See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277013175

Aspen Simulation of Anaerobically-Digested

Sewage Sludge Gasification for Production of
Dimethyl Ether Biofuel
Research May 2015
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2176.4007

CITATIONS

READS

424

5 authors, including:
Naftali Malka
Procedyne Corp.
2 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Naftali Malka on 22 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Aspen Simulation of Anaerobically-Digested Sewage Sludge

Gasification for Production of Dimethyl Ether Biofuel

by Chris Abbott, Jeffrey Fedors, Isaiah Lee, Naftali Malka, Wesley Okwemba
for presentation to Dr. F. E. Celik and D. S. Atkins
May 6, 2015

Table of Contents
I.
II.

III.

IV.

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

Process Summary & Essential Results.

.
.
Review of Literature and Design Decisions. .
.
1. Sewage Gasifier Isle.
.
.
.
.
2. Syngas Purification Isle. .
.
.
.
3. Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Isles.
4. Claus Process.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Power Island.
.
.
.
.
.
Simulation of Process in Aspen Plus and Resultant Data
1. Sewage Gasifier Isle.
.
.
.
.
2. Acid Gas Removal Isle. .
.
.
.
3. Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Isles.
4. Claus Process.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Power Isle. .
.
.
.
.
.
6. Power Integration and Use of Utilities.
.
7. Overall Carbon Balance. .
.
.
.
8. Overall Plant Economics. .
.
.
.
Plant Results.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Conclusion .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Acknowledgement.
.
.
.
.
.
References. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Sample Calculations.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Fortran Code.
3. Stream Tables.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
4
4
13
21
26
27
29
30
38
47
52
54
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
69
69
69
70

I.

Process Summary & Essential Results

The process detailed in the report herein will intake two thousand dry tonnes per day of anaerobically

digested wet sewage sludge and, through a series of unit operations, produce dimethyl ether biofuel along with
other commercially useful products. The process consists of three main stages: 1) the gasification of the sludge
into a syngas, 2) the extraction of impurities from the syngas, and 3) the conversion of the syngas to dimethyl
ether. Prior to the gasification stage, the sewage sludge is allowed to anaerobically digest for a period of ninety
days, during which eight hundred kilomoles of methane gas is produced. This gas will be introduced into the
gasifier where it will oxidize and thereby increase the yield of the syngas. Following digestion, the sludge is
drained of all but five percent of its original water content. It then enters the gasification island, where it is gasified
with pure oxygen at a temperature of close to fourteen hundred degrees Celsius. The syngas emerging from the
gasifier is then cooled, upon which it enters a series of absorption and distillation columns where impurities such
as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are removed from the syngas. The purified syngas is then passed to the
dimethyl ether synthesis island where a series of two reactors catalytically convert approximately sixty-seven
percent of the initial hydrogen into dimethyl ether, with the balance of the syngas being burned to power the
overall process.
The economic model assumes twenty-four production hours per day and three hundred and ten production
days per year. A series of catalyzed reactions with the syngas and then methanol produce approximately fifty-six
million gallons per year of liquid dimethyl ether biofuel at over ninety-seven percent purity. Additional useful
products include elemental sulfur and compressed nitrogen gas. The turbine combustion and heat recovery steam
generator produce power at a rate of three megawatts after subtracting the power used for unit operations and
compression. Utilities include of cooling water at twenty-five degrees Celsius and refrigeration up to minus fiftyfour degrees Celsius to complete operations. Copper/zinc/aluminum oxide, activated alumina, and
cobalt/molybdenum oxide catalysts will also need to be replaced and/or regenerated as necessary for reactors. In
addition, copper, zinc, and aluminum oxide catalysts will need to be replaced and regenerated approximately
every second year.

While the syngas composition of biomass is significantly lower than that of coal or natural gas, sewage
sludge can actually be obtained for a profit from the local sewage facilities, which would otherwise be required
to pay a substantial fee for its disposal. Disposal fees for sewage sludge have been slowly rising due to depletion
of available areas for landfill, and regulations on waste incineration are becoming increasingly stringent. In
contrast to the prevalent methods of disposal, the sewage is drained of ninety-five percent of its water, and then
gasified, with unconverted materials being recycled as building material, and with only clean water, carbon
dioxide, and nitrogen returned to the environment. In addition, the synthesized fuel, dimethyl ether, is also more
environmentally friendly than the present class of hydrocarbon fuels in use today.

II.

Literature Review and Design Decisions

1. Sewage Gasification Isle
There currently exists an abundance of sources detailing the chemical compositions of various stocks of

sewage sludge, both raw and digested[1],[2]. As there is significant variation within these sources from sample to
sample, a comprehensive picture of the full range was beyond the scope of this report. The feedstock used for this
simulation was instead modeled after the reported composition of anaerobically digested sewage sludge from
Dominguez, et al., due to the level of detailing therein with regards to organic as well as inorganic content. As
referenced in the introduction, digested sludge was given priority of consideration due to reasons explained further
within the report. The proximate, ultimate, and sulfur analysis of the feedstock is as follows.

Table 1 Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludge

Note: Ultimate was adjusted for Aspen Ultanal input
The extrapolated amount of biogas produced and its composition from anaerobic digestion can both be found
in the appendix at the end of this report (see sample calculations). The type and extent of physical, mechanical,
or chemical processes performed by the publicly owned treatment work was not specified and has been assumed
to have negligible impact on proposed plant operation. For an overview of the sewage treatment process, please
see the footnote at the end of this section.
As per a dearth of research in this nascent field, there is no clear chemical pathway from sewage sludge
to synthetic fuels. What is possible is the formation of an oil, or of a syngas mixture that can be refined and
synthesized into liquid fuels. Currently, research is exploring a variety of process operations that fall into two
4

discrete categories: pyrolysis and gasification. The utility of pyrolysis has been explored for the production of
both oils[3] and gases[4]. With regards to gasification, three specific methods have undergone experimentation and
consideration for this proposal: dry, wet, and supercritical water gasification. Due to the degree of thermal drying
necessary, dry gasification cannot be considered a viable process due to a higher required energy input. Though
supercritical water gasification possesses very unique and advantageous properties, it was clear to the design team
that the technological, mechanical, and material demands of this process would exceed economic limitations even
before simulations were conducted[5].
For the following reasons, the design team chose to attempt a novel process wet sewage sludge
gasification. Even though few studies have been conducted on sewage gasification specifically[1], small laboratory
batch gasification of dry sewage sludge have been performed. One significant advantage identified is the fixing
of heavy metals within the ash slag product[6] Other advantages of gasification are the flexibility of operation and
improved efficiency over traditional oxidative processes[7]. The inherent water content of sewage sludge lends
well to secondary gasification reactions such as steam reforming and the prevention of tar formation, improving
syngas quality. Finally, the high temperatures of gasification can be used in lieu of, or in addition to, pathogen
treatment performed by anaerobic lagoons[8].
All property methods used in the Aspen simulation of this section of the process are the PR-BM method
due to its accuracy modelling combustion and oxidative reactions. Water pumps and steam generators used the
ISAPW-95 steam tables. Lastly, compressed carbon gases and compressed air along with the air separation island
used the Peng-Rob and PSRK property methods, respectively.
The gasifier chosen for this simulation is modelled after the Chicago Bridge and Irons E-Gas gasifier
technology first installed in 1987[9]. The only exception is the removal of the usual second stage feed from the
original design. This specific gasification process was selected for several key factors. First, the gasifier is able
to process high moisture content feedstocks of slurries with approximately 50% water weight. For sewage sludge
with a moisture content of 81.0% or higher, mechanical dewatering will need to occur prior to gasification. It will
be assumed that centrifugation or belt pressing operations will be sufficient to achieve this moisture reduction.
Second, the high operating temperatures achieved prevent the formation of any tar during the gasification process.
5

However, the validity of this assumption is not clear as commercial-scale sewage sludge gasification has never
been attempted. Third, continuous slag removal occurs through the bottom of the gasifier, which simplifies
collection and disposal or recovery. Lastly, typical operation is comparable to the proposed plant design including
continuous char recycle, 95% pure oxygen supplied from air separation, and dry solids separation as opposed to
wet scrubbing[10]. The preferred method of dry solids separation is typically a cyclone to remove particulates and
is modelled in this simulation as a two-step cyclone train.
Regarding the source of oxygen supplied to the gasifier the cryogenic air separation unit was modelled
after the Linde Double-Rectification column. Below is a simulation snapshot that was provided to the design
group by Dr. Fuat Celik:
N2OUT (OUT )
-29
3
N2OUT

-179

1.00

4
-183

O2OUT (OUT )

0.10

3
-29

1.00
HPB OT

B4

O2OUT

1.00

-183
35

A IRIN1 (IN)

LP

N22L P

0.00

-170

10

10

A SU1

10

B3

1.00

-122
-122

-170

0.00

-156

1.00

-179
10

0.04

11
A IRIN1

4
A IR2L P

1.00

0.00

B1

1.00
A IR-SP

A IR2T URB

O2L

A IROUT 1
T URE XP
-169

-170

3
N2INT

O2INT

10
O2L-V

-122

1.00

0.00

-169

10

-154

1.00

10

3
HPN2

1.00

HP
1.00

0.59
A IR-VA LV

A IRIN2

A IR2HP

-154
A SU2

-175

-165

10

10

1.00

0.00

B2

-170

Temperature (C)

A IR2V A
-170

P res sure (bar)

Vapor Fraction

0.00

3
1.00

O2V

N2

Figure 1 - Cryogenic Air Separation Model[51]

This unique column possesses two separate pressure zones and an internal heat exchanger with several recycle
streams[11]. Due to the complexity of this system and lack of experience, this single column can only be modelled
as a series of units working in combination. Two columns one for each of the two pressure zones and a series

of heat exchangers were utilized to best approximate this process. The final purity of the oxygen product as well
as the ambient air composition is as follows:

Table 3 Ambient Air Composition

Table 4 Separated cryogenic pure oxygen

Composition of Ambient Air

Species

Fraction (mol)

Argon

0.934%

Carbon Dioxide

0.036%

Nitrogen

78.084%

Oxygen

20.946%

In order to determine the air flow to the island, the required oxygen flow to the gasifier needs to be
identified. This was determined by performing a sensitivity analysis. Assuming 95% purity as a minimum per
design specifications, the oxygen flow to the gasifier unit was varied and the resulting syngas composition
recorded. The resultant graph and the major species syngas composition in mole fraction is as follows:

Graph 1 Flow sensitivity analysis to determine rate of air intake for air separation
7

Composition of Syngas Exiting Gasifier Approx. 11,400 kmol/hr

Carbon Monoxide

0.161

Hydrogen Sulfide

0.002

Carbon Dioxide

0.122

Nitrogen

0.016

Hydrogen

0.205

All Other

0.011

Water

0.483

Table 5 Flow sensitivity analysis to determine rate of air intake for air separation
There was no singular overriding objective for the syngas product. Instead, a list of criteria needed to be
determined. First, gasifier temperature was required to remain above the ash fusion temperature approximately
1300C to ensure efficient, continuous slag removal. The exact temperature needed to be has been
approximated.[11],[12] Next, CB&I gasifiers typically dont operate much hotter than 1420C.[9] These two
constraints alone leave small room for temperature variance as can be seen on the thermal boundaries illustrated
above. Third, the H2/CO ratio needed to be, at the very least, equimolar, but preferably greater. Fourth, CO2 need
to be at a minimal to ensure the necessary removal downstream would not exceed the operating abilities of the
syngas purification island. Fifth, methane from the biogas was to be completely consumed in order to ensure max
convertible carbon and hydrogen input to the system. With these limitations, it was determined that a flow rate of
2,050 kmol/hr represented the optimal pure oxygen product.
The methane produced from anaerobic digestion which can come from existing sewage treatment
facilities or through the construction of a plant dedicated treatment works is co-fed into the gasifier alongside
the sewage slurry and pure oxygen feed. Again a novel process, this design idea was chosen to drastically improve
the resultant syngas quality. The carbonaceous content of the biogas represents a significant portion of the carbon
input to the system approximately one third contained nearly entirely within the methane. This represents two
important advantages. A large amount of energy is needed within the gasifier to evaporate the water content of
the slurry feed. The oxidation of the gaseous carbon provides a significant portion of this energy. Additionally,
as the carbon is already in the gaseous state, no energy is required to gasify it initially. As a result, much more

energy is available for essential reactions such as steam reforming and reactions favoring the formation of carbon
monoxide as opposed to carbon dioxide.
Experience and complexity limit how realistic this gasifier can be modelled on the Aspen software. The
current process uses a very crude approximation. Because the design team is considering only a single feed, the
simulation uses a single RGibbs reactor to model the simultaneous gasification reactions. From this RGibbs
reactor, the solid and gaseous phases are split exactly. It is assumed, in reality, that approximately 50% of the
char and 1% of the ash will become entrained in the syngas. This solid fraction is mixed with the syngas,
representing the upper region of the gasifier technically, the second stage location of the CB&I gasifier. It is
also assumed that tar formation occurs in this region, as the temperature is considerably lower than the first stage
gasification region[9]. An RStoich unit is included here to model the non-equilibrium formation of undesirable
tars. The heat of formation is feedback into the RGibbs reactor, completing the energy loop. The stream leaving
the tar forming block is considered to be the end of the gasifier.
No radiant syngas cooling was implemented in order to ensure the gasifier temperature remained at the
highest level possible. Convective syngas cooling occurs after both the cyclone train and the tar cracker unit, for
similar reasons. If cyclone material recycling back to the gasifier is cooled, the gasifier temperature will drop and
decrease efficiency, which is unacceptable. The tar cracker is required to operate at elevated temperatures. If the
temperature of the entering syngas is cooled too low, catalytic activity decreases due to the endothermic nature
of certain tar cracking reactions[13]. Further explanation of the tar cracking unit is explained in the paragraph
immediately following the next.
After the gasification process, two byproducts, typically considered as waste, are produced: the slagging
material from the bottom of the gasifier and the particulates separated from the syngas product. As mentioned
previously, the slag from the reactor contains most of the heavy metals present in the feed, with the exception of
small amounts of mercury and arsenic.[6] Gasifier slag is typically considered to be a process nuisance due to its
general uselessness in addition to the difficulty inherent in its cooling to manageable temperatures as well as its
disposal. Current methods of slag management include cooling with water to create a slurry, which usually must
be disposed of by landfill. As the amount of slag emerging from the gasifier bottom in the proposed process is
9

extremely large, (approximately 36,000 kg/hr), the quantity of cooling water alone that would be required to cool
it to a manageable temperature would be significant.
A possible alternative explored by the design group and simulated in Aspen actually makes use of the
intense heat of the slag emerging from the gasifier to create steam for power generation. (Preliminary discussions
in this matter were held with the senior process engineer at Procedyne Corp., New Brunswick, NJ.) Pressurized
conditions within the gasifier can be utilized in conjunction with the installation of a nozzle aperture at the gasifier
bottom to disperse the low-viscosity, molten slag into an incoming air stream, in which the particles will cool into
ash and subsequently become entrained, heating the air stream. The air stream can then be directed to a continuous
fluid bed reactor, such as in the figure shown below, where it will produce steam for power generation.
An additional benefit is the relative simplicity in the practical management of cooled ash over hot, viscous
slag. The ash can then be used for cement aggregate or similar building material[13],[14]. Alternatively, the
conversion of slag into ash would facilitate the recovery of the heavy metal content present in sewage sludge, a
subject of current research[15],[16].
Steam

Hot Air

Water

Hot Ash

Cold
Ash
Fluidizing
Air

Figure 2: Example of Fluid Bed Heat Exchanger for Steam Generation from Hot Ash Particles. From:
Fluidization Engineering, Second Edition. Daizo Kunii, Octave Levenspiel. Reed Publishing, 1991.

10

Simulation of this unit presented a challenge in Aspen, which does not automatically process solidcontaining streams, and certainly not particle size distribution. A true fluidized bed block was therefore not used
in the simulation software. Rather, a series of heaters were constructed to mimic the heat transfer occurring within
the fluid bed operation, as will be demonstrated in the next section of the report.
With regards to the particulates recovered from the cyclones, there may be a possible use in heavy metal
filtering of the syngas. [6],[14] This would allow the plant to produce its own syngas filters. These filters may also
co-capture tars if any were formed during gasification present in the syngas due to the pore characteristics and
adsorption properties of gasified char [17].
Due to the uncertainty regarding the syngas quality of wet sewage sludge gasification, tar formation was
assumed to occur up to 2% of carbon monoxide formed during gasification. Even with low rank coals, 2% is an
extraordinarily high rate of formation. The design team has striven to create as robust a system as possible and
has since included a tar cracker unit after the dry solids separation. A Nickel-dolomite catalyst was selected,
which is actually metallic nickel grafted onto dolomite. [13][18] This double function catalyst combines the low cost
of dolomite with the strong catalytic activity of nickel. Additionally, the endothermic limitations of nickel are
balanced with the exothermic cracking provided by dolomite. No decomposition of the catalyst was observed at
plant operating temperature. [18] Simple saturated wet air can be utilized to regenerate the catalysts. Due to time
constraints, tar cracking was modelling as an RStoich reaction using literature conversion factors.
The final unit requiring design consideration concerning literature review is the fixed bed sour water gas
shift (WGS) reactor. While the CB&I modelled gasifier reaches desired temperatures and produces a high quality
syngas, further refinement is necessary. For catalytic methanol synthesis, a carbon monoxide to hydrogen (CO/H2)
ratio of 2:1 provides more product. In the syngas leaving the gasifier, the amount of carbon monoxide is more
than its optimal value, half the amount hydrogen. A sour water gas shift reactor is employed, using a cobaltmolybdenum oxide (CMO) catalyst, to bring the syngas composition to required specifications.[19][20] Additional
carbon dioxide produced from this reaction can be readily removed in the following syngas purification island.
This catalyst is able to withstand the high temperature, acidic properties of the syngas entering. Interestingly, the
presence of hydrogen sulfide which is the primary source of the syngas acidic properties increases the catalyst
11

activity. Catalyst activation is performed using high temperature nitrogen, water, and carbon monoxide. All three
are produced as byproducts in major plant processes.
Cobalt and molybdenum oxide catalysts not only require, but work much more quickly, in the presence
of significant levels of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). They have a very high rate of reaction as well, so a very small
adiabatic fixed bed can be utilized to alter the ratio of hydrogen to carbon in favor of excess of hydrogen. The
reaction utilizes Langmuir-Hinshelwood kinetics whose numeric values are explored in experiments by Ederer,
et al. and respectively shown here below in Equation 1, converted mathematically from reactant concentrations
into partial pressures. [31]
Eq 1[31]
+ +
=

1 + + + +

Footnote regarding Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs):

Sewage treatment occurs over a variety of stages, which are constituted of several steps [53]. The first stage
of sewage pretreatment focuses on comminution and the removing of undesirables such as grit and detritus.
Primary treatment follows where primary sedimentation concentrations solids into sludge at the bottom of
large tanks. At this point, the solid and water fractions are split into two different pathways. Water continues
off to secondary treatment of aeration and clarification, where additional solids called activated sludge are
collected. The wastewater then passes through a trickling filtration and chemical contact step before being
released into the environment or alternatively used elsewhere in the plant.
The solid fraction and the activated sludge collected from wastewater secondary treatment, is sent to the
digestion ponds where the Biogas is subsequently collected. In the reference cited at the onset of this footnote,
aeration, activated sludge, and Biogas production are included under activated sludge. Once the sludge is
12

digested and the Biogas collected, sludge enters the final stage of the sewage treatment process: sludge
dewatering. This is done to reduce the volume and weight of the final waste for easier and less costly
transportation and disposal. For this project, the 81.0% moisture content weight reported in Table 2 is assumed
to have been the result of this dewatering stage. Some POTWs utilize belt pressing to further reduce the
moisture content of sewage sludge into a cake-like product. As mentioned in the report summary, belt
pressing is assumed to provide the necessary reduction in moisture content and will be included separately in
the cost analysis later in the report.

2. Syngas Purification Isle

Following the gasification process, the syngas enters the plants acid gas removal system. The following
section of the report details the literature review of comparative acid gas removal processes and the specific
factors affecting the groups design decisions with regards to the processs acid gas removal system.
Synthesis gas streams emerging from gasification units frequently contain the acid gases hydrogen sulfide
and carbon dioxide, which are considered impurities in a typical IGCC process for a number of reasons, including
environmental concerns, ranging from environmental concerns to equipment restrictions, to unique requirements
with regard to the specific process at hand.
Hydrogen sulfide reacts to form acids that are corrosive to carbon steel, necessitating expensive stainless
steel process equipment from the point of its generation to its removal. It is also highly ruinous to the specific
catalysts used in the process downstream. Carbon dioxide must also be removed in bulk from the synthesis gas,
which, due to process requirements downstream, must contain no more than three percent carbon dioxide. With
regards to atmospheric considerations, hydrogen sulfide is a highly toxic gas whose emissions are strictly
regulated, and carbon dioxide, which accounts for approximately 80% of all greenhouse gases, has been subject
to increasingly strict governmental regulation. It is therefore imperative for the design of this process to confront
the presence of acid gases in the synthesis gas stream and deal with them properly and expeditiously.
13

There are a quite a number of techniques for the removal of acid gases from a gas stream, ranging from
membrane separation to absorption and adsorption [28]. Within the process industry, absorption techniques are
used predominantly, and fall under two general categories: chemical and physical absorption. Chemical
absorption generally used amine-based chemical solvents to react with the acid gases in the stream, while physical
absorption relies upon the variations in the physical solubility of the various gases of which the stream is
composed to selectively remove the acid gases. The current chemical absorption technique of choice in
commercial IGCC plants for acid gas removal is the chemical solvent process based on aqueous
methyldiethanolamine (MDEA). The process outlined in this proposal, however, relies upon selective catalytic
oxidation further downstream, which requires total sulfur levels to be below 1 PPMV, a requirement which cannot
easily be met using current chemical separation methods. [28]
Physical separation techniques, in addition to deeper sulfur removal capabilities, possess the significant
advantage of enabling solvent regeneration simply through pressure reduction, as opposed to through the
substantial heat application which can be necessary for chemical solvent regeneration. There are a number of
patented processes that are employed by the IGCC industry, the most popular of which are Selexol, Purisol,
and Rectisol, which apply the use of the physical solvents DEPG (Dimethyl Ether of Polyethylene Glycol), NMP
(N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone), and refrigerated Methanol, respectively.[24]
The Rectisol process for acid gas removal using methanol as a physical solvent was first installed by Lurgi
AG in 1955 and is currently licensed by both Lurgi AG and Linde AG [26].Chronologically, it is the first of the
physical acid gas removal technologies. This process utilizes the specific thermodynamic qualities of methanol
with regards to its ability to absorb certain gases under specific temperatures. According to the graph below,
which plots the solubility coefficient of various gases in methanol versus temperature, methanol displays a
specific affinity for acid gases hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon dioxide at low temperatures.
Methanol, run countercurrent to syngas in an absorption column at high pressures and low temperatures can
therefore be quite efficient in the removal of acid gases from the syngas stream.

14

Graph 2 - Solubility Coefficient of Various Gases in Methanol vs. Temperature [29]

As the Rectisol process typically operates between -40C and -70C, the refrigeration costs involved in
this part of the process can be quite high. This disadvantage is outweighed, however, by methanols ability to
capture all of the hydrogen sulfide from the syngas as well as the bulk of the carbon dioxide [24]. The Selexol and
Purisol processes, both less expensive than the Rectisol process, while both capable of deep desulfurization, are
more limited with regards to carbon dioxide capture. Moreover, Rectisol offers the capability for variation of the
methanol absorption levels through adjustment of the refrigeration levels, which provides it with a unique
flexibility to meet the requirements of a number of processes with different design constraints with regards to the
amounts of carbon dioxide required to be removed from the syngas stream together with hydrogen sulfide

[25]

These advantages are borne out by the fact that as of 2002, eight of the nine commercial-size coke or coal-based
gasification plants worldwide for chemical production use Rectisol for acid gas removal, with only one using
Selexol [28] As mentioned previously, the current process requires a large bulk of the carbon dioxide in the syngas
to be removed together with the hydrogen sulfide. This would exclude for consideration the other two physical
absorption processes, which are more limited in this regard.
15

The Rectisol physical solvent process, while regarded as the most expensive of the AGR processes, is
capable deep sulfur removal and offers flexibility with regards to the carbon dioxide removal and can be
configured to fit the separation parameters of the specific product being manufactured downstream. As the process
detailed in this report requires a syngas composition with carbon dioxide content no greater than three percent
due to catalyst sensitivities, Rectisol was chosen as the process by which to model the syngas purification island
of the process.
It must be noted that, while the desulfurization process detailed in this report does utilize the advantages
provided by the unique absorption capabilities of methanol for specificity of hydrogen sulfide over carbon
monoxide, as does Rectisol, the process model used in this proposal for the purpose of acid gas removal does not
closely model a specific commercial process or one found in literature.
As an example, a particular literature Aspen design for the Rectisol process

[27]

uses three distillation

columns to strip the hydrogen sulfide and regenerate the methanol. Being that distillations columns are highly
energy intensive, our system was modified to perform the bulk of the separations in this island through the use of
a nitrogen stripping column. Nitrogen, while relatively costly, is a free byproduct of the processs air separation
unit. The nitrogen was run countercurrent to the methanol through a ten-stage column and achieved the bulk of
the stripping, with a full 98% of the methanol emerging clean from the bottom of the column. The remaining 2%
of the methanol was sent with the nitrogen and the acid gases to two small columns for complete regeneration, at
a fraction of the energy cost of the alternate design. Nitrogen stripping is used by the wastewater industry, and,
according to the figures provided by the industry literature [30] the surplus nitrogen provided by the air separation
unit is more than sufficient to strip the acid gases from the methanol in the system. This was confirmed by the
Aspen simulation, which determined maximum separation to occur at a mole flow of 2,000 kmol of nitrogen.
Cost-effective nitrogen stripping was used elsewhere in the island, as will be detailed shortly.
As a general rule, the aim of the design group with regards to the Syngas Purification Island was to
minimize the use of energy-intensive distillation columns wherever possible, and to instead perform the bulk of
the separations using flash drums and nitrogen stripping columns, with smaller distillation columns then being
used to fine-tune the rest of the separations wherever necessary.
16

The basic separation requirements for the purification island are as follows: 11,400 kmol of dirty, wet
synthesis gas per hour emerge from the gasification island, comprised of approximately twenty-three percent
hydrogen, thirteen percent carbon monoxide, forty-five percent water, fifteen percent carbon dioxide, and two
thousand parts per million hydrogen sulfide. The large amount of water present in the syngas, due to the high
water content of the original feedstock, needed to be removed first, as any water present in the syngas would
condense when contacted by the cold methanol and interfere with its absorption abilities. This was accomplished
by passing the syngas into a knockout drum, which cooled the syngas from 154C to 35C, condensing all the
water which leaves from the bottom of the drum. Hydrogen sulfide is present in the water at a concentration of
fifty-five ppm. This is removed by passing the water through a nitrogen stripping column, where the nitrogen
removes the remaining hydrogen sulfide from the water and carries it to the Claus process island.
The next process objective is the removal of acid gas from the syngas by means of the Rectisol process.
Necessary separation requirements included removal of hydrogen sulfide to a concentration of less than one ppm,
and removal of the carbon dioxide to a concentration of less than three percent. Through Aspens sensitivity
analysis (see graph below), it was determined that over 8,500 kmol of methanol at -40C would be required for
this to be accomplished.

Graph 3 - Aspen Sensitivity Analysis for Determination of Optimal Methanol Flow Rate

17

Using large quantities of methanol was unattractive to the design group due to the energy that would be
necessary to process this quantity through the separation island. Through trial-and-error, it was determined that
this large quantity was necessitated due to the warming of the methanol as it progressed down the column, thereby
reducing its absorption capabilities. For economic reasons, it was also undesirable to cool the methanol at the
inlet to below -40C. A method of keeping the methanol cold throughout the column would preclude both of these
necessities.
A design was devised by the group with regards to the Aspen simulation by which it was possible to
simulate refrigeration throughout the column. The design involved the connection of a system of four heat
exchangers to the side of the column in parallel, beginning at stage forty, which would remove the methanol and
chill it through evaporative cooling, and return it to the column five stages higher. (Due to limitations within
Aspen, simultaneous modeling of four heat exchange blocks presented great difficulty; the design group instead
used four heater blocks which were connected to another set of four heater blocks, to model actual heat exchange
blocks.) This innovative design kept the methanol chilled throughout the column to the point that its temperature
was only six degrees Celsius at the columns outlet, as opposed to sixty degrees Celsius, with the original design.
This allowed the mole flow of methanol to be reduced to 3,500 kmol/hr, a fraction of the original, greatly reducing
operation costs of the separations island.
The evaporative coolers attached to the Rectisol column, as well as a number of other coolers in the
process, were part of the third section of the syngas purification island, the refrigeration unit, which provided cold
streams of negative forty-six degrees Celsius due to use of a propane-ethylene refrigerant mix. The hot streams
from the coolers are mixed, then compressed by a multi-stage compressor to a super-heated vapor. The vapor is
then fed through a cooler, which condenses it to a pressurized liquid. This liquid is sent through a thermal
expansion valve, causing a portion of the liquid to vaporize, forming a vapor-liquid equilibrium. The energy of
vaporization removes heat from the liquid, and the mixture is then split and sent to a number of streams as per
respective cooling requirements, where the remainder of the liquid is evaporated, cooling the various blocks, and
returning back to the beginning of the cycle.

18

The third stage of the syngas purification island is carbon monoxide separation unit. Carbon monoxide, if
kept in the acid gases, will cause carbonyl sulfide to be generated within the Claus furnace instead of elemental
sulfur. A design decision was made to remove the carbon monoxide at this stage in the process. As per the
thermodynamic data graphed in Graph 2, the solubility coefficient of carbon monoxide in methanol is much
smaller than that of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. A simple change of temperature or pressure conditions
would result in the release of the carbon monoxide from the methanol stream. This was carried out by sending
the methanol stream to a flash drum, where the pressure was suddenly reduced from 34.6 bar to 20 bar. This
caused over 98% of the carbon monoxide to be released into the top stream, along with a small amount of acid
gases and methanol. Separation is completed in a twenty-stage distillation column, with no reboiler, and a
condenser that was cooled by the refrigeration cycle. The top stream produces 162 kmol/hr of carbon monoxide,
which is sent to a furnace for steam generation. The bottom stream of the column mixed with the bottom stream
of the flash drum and continued downstream for acid gas removal.
With regards to the fifth section of the process, the acid gas separation unit, it has been previously
mentioned that the design was based on the decision to reduce power usage due to reliance on energy-intensive
distillation columns. An alternate design found in literature, shown below, uses three distillation columns to
perform the acid gas separation. When this process was simulated in Aspen by the design group, the energy
requirements for this part of the process exceeded fifteen megawatts.

19

Figure 3 - Simulation of Desulphurization of Synthesis Gas with Aspen Plus, Peter Trop, et al, Faculty of
Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,University of Maribor, Slovenia[27]
The alternate design used by the group utilizes nitrogen stripping to regenerate ninety-eight percent of the
methanol, which emerges from the bottom at almost a hundred percent purity. The remaining two percent of the
methanol emerges from the top of the column, and is sent to a series of two small distillation columns for complete
separation, one without a condenser, and the other without a reboiler. This alternate design required less than two
megawatts of total energy for the acid gas separation unit, resulting in a total energy requirement of approximately
eight megawatts for the entire syngas purification island, which is quite low, considering the number of
separations being performed, the quality of the separations, and the intricate cooling system for the Rectisol
column. It is important to note as well that the bulk of the cooling in the process takes place in the syngas
purification island.

20

3. Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Isle

Methanol synthesis in recent years is increasingly common due to an increase in popularity of relatively
low pressure vapor reactions with syngas over copper-zinc-aluminum oxide catalysts. The reactions happen
between 50-100 bar and the commercial catalysts used have an operating life of a few years. [32] [33] Newer catalytic
reactors, like the slurry reactors in LPMEOH, generally have an economically feasible maximum per-pass
conversion of 50%-60% of hydrogen gases into methanol and an upwards of 99% overall conversion into
methanol with the use of recycle streams. The catalysts have a high fraction of copper because it suits the reaction
kinetics and the adsorption and desorption process favorably for the reaction.[34] The catalysts degenerate at a rate
of 0.3% per day, so continuous catalyst addition can be utilized by sending some of the oil to a separate vessel
where new catalyst is reduced by syngas then added to the slurry vessel.[35] All these factors suit our process well,
and the large recycle stream can be offset by burning a substantial fraction of the purge syngas for power in a jet
turbine.
Commercial dimethyl ether synthesis is less common, but can also be achieved with similar processes in
a fixed bed reactor, low conversions around of methanol at around 50%, and a recycle stream. -Al2O3 is a useful
catalyst here with a similar cost and lifespan as the copper-zinc-aluminum catalyst, as well as sharing a high
selectivity for dimethyl ether.[36] Water in excess decreases the selectivity and yield of the catalysts, so that must
also be accounted for. Both of these catalysts have an active temperature range between 220C-280C, with
catalyst degeneration occurring at higher temperatures, so attention to changes in temperature are also important
in this reactions.[37]
Methanol and dimethyl ether synthesis reactions are highly exothermic, so heat removal will take large
factor into designs. To account for it, the slurry reactor will utilize its high heat capacity and heat exchangers and
the dimethyl ether fixed-bed will utilize reactors with small diameter arranged in parallel within a shell and tube
heat exchanger to have very extensive temperature control based on the pressure of the thermal fluid. Since the
steam generated from this can also help heat the distillation columns downstream, this is a useful arrangement.
[36][38]

21

The reaction kinetics for the three reactions in this process have a long history of experimental analysis,
especially involving statistical methods for the elucidation of different rate laws based on different reaction
conditions. Three Langmuir-Hinshelwood based rate laws based on previous research work operate under
pressure, temperature, conversion, and use of catalysts similar to this Aspen-modeled process.

[37][39]

The rate

laws are shown below and numeric values for the constants can be found in their respective references. The
reactions respectively are: the reverse water-gas shift reaction, the dehydration of carbon dioxide to form
methanol, and the dehydration of methanol to form dimethyl ether; all over their respective catalysts.

Eq 2[39]

+ +
=

Eq 3[39]

+ +

+ +
=

Eq 4[37]

1 +

1 +

+ +

+
=

+ + 1

A purge of the recycle stream in both synthesis loops is required to keep stable the amount of trace
compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, methane, and nitrogen in the reactor feed. The catalysts
activities can degenerate if levels of these compounds are allowed to accumulate above several parts per million.
[32]

Carbon dioxide also deactivates the alumina catalysts, so the mole fraction of it must be kept to a reasonably

low amount. Fortunately, the reaction rate for methanol can actually speed up with low amounts of carbon dioxide

22

if the reaction is coupled with the forward water-gas shift reaction. This arrangement also consumes nearly all of
the water from the methanol product stream. [40]
A major set of design factors for this island were the types of separation utilized for purifying reactant and
product streams. A single stage dimethyl ether synthesis reactor can save capital costs for the additional material
required for two reactors, but also makes a product stream that takes more effort to heat, cool, and separate into
useful streams. In order to separate carbon dioxide from dimethyl ether, temperatures of -40C are necessary. This
was found to be a large amount of refrigeration utility and the two stage synthesis was preferred because of this.
The lowest temperature for separation for this process was found to be 15C, and this was more cheaply achievable
with economizers, cooling water, and then refrigeration utility.
The choices of temperature and pressure for the three different required separations are explained with
visuals below. The graphs compare the partial pressures and relative volatilities of syngas, dimethyl ether,
methanol, and water alongside one another and how we can utilize temperature and pressure combinations to
make the separations happen as cheaply and reliably as possible for each. The first separation condenses methanol
and water from the syngas product stream leaving the methanol reactor. The second separation distills high purity
water from a mostly methanol and water reactant stream. The third separation distills high purity dimethyl ether
from the product stream leaving the dimethyl ether reactor, which also contains water and methanol.

23

Methanol Flow (kmol/hr)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30
40
Temperature (C)

50

60

Graph 4 - Methanol escaping as vapor in MFLASH flash drum as a function of temperature

Vapor Pressure (bar)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40

60

80
100
Temperature (C)

Methanol

120

140

Water

Graph 5 - Comparison of vapor pressures of water versus methanol

24

Vapor Pressure (bar)

25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
20

40

60
80
Temperature (C)

Dimethyl Ether

Methanol

100

Water

Graph 6 - Comparison of vapor pressures of DME, methanol and water

As seen from the first graphic, the temperature necessary to condense methanol is much lower than its
actual boiling point, due to the phenomenon of partial pressure amidst a mixed stream of gases. The temperature
needed to condense enough methanol to prevent the compressor from taking in liquid upstream after the recycle
is 15C. Above these temperatures, too much methanol goes out of the flash drum as vapor and ends up cooling
as it meets the initial feed, becoming liquid methanol and ruining the compressor.
From the second graph, one can see the partial pressures of water and methanol as a function of
temperature. Methanol always has higher volatility, yet the relative volatility is higher at temperatures lower than
100C. Therefore, logically, for separation it is desirable to distill at 1 bar and temperatures between 70C and
100C. This separation is especially important, because the waste water output needs to be free of methanol,
which is poisonous, causing blindness even if ingested in small quantities.
From the third graph, vapor pressure of DME is also considered alongside methanol and water. At
temperatures above 50C, its vapor pressure greatly outweighs that of both water and methanol. Since its vapor
pressure is around 12 bar, it should be distilled at pressures around 10 bar to keep methanol and water from joining
the vapor stream. This will more easily create high purity DME.
25

PSRK is chosen as the property method for most unit operations in the synthesis island. This setting can
accurately gauge the non-ideal behavior of supercritical syngas within separation units and reactors between 10
and 60 bar. Exceptions to this are heat exchangers with steam, which use IPAWS95 with accurate steam table
values, and the low pressure separation units like the water distillation column, which uses NRTL-RK to get an
accurate equation of state for a low pressure vapor-liquid system with polar components.

4. Claus Process Isle

As mentioned in the previous section, the flue gases from the syngas purification island contain a
significant amount of hydrogen sulfide, which is harmful to the environment, the equipment, and to almost every
remaining part of the process. It can be safely and almost completely removed by the Claus process, a hundredyear old industrial process developed for the conversion of sulfur-containing gases to elemental sulfur. The
following section discusses literature findings regarding the use of the Claus process in industry, together with
specific design considerations that pertain to the specific process detailed in this report.
Hydrogen sulfide, a common byproduct of the processing of synthesis gas, is considered a broad-spectrum
poison which is the source of numerous environmental issues. For this reason, sulfur capture and recovery is an
essential part of almost every industrial process. In the project detailed in this report, the Claus process has been
selected for the conversion of hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur as it is still the most widely-used and successful
system in this regard.
A typical Claus process unit consists of a furnace, a catalytic reactor, and a condenser. The Claus process
begins with the furnace which operates at high temperature, usually between 700C and1,000C. This is called
the thermal stage. Literature findings show that elemental sulfur yield increases proportionally to the elevation of
the bed temperature[42]. Due to Aspen limitations, the functionality of this process was optimized at a furnace
temperature of 285C, and not at the above temperature conditions. In this stage, approximately 65% to 70% of
hydrogen sulfide is converted to sulfur (S) in the reaction detailed below. In the thermal stage, hydrogen sulfide
gas reacts in less than stoichiometric combustion. The hydrogen sulfide content and the concentration of
26

combustible components determn the location where the feed gas is burned. Acid gas with no further combustible
contents apart from hydrogen sulfide are burned in lances srurrounding a central muffle. This reaction is strongly
exothermic. Total oxidation of hydrogen sulfide for generation of sulfur dioxide that reacts away in subsequent
reactions. The overall reaction in the furnace is shown below.
Eq 3[53]

10 + 5 2 + + + 8

This equation shows that the thermal stage alone can convert two-thirds of the hydrogen sulfide to elemental
sulfur. Recovered sulfur is collected from the bottom of the furnace, and the exhaust gases are then sent to the
catalytic reactors in which multistage catalytic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide is conducted.
2 + 3 + 2

Eq 4[53]

As the reaction within the reactor is an equilibrium reaction, a single Claus unit will not be able to convert all of
the hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur.. For this reason, a typical Claus process is usually composed of two or
even three multiple units. For the particular process detailed in this report, three units were used to convert 99.54%
of the original hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. The condensers cools down the stream to liquefy sulfur gas
formed through the furnace and reactors. The common catalyst for the catalytic bed is Aluminum oxide [44]. Final
results indicated that over 97% of the original hydrogen sulfide was converted to elemental sulfur. The rate laws
for the catalytic reaction is shown below.
Eq 5[53]
Eq 6[53]
Eq 7[53]
Eq 8[53]

.
=

= , =

, = 15762 , = 506 ,

= 49.4 ,

= 89.3

5. Power Generation Isle

The gas turbine is modeled as an industrial gas turbine, particularly, a 40MW Stewart & Stevenson LM600
gas turbine.[47] It was modeled as such because the output of the gas turbine of the overall process was slightly
less than 39 MW, so having a gas turbine that had a capacity that was slightly larger than the output would result
27

in cheaper capital costs of the gas turbine. Modeling the gas turbine as an industrial gas turbine instead of an
aeroderivative gas turbine was the best option because these units are cheaper, operate in longer intervals between
overhauls, and are better suited for continuous base-load operations. Unfortunately, the industrial gas turbine has
a lower efficiency than aeroderivative gas turbines. However, choosing an industrial gas turbine was better for
the long-term since it will make the plant have a higher rate of return and it also meets the plants requirements
of operating 24/7 and for 310 days per year. The gas turbine is powered mainly by the fuels, which are the purge
stream that comes from the methanol synthesis reactor called PURGE, the fuel from the purification island called
P-COBURN, and the fuel from the DME synthesis reactor called DBURN. Atmospheric air named E-AIRIN,
will subsequently be used as feed to the combustor and produce the gas turbine inlet; thus producing electricity.
Mixing the air with the three types of fuel is used to increase the mass flow rate of the overall mixture, which
subsequently increases the power of the gas turbine. The atmospheric air, E-AIRIN, is at a temperature of 25oC.
The reason for keeping the atmospheric air temperature low is because the compressor will require more work to
compress a stream of higher temperature. Thus, an increase in air temperature will result in less power and
efficiency. Another reason for keeping the air temperature at 25oC is that the temperature of the gas turbine
exhaust temperature compared to lower air temperatures will result in higher temperature ratios, which will
increase power and efficiency.[46] Two other major design considerations that were considered to optimize the
amount of power being produced were: 1) Keeping the turbine inlet as high as possible, but low enough so the
temperature of the inlet does not destroy the turbine, and 2) Keeping the economizer product, GT-EX6, as low as
possible. The reason why the turbine inlet is set at a range of 1200-1400oC is because the gas turbine produces
more power from the gas turbine and more steam from the HRSG unit if the turbine inlet temperatures are as high
as possible. The economizer product, GT-EX6, is set at or below 90oC, so that the HRSG unit uses less energy to
produce steam at a high temperature. Also, mixing GT-EX6 with the Claus tail gas, C-TAIL, and the product of
the purification island, P-AIROUT, helps reduces sulfur oxide and nitrous oxide emissions that would have been
harmful if it were not treated.

28

III.

Simulation of Process in Aspen Plus and Resultant Data

Oxygen

Nitrogen

Figure 4: Overall Block Flow Diagram of Proposed Process

29

1. Sewage Gasification Isle

Figure 5 Gasification Island Block Flow Diagram; compare to PFD below

Figure 6 Gasification Island Process Flow Diagram; compare to BFD above

30

Figure 7 Cryogenic Air Separation Island; compare to Model in appendix

The technical start of the Aspen simulation begins with the cryogenic air separation island, as it provides
one of the three feeds of the gasifier. The multi-stage compressor (A-ACOMP) draws in 9,500 kmol/hr of
atmospheric air in order to provide the approximate 2,050 kmol/hr of pure oxygen required for the gasifier.
Pressurized to 11 bar and kept cool at 35C, the air (A-AIR1) enters a molecular sieving unit to remove carbon
dioxide and water vapor. These components will freeze at the cryogenic temperatures of the air separation unit,
leading to equipment blockage. Multiple sieves will allow for continuous operation by re-directly flow to fresh
sieves while used are regenerated. Regeneration is provided by subjecting sieve to reverse flow of nitrogen
byproduct. From the sieve, process air (A-AIR2) enters a multi stream heat exchanger (ASU1) where it is cooled
against the cryogenic product. Chilled air (A-AIR3) enters a splitter where 80% of the air (A-AIR2T) enters a
turbine to recover some work before entering the low pressure column, and the remaining 20% (A-HPAIR1)
passes through a second multi stream heat exchanger (ASU2). This smaller stream enters a high pressure column
(A-HPCOL) which will provide the reflux and some cooling for the low pressure column. The high pressure
column bottoms and distillate are cooled against the low pressure distillate product (A-LPDIS1) in two separate
31

heat exchangers, (A-HEX1 and A-HEX2 respectively). The low pressure oxygen rich distillate (A-LBOT1) is
passed through a low temperature reboiler to prevent evaporation in multi stream heat exchanger (A-ASU2) for
safety concerns. The nitrogen rich product 99.7% pure is split into various streams for downstream processes.
Of the approximately 2,080 kmol/hr of 95.0% purity oxygen, nearly all 2,050 kmol/hr is sent to the gasifier
feed pressurization sub-island. The oxygen feed to the gasifier is warmed to ambient temperatures to prevent
cooling of the gasifier.

Figure 8 Gasifier Feed Pressurization Sub-Island

32

The gasification island has three separate feeds aside from cooling water that must be pressurized first
before entering the gasifier. The pure oxygen from the air separation unit enters the multi-stage compressor (GO2COMP) and is pressurized to 47.82 bar. Likewise, the Biogas from the anaerobic digestion pools enters its
own multi-stage compressor (G-BGCOMP) and is pressurized to 47.82 bar as well. The mechanically dewatered
sewage sludge, before being pressurized, must be broken down into its atomic composition in order for the
simulation software to be able to process. This is performed in the coupled RYield and Calculator blocks (GBREAK and G-CALC) respectively (see: FORTRAN code in appendix for G-BREAK block cod). Due to software
limitations, solids suspended in liquids cannot be pressurized in pumps, so the reactor block (G-H2OSEP)
removes the water in the stream (G-DECOMP) leaving the RYield block. This water is pressurized separately by
passing it through a pump (G-SPUMP) with its own property method based on steam tables to 47.82 bar and
remixed in a simulated mixer (G-SMIX). These pressures were chosen to ensure downstream processes such as
syngas purification and synthesis would either be at or close to their required operating pressures.

Figure 9 CB&I Gasifier Model Sub-Island

33

At this point, all three feeds are properly pressurized and fed into the main gasifier unit (G-CBI)
representing the central region of the Chicago Bridge and Iron gasifier. Gibbs equilibrium reactions are performed
within. The gaseous phase (G-CORE) leaves from the top of the reactor and the solid phase (G-SOLIDS) drops
out the bottom. The solids enter a separator (G-SSEP) where the fly ash (G-PARTIC) leaves in the top stream
and the slag byproduct (G-SLAG) leaves in the bottom stream. The slag continues to a system for the generation
of intermediate pressure steam which will be discussed later. The fly ash and gaseous state are mixed in a mixer
(G-RMIX) representing the upward region of the CB&I gasifier before entering the RStoich reactor modeling tar
formation (G-TARFM). The emerging stream (G-SG1) represents the final syngas produced from the gasifier
including entrained solid and tar impurities.

Figure 10 Entrained Solids Separation Sub-Island

From this point, the syngas enters the cyclone train consisting of a series of two cyclones (G-CYCL1 and
G-CYCL2). The first cyclone captures 95% of entrained solids and returns them back to the gasifier in an openloop recycle (G-RECYL). This recycle allows the gasifier to operate at approximately 98% carbon conversion
[23]

. The solids captured in the second cyclone (G-FLYASH) are not returned to the gasifier. Rather, these solids

are collected and allowed to cool for use in the downstream heavy metal char filters. Over both cyclones, a
34

pressure drop of 3% occurs and a temperature drop of 30C occurs due to the assumed unavoidable heat loss
through the material. After the cyclone train removes all solid particulates entrained in the syngas, the emerging
stream (G-SG3) enters the tar cracker unit (G-TARCRK) composed of the nickel-dolomite catalyst.
Approximately 95% of the tar is cracked into hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

Figure 11 Cooling, Filtering, Shifting Sub-Island

The tar-free syngas stream emerging from the tar cracker (G-SG4) enters a convective cooling system (GCONVCL) for the production of high pressure steam. The cooled syngas (G-SG5) enters a combined char and
ceramic filter (G-FILTER) to remove the remaining tar and mobile heavy metals still present. After the filters,
the syngas (G-SG6) passes through an adiabatic fixed bed reactor (G-SSHIFT) containing a cobalt-molybdenum
catalyst for the sour water gas shift reaction. The emerging syngas (G-SYNGS1) is heated, due to the overall
exothermic nature of the water gas shift reaction. As of this point, the syngas is particulate, heavy metal, and tar
free, and has been chemically shifted to have component flows more conducive to downstream synthesis reactors.
This stream exits the gasification island at approximately 375C and 35.67 bar to enter the Rectisol physical
purification island.

35

Figure 12 Fluidized Slag Heater Sub-Island

Returning to the slag byproduct that leaves the bottom of the CB&I reactor, there is an additional process
operation that must be detailed. The molten slag (G-SLAG) will be forced from the bottoms of the gasifier due to
the high internal operating pressure. The molten slag passes through a nozzle and into the top of an air fluidized
bed, forcing the slag to cool and solidify, which will rapidly increase the temperature of the air (G-SLGAIR).
This interchange of heat is modeled by the coupled heater blocks (G-SLAGCO and G-SLAGHE). Countercurrent
radiant cooling is provided by the pressurized cooling (G-IPSP1), generating intermediate pressure steam in the
block G-SLGSTM. As the water heats and eventually vaporizes, the slag cools further and can be removed
from the bottom of the fluidized bed heater, where it can be cooled completely in ambient air, and then sent for
heavy metal leaching and/or use in cement production.
All blocks discussed in the gasification island operate with the PR-BM property method, excluding water
pumps and steam generating heat exchangers which use the IAPWS-95 steam tables. PR-BM was selected due to
36

the generally non-polar nature of the syngas and slag. Unfortunately, the syngas from wet sewage sludge
gasification contains significant amounts of water, so the PR-BM method may have difficulty yielding accurate
calculations. This is an unavoidable limitation of the simulation software.

37

2. Acid Gas Removal Isle

Figure 13: Block Flow Diagram of Syngas Purification Island, compare with PFD below

Figure 14: Aspen Process Flow Diagram of Syngas Purification Island, compare with BFD above
38

The syngas purification island of the proposed process consists of a series of physical separation processes
that are centered around a methanol absorption column which utilizes the high solubility of hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide in methanol at high pressures to absorb it from the syngas. For simplification purposes, the syngas
purification island will be separated into five sections, of which the Rectisol column is the second section. The
five sections will be termed Water Separation Unit, Rectisol Unit, Refrigeration Unit, Carbon Monoxide
Separation Unit, and Acid Gas Separation Unit.

Figure 15: Water Separation Unit

The first section of the syngas purification island involves the removal of the water that is contained in
the syngas. Dried Syngas (G-SYNGS1) leaves the processs gasification unit (G-SSHIFT) containing a total mole
flow of 11,437kmol/hr, with a percent composition of 45.7% water, 23.1% hydrogen, 13.9% carbon dioxide,
13.9% carbon monoxide, 1.6% nitrogen, and 0.2% hydrogen sulfide. (For purposes of simplicity, percent
compositions lower than 1 PPMV will not be detailed in this section of the report.)
The syngas, which exits the gasifier at a temperature of 374.8 degrees Celsius, enters a heat exchanger
(G-COOLEX) where it is cooled to 154 degrees Celsius. Following its pass through the heat exchanger, the cooled
syngas (P-SYNGS1) enters a flash separator (P-KNKOUT), which operates at a temperature of 35 degrees Celsius
and a pressure of 34.6 bar.
39

The dewatered syngas (P-SYNGS2), with a total mole flow rate of 6,216kmol per hour, is now comprised
of a percent composition of 25.6% carbon monoxide, 27% carbon dioxide, 42.5% hydrogen, 0.4% hydrogen
sulfide, 3% nitrogen, and 0.4% water. The condensed water (P-H2OSWR), containing mole flows of
0.631kmolper hour of carbon dioxide, 0.287kmol per hour of hydrogen sulfide, and 0.233kmol per hour of
ammonia is sent to the plants sour water stripper (P-N2STR1), where the acid gases will be removed.
The sour water stripper is a 10-stage column with no condenser or reboiler. The water stream
(PH2OSWR) is run downwards through the column, and 1,000 kmol/hr of nitrogen (A-N2SWST) is run upwards
through the column, countercurrent to the water. The acid gases, which contain a total mole flow of approximately
950kmol per hour, and which contain 0.27 kmol per hour of hydrogen sulfide, exit in the distillate stream (PACDGS1), and are mixed with the rest of the acid gases removed from the process and fed to the Claus process
section of the process, where the hydrogen sulfide will be converted to elemental sulfur. The water, which contains
nothing more than traces of the acid gases and only 43 ppm of ammonia, exits from the bottoms stream (PH2OCLN) at a temperature of 11C, and is recycled to the process as cooling water.

Figure 16: Rectisol Unit

40

The next section in the syngas purification process comprises the central part of the process: the
absorption of the acid gases from the dewatered syngas. As detailed in the previous section, the dewatered syngas
has a total mole flow of 6,216 kmol per hour, with a percent composition of 27% carbon monoxide, 27% carbon
dioxide, 67.2% hydrogen, 0.4% hydrogen sulfide, 3% nitrogen, and 0.2% water.
The dewatered syngas is fed to the bottom of the acid gas absorber (P-RCTSL), which is a 41-stage gasliquid absorption column. The syngas is run counter-currently with the cold methanol at a pressure of 34.6 bar.
3,500 kmol/hr at 25C (P-MEOH1) enters a centrifugal pump (P-PUMP) where it is exits in a compressed stream
(P-MEOH2) at a pressure of 38 bar, and enters a cooler. The emerging stream (P-MEOH3), refrigerated to
temperature of -39.6C, enters from the top of the column and runs downward. The syngas stream (P-SYNGS2)
enters the column from the bottom and runs upwards.
As was described in the previous section, the difficulty encountered in maintaining the reduced
temperature was mitigated through the incorporation of a series of four heat exchangers external to the surface of
the absorber. (As mentioned previously, each heat exchanger was simulated by a pair of heating units, which
modeled the heat transfer that takes place in the exchanger) The schematic of the cooling system is as follows:
The liquid stream from stage forty (FROM 40) of the absorber was removed and cooled by the first cooler (PEVP1& P-EVP2), and was returned to stage thirty-five (TO 35). Similarly, the liquid streams from stages thirty,
twenty, and ten (FROM 30, FROM 20, and FROM 10, respectively) were removed to three separate cooling
systems (P-EVP3 & P-EVP4, P-EVP5 & P-EVP6, and P-EVP7 and P-EVP8, respectively), and were returned to
stages twenty-five, fifteen, and five (TO 25, TO 15, TO 5), respectively.
The cold streams of the four heat exchangers were part of the refrigeration cycle, and entered at a
temperature of -56.4C, with mole flows of 920, 660, 500, and 400 kmol/hr of refrigerant, which was a vaporliquid equilibrium at a pressure of 2.2 bar and with a vapor fraction of 0.66. This cooling system enables the
column to operate at a greatly reduced temperatures, evident from the low temperature of the exiting vapor phase
(6C). By comparison, prior to the employment of this system, the exiting vapor phase was above 60C.

41

The above method enabled sufficient cooling throughout the column to absorb enough hydrogen sulfide
to reduce its concentration in the vapor stream (P-SYNGS3) to a trace concentration, and the concentration of
carbon dioxide to 2.7%. Specifically, the syngas stream emerges from the top of the column at a temperature of 16.8C, a pressure of 29 bar, and a total mole flow rate 4,426 kmol/hr, of which 2.641 kmol/hr is hydrogen, 1426
kmol/hr is carbon monoxide, 122 kmol/hr is carbon dioxide. A small amount of methanol (2.2 kmol) is also
transferred to the vapor stream. The syngas stream is then sent to the Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Island.
The liquid methanol stream (P-MEOH4) has a total mole flow rate of 5,290kmol/hr and is at a
temperature of 5.9C and a pressure of 34.6 bar. Captured within the methanol stream is 26.581kmol/hr of
hydrogen sulfide, together with 1,555kmol/hr of carbon dioxide, 168kmol/hr of carbon monoxide, 11.25kmol/hr
of water. The methanol stream continues to the fourth section of the process to be stripped of the carbon monoxide.

Figure 17: Refrigeration Unit

The islands refrigeration unit provides cooling for the Rectisol absorber as well as to other streams in
the island, where the bulk of the refrigeration duty for the entire process takes place. The evaporated hot streams
from the condenser (P-COOL7, P-COOL8, P-COOL9, and P-COOL10), as well as the streams from two other
evaporators in the process (P-COOL6 and P-COOL11), are mixed in a mixer (P-MIX1). The combined mole flow
rate of the refrigerant is 10,100 kmol/hr of a mix of 40% propane and 60% ethylene, and is at a temperature of 42

50.6C and a pressure of 1.6 bar. The refrigerant stream (P-COOL28) enters a multi-stage compressor (PCOMPR), where it is compressed to a superheated vapor (P-COOL29) at a temperature of 150C and a pressure
of 60.8 bar. It then enters a heat exchanger (again simulated by two heaters (P-CONDS1 and P-CONDS2)), where
it is air-cooled to a temperature of 35C. The stream (P-COOL27), still at a high pressure of 60.2 bar, is now a
compressed liquid. This liquid stream then passes through a thermal expansion valve (P-VLV6), where it is
reduced in pressure to 2.5 bar, and exists in a vapor-liquid equilibrium (P-COOL26) with a vapor fraction of 0.66.
The partial evaporation of the liquid removed energy from the remainder of the liquid, cooling the entire VLE to
a temperature of -53.6C. The VLE is separated in a splitter (P-MIX2) to six streams (P-COOL12, P-COOL13,
P-COOL14, P-COOL15, P-COOL16, and P-COOL17), four of which are sent to the Rectisol absorber and the
other two sent to the methanol cooler (P-EVP9 & P-EVP10) and the condenser of the carbon monoxide separator
(P-EVP11 & P-EVP12), where the remainder of the liquid evaporates to cool the hot streams, and the refrigerant
is returned to the cycle.

Figure 18: Carbon Monoxide Separation Unit

The methanol stream emerging from the bottom of the Rectisol column (P-MEOH4) with a mole flow rate
of 5,290 kmol/hr, a temperature of 5.9C and a pressure of 34.6 bar, and containing 3,497 kmol/hr of methanol,
26.581 kmol/hr of hydrogen sulfide, 1,555 kmol/hr of carbon dioxide, 168 kmol/hr of carbon monoxide, 11.25
kmol/hr of water of continues downstream for methanol regeneration and recycle. As mentioned during the
43

delineation of the design decisions, the first step in this stage of the process, prior to acid gas removal, is the
removal of carbon monoxide from the syngas. This will be accomplished by reducing the pressure of the stream
from 34.6 bar to 20 bar in a flash separator. The pressure reduction was simulated by passing the stream through
a valve (P-VLV1). The emerging stream (P-MEOH5), now at 20 bar and a temperature of 9.8C, enters the flash
drum (P-COFLSH) at a total mole flow rate of 959 kmol/hr, and containing 165 kmol/hr carbon monoxide, 755
kmol/hr carbon dioxide, 4.5 kmol/hr hydrogen sulfide, 13.8 kmol/hr nitrogen, and 4.5 kmol/hr of methanol. The
bottom stream (P-MEOH8), at the same temperature and pressure, has a mole flow of 4,331 kmol/hr, and contains
3,494 kmol/hr methanol, 11 kmol/hr water, 22 kmol/hr hydrogen sulfide, 799 kmol/hr carbon dioxide, and 2.7
kmol/hr carbon monoxide. The top stream enters the bottom stage of a 20-stage column (P-COSEP), with a
condenser and no reboiler, and undergoes further separation. The stream emerging from the top of the column (PCOBURN) has a temperature of -47.8C, a pressure of 19 bar, and a mole flow rate of 338 kmol/hr, of which 162
kmol/hr is carbon monoxide, 148 kmol/hr is carbon dioxide, and 14 kmol/hr is nitrogen. This stream continues to
a furnace, where the carbon monoxide in the stream is combusted for steam generation. The bottom stream of the
column (P-MEOH7) has a temperature of -27.9C, a pressure of 19 bar, and a mole flow rate of 620 kmol/hr. The
stream contains 607 kmol/hr carbon dioxide, 3.5 kmol/hr carbon monoxide, 4.3 kmol/hr hydrogen sulfide, and
4.1 kmol/hr methanol. It is mixed together with the bottom stream of the flash drum (P-MEOH8) in a mixer (PMIX) and the emerging stream (P-MEOH9) is sent to the acid gas separation unit for further separation.

Figure 19: Acid Gas Separation Unit

44

The stream emerging from the carbon monoxide separation unit (P-MEOH9) continues downstream to
the acid gas separation unit for regeneration of the methanol through removal of the acid gases. As was mentioned
previously, the bulk of this separation would occur through nitrogen stripping. Prior to stripping of the acid gases,
their solubility in methanol was decreased by raising the temperature of the methanol in a series of two heat
exchangers, the first exchanger (P-WCOOLR) raising the temperature to -11.9C (P-MEOH10) by warming it
with the clean water effluent from the sour water stripper, and the second exchanger (P-STEAMR) further raising
the temperature to 17C (P-MEOH11) by warming it against low pressure steam from the power island.
The rich methanol then enters a 10-stage nitrogen stripping column (P-N2STR2), where it runs
countercurrent to 2,000 kmol/hr of nitrogen (A-N2MRGN) from the air separation unit. 98% of the methanol
entering the column exits the bottom stream (P-MEOH13), with a total mole flow rate of 3,445 kmol/hr. The
methanol stream is at a temperature of -3.9C, a pressure of 3 bar, and is of 99.6% purity, with 0.3% water and
the 0.1% nitrogen. The stream leaving the top of the stripper (P-MEOH12) is at a temperature of 7C, a pressure
of 3 bar, and a mole flow rate of 3507 kmol/hr. It is comprised of 1,992 kmol/hr nitrogen, 1,406 kmol/hr carbon
dioxide, 6 kmol/hr carbon monoxide, 26 kmol/hr hydrogen sulfide, and 68 kmol/hr methanol.
The methanol stream continues to a set of two small distillation columns for separation of the methanol
from the gases in that stream. The first column (P-AGSTR1) is a 5-stage column, with a condenser and no reboiler.
The top stream (P-ACDGS2) leaves the stripper at a temperature of -40C, a pressure of 2.3 bar, and a mole flow
rate of 3,439 kmol/hr. It is comprised of 1,991 kmol/hr nitrogen, 26 kmol hydrogen sulfide, 1,404 kmol/hr carbon
dioxide, and 6 kmol/hr carbon monoxide. This stream continues downstream where it will enter the Claus process
island. The bottom stream (P-MEOH14) leaves the column at a temperature of 3.8C, a pressure of 2.3 bar, and a
mole flow rate of 68 kmol/hr, and is comprised of 68.2 kmol/hr methanol, 2.3 kmol/hr carbon dioxide, and 0.11
kmol/hr hydrogen sulfide. This stream is sent to the second stripper (P-AGSTR2) for complete removal of the
hydrogen sulfide from the methanol. The stripper is a 10-stage distillation column with a reboiler and no
condenser, and the methanol stream enters the column at the first stage. The top stream (P-ACDGS3) emerges
from the stripper at a temperature of 53.3C, a pressure of 2 bar, and a mole flow of 4 moles. The stream,
45

containing the remaining hydrogen sulfide, 2.3 kmol/hr carbon dioxide, and 1.3 kmol/hr methanol continues
downstream to the Claus process island. The bottom stream (P-MEOH15) leaves the stripper at a temperature of
82.9C, a pressure of 2 bar, and a mole flow rate of 64 kmol/hr and is 99.9% methanol. The stream mixes with
the bottom stream of the nitrogen stripper in a mixer (P-MIX6). The combined stream (P-MEOH16), at a
temperature of -60C, a pressure of 1.6 bar, and a total mole flow rate of 3508 kmol/hr, is comprised of 99.6%
methanol, with the balance water and nitrogen. The stream is mixed with six kmol/hr fresh methanol feed from
the DME synthesis island, and is recycled back into the process.
The overall material balance of the syngas purification unit is as follows: 11,437kmol per hour of wet,
dirty syngas enters the process from the gasification unit (G-SYNGS1), and 3,500kmol per hour of methanol
enters from the pump (P-PUMP). 5,271kmol of clean water exits the bottom of the sour water stripper (PH2OCLN), 4,426kmol of clean syngas exits the top of the absorber (P-SYNGS3), 3,508kmol of clean methanol
exits the acid gas separation unit (P-MEOH16), and 4,393kmol of acid gas is sent to the Claus Process Unit (PACDGS1, 2, 3).

46

3. Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Isle

The synthesis island has a series of unit operations as follows: a mixing of syngas feed with the first syngas
recycle stream, compression to the reaction pressure of 60 bar, a reaction to produce methanol, the separation of
methanol and water products from the first recycle streams syngas, the mixing of methanol and water products
with the second methanol and water recycle stream, the dehydration of the mixture into one high-purity water
stream and one methanol reactant feed, a reaction of the methanol stream in a catalytic reactor to produce dimethyl
ether, and finally the separation of dimethyl ether from the water and methanol that will enter the recycle stream
to form the final dimethyl ether product.
The methanol and dimethyl ether reactors each have a very relevant geometry. The methanol reactor will
be based on an LPMEOH slurry reactor. This type of reactor provides unparalleled heat transfer, which is
absolutely necessary as the methanol synthesis and water gas shift reactions happening in series are highly
exothermic, more than twelve times more heat is generated here than in the dimethyl ether synthesis reactor. Heat
exchangers will run through the interior of the reactor to remove heat at the same rate at which heat is generated.
There will be impellers to agitate the slurry gas, enough so that the space time is adequate for conversion, but
little enough so that the reactor volume can be as small as possible since higher agitation rates cause a higher
space time they would also require a higher reactor volume.
The dimethyl ether reactor will be several cylindrical packed bed reactors with small diameters that run
parallel inside a shell and tube heat exchanger, each armed with a fixed bed of catalysts. The number of reactors
can be varied based on required catalyst weight and economic considerations. Temperature can be controlled by
the adjusting the pressure of the thermal fluid to affect the temperature of boiling of the cooling thermal fluid.
Catalysts can be regenerated by regenerating one of the cylinders at a time while allowing the others to function,
at a replacement rate depending on the degeneration of the catalysts.

47

Figure 20 and 21 - Process flow diagram of the two-part synthesis island, the methanol loop (top) and the
dimethyl ether loop (bottom). Unit operation data is listen in this section. See Appendix 3 for full stream
tables. Streams are labeled with temperature (C) and pressure {bar} where shown. Temperature and
pressure are listed in Appendix 3 when not shown visually for reason of clarity.

48

Table 6 - Fuel energy balances around Synthesis Island and comparison with initial feed.
LHV (MW)
Recovery
HHV (MW)
[4]
480.76
100.0%
521.57
Sewage Sludge & Biogas
60.1%
321.34
289.03
Syngas Input
159.00
33.1%
174.48
Dimethyl Ether
105.75
22.0%
116.92
Purge Syngas
Table 7 - Mole atom balances around Synthesis Island.
Carbon %
100.00
Syngas Input
56.14
Dimethyl Ether
0.00
Water
43.86
Purge Syngas

Hydrogen %
100.00
49.06
16.42
34.52

Recovery
100.0%
61.6%
33.5%
22.4%

Oxygen %
100.00
27.00
26.02
46.98

Table 8 - Reactor specifications. All dimensions are for cylinders. Multiplication of diameter shows the
number of cylinders arranged in parallel.
Type
Void Frac. Catalyst Amt. Diameter Length Residence Time Cooling
Slurry
n/a
2688 kg
1.34 m
5m
6.00 seconds
Steam
MREAC
PBR
0.37
2261 kg 18x0.12 m
6m
0.89 seconds
Steam
DREAC
PBR
0.42
620 kg
0.70 m
1m
0.03 seconds
Adiabatic
G-SSHIFT
The methanol reactor makes use of two and a half tons of commercial copper-zinc-aluminum oxide
catalysts, in approximately 6.4:2.6:1 ratio of elements, in a slurry with mineral oil that operates at a temperature
between 250C and 260C and a pressure of 60 bar, though modeled isothermally at 260C. The dimethyl ether
reactor further down the process has the same temperature profile, but a pressure of 10 bar and approximately
two tons of -Al2O3 catalysts. Both of these units along with all others are modeled on Aspen with accurate
facsimiles as described, though this Aspen simulation still has limits due to the assumptions made in its
programming.
After purification upstream by Rectisol, the syngas mixes with its recycle stream in a mixer (MMIX).
Next, the warmed syngas enters a compressor (MCOMP) then enters an economizer (MECON) to be heated to
244C. From there it is fed to a packed-bed reactor (MREAC) modeled as a kinetic, isothermal plug flow reactor
with copper-zinc-aluminum oxide kinetics, that operates at a temperature of 260oC and a pressure of 60 bar to
create low purity methanol. To purify the methanol, the products are passed through series of heat exchangers
(MECON2, MECON3, and MECON4), then a valve (MVALVE) that drops the pressure to 30 bar and finally a
flash drum (MFLASH) that condenses the methanol at 15C to send it to the DME synthesis loop. The vapor
49

syngas is purged (MSPLIT) at a rate of 55% and sent to the power island to be combusted for energy. The rest is
sent to the original mixer (MMIX) and joins the new syngas feed again.
The methanol and water mixture passed to the dimethyl ether synthesis loop enters a mixer (DMIX), then
passes through a valve (MWDEPRESS) that lowers the pressure of the mixture to 1.3 bar. This mixture is fed
into a distillation column (DWCOL) with details in the appendix stream tables. This column creates a bottoms of
essentially pure water and a distillate of mostly methanol. Something to note is that the distillate is partially vapor.
This allows traces of gases such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to escape. It also gathers methanol that
can be sent back to the Rectisol column. This methanol replaces the methanol that is lost during Rectisol
separation.
The liquid distillate enters a pump (DPUMP) that raises the pressure of the mixture to reaction pressure
14 bar. The methanol reactant mixture is then heated by a series of economizers and heat exchangers (DECON
and DHEATER), before entering the reactor (DREAC) modeled as a kinetic packed-bed-reactor with -Al2O3
kinetics, which produces low purity dimethyl ether.
Dimethyl ether is cooled to 136C through the same economizer and then fed to a distillation column
(DCOL) which separates the top into a 97.0% pure dimethyl ether mixture while the bottoms of mostly methanol
and water enter the recycle stream. To maximize yield of dimethyl ether, the methanol-water mixture from the
bottom of the column is recycled completely and used again, though some is purged at the vapor distillate of the
column (DWCOL). Stream and unit operations data, duty, and flow rates for all of these unit operations can be
found in the Appendix 3.
Table 9 - Sizing of flash drums and distillation columns.
Equipment Name
Height
2.14 m
MFLASH (drum)
48.00 m
DWCOL (col)
2.37 m
DMETH (drum)
27.60 m
DCOL (col)
1.48 m
DFLASH (drum)

Diameter
4.28 m
4.56 m
4.74 m
3.50 m
2.96 m

# Stages
n/a
30
n/a
23
n/a

Feed Stage
n/a
9
n/a
Reboiler
n/a

50

Table 10 - Sizing of stand-alone heat exchangers.

Equipment Name
MECON
MECON2
MECON3
MECON4
DECON
DHEATR

Surface Area
380 m2
48 m2
72 m2
371 m2
201 m2
176 m2

Considered Pressure
64 bar
62 bar
61 bar
60 bar
14 bar
13 bar

To quantify the cost for this process, two main methods were used. For heat exchangers, mathematical
scaling relations were used based on required pressure and surface area. For other process units, the capacity of
process units were compared to the capacities of process units with a known cost found in industry. These units
were scaled appropriately using conservative (high to prevent lowballing) scaling factors. These methods are
cited in the table below.
Table 11 - List of equipment, scaling, and costs for Synthesis Island
Base Capacity
Syngas Compressor

10

Required
Capacity
5.61

Methanol Pump

10

0.03

Units
MW

Base Cost
(mil)
$4.8

Base
Year
2004

Scale
Factor[43]
0.62

Year
Factor
1.4

Cost
(mil)
$4.70

MW

$4.8

2004

0.67

1.4

$0.14
$4.83

Compression
2.91

Water Column

0.643

kmol/s

$11.8

2004

0.62

1.4

$6.48
$6.48

Dehydration
6.75

DME Column

5.64

kg/s

$21.3

2004

0.62

1.4

$26.68
$26.68

Distillation
MeOH Condenser

6.75

8.94

kg/s

$7.1

2004

0.62

1.4

$11.83

DME Condenser

6.75

1.62

kg/s

$7.1

2004

0.62

1.4

$4.10
$15.93

Flash Drums
LPMEOH Slurry

500

850

DME Fixed-Bed

2.05

0.517

ton Me
/day
kmol/s

$15.1

2004

0.65

1.4

$31.98

$15.8

2004

0.7

1.4

$8.43
$40.41

Reactors
n/a

Heat Exchangers

2000

m2

n/a

2004

n/a

1.2

$94.69

TOTAL

Red names industry scaled

$0.35

[35]

Bolded names calculated from methods of Timmerhaus/Peters

[42]

51

4. Claus Process Isle

Figure 22 Block Flow Diagram of Claus Process, compare with PFD below

Figure 23 Aspen Process Flow Diagram of Claus Process, compare with BFD above
The Claus process island consists of both thermal and catalytic stages, since the thermal stage cannot
collect that much sulfur. The complete process has been simulated in Aspen together with the processes from the
other islands, and it has run without errors or warnings.
The goal of the Claus process unit is to eliminate hydrogen sulfide from fed acidic gas from syngas
purification unit. In the aspen simulation, the property method of all the Blocks is PSRK. Feed streams (PACDGS1 to 3) contains a total of 26.672 kmol/hr of H2S and the RGibbs reactor is used for initial sulfur collection
52

and oxidation of hydrogen sulfide. The pressure is set to 2 bar and the temperature is set to 285. In this process,
the fed air must be adjusted for further reactions between hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide of the outlet stream
from the furnace. The air is set to 75 kmol/hr and the outlet stream has 2:1 ratio of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur
dioxide. Throughout this furnace, there are 16.884 kmol/hr of Sulfur collected which shows that 65.9% hydrogen
sulfide is forming sulfur element from this process. A RCSTR reactor is used for catalytic bed. Pressure and
temperature are adjusted as 0.03 bar of pressure drop and 305 and 225 for each reactor. The temperature of
catalytic reactors are maintained by heaters and the energy from HRSG (Power Island). The reaction kinetic used
is LHHW. All the streams entering the condensers are cooled to 100 which is under the dew point of sulfur in
order to collect liquefied sulfur. After all the catalytic reactors, the aspen simulation shows that 26.782kmol/hr of
S is collected from Claus unit. Initially there was 26.672 kmol/hr of hydrogen sulfide coming in to the Claus unit.
However, some of the COS from the feed stream also produced sulfur. Exactly 0.127 kmol/hr of hydrogen sulfide
still remains in the Tail gas stream which shows that 99.54% of hydrogen sulfide from the inlet stream has been
collected in the form of sulfur.
Two heat exchangers and three coolers are used for heating and cooling sources in this Claus plant design.
The heat exchangers are modeled as economizers. It was modeled as such because the hot product stream from
the catalytic reactors are used to heat the stream from the condensers. The operating condition of heat exchangers
are 293 and 111, respectively. The 25 of cold water is used for coolers which made refrigeration
unnecessary.
The overall material balance of the Claus unit is as follows: 4,393 kmol/hr of acidic gas inlet (P-ACDGS1,
P-ACDGS2, P-ACDGS3), and 76 kmol/hr of air feed(C-AIR). There is liquefied sulfur let out at each condenser
and adding them all shows 26.934 kmol/hr (C-S1 16.884 kmol/hr, C-S2 9.991 kmol/hr, C-S3 0.059 kmol/hr). The
4454 kmol/hr of desulfurized stream (C-TAIL) is sent to mixer and added to EFFLU stream. All streams and their
specifications can be seen in Appendix 3.

53

5. Power Isle

Work
Syngas
from DME
Fuel from
purification
Fuel from
DME

Gas
Turbine

Water
Exhaust

HRSG

Ambient
Air

Flue gas

LLP IIP HHP

HRSG
Turbines

Electricity

Figure 24 Block Flow Diagram of Power Island; compare to PFD below

HRSG

Gas Turbine

Steam Turbine

Figure 25 Aspen Process Flow Diagram of Power Island PFD; compare to BFD above

54

Figure 26- Gas Turbine Sub-Island

The power island consists of a gas turbine (GT), steam turbine (ST), and a heat removal steam generator
(HRSG) unit. The first component of the power island is the gas turbine, which is shown in Figure 24. As
previously stated, the gas turbine is powered by the purge stream from methanol synthesis (PURGE) and
atmospheric air (E-AIRIN). Also, the purge stream from DME synthesis (DBURN) is compressed to a pressure
of 18 bar and fed into a combustor. The purge stream (PURGE) was at a pressure of 29 bar and mostly consisted
of H2 and CO. The combination of E-AIRIN and DBURN, both at 1 bar, produces a combined pressurized stream
at 18 bar (E-AIRCOM). The estimated 11713 kmol/hr of the stream E-AIRCOM is split 3 ways: 1) It is split into
about 11097 kmol/hr of air (E-COMB) that is fed to the combustor, 2) It is split into about 604 kmol/hr of air (EAIRBLD) that is used to directly power the gas turbine, and 3) It is split into about 12 kmol/hr of air (E-AIRL1)
that is used to mix with the gas turbine exhaust stream to directly power the HRSG unit. The 1433oC combustor
product (E-COMB3) will then mix with AIR-BLED to produce a 1397oC turbine inlet (TURB-INL) to activate
the gas turbine. The gas turbine will produce a 691oC product (E-GEXIT) and it mixes with lower pressure air
(E-AIRL2). E-AIRL2 comes from E-AIRL1, which was at a pressure of 18 bar, and it was depressurized by a
55

valve to a pressure of 7 bar and a temperature of 561oC. The two streams (E-AIRL2 and E-GEXIT) are mixed
and create a final gas turbine exhaust (E-GEXHST). That final gas turbine exhaust is at a temperature of 691oC
and it is used as feed for the HRSG. In addition to the gas turbine exhaust being used as feed for the HRSG, the
gas turbine produced about 38.2 MW of work.
The HRSG unit is modeled as a triple pressure heat removal steam generator and it consists of five heat
exchangers, low pressure steam, intermediate pressure steam, and high pressure steam. The feed for the HRSG
unit comes from the gas turbine exhaust, which is at a temperature of 691oC. Heat exchangers need a hot stream
and a cold stream. For the HRSG unit, the hot stream is the gas turbine exhaust and the cold streams are the low
pressure, high pressure, and intermediate pressure steams. The pressure steams come from three pumps: the low
pressure pump, the high pressure pump, and the intermediate pressure pump. These pumps use water and convert
the pressures to 6 bar, 34 bar, and 160 bar for low pressure steam, intermediate pressure steam, and high pressure
steam, respectively, and all steams are fed to the low pressure heat exchanger. The gas turbine exhaust and the
pressure steams react in the heat exchanger and the resulting pressure streams, which are hotter as it passes through
the other exchangers, will be used as feed for the low pressure, high pressure, and intermediate pressure turbines.
These three turbines will have product pressure streams that are used as feed for the first three heat exchangers
(excluding the economizer and the low pressure heat exchanger); therefore, the turbines and the heat exchangers
have a loop that uses the pressure streams as product and feed. The feed for the high pressure turbine uses a
mixture of the high pressure steams produced from the gasifier and the high pressure steam output of the heat
exchangers. Similarly, the feed for the low pressure and intermediate pressure turbines uses a mixture of low
pressure steams and intermediate pressure steams, respectively, from the gasifier and the heat exchangers. The
output of the low pressure and intermediate pressure turbines are utilities which are subsequently used in heat
exchangers in the DME synthesis island. The amount of heating utilities using low pressure and intermediate
pressure steam are about 2,275 kmol/hr and 1,130 kmol/hr, respectively. The low pressure steam from the low
pressure turbine is at conditions of 109.5oC and 1.08 bar. This low pressure steam is fed to a cooler to reduce the
temperature to 42oC and remain at a pressure of 1.08 bar. The steam is now water. The water is then fed to a pump
to increase the pressure to 2 bar and it is then fed to the economizer, which is the fifth and final heat exchanger.
56

The economizer uses the cooler gas turbine exhaust that is at a temperature of about 244oC and cools it again to
a product that has a temperature of about 90oC while simultaneously heating the water to 120oC. The 90oC gas
turbine exhaust is mixed with the Claus tail gas and the air from the purification island to reduce the amount of
sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides in the effluent. The effluent leaves at a temperature of about 139oC.
The last unit is the steam turbine. The steam turbine was modeled after Lin et al. This particular steam
turbine also had a condenser and an output of 136 MW, although it does not have a clear max capacity.[51] In this
report, it is assumed that this steam turbine is scaled down to about 47 MW. The steam turbine uses work from
the low pressure turbine and it uses low pressure streams that come from the intermediate turbine and the
intermediate pressure heat exchanger to create electricity. The work produced by the steam turbine is combined
with the work produced from the pumps and compressors from the gasifier, DME synthesis, methanol synthesis,
air separation unit, sour gas removal, and the HRSG unit. The sum of these work products results in about 46
MW of electricity and the overall work of the entire plant of about 3 MW.

57

6. Power Integration and Use of Utilities

The first step for analyzing this process heating and cooling needs was a pinch analysis with two
composite curves. This curve provides a quick estimate of possible stream matching and also an estimate of
necessary utilities. As seen in the graph below, much more cooling is needed than heating, and amounts of cooling
water along with refrigeration are enumerated.
From the composite curve, at least 70 megawatts of utility cooling was be necessary. Luckily this can be
powered by cooling water and refrigeration which is in turn powered by the steam generated by the exothermic
parts of the plant. Next, all of the heating needs can be fulfilled by low, medium, and high pressure steam
borrowed from the power island and then returned as either lower quality steam or liquid water at 2 bar and 120C.
This will be done through heat exchanger networks. This will increase capital costs, but it will be well worth the

Stream Temperature (C)

investment as heating utilities are relatively expensive. No outside heating utility is necessary.
1050
950
850
750
650
550
450
350
250
150
50
-50
-150

10C Pinch
Cooling
Utilities

LPS

HPS

50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000

Energy Duties (Watts)

Graph 9: Pinch analysis. Blue indicates streams in need of cooling. Red indicates heating needs. Black
indicates corresponding utilities in one form or another.

58

Table 12 Plant Overall Energy Balance

Section

Duty (Megawatts)

Synthesis Isle

6.0

Refrigeration Isle

34.1

Gasification Isle

16.8

Air Separation Unit

26.2

Jet Turbine

-38.6

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

-47.5

TOTAL

(Surplus)

-3.0

59

7. Overall Carbon Balance

Complete stream tables for these streams can be found in Appendix 3.
Table 13: List of carbon stream inflows, (Location), and compound source. Amounts in kmols/hr
Compound
CO
CO2
CH4
COS
Dimethyl Ether
Methanol
TOTAL

G-SG4 (Gasifier)
1878.12
1393.12
0.06
0.95
0
0
3272.25

AIRINNN (Power Isle)

0
4.18
0
0
0
0
4.18

P-AIRIN (Refrig. Loop)

0
25.20
0
0
0
0
25.20

TOTAL
1,878.12
1,322.50
0.06
0.95
0
0
3,301.60

Table 14: List of carbon stream outflows, (Location), and compound source. Amounts in kmols/hr
Compound
C10H8 Tar
CO
CO2
CH4
COS
Dimethyl Ether
Methanol
TOTAL

EFFLU (Power Isle)

G-TARS (Gasifier)

0
0.16
2,432.83
0
0.53
(x2) 0.01
0.21
2433.76

DMEPURE (Synthesis
Isle)

0.196
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.196

0.42
8.29
0
0
(x2) 427.14
7.18
870.17

TOTAL

0.58
2,841.12
0
0.53
854.30
7.18
3,304.08

26.34%

0.01%

73.66%

Gas Effluent

Tar

Dimethyl Ether

Graph 7: Pie chart of carbon emissions divided into percentages by source

60

8. Overall Plant Economics

Note: 2015 CEPCI dollars are calculated through extrapolation of 2013 and preceding years.
Table 15: List of costs by plant section. Total costs calculated from equipment cost through methods
described by Peters and Timmerhaus.
Equip Cost[42]
Section
Total Cost (Installation,
piping, other costs)[42]
Synthesis Island[35]
$94.69
$456.38
Rectisol + Claus

$21.67

$104.02

Gasification

$99.57

$477.94

Feed Preparation[52]

$79.17

$380.00

Air Separation

$37.47

$179.86

Jet Turbine + HRSG

$113.30

$543.84

Refrigeration Cycle

$22.45

$107.76

$519.56

$2,455.48

TOTAL + 11% loan interest

Table 16: List of operating costs on a yearly basis.

Utility
Cooling Water
Hydrogen

$6,100,800
$110,000

Catalysts

$22,000

Sulfur
Feed Preparation
Cooling Air
TOTAL

Cost/yr (2015 $)

-$620,000
[52]

$11,904,000
$0
$17,516,800

61

IV.

Process Results
As a whole, this process generates fifty-six million gallons per year of 97% purity dimethyl ether fuel. In

addition, six million kilograms of elemental sulfur is produced from the simultaneous treatment of harmful acid
gas emissions. Not included in the profitability analysis is the sale of excess 99.7% pure Nitrogen and 95.0% pure
oxygen generated from the air separation unit. The plant is self-sufficient in that it replenishes all inputs required
such as methanol and regenerating catalysts. Only cooling water, air, minimal hydrogen gas for regeneration, and
catalyst replacement will be necessary all of which are unavoidable in traditional plant operations. This plant
operates by generating all of its own power for operations through a jet turbine and a heat recovery steam generator
with a slight surplus of three megawatts, and all in a carbon-neutral manner.
Not included in the Aspen simulation is the unit operations and processes involved in digesting raw sewage
sludge for the generation of the digested sewage and Biogas feedstocks. This was because no suitable unit
operations existed to model the real world applications. However, due to the work performed by the U.S.
Department of the Interior cited in the appendix[53], capital and operating costs can be estimated. Calculations
were based on an approximate 10.1 million gallons per day of water flow. The cost of such a facility excluding
trickling filtration, elutriation, or vacuum filtration is approximately at $380 million dollars. The operating costs
were estimated to be at approximately $11.9 million per annum. If the proposed plant design is adding to an
existing treatment facility, the capital costs can be expected to dramatically reduce, whereas the operating costs
are unavoidable. Nearly all of the operating costs are a result of polymer addition to the sewage to promote
flocculation and raise solids recovery from centrifugation. Operation without polymer is undesirable due to
reduced solid recovery.
A minimum price of $9.70 per gallon of dimethyl ether fuel would be required to hit a 15% return on
initial investment every year after income taxes. When this is possible through a change in demand and
infrastructure or through assistance by subsidy it will be an economical venture netting the company a return of
$7.677 billion over thirty years without including net present value considerations.

62

V.

Conclusion
In closing, wet sewage sludge was chosen as gasification material for this plant and was chosen for a

variety of reasons. Sewage sludge is readily available in any populated area, it already has a centralized collection
network in the form of publicly owned water treatment facilities, and it has a chemical composition and lower
heating value similar to many other biological feed stocks as sources of fuel and energy. Dimethyl ether is the
target fuel for several reasons too, including high compatibility with current infrastructure and high effectiveness
as a transportation fuel.
The beneficial environmental impacts of such a proposed plant far outweigh any other financial benefits
this synthesis plant may generate. The carbon from sewage sludge originate from plants utilizing atmospheric
carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and through a complex ecosystem is recollected by the synthesis plant
as sewage sludge. Rather than depositing this sewage into the ground, it is converted to dimethyl ether and burned,
releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere to be consumed by plants, completing the cycle. Aside from
creating renewable energy infrastructure, this plant can also pave an easier way toward a circular economy, one
not limited by future shortages of products such as petroleum.

63

VI.

Acknowledgements

This design project would not have been possible without the advice, contributions, and insight provided by
Dr. Fuat Celik, Sebastian Escotet, and Parham Farzan.

64

VII.

References

[1] Fytili, D. and Zabaniotou, A. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods
A review. Elsevier Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews [Online] 2008, 12, pp 116-140.
[2] Dominguez, A. Y.; Fernandez, Y. B.; Pis, J. J.; Menendez, J. A. Bio-syngas production with low
concentrations of CO2 and CH4 from microwave-induced pyrolysis of wet and dried sewage sludge. Elsevier
Chemosphere [Online] 2008, 70, pp 397-403.
[3] Shen, L. and Zhang, D. An experimental study of oil recovery from sewage sludge by low-temperature
pyrolysis in a fluidised-bed. Elsevier Fuel [Online] 2003, 82, pp 465-472.
[4] Dominguez, A.; Menendez, J. A.; Pis, J. J. Hydrogen rich fuel gas production from the pyrolysis of wet
sewage sludge at high temperature. Elsevier Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis [Online] 2006, 77, pp 127132.
[5] Calzavara, Y.; Joussot-Dubien, C.; Boissonnet, G.; Sarrade, S. Evaluation of biomass gasification in
supercritical water process for hydrogen production. Elsevier Energy Conversion and Management
[Online] 2005, 46, pp 615-631.
[6] Marrero, T.W.; McAuley, B. P.; Sutterlin, W. R.; Morris, J. S.; Manahan, S. E. Fate of heavy metals and
radioactive metals in gasification of sewage sludge. Elsevier Waste Management [Online] 2004, 24, pp
193-198.
[7] National Energy Technology Laboratory. Gasification Background Advantages and Efficiency of
Gasification. http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/clean-power
(accessed April 2015).
[8] Ro, K. S.; Cantrell, K.; Elliott, D.; Hunt, P. G. Catalytic Wet Gasification of Municipal and Animal
Wastes. American Chemical Society Industrial Engineering Chemistry [2007], 46, pp 8839-8845.
[9] National Energy Technology Laboratory. Entrained Flow Gasifiers CB&I E-GasTM Gasifiers.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/egas (accessed March 2015).
[10] Bornemann, G. A. and Sundstrom, D. G. Commercialization of the Dow Gasification Process; Dow
Chemical U.S.A.: Houston, n.a.
[11] Linde AG Engineering Division. History and technological progress Cryogenic air separation; Linde
Engineering Air separation: Pullach, n.a.
[12] Weidong, L.; Ming, L.; Weifeng, L.; Haifeng, L. Study on the ash fusion temperatures of coal and
sewage sludge mixtures. Elsevier Fuel [Online] 2010, 89, pp 1566-1572.
[13] Sundac, N. Catalytic cracking of tar from biomass gasification. Department of Chemical Engineering,
Lund University: Lund, September 2007.
[14] National Energy Technology Laboratory. Solid Waste/Byproducts of Gasification Major Gasification
Solid Byproducts. http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/solidbyproducts#char (accessed February 2015).

65

[15] Yoshizaki, S. and Tomida, T. Principle and Process of Heavy Metal Removal from Sewage Sludge.
American Chemical Society Environmental Science Technology [Online] 2000, 34, pp 1572-1575.
[16] Gu, X. and Wong, J. W. C. Identification of Inhibitory Substances Affecting Bioleaching of Heavy
Metals from Anaerobically Digested Sewage Sludge. American Chemical Society Environmental Science
Technology [Online] 2004, 38, pp 2934-2939.
[17] Chun, Y. N.; Ji, D. W.; Yoshikawa, K. Pyrolysis and gasification characterization of sewage sludge for
high quality gas and char production. Springer Journal of Mechnical Science and Technology [Online]
2013, 27, pp 263-272.
[18] Wang, T. J.; Chang, J.; Wu, C. Z.; Fu, Y.; Chen, Y. The steam reforming of naphthalene over a nickeldolomite cracking catalyst. Elsevier Biomass and Bioenergy [Online] 2005, 28, pp 508-514.
[19] Hakkarainen, R.; Salmi, T.; Keiski, R. L. Water-gas shift reaction on a cobalt-molybdenum oxide
catalyst. Elsevier Applied Catalysis [Online] 1993, 99, pp 195-215.
[20] Ederer, H. J.; Fritsch, T.; Henrich, E.; Mas, C. E. Kinetics of Water-Gas-Shift Reaction using MoS2
catalyst dotted with Co. Institute for Technological Chemistry: 2002.
[21] Commission de lOcanIndien. Archives.
http://www.commissionoceanindien.org/archives/environment.ioconline.org/fr/solid-wastemanagement/anaerobic-treatment-of-organic-waste.html (accessed 23 February, 2015).
[22] Johnson, G. E.; Kunka, L. M.; Decker, W. A.; Forney, A. J. The Production of Methane by the
Anaerobic Decomposition of Garbage and Waste Materials; Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, Bureau of
Mines: Pittsburgh, 1973.
[23] National Energy Technology Laboratory. Commercial Gasifiers Entrained Flow Gasifiers.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/entrainedflow (accessed
March 2015).
[24] Burr, Barry and Lyddon, Lili. A Comparison of Physical Solvents for Acid Gas Removal. Bryan
Research and Engineering, Inc. Bryan, Texas. [Online] 1994.www.bre.com. pp 1-6.
[25] Dreyer, Manuel. Evaluation of Chilled Methanol Processes for Acid Gas Removal. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering. Trondheim,
Norway. [Online] 2011. www.diva-portal.org. pp 24-33.
[26] Author unknown. The Rectisol Process. Lurgi GmbH. Frankfurt am Main, Germany. [Online] 2005.
www.lurgi.com.
[27] Trop, Peter; Krope, Jurij; Dobersek, Danijela; Goricanec, Darko. Simulation of Desulphurization of
Synthesis Gas with Aspen Plus. University of Maribor, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.
Maribor, Slovenia. 2000.
[28] Korens, Nick; Simbeck, Dale; Wilhelm, Donald. Process Screening Analysis of Alternative Gas
Treating and Sulfur Removal for Gasification, Revised Final Report. SFA Pacific, Inc. Engineering and
Economic Consultants. Mountain View, California. 2002. pp. 6-15.

66

[29] Ferrell, J. K.; Rosseau, R. W.; Bass, D. G. The Solubility of Acid Gases in Methanol. North Carolina
State University, Department of Chemical Engineering. [Online] 1979. pp. 9-10. www.nepis.epa.gov.
[30] Worrall, Mike. Beating BTEX Methods of Refinery Wastewater BTEX Control and Improvements
Made. Reprinted from Hydrocarbon Engineering for AMCEC VOC Control Solutions. [Online] 2013.
www.amcec.com/case7.
[31] Ederer, Fritsch, Henrich, and Mas. "Kinetics of Water Gas Shift Reaction Using MoS2 Catalyst Spotted
with Co." Institut for TechnischeChemie [Online] 2002.
[32] Kung, H. Deactivation of Methanol Synthesis Catalysts - a Review. Catalysis Today [Online] 1992, 11,
pp 443-453.
[33] Platonov, O. I. Aging of Aluminum-oxide Catalyst in the Claus Reactor during Desulfurization of Cokeoven Gas. Coke and Chemistry [Online] 2012, 55, pp 242-246.
[34] Haid, J.; Ulrich, K. Lurgis Mega-Methanol Technology Opens the Door for a New Era in Down-stream
Applications. Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis [Online] 2001, pp 399-404.
[35] "COMMERCIAL-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF THE LIQUID PHASE METHANOL
(LPMEOH) PROCESS." Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company. [Online] 2004
[36] Lei, Z.; Zou, Z.; Dai C.; Li Q.; Chen B. Synthesis of Dimethyl Ether (DME) by Catalytic
Distillation. Chemical Engineering Science [Online] 2011, 66, pp 3,195-3,203.
[37] Mollavali, M.; Fereydoon Y.; Hossein A.; Sahebdelfar S. Intrinsic Kinetics Study of Dimethyl Ether
Synthesis from Methanol on -Al2O3 Catalysts. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research [Online]
2008,47, pp 3,265-3,273.
[38] Arthur, T. Control Structure Design for Methanol Process. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology [Online] 2010
[39] VandenBussche, K. M.; Froment G. F. A Steady-State Kinetic Model for Methanol Synthesis and the
Water Gas Shift Reaction on a Commercial Cu/ZnO/Al2O3Catalyst. Journal of Catalysis [Online] 1996,161,
pp 1-10.
[40] Sunggyu L.; Sardesai, A. Liquid Phase Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Synthesis from Syngas. Topics in
Catalysis [Online] 2005, 32.3-4 pp 197-207.
[41] Dominguez, A. Y.; Fernandez, Y. B.; Pis, J. J.; Menendez, J. A. Bio-syngas Production with Low
Concentrations of CO2 and CH4 from Microwave-induced Pyrolysis of Wet and Dried Sewage Sludge.
Elsevier Chemosphere [Online] 2008, 70, pp 397-403.
[42] Peters; Timmerhaus; West. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. New York: McGrawHill [Print] 2003.
[43] Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. "Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small
Modular Biomass Systems, Synthesis Gas Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment." Nexant Inc.
[Online] 2006.

67

[44] Der Claus-Prozess. Reich an Jahren und bedeutenderdenn je, Bernhard Schreiner, Chemie in
UnsererZeit, Volume 42 Issue 6, 2009
[45] Modeling and simulation of condensed sulfur in catalytic bed of Claus process: Rapid estimation. R.
Abedini, M. KoolivandSalooki, S. Ghasemian, 8, 2010
[46]United States Environmental Protection Agency. Catalog of CHP Technologies Section 3. Technology
Characterization Combustion Turbine. 2015
[47]RTI International. Economic Impact Analysis of the Final Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP:
Final Report. 2003
[48] Fogler, H. S. Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering 4th ed. Pearson Education International,
[Print], 2006.
[49] Wankat, Phillip C. Separation Process Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, [Print] 2007.
[50] Aspen Plus Process Simulation Software. Aspen Technology, Inc. 2015
[51] Jin, Haiming; Larson, Eric D.; Celik, Fuat E. Performance and cost analysis of future, commercially
mature gasification-based electric power generation from switchgrass. WileyInterScience [Online] 2009.
[52] DiGregorio, David. Cost of Wastewater Treatment Processes; Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration Ohio Basin region: Cincinnati, 1968.
[53] R.Abedini; M. Kooljvand Salooki; S. Ghaasemian., Modeling and Simulation of condensed Sulfur in
Catalytic Bed of Claus Process: Rapid Estimation. Tarbial Modares University; Tehran, Iran. 2010

68

VIII.

Appendix
1. Sample Calculations
Methane production from anaerobic digestion (plus other municipal sources)
Basis: 3.8 ft3 of methane produced per pound of sewage solids [22]
. TU ' +JUVWXJ

 IY LJZW[J L#I\]

.; _ IY
 P[

;;; P[

 U#XXJ

;;; U#XXJL
]W`

= 16,755,112 ab  methane

 TU ' i\#[WL

16,755,112 ab  methane ._=TU ' +JUVWXJ 2.578 104 ab  klmnop

Note: For optimization purposes, exact values were used in Aspen simulation

Table 2 Biogas Composition

(Commission de lOcanIndien, 2011)
2. FORTRAN Code

Provided by Doctor Fuat Celik

69

3. Stream Tables
I. Utilities A. Synthesis Island (a)
COLDH20

LPSOUT1

Temperature (C)

0.0

168.3

538.3

275.9

120.0

120.0

25.0

120.1

Pressure (bar)

3.7

34.0

34.0

6.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

6.0

6.0

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

IUTILS

LUTILS

LPSI2

LPSI3

MCWUI1

LPSP3

LPSO3
248.8

5,271.1

1,330.3

1,330.3

2,274.8

151.0

1,835.0

8,825.8

1,835.0

1,835.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

95,525.9

23,966.1

23,966.1

40,980.7

2,720.3

33,058.0

159,000.0

33,058.0

33,058.0

Volume Flow (l/hr)

98,934.5

28,470.8

2,570,590.0

17,007,900.0

3,033.4

36,862.9

159,470.8

36,866.5

13,002,100.0

-417.1

-101.9

-82.8

-147.5

-11.7

-142.7

-700.8

-142.7

-119.5

1,330.32

1,330.32

2,274.77

151.00

1,835.00

8,825.84

1,835.00

1,835.00

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon

0.11

CO2

0.58

COS

Trace

H2O

5,215.39

H2S

Trace

N2

54.44

NH3

0.23

O2

0.32

SO2

Trace

Propane
Ethylene
Mole Fraction
Argon

Trace

CO2

Trace

COS

Trace

H2O

0.989

H2S

Trace

N2

0.010

NH3

Trace

O2

Trace

SO2

Trace

Propane
Ethylene

70

I. Utilities A. Synthesis Island (b)

DREFRET
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)

DWATCO1

LPSINT1

LPSP2

LPSV2

LPSO2

WBOILINT

DCWUI2

-43.9

24.3

240.6

120.1

175.6

243.6

121.8

2.2

3.7

34.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

2.0

25.0
1.0

0.987

0.011

0.016

0.000

1.000

1.000

0.999

0.000

1,970.0

5,271.1

1,330.3

151.0

151.0

151.0

2,274.8

44,000.0

67,907.6

95,525.9

23,966.1

2,720.3

2,720.3

2,720.3

40,980.7

792,672.3

16,040,400.0

467,009.1

54,595.9

3,033.7

899,973.4

1,058,560.0

36,750,600.0

797,491.6

-120.6

-693.4

-11.3

-10.2

-7.9

-417.0

-99.2

-11.7

1,330.32

151.00

151.00

151.00

2,274.77

44,000.00

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon

0.11

CO2

0.58

COS

Trace

H2O

0.00

5,215.39

H2S

Trace

N2

54.44

NH3

0.23

O2

0.32

SO2

Trace

Propane

788.00

Ethylene

1,182.00

Mole Fraction
Argon

Trace

CO2

Trace

COS
H2O

Trace
0.000

H2S

0.989
Trace

N2

0.010

NH3

Trace

O2

Trace

SO2

Trace

Propane

0.400

Ethylene

0.600

71

I. Utilities A. Synthesis Island (c)

DCWUO2
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

LUTILSO

DCWUI1

DCWUO1

LPSV3

MCWUO1

P-COOL24

PCOOL24A

38.1

121.8

25.0

38.1

192.2

65.0

-56.4

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

6.0

1.0

2.2

-51.0
2.2

0.000

0.022

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.000

0.664

0.763

44,000.0

2,274.8

44,000.0

44,000.0

1,835.0

8,825.8

1,970.0

1,970.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

792,672.3

40,980.7

792,672.3

792,672.3

33,058.0

159,000.0

67,907.6

67,907.6

Volume Flow (l/hr)

807,843.7

865,945.2

797,491.6

807,843.7

11,419,900.0

162,153.7

10,272,900.0

12,079,400.0

-10.0

-9.8

-150.9

-3517.2

-3504.1

-176.2

-3517.2

-3504.1

44,000.00

2,274.77

44,000.00

44,000.00

1,835.00

8,825.84

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon
CO2
COS
H2O
H2S
N2
NH3
O2
SO2
Propane

788.00

788.00

Ethylene

1,182.00

1,182.00

Propane

0.400

0.400

Ethylene

0.600

0.600

Mole Fraction
Argon
CO2
COS
H2O

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

H2S
N2
NH3
O2
SO2

72

I. Utilities B. Claus Process (Pure deionized water)

C-CWUI1
Temperature (C)

C-CWUO1

C-CWUO2

C-CWUO3

C-LPSI1

C-LPSM1

C-LPSO1

25.0

25.0

64.4

56.0

61.3

538.3

401.2

247.4

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

34.0

34.0

34.0

Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction

C-CWUI3

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

9,497.2

547.4

9,497.2

818.1

547.4

260.0

260.0

260.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

171,095.3

9,861.2

171,095.3

14,737.5

9,861.2

4,684.0

4,684.0

4,684.0

Volume Flow (l/hr)

171,602.0

9,921.1

174,432.1

14,958.5

10,290.8

502,400.5

409,192.9

289,362.7

-754.9

-43.8

-747.1

-64.5

-43.3

-16.2

-16.6

-17.0

9,497.2

547.4

9,497.2

818.1

547.4

260.0

260.0

260.0

G-HPH2O

G-IPS1

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
H2O

I. Utilities C. Gasifier (Pure deionized water)

G-CWUI1
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

G-CWUO1

G-LPSI1

G-LPSO1

G-H2O1

G-IPSP1

G-IPSO1

25.0

65.5

120.0

265.9

120.0

123.5

120.0

121.3

484.4

1.0

1.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

160.0

2.0

34.3

34.0

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

37,000.0

37,000.0

5,450.0

5,450.0

4,900.0

4,900.0

510.0

510.0

510.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

666,565.4

666,565.4

98,183.3

98,183.3

88,274.9

88,274.9

9,187.8

9,187.8

9,187.8

Volume Flow (l/hr)

670,617.9

698,701.6

104,106.1

39,951,600.0

93,599.8

93,108.4

10,245.3

10,261.4

912,568.0

-2,960.7

-2,926.7

-422.3

-354.4

-379.7

-379.1

-39.7

-39.7

-32.1

37,000.0

37,000.0

5,450.0

5,450.0

4,900.0

4,900.0

510.0

510.0

510.0

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
H2O

73

I. Utilities D. Rectisol
COLDH2O
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)

P-H2OCLN

0.0
3.7
0.000
5,271.1
95,525.9
98,934.5
-417.5

11.0
3.7
0.000
5,271.1
95,525.9
98,958.6
-416.3

0.114
0.575
0.001
5,215.387
0.004
54.435

0.114
0.575
0.001
5,215.387
0.004
54.435

0.227
0.321
0.002

0.227
0.321
0.002

P-COOL15
-56.4
2.2
0.664
3,100.0
106,859.7
16,165,500.0
-17.8

P-COOL21
-48.7
2.2
0.824
3,100.0
106,859.7
20,709,100.0
-15.0

P-COOL11
-44.7
2.2
0.953
3,100.0
106,859.7
24,289,800.0
-12.9

P-LPSI1

P-LPSO1

538.3
34.0
1.000
12.8
230.6
24,733.6
-0.8

236.6
34.0
0.000
12.8
230.6
306.1
-1.0

12.8

12.8

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon
CO2
COS
H2O
H2S
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
SO2
Propane
Ethylene

1,240
1,860

1,240
1,860

1,240
1,860

Mole Fraction
Argon
CO2
COS
H2O
H2S
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
SO2
Propane
Ethylene

Trace
Trace
Trace
0.989
Trace
0.01

Trace
Trace
Trace
0.989
Trace
0.01

Trace
Trace
Trace

Trace
Trace
Trace
0.400
0.600

0.400
0.600

0.400
0.600

74

I. Utilities E. Refrigeration Loop (a)

P-TO10
Temperature (C)

P-TO20

P-TO30

P-TO40

P-FROM5

P-FROM15

P-FROM25

P-FROM35

-46.0

-44.5

-46.4

-46.4

0.3

-1.7

-2.0

-1.9

Pressure (bar)

33.4

32.1

30.7

29.4

34.5

33.1

31.7

30.3

Vapor Fraction

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

1,800.0

1,450.0

1,100.0

900.0

1,800.0

1,450.0

1,100.0

900.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

64,493.5

50,855.7

37,772.7

30,345.4

64,493.5

50,855.7

37,772.7

30,345.4

Volume Flow (l/hr)

67,415.0

54,385.1

41,084.8

33,565.7

72,994.0

58,338.6

44,040.3

35,900.2

-497.6

-386.4

-282.4

-223.6

-491.8

-382.2

-279.2

-221.1

6.14

5.42

4.22

3.46

6.14

5.42

4.22

3.46

CO

64.70

57.45

45.10

37.26

64.70

57.45

45.10

37.26

CO2

588.31

384.61

224.79

137.30

588.31

384.62

224.79

137.30

COS

0.10

CH4

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

H2S

4.21

0.01

4.21

0.01

1130.98

997.59

822.03

718.79

1130.98

997.59

822.03

718.79

5.47

4.84

3.80

3.14

5.47

4.84

3.80

3.14

0.07

0.06

0.05

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon

Methanol
N2
NH3

0.10

0.001

O2

0.08

SO2

0.00

0.001
0.07

0.06

0.05

0.08
0.001

Mole Fraction
Argon

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.004

CO

0.036

0.04

0.041

0.041

0.036

0.04

0.041

0.041

CO2

0.327

0.265

0.204

0.153

0.327

0.265

0.204

0.153

COS

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.002

Trace

Trace

CH4

Trace

Trace

H2S

0.002

Trace

Methanol

0.628

0.688

0.747

0.799

0.628

0.688

0.747

0.799

N2

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3

Trace

O2

Trace

SO2

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

75

I. Utilities E. Refrigeration Loop (b)

P-COOL8

Temperature (C)

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

P-COOL10

P-COOL11

P-COOL12

P-COOL13

P-COOL14

P-COOL15

P-COOL16

P-COOL17

P-COOL6

-41.9

-41.9

-41.9

-44.7

-56.4

-56.4

-56.4

-56.4

-56.4

-56.4

-41.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.9

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.953

0.664

0.664

0.664

0.664

0.664

0.664

1.000

Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction

P-COOL9

500.0

660.0

920.0

3,100.0

2,550.0

400.0

500.0

3,100.0

660.0

920.0

2,550.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

17,235.4

22,750.8

31,713.2

106,859.7

87,900.7

13,788.3

17,235.4

106,859.7

22,750.8

31,713.2

87,900.7

Volume Flow (l/hr)

4,853,270

6,406,310

8,930,010

24,289,800

13,297,400

2,085,870

2,607,340

16,165,500

3,441,690

4,797,510

24,751,700

-6.6

-8.8

-12.2

-44.1

-49.9

-7.8

-9.8

-60.6

-12.9

-18.0

-33.8

PROPANE

200.00

264.00

368.00

1240.00

1020.00

160.00

200.00

1240.00

264.00

368.00

1020.00

ETHENE

300.00

396.00

552.00

1860.00

1530.00

240.00

300.00

1860.00

396.00

552.00

1530.00

PROPANE

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

ETHENE

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow kmol/hr

Mole Fraction

I. Utilities E. Refrigeration Loop (c)

P-COOL18

Temperature
(C)
Pressure (bar)

P-COOL21

P-COOL22

P-COOL23

P-COOL24

P-COOL25

P-COOL26

PCOOL27

P-COOL28

P-COOL29

P-COOL7

-53.9

-48.7

-53.9

-53.6

-56.4

-53.6

-53.6

35.0

-50.6

150.0

-41.9

2.5

2.2

2.5

2.5

2.2

2.5

2.5

60.2

1.6

60.8

1.9

Vapor Fraction

0.655

0.824

0.655

0.661

0.664

0.661

0.661

0.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow
(kg/hr)
Volume Flow
(l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)

10,100.0

3,100.0

10,100.0

5,050.0

1,970.0

5,050.0

10,100.0

10,100.0

10,100.0

10,100.0

400.0

348,155.7

106,859.7

348,155.7

174,077.9

67,907.6

174,077.9

348,155

348,155

348,155.7

348,155.7

13,788.3

46,100,800

20,709,100

46,100,900

23,343,600

10,272,900

23,343,600

46,687,200

938,842

112,213,000

4,825,180

3,882,610

-197.5

-51.3

-197.5

-98.2

-38.5

-98.2

-196.4

-196.4

-137.6

-45.5

-5.3

Mole Flow
kmol/hr
PROPANE

4040.00

1240.00

4040.00

2020.00

788.00

2020.00

4040.00

4040.00

4040.00

4040.00

160.00

ETHENE

6060.00

1860.00

6060.00

3030.00

1182.00

3030.00

6060.00

6060.00

6060.00

6060.00

240.00

PROPANE

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

0.400

ETHENE

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

0.600

Mole Fraction

76

II. Synthesis Island (a)

MBOT

MCFEED

MCPROD

MCPROD2

MCPROD3

MHFEED

MHPROD

MHRECYC

MINTER

MPROD

Temperature (C)

15.0

120.2

124.3

110.4

35.1

235.0

134.0

110.0

110.0

260.0

Pressure (bar)

30.1

64.0

56.1

55.8

55.8

62.1

56.4

29.8

29.8

58.2

Vapor Fraction

0.000

1.000

0.941

0.883

0.785

1.000

0.997

1.000

0.000

1.000

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

894.1

5,884.8

4,135.6

4,135.6

4,135.6

5,884.8

4,135.6

3,241.6

894.1

4,135.6

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

28,585.8

82,190.2

82,190.2

82,190.2

82,190.2

82,190.2

82,190.2

53,605.6

28,585.8

82,190.2

Volume Flow (l/hr)

47,085.3

3,156,430.0

2,301,030.0

2,138,540.0

1,592,660.0

4,170,120.0

2,440,450.0

3,538,440.0

54,126.4

3,205,040.0

-60.1

-76.1

-101.6

-104.2

-111.6

-70.5

-99.3

-50.1

-196.9

-319.4

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon

0.509

118.422

118.422

118.422

118.422

118.422

118.422

117.913

0.509

118.422

CO

2.343

1,882.091

1,015.207

1,015.207

1,015.207

1,882.091

1,015.207

1,012.897

2.343

1,015.207

CO2

11.334

205.499

197.795

197.795

197.795

205.499

197.795

186.463

11.334

197.795

0.058

0.058

0.058

0.058

0.058

0.058

0.057

Methane

0.058

H2

2.743

3,361.739

1,604.880

1,604.880

1,604.880

3,361.739

1,604.880

1,602.176

2.743

1,604.880

H2O

7.683

0.017

7.721

7.721

7.721

0.017

7.721

0.038

7.683

7.721

Methanol

868.904

8.562

883.148

883.148

883.148

8.562

883.148

14.247

868.904

883.148

N2

0.548

307.015

307.015

307.015

307.015

307.015

307.015

306.467

0.548

307.015

O2

0.004

1.386

1.386

1.386

1.386

1.386

1.386

1.382

0.004

1.386

Argon

0.001

0.020

0.029

0.029

0.029

0.020

0.029

0.036

0.001

0.029

CO

0.003

0.320

0.245

0.245

0.245

0.320

0.245

0.312

0.003

0.245

CO2

0.013

0.035

0.048

0.048

0.048

0.035

0.048

0.058

0.013

0.048

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Mole Fraction

Methane

Trace

H2

0.003

0.571

0.388

0.388

0.388

0.571

0.388

0.494

0.003

0.388

H2O

0.009

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.009

0.002

Methanol

0.972

0.001

0.214

0.214

0.214

0.001

0.214

0.004

0.972

0.214

N2

0.001

0.052

0.074

0.074

0.074

0.052

0.074

0.095

0.001

0.074

O2

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

77

II. Synthesis Island (b)

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Argon
CO
CO2
COS
Dimethyl Ether
Methane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
N2
NH3
O2
SO2
Propane
Ethylene
Mole Fraction
Argon
CO
CO2
COS
Dimethyl Ether
Methane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
N2
NH3
O2
SO2
Propane
Ethylene

DBOT

DBURN

DCPROD

142.6
10
0
1,419.2

31
0.7
1
12.7

135.8
10.43
0.812
1,862.4

MRECYCL
E
112.2
28.9
1.000
1,458.7

38,825.
6
57,745.
6
-60.1

354.2

59,118.0

455,520.
2
-76.1

1.525

475.411
942.218

0.001

0.335
0.664

MTOP

MVPROD

DEFEED

DFUMES

DHFEED

15.0
30.1
1.000
3,241.6

32.9
31.0
0.789
4,135.8

145.4
13.11
0.147
1,862.4

46
1.0
1.000
15.9

244
12.73
1.000
1,862.4

DMEPUR
E
35
9.7
0.000
443.3

24,122.5

53,605.6

82,192.5

59,118.0

458.7

59,118.0

20,292.4

4,490,000.
0
-101.6

1,634,120.0

2,778,040.
0
-380.4

712,871.
4
-116.1

420,351.
9
-0.8

5,920,000.
0
-99.6

31,542.3

-76.8

2,631,560.
0
-179.5

0.367
1.92
3.043

0.142
0.422
8.287

53.061
455.804
83.908

117.913
1,012.897
186.463

118.422
1,015.270
197.801

0.142
0.422
8.287

0.367
1.920
3.047

0.142
0.422
8.287

0.142
0.422
8.287

0.108

428.661

1.416

0.109

1.416

427.136

0.057
1,602.176
0.038

0.058
1,604.975
7.721

48.166

2.743
0.042

48.166

-25.5

2.743
0.011

475.411

0.026
720.979
0.017

3.993
0.468

949.402
0.079

6.411
0.095

14.247
0.095

883.152
0.074

1803.892
0.079

7.230
0.468

1803.892
0.079

7.184
0.079

0.003

0.001

0.622

1.382

1.386

0.001

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.029
0.152
0.24

Trace
Trace
0.004

0.036
0.312
0.058

0.036
0.312
0.058

0.029
0.245
0.048

Trace
Trace
0.004

0.023
0.121
0.191

Trace
Trace
0.004

Trace
0.001
0.019

0.009

0.23

0.001

0.007

0.001

0.964

Trace
0.494
0.000

Trace
0.388
0.002

0.026

0.172
0.003

0.026

0.217
0.001

0.255

Trace
0.494
0.000

0.315
0.037

0.51
Trace

0.004
0.095

0.004
0.095

0.214
0.074

0.969
Trace

0.454
0.029

0.969
Trace

0.016
Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

78

II. Synthesis Island (c)

DMETHTOR
Temperature
(C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor
Fraction
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow
(kg/hr)
Volume
Flow(l/hr)
Enthalpy
(MW)
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Argon

DNULL

31.0
0.7

9.7

0.0

DPFEED

DPROD

DREFRET

67.3

260

13.5
0.0

DTOP

DVWMETH

DWATCO1

DWATER

DWMETH

DWTOP

74.7

24.3

99.6

125.9

46

-43.9

48.5

10.73

2.21

10.0

1.3

3.7

1.0

9.7

1.0

0.987

0.138

0.011

0.000

0.017

0.000

3.3

0.0

1,862.4

1,862.4

1,970.0

443.3

2,313.2

5,271.1

434.9

2,313.2

1,862.4

104.5

0.0

59,118.0

59,118.0

67,907.6

20,292.4

67,411.4

95,525.9

7,834.6

67,411.4

59,118.0

132.8

0.0

79562.8

7,390,000.0

16,000,000.0

1,010,000.0

7,070,000.0

467,009.1

8,528.0

224,631.5

76,767.8

-123.4

-101.5

-7.9

-23.1

-153.9

-417.5

-33.9

-153.9

-123.4

0.114

0.509

0.142

-0.2

0.142

0.142

0.142

0.509

0.422

0.422

0.422

2.343

0.004

8.287

8.287

8.287

11.334

Dimethyl
Ether
H2

0.001

1.416

428.661

427.136

1.525

H2O

0.031

48.166

475.411

CO
CO2
COS

0.422

11.334

8.287

1.525

1.416

0.001

2.743
483.094

H2S
Methanol

0.575

2.343

2.743
5,215.387

434.886

483.094

48.166

1,811.122

1,803.892

0.548

0.079

0.004

0.001

Trace

Trace

0.001

Trace

0.005

0.004

0.001

0.001

0.004
3.236

N2

1,803.892

949.402

7.184

1,811.122

0.079

0.079

0.079

0.548

NH3

54.435
0.227

O2

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.004

SO2

0.321
0.002

Propane

788.000

Ethylene

1,182.000

Mole Fraction
Argon

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

CO

Trace

Trace

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.004

0.019

0.005

CO2

0.001

COS
Trace

0.001

0.230

H2O

0.009

0.026

0.255

0.964

0.001
0.001
0.209

H2S
N2

0.001
0.989

0.209

0.026

Trace
0.989

0.969

0.510

0.016

0.783

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.01

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3
O2

Trace
Trace

Dimethyl
Ether
H2

Methanol

Trace

0.783

0.969

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

SO2

Trace

Propane

0.400

Ethylene

0.600

79

III. Gasifier (a)

TO-GASIF

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)

G-PUREO2

G-O2FEED

G-BIOGAS

G-BGFEED

-29.0

25.0

507.3

25.0

519.9

4.0

3.7

47.8

1.0

47.8

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

2,050.0

2,050.0

2,050.0

1,243.2

1,243.2

GSLUDGE

1.0
0.0

G-DECOMP

GWATER1

G-DRYS

25.0

25.0

1.0

1.0

25.0
1.0

0.291

0.000

0.551

9,050.3

4,392.8

4,657.5

66,160.6

66,160.6

66,160.6

31,055.0

31,055.0

0.0

130,232.2

79,137.5

51,094.7

10,350,100.
0
-3.1

13,715,800.
0
-0.1

2,825,180.
0
29.2

30,328,600.
0
-205.7

1,735,740.
0
-178.1

0.0

64,591,800.
0
-1,194.3

93,251.0

62,799,600.
0
0.0

81.189

81.189

81.189
1.243

1.243

CO2

397.830

397.830

Methane

808.091

808.091

18.648

18.648

Volume Flow (l/hr)

Enthalpy (MW)

-1,197.3

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon
C

2,067.235

CO

H2
H2O

1,868.614
4,392.799

H2S
N2

20.666

20.666

20.666

O2

1,948.145

1,948.145

1,948.145

3.730

3.730

13.675

13.675

2,067.235

1,868.614
4,392.799

149.204

149.204

548.285

548.285

24.138

24.138

0.228

0.444

Mole Fraction
Argon

0.040

0.040

0.040

C
CO

0.001

0.001

CO2

0.320

0.320

Methane

0.650

0.650

H2

0.015

0.015

H2O
H2S
N2

0.010

0.010

0.010

O2

0.950

0.950

0.950

0.206
0.485

0.003

0.003

0.011

0.011

0.401
1.000

0.016

0.032

0.061

0.118

0.003

0.005

80

III. Gasifier (b)

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Ethanol
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N 2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Propane
Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Nonane
Decane
Naphthalene
Ethylene

G-DRYS
25.0
1.0
0.551
4,657.5
51,094.7
62,799,600.0
-0.001

G-WATER2
25.0
1.0
0.000
4,392.8
79,137.5
79,371.8
-349.2

G-WATER3
25.7
47.8
0.000
4,392.8
79,137.5
79,219.5
-349.0

2,067.235

G-SLURRY
41.4
47.8
0.284
9,050.3
130,232.2
1,525,780.0
-349.1

G-CORE
1371.8
42.8
1.000
11,438.8
227,447.8
36,738,300.0
-416.3

G-SOLIDS

G-PARTIC

G-UPPER
1371.8
42.8
1.000
11,438.8
227,447.8
36,738,300.0
-416.3

G-SG1
1000.0
42.8
1.000
11,408.7
227,447.8
28,359,600.0
-465.8

81.189
Trace

81.189
Trace

81.189

1,880.077
1,393.316
0.950
0.055
Trace
Trace
Trace
2,357.820
5,514.802
26.869
Trace
Trace
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
Trace

1,880.077
1,393.316
0.950
0.055
Trace
Trace
Trace
2,357.820
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
Trace

1,842.476
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

0.050
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

0.050
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

42.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0

2,067.235

1,868.614
4,392.799

4,392.799

1,868.614
4,392.799

149.204

149.204

548.285
24.138

548.285
24.138

Trace
Trace
2,342.780
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
18.801
0.050
Trace

3.760
Trace

81

III. Gasifier b (continued)

G-DRYS
Mole Fraction
Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Ethanol
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Propane
Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Nonane
Decane
Naphthalene
Ethylene

G-WATER2

G-WATER3

0.444

G-SLURRY

G-CORE

G-SOLIDS

G-PARTIC

G-UPPER

G-SG1

0.007
Trace

0.007
Trace

0.007

0.164
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM
Trace
Trace
Trace
0.206
0.482
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
Trace

0.164
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM
Trace
Trace
Trace
0.206
0.482
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
Trace

0.161
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

4 PPM
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

4 PPM
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

0.228

0.401
1.000

1.000

0.206
0.485

0.032

0.016

0.118
0.005

0.061
0.003

Trace
Trace
0.205
0.483
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
0.002
4 PPM
Trace

330 PPM
Trace

82

III. Gasifier (c)

G-SG1
1000.0
Temperature (C)
42.8
Pressure (bar)
1.000
Vapor Fraction
11,408.7
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
227,447.8
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
28,359,600.0
Volume Flow (l/hr)
-1,587.7
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
81.189
Argon
Benzene
C
1,842.476
CO
1,393.316
CO2
0.950
COS
0.055
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Trace
Ethanol
Trace
Ethane
2,342.780
H2
5,514.802
H2O
26.869
H2S
< 0.001
Methanol
< 0.001
NO
Trace
NO2
183.421
N2
Trace
N 2O
0.247
NH3
18.801
O2
S
0.050
SO2
Trace
SO3
3.760
Naphthalene
Trace
Ethylene

Mole Fraction
Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
ETHANOL
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Naphthalene
Ethylene

G-RECYL
41.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

G-SG2
970.0
41.5
1.000
11,408.7
227,447.8
28,539,700.0
-1,601.3

G-FLYASH
939.9
40.3
1.000
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001

G-SG3
939.9
40.3
1.000
11,408.7
227,447.8
28,703,700.0
-1,614.7

G-SG4
940.0
39.1
1.000
11,437.2
227,447.8
29,662,700.0
-1,618.9

G-SG5
350.0
37.9
1.000
11,437.2
227,447.8
15,371,200.0
-1,867.0

81.189

81.189

81.189

1,842.476
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

1,842.476
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

Trace
Trace
2,342.780
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
18.801
0.050
Trace
3.760
Trace

G-TARS
349.7
36.8
0.000
0.2
25.1
35.2
0.0

G-SG6
349.7
36.8
1.000
11,437.0
227,422.7
15,844,400.0
-1,867.0

G-SYNGS1
374.8
35.7
1.000
11,437.0
227,422.7
17,070,400.0
-1,867.0

81.189

81.189

81.189

1,878.122
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

1,878.122
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

1,878.122
1,393.316
0.950
0.055

1,594.375
1,677.063
0.950
0.055

Trace
Trace
2,342.780
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
18.801

Trace
Trace
2,357.038
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
0.978

Trace
Trace
2,357.038
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
0.978

Trace
Trace
2,357.038
5,514.802
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
0.978

Trace
Trace
2,640.785
5,231.056
26.869
< 0.001
< 0.001
Trace
183.421
Trace
0.247
0.978

0.050
Trace
3.760

0.050
Trace
0.196

0.050
Trace
0.196

0.050
Trace

0.050
Trace

0.196

Trace

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.161
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.161
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.161
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.164
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.164
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.164
0.122
83 PPM
5 PPM

0.139
0.147
83 PPM
5 PPM

Trace
Trace
0.205
0.483
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
0.002

Trace
Trace
0.205
0.483
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
0.002

Trace
Trace
0.205
0.483
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
0.002

Trace
Trace
0.206
0.482
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
85 PPM

Trace
Trace
0.206
0.482
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
85 PPM

Trace
Trace
0.206
0.482
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
85 PPM

Trace
Trace
0.231
0.457
0.002
3 PPB
3 PPB
Trace
0.016
Trace
22 PPM
85 PPM

4 PPM
Trace
330 PPM
Trace

4 PPM
Trace
330 PPM
Trace

4 PPM
Trace
330 PPM

4 PPM
Trace
17 PPM

4 PPM
Trace
17 PPM

4 PPM
Trace

4 PPM
Trace

1.000

1.000

83

IV. Acid Gas Removal (a)

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction

P-SYNGS1

P-SYNGS2

P-SYNGS3

P-MEOH1

P-MEOH2

P-MEOH3

P-MEOH4

P-MEOH5

P-MEOH6

P-MEOH7

P-MEOH8

154.0

35.0

-16.8

25.0

26.2

-39.6

5.9

9.8

9.8

-27.9

9.8

35.7

34.6

29.0

1.0

38.0

36.8

34.6

20.0

20.0

19.0

20.0

0.649

1.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.181

1.000

0.000

0.000

11,437.0

6,216.0

4,426.1

3,500.0

3,500.0

3,500.0

5,290.0

5,290.0

958.6

620.1

4,331.4

227,422.7

133,344.3

58,067.6

187,424.
1
215,493.
9
-415.7

27,139.0

3,273,980.
0
-58.8

112,147.
6
129,532.
3
-236.6

39,166.1

4,497,250.
0
-233.4

112,147.
6
141,682.
3
-231.9

187,424.1

7,361,970.
0
-615.7

112,147.
6
141,436.
0
-232.1

1,183,940
.0
-415.7

1,010,410.
0
-88.4

25,692.9
-69.6

148,258.
1
173,536.
9
-327.4

81.189

81.184

65.361

15.823

15.823

14.958

0.626

0.865

CO

1,594.375

1,594.370

1,426.287

168.084

168.084

165.367

3.488

2.717

CO2

1,677.063

1,676.432

121.591

1,554.836

755.420

607.051

799.416

COS

0.950

0.949

Trace

1,554.83
6
0.949

0.949

0.192

0.192

0.757

Methane

0.055

0.055

0.032

0.024

0.024

0.022

0.001

0.002

Ethanol

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon

Ethane

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2

2,640.785

2,640.758

2,640.760

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

H2O

5,231.056

11.250

Trace

11.250

11.250

0.005

0.005

11.244

H2S

26.869

26.581

Trace

26.581

26.581

4.554

4.361

22.027

Methanol

< 0.001

Trace

2.151

3,497.853

4.089

4.089

NO

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

3,497.85
3
Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

3,493.76
5
Trace

Trace

Trace

183.421

183.421

169.105

14.316

14.316

13.776

0.300

0.540

N2O

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3

0.247

0.014

Trace

0.014

0.014

0.001

0.001

0.013

NO2
N2

3,500.00
0

3,500.00
0

3,500.00
0

O2

0.978

0.978

0.764

0.213

0.213

0.201

0.009

0.012

SO2

0.050

0.048

Trace

0.048

0.048

0.002

0.002

0.046

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

84

IV. Acid Gas Removal (a) (continued)

P-SYNGS1

P-SYNGS2

P-SYNGS3

P-MEOH1

P-MEOH2

P-MEOH3

P-MEOH4

P-MEOH5

P-MEOH6

P-MEOH7

P-MEOH8

Mole Fraction
Argon

0.007

0.013

0.015

0.003

0.003

0.016

0.001

200 PPM

CO

0.139

0.256

0.322

0.032

0.032

0.173

0.006

627 PPM

CO2

0.147

0.270

0.027

0.294

0.294

0.788

0.979

0.185

COS

83 PPM

153 PPM

Trace

179 PPM

179 PPM

200 PPM

310 PPM

175 PPM

Methane

5 PPM

9 PPM

7 PPM

4 PPM

4 PPM

23 PPM

2 PPM

431 PPB

Ethanol

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Ethane

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2

0.231

0.425

0.597

19 PPB

19 PPB

102 PPB

Trace

Trace

H2O

0.457

0.002

Trace

0.002

0.002

5 PPM

8 PPM

0.003

H2S

0.002

0.004

Trace

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.007

0.005

Methanol

3 PPB

Trace

486 PPM

0.661

0.661

0.004

0.007

0.807

NO

3 PPB

6 PPB

7 PPB

Trace

Trace

4 PPB

Trace

Trace

NO2

Trace

Trace

N2

0.016

0.030

0.038

0.003

0.003

0.014

485 PPM

125 PPM

N2O

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3

22 PPM

2 PPM

Trace

3 PPM

3 PPM

1 PPM

2 PPM

3 PPM

O2

85 PPM

157 PPM

173 PPM

40 PPM

40 PPM

209 PPM

14 PPM

3 PPM

SO2

4 PPM

8 PPM

Trace

9 PPM

9 PPM

2 PPM

3 PPM

11 PPM

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Ethane

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

1.000

1.000

1.000

Trace

85

IV. Acid Gas Removal (b)

PMEOH9

PMEOH10

PMEOH11

-22.9

-11.9

17.0

19.0

19.0

19.0

Temperature
(C)
Pressure (bar)

PMEOH12

PMEOH13

PMEOH14

PMEOH15

PMEOH16

PCOBUR
N

PH20SWR

P-H2OCLNPH20SWR

7.0

-3.9

3.8

82.9

-60.0

-47.8

35.0

11.0

3.0

3.0

2.3

2.0

1.6

19.0

34.6

3.7

Vapor Fraction

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.000

< 0.001

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow
(kg/hr)
Volume Flow
(l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)

4,951.5

4,951.5

4,951.5

3,507.0

3,444.6

68.0

64.0

3,508.6

338.5

5,221.0

5,271.1

175,397
.1
189,659
.4
-397.0

175,397.
1
193,004.
6
-395.8

175,397.
1
202,754.
2
-391.9

121,260.2

2,203.4

2,049.9

94,078.4

95,525.9

2,672.4

2,847.7
-4.1

296,874.
4
-21.5

111,538.
6
-416.2

98,958.6

-4.6

112,252.
3
126,495.
9
-238.3

12,027.1

26,995,80
0.0
-158.7

110,202.
4
133,355.
0
-234.1

-416.3

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.2

0.0

0.0

Trace

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.1

CO

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

Trace

0.0

Trace

Trace

161.9

0.0

Trace

CO2

1,406.5

1,406.5

1,406.5

1,406.5

Trace

2.3

Trace

Trace

148.4

0.6

0.6

COS

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

Trace

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.0

0.0

Methane

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.0

Trace

Trace

Ethanol

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Ethane

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace
Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

< 0.001

0.0

Trace

H2O

11.3

11.3

11.3

0.1

11.2

0.1

0.1

11.2

Trace

5,219.8

5,215.4

H2S

26.4

26.4

26.4

26.4

< 0.001

0.1

Trace

< 0.001

0.2

0.3

0.0

3,497.9

3,497.9

3,497.9

67.6

3,430.2

65.2

63.9

3,494.2

Trace

< 0.001

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Methanol
NO
NO2
N2

Trace
0.8

0.8

0.8

1,991.5

3.1

0.3

Trace

3.1

13.5

0.0

N2O

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

54.4

NH3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

< 0.001

Trace

0.0

Trace

0.2

0.2

O2

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

Trace

0.0

0.2

< 0.001

0.3

SO2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

< 0.001

0.0

Trace

0.0

0.0

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

86

IV. Acid Gas Removal (b) (continued)

PMEOH9

PMEOH10

PMEOH11

PMEOH12

PMEOH13

PMEOH14

PMEOH15

PMEOH16

PCOBURN

PH20SWR

301 PPM

301 PPM

923 PPM

1 PPM

17 PPM

Trace

1 PPM

0.042

1 PPM

22 PPM

CO

301
PPM
0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

Trace

19 PPM

Trace

Trace

0.478

934 PPB

Trace

CO2

0.284

0.284

0.284

0.401

Trace

0.034

3 PPB

Trace

0.438

121 PPM

109 PPM

COS

192 PPM

192 PPM

270 PPM

Trace

95 PPM

10 PPB

Trace

Trace

221 PPB

123 PPB

602 PPB

602 PPB

850 PPB

Trace

36 PPB

Trace

Trace

61 PPM

Trace

Trace

Ethanol

192
PPM
602
PPB
Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Ethane

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2O

0.002

0.002

0.002

16 PPM

0.003

847 PPM

896 PPM

0.003

Trace

1.000

0.989

H2S

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.008

85 PPB

0.002

4 PPB

83 PPB

570 PPM

55 PPM

804 PPB

Methanol

0.706

0.706

0.706

0.019

0.996

0.959

0.999

0.996

Trace

6 PPB

6 PPB

NO

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

10 PPB

Trace

Trace

Mole
Fraction
Argon

Methane

Trace
Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

287 PPB

5 PPM

NO2
N2

P-H2OCLNPH20SWR

Trace

Trace
170 PPM

170 PPM

0.568

910 PPM

0.004

Trace

894 PPM

0.040

102 PPB

N2O

170
PPM
Trace

0.010

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3

3 PPM

3 PPM

3 PPM

4 PPM

240 PPB

2 PPM

Trace

236 PPB

Trace

45 PPM

43 PPM

O2

4 PPM

4 PPM

4 PPM

0.001

3 PPM

26 PPM

Trace

3 PPM

567 PPM

13 PPB

61 PPM

SO2

10 PPM

10 PPM

10 PPM

9 PPM

5 PPM

11 PPM

221 PPB

5 PPM

Trace

334 PPB

286 PPB

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

87

IV. Acid Gas Removal (c)

P-ACDGS1

Temperature (C)

P-ACDGS2

PACDGS3

FROM4
0

FROM3
0

FROM2
0

FROM1
0

TO35

TO25

TO15

TO5

14.8

-40.0

53.3

0.3

-1.7

-2.0

-1.9

-46.0

-44.5

-46.4

-46.4

3.7

2.3

2.0

34.5

33.1

31.7

30.3

33.4

32.1

30.7

29.4

Vapor Fraction

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)

949.9

3,439.0

4.0

1,800.0

1,450.0

1,100.0

900.0

1,800.0

1,450.0

1,100.0

900.0

26,585.3

119,056.8

153.5

64,493.5

50,855.7

37,772.7

30,345.4

6,134,140.
0
-0.4

28,326,200.
0
-156.2

53,094.5

72,994.0

58,338.6

44,040.3

35,900.2

-0.3

-144.3

-112.1

-81.9

-64.9

64,493.
5
67,415.
0
-146.0

50,855.
7
54,385.
1
-113.4

37,772.
7
41,084.
8
-82.8

30,345.
4
33,565.
7
-65.6

Argon

0.8

3.2

0.0

6.1

5.4

4.2

3.5

6.1

5.4

4.2

3.5

CO

0.0

6.2

0.0

64.7

57.4

45.1

37.3

64.7

57.4

45.1

37.3

CO2

0.1

1,404.2

2.3

588.3

384.6

224.8

137.3

588.3

384.6

224.8

137.3

Pressure (bar)

Volume Flow (l/hr)

Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow kmol/hr

COS

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.1

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

0.1

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

Methane

Trace

0.0

Trace

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ETHANOL

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

Trace

< 0.001

Trace

Trace

Trace

C2H6

Trace

Trace

H2

0.0

Trace

H2O

4.4

Trace

< 0.001

H2S

0.3

26.3

0.1

4.2

0.0

< 0.001

Trace

4.2

0.0

< 0.001

Trace

Methanol

Trace

2.4

1.3

1,131.0

997.6

822.0

718.8

1,131.0

997.6

822.0

718.8

NO

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

942.5

1,991.2

0.3

5.5

4.8

3.8

3.1

5.5

4.8

3.8

3.1

NO2
N2
N2O

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

NH3

0.0

0.0

< 0.001

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

O2

1.9

4.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

SO2

< 0.001

0.0

0.0

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.0

Trace

Trace

Trace

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

ETHANE

88

IV. Acid Gas Removal (c) (continued)

P-ACDGS1

P-ACDGS2

P-ACDGS3

FROM40

FROM30

FROM20

FROM10

TO35

TO25

TO15

TO5

806 PPM

941 PPM

295 PPM

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.004

CO

5 PPM

0.002

319 PPM

0.036

0.040

0.041

0.041

0.036

0.040

0.041

0.041

CO2

59 PPM

0.408

0.577

0.327

0.265

0.204

0.153

0.327

0.265

0.204

0.153

COS

531 PPB

274 PPM

0.002

57 PPM

21 PPB

Trace

Trace

57 PPM

21 PPB

Trace

Trace

Methane

2 PPB

866 PPB

612 PPB

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

5 PPM

ETHANOL

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

15 PPB

14 PPB

14 PPB

14 PPB

15 PPB

14 PPB

14 PPB

14 PPB

257 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

257 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

Mole Fraction
Argon

C2H6

Trace

H2

Trace

29 PPM

Trace

H2O

0.005

Trace

H2S

298 PPM

0.008

0.029

0.002

7 PPM

23 PPB

Trace

0.002

7 PPM

23 PPB

Trace

Methanol

Trace

712 PPM

0.317

0.628

0.688

0.747

0.799

0.628

0.688

0.747

0.799

NO

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

1 PPB

1 PPB

1 PPB

Trace

1 PPB

1 PPB

1 PPB

0.992

0.579

0.075

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

58 PPM

NO2
N2
N2O
NH3

6 PPM

4 PPM

33 PPM

582 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

582 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.002

0.001

452 PPM

46 PPM

50 PPM

52 PPM

52 PPM

46 PPM

50 PPM

52 PPM

52 PPM

SO2

248 PPB

9 PPM

190 PPM

814 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

814 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

SO3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

O2

ETHANE

V. Power Island (a)

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Ethanol
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Ethylene

PURGE
112.2
28.9
1.000
1,782.9
29,483.1
1,997,250.0
-27.5

P-COBURN
-47.8
19.0
1.000
338.5
12,027.1
296,874.4
-21.5

DBURN
31.0
0.7
1.000
12.7
354.2
455,520.2
-0.6

E-COMB2
484.7
18.0
1.000
13,217.8
362,912.4
46,530,500.0
0.2

E-COMB3
1433.0
17.5
1.000
12,421.2
362,912.4
101,204,000.0
0.2

E-TURBIN
1396.7
17.5
1.000
13,025.7
380,421.1
103,877,000.0
2.9

E-GEXIT
691.1
1.1
1.000
13,025.7
380,421.1
980,809,000.0
-90.9

E-GEXHST
691.0
1.1
1.000
13,037.4
380,760.4
981,581,000.0
-90.9

64.85

14.33

0.37

183.06

183.06

188.72

188.72

188.83

557.09
102.55

1.92
3.04

0.03

161.88
148.37
Trace
0.02

< 0.001
0.11

720.79
257.80
Trace
0.05
0.10

0.05
990.41
Trace
Trace

0.15
990.79
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.79
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

881.20
0.02
Trace
7.84
< 0.001

Trace
< 0.001
Trace
0.19
Trace
Trace

2.74
0.01
Trace
3.99
Trace

Trace
883.80
0.03
0.19
11.62
< 0.001

0.01
907.66
Trace
Trace
28.28
0.26
8,823.39
0.01
Trace
1,487.91

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,294.92
0.01
Trace
1,614.39

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,294.92
0.01
Trace
1,614.39

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

168.56
Trace
0.76

13.48
Trace
Trace
0.19
Trace
Trace

0.47

0.00

8,837.67
Trace
Trace
2,322.71
Trace
Trace

89

V. Power Island (a) (continued)

PURGE
Mole Fraction
Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Ethanol
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Ethylene

P-COBURN

DBURN

E-COMB2

E-COMB3

E-TURBIN

E-GEXIT

E-GEXHST

0.036

0.042

0.029

0.014

0.015

0.014

0.014

0.014

0.312
0.058

0.152
0.240

18 PPM

0.478
0.438
Trace
61 PPM

12 PPM
0.009

0.055
0.020
Trace
4 PPM
8 PPM

4 PPM
0.080
Trace
Trace

11 PPM
0.076
Trace
Trace
427 PPB

11 PPM
0.076
Trace
Trace
427 PPB

12 PPM
0.076
Trace
Trace
435 PPB

0.494
12 PPM
Trace
0.004
18 PPB

Trace
287 PPB
Trace
570 PPM
Trace
10 PPB

0.217
892 PPM
Trace
0.315
31 PPB

Trace
0.067
2 PPM
15 PPM
879 PPM
3 PPB

1 PPM
0.073
Trace
Trace
0.002
21 PPM
0.710
470 PPB
Trace
0.120

12 PPM
0.070
Trace
16 PPM
0.002
20 PPM
0.714
448 PPB
Trace
0.124

12 PPM
0.070
Trace
16 PPM
0.002
20 PPM
0.714
448 PPB
Trace
0.124

12 PPM
0.070
Trace
16 PPM
0.002
20 PPM
0.714
448 PPB
Trace
0.124

15 PPM
323 PPB
Trace

15 PPM
308 PPB
Trace

15 PPM
308 PPB
Trace

14 PPM
307 PPB
Trace

C-TAIL

E-EFFLU

0.095
Trace
426 PPM

0.040
Trace
Trace
567 PPM

0.037

222 PPM

Trace
Trace

0.669
Trace
Trace
0.176
Trace
Trace

V. Power Island (b)

E-GTEX2
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction
Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)

E-GTEX3

E-GTEX4

E-GTEX5

E-GTEX6

P-AIROUT

478.5
1.1
1.000
13,037.4

350.9
1.1
1.000
13,037.4

255.0
1.1
1.000
13,037.4

244.4
1.1
1.000
13,037.4

89.6
1.1
1.000
13,037.4

102.9
1.0
1.000
70,000.0

100.0
1.9
1.000
4,454.1

139.3
1.0
1.000
57,491.6

380,760.4
765,299,000.
0
-117.1

380,760.4
635,344,000.
0
-132.2

380,760.4
537,706,000.
0
-143.2

380,760.4
526,852,000.
0
-144.5

380,760.4
369,046,000.
0
-161.8

1,158,620.0
1,443,970,000.
0
42.6

147,133.3
74,647,400.
0
-154.7

1,686,510.0
1,971,450,000.
0
-273.8

188.83

188.83

188.83

188.83

188.83

373.60

4.71

567.14

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

0.15
990.80
Trace
Trace
0.01

14.40

0.00
1,416.89
0.53

0.152
2422.085
0.525
Trace
0.006

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.16
907.66
Trace
0.21
28.28
0.26
9,304.05
0.01
Trace
1,616.84

0.00
38.47
0.09

0.158
946.123
0.092
0.21
28.282
0.259
43530.996
0.006
Trace
9995.241

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

0.19
0.00
Trace

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon
Benzene
C
CO
CO2
COS
Methane
Dimethyl Ether
Ethanol
Ethane
H2
H2O
H2S
Methanol
NO
NO2
N2
N2O
NH3
O2
S
SO2
SO3
Ethylene

31,233.60

2,993.34
Trace

8,378.40
0.10
Trace

0.29
0.004
Trace

90

V. Power Island (b) (continued)

E-GTEX2

E-GTEX3

E-GTEX4

E-GTEX5

E-GTEX6

P-AIROUT

C-TAIL

E-EFFLU

Mole Fraction
Argon

0.014

0.014

0.014

0.014

0.014

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

CO2

0.076

0.076

0.076

0.076

0.076

COS

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.009

0.001

0.010

126 PPB

3 PPM

0.318

0.042

118 PPM

9 PPM

Benzene
C
CO

Methane
Dimethyl Ether

360 PPM

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

435 PPB

435 PPB

435 PPB

435 PPB

435 PPB

99 PPB

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

12 PPM

Ethanol
Ethane
H2

145 PPB

3 PPM

H2O

0.070

0.070

0.070

0.070

0.070

0.009

0.016

H2S

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

21 PPM

2 PPM

16 PPM

16 PPM

16 PPM

16 PPM

16 PPM

4 PPM

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

492 PPM

20 PPM

20 PPM

20 PPM

20 PPM

20 PPM

5 PPM

Methanol
NO
NO2
N2

0.714

0.714

0.714

0.714

0.714

N2O

448 PPB

448 PPB

448 PPB

448 PPB

448 PPB

0.781

0.672

0.757

NH3

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

O2

0.124

0.124

0.124

0.124

0.124

SO2

14 PPM

14 PPM

14 PPM

14 PPM

14 PPM

23 PPM

5 PPM

SO3

307 PPB

307 PPB

307 PPB

307 PPB

307 PPB

Trace

70 PPB

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

101 PPB
Trace
0.209

Trace
0.174

Ethylene

Trace

91

VI. Claus Process

Temperature (C)

C-AIR

S17

25.0

7.3

PACDGS1
14.8

PACDGS2
-40.1

Pressure (bar)

1.0

2.0

3.7

2.3

Vapor Fraction

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)

67.4

2.6

949.9

3,439.0

1,952.
3
0.0

109.6

26,585.3

119,056.8

-0.2

-0.4

-156.2

Enthalpy (MW)

C-1
285.0

C-S1
100.0

C-2
100.0

C-3

C-S2

305.0

C-4

C-5
225.0

C-S3

100.
0
1.9

100.0
1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.000

1.000

0.000

1.000

4,443.7

4,443.7

0.1

4,443.7

n/a

n/a

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.9

0.996

0.000

1.000

0.998

4,464.1

17.3

4,446.8

4,453.2

0.00
0
9.5

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

-146.4

0.0

-154.3

-145.7

0.0

-154.4

-149.2

100.0

C-TAIL

<
0.001

100.0

-154.4

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon

0.630

CO
CO2

0.024

COS

0.001

0.766

3.234

4.631

4.631

4.631

4.631

4.631

4.631

0.001

0.005

6.204

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

2.207

0.056

1,404.183

0.001

0.001

0.942

1,415.61
7
0.535

1,415.61
7
0.535

1,415.61
7
0.535

1,415.61
7
0.535

1,415.61
7
0.535

1,415.61
7
0.535

0.027

Trace

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

4.419

Trace

29.654

29.654

35.960

35.960

36.001

36.001

H2
H2O

Trace

H2S
N2

0.040

0.283

26.274

6.474

6.474

0.168

0.168

0.127

0.127

52.629

0.297

942.472

1,991.224

2,986.63
1

2,986.63
1

2,986.63
1

2,986.63
1

0.005

0.014

2,986.63
1
Trace

14.118

<
0.001
0.002

2,986.63
1
Trace

1.898

4.446

NH3
O2
S

Trace
17.261

SO2

<
0.001

< 0.001

0.030

17.26
1

3.302

9.459
3.302

9.45
9

0.149

0.062
0.149

0.062

0.128

0.128

Mole Fraction
Argon

0.009

CO
CO2

Trace

COS

Trace

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

Trace

Trace

0.002

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.839

Trace

0.408

0.317

0.318

0.318

0.319

0.319

0.319

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

H2O

Trace

0.005

Trace

0.007

0.007

0.008

0.008

0.008

0.008

H2S

0.015

Trace

0.008

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.113

0.992

0.579

0.669

0.672

0.671

0.672

0.672

0.672

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.001

0.002

0.001

N2

0.781

NH3
O2

0.209

S
SO2

Trace
0.004

Trace

Trace

Trace

0.001

1.000

0.002
0.001

Trace

1.00
0

Trace
Trace

Trace

1.000
Trace

92

VII. Air Separation Unit (a)

A-INTAKE
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction

A-AIR1

A-CO2

A-AIR2

A-AIR3

A-AIR2T

A-LPAIR1

A-HPAIR1

A-HPAIR2

25.0

35.0

34.9

35.0

-102.6

-102.9

-136.3

-102.9

-150.0

1.0

11.0

10.7

10.7

10.4

10.0

4.0

10.0

9.7

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

9,500.0

9,500.0

3.4

9,496.6

9,496.6

7,597.3

7,597.3

1,899.3

1,899.3

275,172.0

275,172.0

150.5

275,021.5

275,021.5

220,017.2

220,017.2

55,004.3

55,004.3

232,434,000.0

22,167,000.0

7,811.4

22,843,200.0

12,470,700.0

10,283,500.0

20,893,400.0

2,570,870.0

1,758,250.0

-0.39

0.23

-0.37

0.61

-10.37

-8.29

-10.14

-2.07

-2.87

88.7

88.7

88.7

88.7

71.0

71.0

17.7

17.7

3.4

3.4

N2

7,418.0

7,418.0

7,418.0

7,418.0

5,934.4

5,934.4

1,483.6

1,483.6

O2

1,989.9

1,989.9

1,989.9

1,989.9

1,591.9

1,591.9

398.0

398.0

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.009

0.009

360 PPM

360 PPM

N2

0.781

0.781

0.781

0.781

0.781

0.781

0.781

0.781

O2

0.209

0.209

0.210

0.210

0.210

0.210

0.210

0.210

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon
CO2

3.4

Mole Fraction
Argon
CO2

1.000

93

VII. Air Separation Unit (b)

A-HPDIS1

A-HPBOT1

A-HPDIS2

A-HPBOT2

A-HPDIS3

A-HPBOT3

-169.6

-165.0

-171.8

-171.2

-181.7

-177.7

-181.8

-167.9

-181.2

9.7

9.7

9.7

9.7

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Vapor Fraction

0.000

< 0.001

0.000

0.000

0.124

0.074

1.000

< 0.001

1.000

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

949.3

950.0

949.3

950.0

949.3

950.0

7,420.0

2,076.6

7,420.0

Mass Flow (kg/hr)

26,723.4

28,280.9

26,723.4

28,280.9

26,723.4

28,280.9

208,003.1

67,018.4

208,003.1

Volume Flow (l/hr)

41,064.9

36,745.3

39,865.8

34,567.6

231,970.0

156,352.8

12,563,100.0

63,611.5

12,676,000.0

-2.77

-2.87

-2.81

-2.98

-2.81

-2.98

-12.86

-6.93

-12.82

4.8

13.0

4.8

13.0

4.8

13.0

6.5

82.2

6.5

N2

926.3

557.3

926.3

557.3

926.3

557.3

7,397.0

20.9

7,397.0

O2

18.2

379.8

18.2

379.8

18.2

379.8

16.5

1,973.4

16.5

0.005

0.014

0.005

0.014

0.005

0.014

874 PPM

0.040

874 PPM

N2

0.976

0.587

0.976

0.587

0.976

0.587

0.997

0.010

0.997

O2

0.019

0.400

0.019

0.400

0.019

0.400

0.002

0.950

0.002

A-LPDIS4

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)

Enthalpy (MW)

A-LPDIS1

A-LPBOT1

A-LPDIS2

Mole Flow (kmol/hr)

Argon
CO2

Mole Fraction
Argon
CO2

VII Air Separation Unit (c)

Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Vapor Fraction

ALPBOT2
-167.7

A-LPDIS3
-179.7

ALPBOT3
-162.8

4.0

4.0

4.0

A-02PROD

-169.0

AN2PROD
-29.0

-29.0

AN2SWST
-29.0

AN2MRGN
-29.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

A-XSN2
-29.0
4.0

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

2,076.6

7,420.0

2,076.6

7,420.0

7,420.0

2,076.6

1,000.0

2,000.0

4,420.0

67,018.4

208,003.1

67,018.4

208,003.1

208,003.1

67,018.4

28,032.8

56,065.5

123,904.8

4,181,160.0

4,422,330.0

37,582,800.
0
-3.32

10,484,300.
0
-0.93

10,130,200.0

-3.22

14,884,900.
0
-12.01

5,065,070.0

-3.31

12,958,900.
0
-12.72

-0.45

-0.90

22,387,600.
0
-1.98

82.2

6.5

82.2

6.5

6.5

82.2

0.9

1.7

3.9

N2

20.9

7,397.0

20.9

7,397.0

7,397.0

20.9

996.9

1,993.8

4,406.3

O2

1,973.4

16.5

1,973.4

16.5

16.5

1,973.4

2.2

4.4

9.8

0.040

874 PPM

0.040

874 PPM

874 PPM

0.040

874 PPM

874 PPM

874 PPM

N2

0.010

0.997

0.010

0.997

0.997

0.010

0.997

0.997

0.997

O2

0.950

0.002

0.950

0.002

0.002

0.950

0.002

0.002

0.002

Mole Flow
(kmol/hr)
Mass Flow (kg/hr)
Volume Flow (l/hr)
Enthalpy (MW)
Mole Flow (kmol/hr)
Argon
CO2

Mole Fraction
Argon
CO2

94