화학공학소재연구정보센터
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol.54, 454-463, October, 2017
Techno-economic study of enhanced absorber.regenerator configurations for improving an industrial Sulfinol-M-based acid gas removal processes
E-mail:
In this study, the rigorous simulation and design of an industrial Sulfinol-M-based acid gas removal (AGR) process was developed. All simulations were performed using Aspen HYSYS with extended NRTL activity coefficient model for the liquid phase and the Peng.Robinson state equation for the vapor fugacity coefficients. The simulation results from VMGSim and Aspen HYSYS were compared with design data from an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant. Several enhanced absorber.regenerator configurations were presented to improve AGR process efficiency. Sustainability analysis was conducted to assess these process alternatives in terms of energy requirements, costs, and environmental impacts. The results showed that the proposed self-heat recuperation configuration could reduce the energy requirements, total annual costs, carbon footprint by 74.7%, 40.1%, and 48.9%, respectively, compared with the conventional configuration.
  1. Schach MO, Schneider R, Schramm H, Repke JU, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 49(5), 2363 (2010)
  2. Burnard K, Bhattacharya S, Power Generation from Coal: Ongoing Developments and Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2011.
  3. Zheng LG, Furinsky E, Energy Conv. Manag., 46(11-12), 1767 (2005)
  4. Shell Global Solutions, Sulfinol1-M . A Simple, Single Step, Highly Selective Sour-Gas-Treating Process, Shell Global Solutions, 2012.
  5. Desmukh RD, Mather AE, Chem. Eng. Sci., 36, 355 (1981)
  6. Macgregor RJ, Mather AE, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 69, 1357 (1991)
  7. Najibi H, Maleki N, Fluid Phase Equilib., 354, 298 (2013)
  8. Zong L, Chen CC, Fluid Phase Equilib., 306(2), 190 (2011)
  9. Huang J, Gong M, Dong X, Li X, Wu J, Sci. China Chem., 59, 360 (2016)
  10. Dyment J, Watanasiri S, Acid Gas Cleaning Using Amine Solvents: Validation with Experimental and Plant Data, Aspen Technology, 2015.
  11. Liu X, Yang SY, Hu ZG, Qian Y, Comput. Chem. Eng., 83, 48 (2015)
  12. Nayak G, Techno-economic analysis of acid gas removal solutions for SNG applications, Gasification Technologies Conference (2014).
  13. Aspentech. Aspen physical property system: physical property methods and models 11.1 (2001).
  14. Process Engineering Division. Shell Gasifier IGCC Base Cases PED-IGCC-98-002 (2000).
  15. Lee H, Choi S, Paek M, Process Biochem.Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. A: J. Power Energy, 225, 74 (2011)
  16. Karimi M, Hillestad M, Svendsen HF, Energy Procedia, 4, 1601 (2011)
  17. Aroonwilas A, Veawab A, U.S. Patent No. 2007/0221065 A1, 2007.
  18. Mark S, U.S. Patent No. 1971798 A, 1934.
  19. Cole B, Hajdik B, The Seventy-Sixth GPA Annual Convention: Gas Processors Association, Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1997, pp.93.
  20. Liebert T, Hydrocarb. Process., 72, 37 (1993)
  21. Kiss AA, Landaeta SJF, C.A. Infante Ferreira, Energy, 47, 531 (2012)
  22. Nhien LC, Long NVD, Kim S, Lee M, Biochem. Eng. J., 116, 166 (2016)
  23. Matsuda K, Kawazuishi K, Kansha Y, Fushimi C, Nagao M, Kunikiyo H, Masuda F, Tsutsumi A, Energy, 36(8), 4640 (2011)
  24. Long NVD, Minh LQ, Nhien LC, Lee M, Appl. Energy, 159, 28 (2015)
  25. Biegler LT, Grossmann IE, Westerberg AW, Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1997.
  26. Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D, Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, fourth ed., Prentice Hall, Boston, 2012.
  27. Andika R, Husnil YA, Lee M, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 31(7), 1110 (2014)
  28. Gadalla MA, Olujic Z, Jansens PJ, Jobson M, Smith R, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 6860 (2005)