rd
European Symposium on
Computer Aided Process Engineering ESCAPE 23, J une 9-12, 2013, Lappeenranta, Finland
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 55
Pr oduction of Methanol and Dimethyl ether fr om
biomass der ived syngas a compar ison of the
differ ent synthesis pathways by means of flowsheet
simulation
M. Gdek
a
, R. Kubica
a
, E. Jdrysik
b
a
Silesian University of Technology, Department of Chemical and Process Apparatus
Construction, 7 Strzody St. 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
b
Central Mining Institute, Department of Energy Saving and Air Protection, 1
Gwarkw Sq., 40-166 Katowice, Poland
Abstr act
Increasing awareness of the environmental issues forces a strong drive towards the
development of new, sustainable processes for renewable energy production. Likewise,
the economic issues related to the increasing prices of crude oil, and its derivatives lead
to the recognition of advantages of alternative fuels, thus a significant interest in
biomass-derived, synthetic fuels is observed. Among various thermo-chemical
conversion processes, biomass gasification is one of the most effective, efficient and
sustainable solutions to the production of renewable energy. It provides a gaseous fuel,
composed mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, suitable to produce chemicals,
heat, and energy. In particular, syngas can be used to obtain methanol (MeOH) and
dimethyl ether (DME), both energy carriers of great interest for many advanced energy
applications. The herein presented work provides the reader with a comparison of the
technicalities as well as economics of methanol and DME production from biomass-
derived syngas, by different pathways. For that purpose a process simulation by means
of the ChemCAD
.
Therefore relevant Visual Basic codes, describing kinetic rate expressions were
incorporated to flowsheet models. The created model was used to carry out a steady
state simulation of considered processes, as well as the successive sensitivity analysis.
The latest was meant for the analysis of the process and design parameters influence on
the quality and yield of the main product. The sensitivity analysis included the
following:
Productivity (MeOH and DME yield) the conversion vs. reactor volume,
MeOH and DME yield vs. reactor pressure (17 MPa),
MeOH and DME yield vs. reactor recycle rate (0.10.9),
MeOH and DME yield vs. the ration of H
2
and CO in the feed (0.23 w/w),
MeOH and DME yield vs. the ration of CO
2
and CO in the feed. (0.010.2 w/w).
5. The compar ison of DME and Methanol synthesis pathways
The developed models and obtained results enabled one to undertake a qualitative and a
quantitative assessment of the system performance, thus they constituted a basis for
selection and sizing procedures. The latest were used to built a steady state models,
representing commercial production plants, for MeOH and DME synthesis, having a
capacity of 50MW LHV. Based on the sensitivity study and technical analysis, the three
major pathways were considered; direct LPMeOH, direct LPDME and indirect DME -
methanol synthesis, followed by alcohol dehydration in PFR reactor.
The synthesis nodes, as presented on fig.1, were equipped with all the equipment,
including distillation columns, necessary to obtain the MeOH or DME, of commercial
grade. Such complete models (see fig.2. with exemplary PFD for methanol synthesis),
were used to compare process and economic performance of the different synthesis
pathways. ChemCAD package provided preliminary cost estimations for various types
of equipment. The cost estimates were based on the user-specified parameters and cost
indices. Total Plan Cost estimation was performed according to Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index (ChemCAD default). Finally, for assumed system yield, a comparison
of the total project costs, as well as utility consumption indices was produced.
The obtained results are given in table 1 and 2, respectively.
The results may indicate among others, that while the direct DME process incurs the
highest total project costs, it has the lowest requirement for the utilities. For a complete
cost-benefit analysis one should take into account the market prices of the products
obtained i.e. Methanol which is ~370 Euro/Mg when compared to ~680 for DME.
Production of Methanol and Dimethyl ether from biomass derived synga 59
1
2
5
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
6
1
7
1
9
2
2
2
3
8
2
4
3
3
7
6
2
6
2
7
2
8
4
0
7
9
2
9
4
2
3
0
4
3
3
1
1
6
W
a
t
e
r
4
4
3
2
F
r
e
s
h
O
i
l
4
5
3
7
3
3
3
9
4
6
F
r
e
s
h
c
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
3
8
1
4
2
1
2
5
1
5
3
0
2
1
1
8
3
4
1
9
4
8
3
2
2
3
3
5
3
1
2
8
5
0
3
6
2
9
5
1
5
3
2
4
1
1
4
7
3
5
4
6
2
5
1
5
3
4
4
1
w
a
s
t
e
c
a
t
t
o
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
4
1
0
1
7
9
2
3
5
A
i
r
c
o
o
le
d
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
1
8
1
2
5
4A
i
r
c
o
o
le
d
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
1
4
8 1
3
3
6
2
0
T
a
i
l
5
5
2
2
2
7
4
9
T
o
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
M
u
l
t
i
-
s
t
a
g
e
f
l
a
s
h
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
3
7
R
e
a
c
t
o
r
c
o
i
l
c
o
o
l
i
n
g
3
9
5
9
5
75
6
M
e
t
h
a
n
o
l
d
i
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
C
W
S
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
e
-
u
p
4
1
4
2
6
1
6
2
6
3
5
2
2
6
2
0
3
8
4
0
5
8
6
0
6
4
4
3
4
4
6
5
6
6
6
7
Fig.2. A flow-sheet of the plant for direct methanol production
60 M. Gdek
et al.
Table 1. Comparison of the Total Project Cost for different production plants, at 50MW LHV
capacity, expressed in thou. USD
Item MeOH Indirect DME Direct DME
Total major equipment costs 5 350 6 672 7 020
Installation 802 1 100 1 053
Piping 2 407 3 001 3 159
Instrumentation 535 667 702
Biulding & structure 535 667 702
Auxiliary equipment 1 337 1 547 1 755
Outside lines 802 1 100 1 053
Total direct costs 11 768 14 754 15 444
Engineering & construction 3 531 4 403 4 633
Contingencies 2 354 2 935 3 088
Total Plant Costs 17 653 22 092 23 165
Table 2. The indices of utilities consumption, for different production plants, at 50MW LHV,
expressed in kW/MW LHV
Item MeOH Indirect DME Direct DME
Power installed 92.0 89.3 66.6
Cooling water 705 738.5 329.5
Steam (HP and LP) 504 495.6 71.0
Refrigerants -50C - - 41.2
The proposed methodology, including the modelling of reaction systems by user
defined kinetics, allows one to assess the process performance of the different systems,
under consideration. It also gives cost estimates describing the economic performance
of different production plants.
Acknowledgements
The research was carried out within the frames of a SynCon project (Novel synthesis
process concepts for efficient chemicals / fuel production from biomass:
http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/innovation-projects/syncon.html) by Central Mining
Institute, a member of KIC InnoEnergy SE,.
Refer ences
B.L. Bhatt, 1993,Synthesis of dimethyl ether and alternative fuels in the liquis phase from coal-
derived synthesis gas, Technical Report, Air Products and Chemicals INC, Allentown, PA
18195-1501, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/6454471-PGQ0Ad/6454471.pdf
J . Bondiera, and C. Naccache, 1991, Kinetics of Methanol Dehydration in Dealuminated H-
Mordenite: Model with Acid and Base Active Centres, Applied Catalysis, 69, 139-148
A.Cybulski, 1994, Liquid-Phase Methanol Synthesis Catalysts, Mechanism, Kinetics, Chemical
Equilibria, Vapor-Liquid Eq, Cat. Rev. Sci. Eng. 36(4), 557-615
G.H. Graaf, A.A.C.M. Beenackers, 1996, Comparison of two-phase and three-phase methanol
synthesis processes, Chemical Engineering and Processing 35, 413-427
G.G. Pass, C. Holzhauser, A. Akgerman, and R.G. Anthony, 1990, Methanol Synthesis in a
Trickle Bed Reactor, AICHE J ., 36, 1054-1060
P. Xiang-Dong, 2002, Kinetic understanding of the syngas-to-dme reaction system and its
implications to process and economics, Technical Report, Air Products and Chemicals INC
2002, Allentown, PA 18195; http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/816515/