 0 0 0 0 0.231 0.499 0.27 0 0 0
17 38.7 30 1250 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
18 358.9 30 1250 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
19 26.6 120 4100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 245 120 1930 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 535 120 2170 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
22 38.7 45 2900 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 412.4 45 2900 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
24 24.5 25.331 3167.228 0.842 0 0.015 0.112 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.027 0
25 300 25.331 1326.428 0.842 0 0.015 0.112 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.027 0
26 458.6 16.029 10112.22 0 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0
27 614.6 1.05 10872.32 0 0.735 0 0.019 0 0.11 0 0.136 0 0
28 94.6 1.05 10872.32 0 0.735 0 0.019 0 0.11 0 0.136 0 0
29 58.4 1.03 1948.8 0.799 0 0.015 0.155 0.001 0.001 0.002 0 0.028 0
30 300 1 4750 0 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0
31 950 1 5909.178 0 0.635 0 0.066 0 0.284 0 0.014 0 0
32 99.6 1 5909.178 0 0.635 0 0.066 0 0.284 0 0.014 0 0
33 162.7 5 1581.662 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
34 260 5 1581.662 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
35 39 0.07 1581.662 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
36 194.8 7 2330.838 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
37 164.9 7 2330.838 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
AIR1 25 1 4750 0 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0
AIR2 25 1 10112.22 0 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0
CO2
20.7 20 108 0.067 0 0.01 0.877 0 0 0.005 0 0.041 0
DME 25 7 422.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
NG 38 25.8 1314.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1
RS 358.2 30 4337.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

LNG power-generation systems [16]. Jin and to the enthalpy change:

Ishida applied the EUD method to complex cycles DE
A¼ ð1Þ
[17]. The abscissa of EUD is enthalpy change, and DH
the ordinate is A; which stands for the energy level. The enthalpy change refers to any kind of
The parameter A is the ratio of the exergy change energy changes, such as thermal energy, power

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY 729

Table IV. Parameters of polygeneration and individual generation systems.

Chemical production side
DME synthesis temperature ð8CÞ 260
DME synthesis pressure (bar) 35
Methanol dehydration temperature ð8CÞ 280
Methanol dehydration pressure (bar) 20
Reforming temperature ð8CÞ 950
Reforming pressure (bar) 23.22

Gas turbine
Turbine inlet temperature ð8CÞ 1260
Pressure ratio 16.029
Isentropic efficiency, turbine (%) 89
Isentropic efficiency, compressor (%) 84.6

Individual generation Polygeneration

Steam system
Turbine inlet temperature (8C) 535
Turbine inlet pressure bar 120
Turbine pressure high/middle/low bar 120/30/5 120/45/5
Isentropic efficiency of turbine (%) 87/89/95 87/89/95
Pinch temperature of HRSG (8C) 20

Table V. Energy savings ratio of polygeneration system.

Individual generation
Polygeneration
CC DME DME–CC
NG input ðkg h
1 Þ 17 445 23 456 22 933
DME output ðkg h
1 Þ 27 280 19 446
Work output (kW) 135 790 51 216
DME consumption ðGJ t
1 Þ 48.4
Electricity efficiency (%) 56.5
Energy savings ratio (%) 10.2

consumption or generation, and energy change in
chemical reaction, etc. Energy transformation
processes can be illustrated as the energy donating
process and energy accepting process. Exergy
destruction is the area that is enclosed by the
energy donating line and energy accepting line.
EUD can help in explaining the internal reasons
for the exergy destruction decrease.
4.1. EUDs for the reforming process
EUDs for reforming are shown in Figure 5. The
quantity of natural gas and reforming steam in
polygeneration ð1314:5 kmol h
1 Þ is larger than
that in individual generation ð937:0 kmol h
1 Þ; and
the heat for the reforming reaction in polygenera-
tion (77.7 MW) is higher than that in individual
generation (55.4 MW), but the exergy destruction
decrease for reforming in polygeneration is sig-
nificant. There are two reasons for the decrease.
First, in polygeneration, considerable preheating
heat is provided by hot output syngas rather than
fuel combustion. The combustion heat for pre-
heating in individual generation is 76.0 MW, while
in polygeneration it is 43.4 MW. This results in a
remarkable decrease in fuel for preheating in

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
730 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN

Table VI. Exergy destruction distribution (kW).

Individual
generation Decrease Proportion of
Polygeneration in exergy decrease
CC DME DME–CC destruction (%)
Input NG exergy 94 708 272 921 330 133
Air exergy 67 0 94
Destruction
Chemical side Heat recovery 28 454 18 633 9821 27.8
Reforming 46 744 36 422 10 322 29.2
Synthesis 5752 4239 1513 4.3
Separation (kW) 14 686 6399 8287 23.5
Thermal side Heat recovery 6639 6205 433 1.2
GT combustion 28 076 22 495 5581 15.8
Compressor and 7656 1946 10 425
823
2.3
turbine
Other 5193 4998 194 0.6
Output DME 166 540
Work 51 216 51 216
Waste 1694 3945 1694
Total exergy input 94 776 272 921 330 227
Total exergy destruction 52 911 170 485 220 111
Total exergy output 42 370 102 775 109 818
Exergy balance error (%) 0.53 0.12
0:09

polygeneration and leads to a significant exergy
loss decrease. Secondly, the fuel level in poly-
generation is lower than that in individual genera-
tion. The fuel for individual generation is a
mixture of natural gas and unreacted syngas,
while all the fuel for polygeneration is unreacted
syngas. Unreacted syngas was utilized in the
synthesis reactor, so the level of unreacted syngas
was lower than that of natural gas. The results
showed that the chemical energy level of natural
gas was cascade utilized in polygeneration.
the GT is the unreacted syngas. In reforming, only
part of the fuel is natural gas. However, in GT
combustion, all of the fuel is natural gas, so the
exergy loss decrease is bigger than in reforming
combustion. The second reason for the decrease is
the decrease in fuel quantity. In individual
generation, the combustion heat for the GT is
91.0 MW. In polygeneration, the combustion heat
is 88.1 MW. It is clear that the combustion heat for
GT in individual generation is higher than that in
polygeneration.

4.2. EUDs of GT combustion 4.3. Separation energy consumption

EUDs of GT combustion are shown in Figure 6.
The exergy destruction of combustion was de-
creased significantly. Figure 6 shows that the
exergy destruction decreases have two causes.
The first cause is the decline of the difference
between the energy donator and the energy
acceptor. It is obvious that the fuel level in Figure
6(a) is higher than that in Figure 6(b). In
individual generation, natural gas is directly sent
to the GT as fuel. In polygeneration, the fuel for
Figure 7 shows the variation of the quantity of
absorbent and the energy consumption of separa-
tion with DME concentration. The separation
exergy destruction is related to absorbent quantity,
and the absorbent quantity is the function of the
DME concentration in the syngas, so the separa-
tion exergy destruction is related to the DME
concentration in the syngas. There are two lines in
Figure 7. The line with open squares represents the
ratio of absorbent quantity to DME quantity and

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY 731

Figure 5. EUD of NG reforming in individual genera- Figure 6. EUD of combustion for GT in individual
tion (a) and in polygeneration (b). generation (a) and in polygeneration (b).

reflects the variation of the ratio with DME

concentration. The line with filled squares repre-
sents the variation of the separation energy
consumption with DME concentration. The
DME concentration in individual generation was
0.054. The ratio of absorbent quantity to DME
quantity was 13.8, and the separation
energy consumption was 12:9 kJ mol
1 DME.
The DME concentration in polygeneration was
0.071. The ratio of absorbent quantity to
DME quantity was 10.8, and the separation energy
consumption was 9:97 kJ mol
1 DME. It is ob-
vious that the absorbent quantity and the separa-
tion energy consumption in individual generation Figure 7. Variation of absorbent with DME.
were larger than in polygeneration. The DME
concentration was influenced by synthesis, so the The analysis showed that the exergy destruction
exergy destruction decrease was also influenced by decrease of synthesis was small, but it had an
synthesis. influence on reforming, GT combustion, and

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
732 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN
separation. It played an important role in poly-
generation.
4.4. EUD of heat exchange
The exergy destruction of heat exchange is shown
in Figure 8. Figure 8(a) shows the heat exchange in
individual generation. The left side of the figure
shows the heat exchange in DME production; the
right side shows the heat exchange in the CC. It is
clear that heat utilization in the CC was effective,
but the heat utilization in DME production was
not well arranged. Figure 8(b) shows the heat
exchange in polygeneration. The left part of Figure
8(b) shows the exergy destruction decrease of heat
exchange on the chemical production side, and the
right part shows the exergy destruction decrease of
heat exchange on the power generation side. Here,
Figure 8. EUD of heat exchange in individual genera-
tion (a) and in polygeneration (b).
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
the heat exchange was carefully arranged, and
resulted in high thermal efficiency in polygenera-
tion. As a whole, the exchanged heat in individual
generation was 165.1 MW, while in polygeneration
it was 131.6 MW. It can be concluded that in
polygeneration both the quality and the quantity
of heat exchange are decreased, so the overall heat
utilization is enhanced.
It is clear that in polygeneration, the decrease in
the chemical production side was remarkably
reduced both in quality and in quantity. However,
the decrease in the power generation side was
relatively small. The differences in the decreases of
the two sides proved that the potential of the
chemical production side in individual generation
is great, and this potential is exploited in
polygeneration. The results are consistent with
the results in Table VI.
The analysis above showed that combining the
chemical production side and the power genera-
tion side in polygeneration is an interesting and
important focus of study. The key to high system
performance is the realization of cascade utiliza-
tion both on the chemical production side and on
the power generation side. The exergy decrease of
synthesis is relatively small, but it plays an
important role in energy utilization. It acts as a
bridge for chemical energy utilization and thermal
energy utilization, and other exergy destruction
decreases are interrelated with synthesis. Only with
synthesis, could the chemical energy of syngas be
partly converted into DME, and also the level of
unreacted syngas decreased. The proportion of
syngas converted into DME is the crucial para-
meter for polygeneration performance. It is
important to select an appropriate syngas conver-
sion to obtain high polygeneration performance.
An insufficient syngas conversion or excessive
syngas conversion is contradictory to the principle
of cascade utilization, so it is important to select
the appropriate synthesis parameters.
5. CONCLUSIONS
With the combination of a CC and DME synthesis,
natural gas-based DME/power polygeneration was
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
 NATURAL GAS-BASED POLYGENERATION SYSTEM OF DME AND ELECTRICITY
integrated, and high-performance polygeneration
was achieved.
1. The energy saving ratio was 10.2% in poly-
generation, proving that natural gas polyge-
neration is desirable.
2. The general exergy analysis showed that the
decrease in exergy destruction in chemical
energy utilization contributed the most to the
decrease in exergy destruction; the decrease in
exergy destruction in thermal energy utilization
was a secondary factor.
3. Further graphical analysis provided more de-
tails about the cascade utilization of chemical
energy and of thermal energy; cascade utiliza-
tion is the essential reason the performance
improved.
The above analysis shows that the key to
successful polygeneration was the cascade utiliza-
tion of chemical exergy and of thermal exergy,
and synthesis plays an important role in associat-
ing power generation and chemical production.
It is obvious that the decrease in exergy destruc-
tion in chemical energy utilization is important,
and the decrease in exergy destruction in thermal
energy utilization is also needed. The success of
natural gas-based polygeneration, which was
proposed and described in this paper, was the
result of implementing the cascade utilization
principle.
NOMENCLATURE
A ¼ energy level
H ¼ enthalpy (MW)
M ¼ mass flowrate ðkg s
1 Þ
Q ¼ heat duty (MW)
S ¼ entropy ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ
T ¼ temperature (K)
X ¼ concentration (%)
Subscript
A ¼ energy acceptor
ABS ¼ property of absorbent
D ¼ energy donator
DME ¼ property of DME
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
733
Abbreviation
CC ¼ combined cycle
DME ¼ dimethyl ether
EUD ¼ exergy utilization diagram
IGCC ¼ integrate gasification combined cycle
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by the National Key
Projects Fund (Grant No. 90210032) and by National
Basic Research Program (2005CB221207).
REFERENCES
1. Quantifying energy, BP statistical review of world energy.
2006. BP press center, London. Available from http://
www.bp.com/liveassets/bp internet/globalbp/globalbp uk
english/reports and publications/statistical energy review
{2006}/STAGING/ local assets/downloads/pdf/statistical
review of world energy full report 2006.pdf (accessed 25
September 2006).
2. Ohno Y, Yoshida M, Shikada T, Inokoshi O, Ogawa T,
Inoue N. New direct synthesis technology for DME
(dimethyl ether) and its application technology. JFE
Technical Report 2006; 8:34–40.
3. Manufacture of catalyst for DME preparation and
manufacture of DME. 1998. Patent Number in China:
CN 1169888A.
4. Preparation of fuel grade dimethyl ether. 1996. Interna-
tional Application Number: PCT/DK96/00047.
5. Gogate MR, Vijayaraghavan P, Lee S, Kulik CJ. Single-
stage, liquid-phase dimethyl ether synthesis process from
syngas. IV. Thermodynamic analysis of the LPDME
process system. Fuel Science and Technology International
1992; 10:281–311.
6. Paul ND, Edward CH, James CS, Dennis MB, Peter GG.
Air products’ new technology programs in syngas genera-
tion and conversion. GPA (Global Programme of Action)
Annual Conference 27th–29th, Barcelona, 2000.
7. Wang Y, Ren S, Wang S. Analysis of energy consumption
for manufacturing methanol from natural gas. Applied
Chemical Industry 2003; 32:57–59 (in Chinese).
8. Jackson RG. Polygeneration system for power and
methanol based on coal gasification. Coal Conversion
1989; 3:60–64.
9. Report to the president on federal energy research and
development for the challenges of the twenty-first century.
1997. Available from http://www.ostp.gov/Energy/index.
html (accessed 16 January 2004).
10. Brian A. Coal gasification an available and economic
alternative for China. The China Council for International
Cooperation on the Environment and Development Meeting,
Beijing, 1999.
11. Eric DL, Ren TJ. Synthetic fuel production by indirect coal
liquefaction. Energy for sustainable Development 2003;
7:79–102.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er
734 C. BIN, J. HONGGUANG AND G. LIN
12. Ni WD, Li Z, Xue Y. Polygeneration on energy
system based on coal gasification-integrated optimization
and sustainable development of resources, energy
and environment. Engineering Science 2000; 2:59–68 (in
Chinese).
13. Gao L, Jin HG, Liu ZL, Zheng DX. Exergy analysis of
coal-based polygeneration system for power and chemical
production. Energy 2004; 29:12–15.
14. Jin HG, Hong H, Wang BQ, Han W, Lin RM. The
new principle: synthetic cascade utilization of chemical
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
energy and physical energy. Science in China 2005; 48:
1–17.
15. Ishida M, Nakagawa N. Exergy analysis of pervaporation
system based on an energy utilization diagram. Journal of
Membrane Science 1985; 24:271–283.
16. Zheng DX, Uchiyama Y, Ishida M. Energy-utilization
diagrams for two types of LNG power-generation systems.
Energy 1986; 11:631–639.
17. Jin HG, Ishida M. Graphical exergy analysis of complex
cycles. Energy}The International Journal 1993; 18:615–625.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:722–734
DOI: 10.1002/er