CO2 production from lean feedstock

Research I Technology I Catalysts

Svend Erik Nielsen

Outline
Schemes for production of CO2 from lean gas
CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) from flue gases
Use of purifier
Production of excess synthesis gas

Case studies for different schemes

Benefits/drawbacks
CO2 production
Pressure drop, flow, etc.

New plant vs. revamp plant

Conclusion

1
 Assumptions
LNG composition (mole %)
CH4 97.97
C2H6 1.79
C3H8 0.14
N2 0.10

Inexpensive fuel for off-sites/utilities

Coal
Etc.

All ammonia converted to urea

Ammonia plant capacity 2000 MTPD

CO2 production from lean gas (with CDR)

CO2 CO2

Synth.
Reformer gas CO shift CO2 Synthesis
Feed conversion NH3
with CDR removal section

Fuel

2
 CO2 production from lean gas (purifier)

CO2

Synth.
Feed gas CO shift CO2 Synthesis NH3
Reformer Purifier
conversion removal section

Purifier waste gas

Fuel

CO2 production from lean gas (recycle)

CO2

Synth.
gas CO shift CO2 Synthesis
Feed Reformer NH3
conversion removal section

Excess synthesis gas

Fuel

3
Case study comparison table 1
SMR/ SMR/
HTER/purifier SMR/HTER CDR
purifier methanation

LNG feed,
6.75 6.50 6.13 5.89 5.95
Gcal/MT NH3

LNG fuel,
0.28 0.53 0.86 1.12 0.83
Gcal/MT NH3

Total feed + fuel,

7.03 7.03 6.99 7.01 6.78
Gcal/MT NH3

CH4 leak,
2.47 1.77 0.80 0.41 0.80
mole %

Case study comparison table 2

SMR/
HTER/purifier SMR/purifier SMR/HTER CDR
methanation

CO2 production,
55,500 55,500 55,500 55,500 55,000
Nm3/h

Excess syngas,
0 18,100 6,800 9,500 0
Nm3/h

Purifier waste
64,000 36,000 0 0 0
gas, Nm3/h

4
Case study comparison table 3

SMR/ SMR/
HTER/purifier SMR/HTER CDR
purifier methanation

H2 lost to
fuel system, 4,600 14,600 5,000 7,000 0
Nm3/h

CH4 lost to
fuel system, 8,800 6,300 100 100 0
Nm3/h

Loss of
equivalent
56 177 61 85 0
ammonia,
MTPD

Case study comparison table 4

SMR/
HTER/purifier SMR/purifier SMR/HTER CDR
methanation

Excess air,
65 35 - - -
%

Increased
15 7 0 0 -
flow F.E. %

F.E.
pressure 18 20 14 14 -
drop, kg/cm2

HP steam
production, 270 255 259 253 251
MT/h

5
New plants with CDR
Benefits
No over-sizing of front-end equipment required
Possibility for carbon trading revenue

Drawbacks
Additional energy consumption due to heat input to reboiler and
power for running pumps
Additional investment cost for complete CO2 unit

New plants with purifier

Benefits
Smaller primary reformer (duty)
Inert-free ammonia synthesis loop

Drawbacks
Larger process air compressor due to use of excess air
High content of N2 in fuel gases to fired heater or SMR in purifier
scheme => high flue gas flow and high potential for NOx
formation
High flow in purifier scheme => high front-end pressure drop
Purifier itself will add to the plant cost and increase the pressure
drop in the front-end by approx. 2 kg/cm2
Loss of hydrogen feed to fuel

6
New plants with synthesis gas recycle
Benefits
No additional units compared to normal scheme
Easy control
Cheapest solution due to minimum flow through front-end

Drawbacks
Loss of hydrogen feed to fuel

General comments revamp situations (1/2)

Following comments relate to reforming limitations only,
and it is assumed that the remaining plant equipment is
sufficient
If primary reformer can handle the increased load, the
recycle of synthesis gas scheme is preferred
If primary reformer cannot handle the increased load,
several options exist:
Introduce HTER and/or prereformer
Introduce purifier along with new process air compressor/driver
Introduce CDR

7
General comments revamp situations (2/2)
The selected scheme depends upon :
Capacity of existing steam system

Limitations in existing equipment outside reforming

section and in particular the CO2 section

Available plot area (to install f.ex. a new CDR unit)

Downtime for implementation

Conclusion
Basic principle in CO2 production is the same for excess
synthesis gas and purifier route
The most attractive scheme for a new plant is:
Excess synthesis gas route:
Due to lowest feed flow
Due to smallest equipment sizes (cost)
Due to lowest energy consumption
Most simple scheme
In a revamp situation, the selected scheme depends
upon the desired capacity increase and primarily the
limitations in the existing equipment