Process Design Case Study 2

Department of Chemical and Process Engineering
University of Canterbury
ENCH 463 Process Engineering Design 3

Major Design Project
EXECUTIVE REPORT
August 2010
Group 5
Shiraz Khashim
Lim Xin Yee
Wei Zheng Luo
Nik Moir
Group 5
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by final year students as part of their course requirements for
Process Engineering Design 3. Neither the University of Canterbury, the Department of
Chemical and Process Engineering, nor any persons acting on behalf of either, makes
warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to accuracy, completeness, or
the use of the information contained in this report, or that use of any information, apparatus,
method or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for the damages resulting from the use of
any information, apparatus method or process disclosed in this report.
ii
Group 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of the project was to design a plant producing Fisher-Tropsch (FT) liquid fuels from
biomass. The pathway taken for the production of the desired liquid fuels is through
gasification of the biomass, syngas cleaning and conditioning, FT synthesis followed by
product separation. The required throughput for the plant is 90 million litres of liquid fuels
per annum, corresponding to a production rate 9280 kg/h using a stream factor of 8000
operating hours per year. Material and energy balances on the plant were completed. This
resulted in a per year wood requirement of 1.50 million m3 of wood with an associated cost of
71 million NZD. Revenue from the sale of liquid fuels and fuel gas by-product is estimated to
be 157 million NZD per year. Total capital investment was calculated to be 303 million NZD.
The internal rate of return of the plant is found to be 8.41 %, while the net present value of
the plant is approximated to be 46 million NZD using a discount rate of 7%. Sensitivity of the
plant economics due to various parameters was investigated. Details of the plant including a
process flow diagram (PFD) with material flow stream table have been included. A
preliminary control strategy and the resulting piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID)
have been developed. Application of heat integration in the design process has resulted in a
significant reduction in utilities required. A comprehensive safety analysis in the form of a
HAZOP was conducted on the FT Reactor. The study showed that improvements were
required to reduce the risks in operating the plant. Finally, recommendations related to the
design of the plant were proposed by the team. These include validation of material balance
calculations using experimental pilot scale studies and process optimization for improving the
viability of the process.
iii
Group 5
CONTENTS
Legal Disclaimer ii
Executive Summary iii
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Design Task 1
1.3 List of Assumptions 2
2.0 Process Description 3
2.1 Process Outline 3
2.2 Process Flow Diagram 10
2.3 Stream Table 11
2.4 Process Alternatives 16
3.0 Piping and Instrumental Diagram 20
3.1 Heat Integration 27
3.2 Control Strategy 31
4.0 Economic Analysis 37
4.1 Total Capital Investments 37
4.2 Operating Costs 39
4.3 Profitability Analysis 40
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis 42
5.0 Environmental Impact 46
5.1 Discharge to Environment 46
5.2 Energy 48
iv
Group 5
6.0 Hazard Analysis 49
6.1 Qualitative Analysis 50
6.2 Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) 52
6.3 Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) 52
6.4 Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) 53
6.5 Corrective Actions 60
7.0 Recommendations 62
8.0 Conclusions 64
9.0 References 65
v
Group 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Environment concerns and possible future shortages have boosted research into
alternatives for fossil-derived fuels. Biomass, a low carbon fuel, is considered to be
renewable and sustainable. One of the possible methods of utilizing biomass is the
biomass to liquid fuel pathway suggested by literature. Liquid fuels, which are widely
used as transportation fuels, have numerous advantages over other forms of fuel, such as
its high energy density and ease of transport and storage. The biomass to liquid fuel
pathway may take one of several forms such as biological conversion of biomass to
ethanol or direct flash pyrolysis of biomass to yield a liquid product. This design project,
however, aims to design a plant to convert biomass to liquid via the gasification followed
by Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis pathway as summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Biomass to liquid fuel via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
Gasification is one of the possible thermochemical processes that allow the conversion of
biomass into synthesis gas (syngas). The resultant producer gas requires cleaning to
remove unwanted contaminants. Furthermore, gas conditioning is used to adjust the
composition of the gas before the actual FT synthesis. The FT synthesis converts the
cleaned and conditioned syngas into hydrocarbons that constitute the desired liquid fuel
product. It is also desirable to fractionate the liquid fuel output into different products.
1.2 Design Task and Project Scope

The objective of this project was to design a plant that produces FT diesel from woody
biomass via gasification process. The design specifies a production of 90 million litres of
FT liquids a year, which is a mixture of gasoline, diesel and wax. The design project
Page 1
Group 5
required the material and energy balance for the process to be completed. Diagrams for the
process such as the process flow diagram (PFD) and the piping and instrumentation
diagram (P&ID) have also been drawn up. Estimations of capital investment and operating
cost were made for the design. Based on the economics, the internal rate of return for the
process (IRR) has been estimated. Finally, a safety analysis in the form of a hazard and
operability study (HAZOP) was conducted on the designed plant.
1.3 List of Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made in the completion of the design:
A stream factor of 0.913 or 8000 h/y was used for all calculations.
Wood is available at a price of $40/m3 for the first 500000 m3 and $50/m3 on
subsequent volumes on a per year basis.
The wood enters the plant at 50 % moisture content.
The plant would have a useful lifetime of 15 years without any salvage value at
the end of its lifetime.
There would be a continuous demand for the liquid fuel products with the price
of the products relatively fixed over the plant lifetime
Page 2
Group 5
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.1 Process outline

The process involved can be divided into three distinct stages. The first stage is biomass
conversion; which involves both the pre-treatment of wood feed such as chipping and
drying and the gasification process to produce syngas. The next stage, termed the gas
cleaning and conditioning, involves removing undesired impurities produced during the
gasification process. A conditioning step in the form of a steam-methane reformer is used
to increase the concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) gases before
the actual FT synthesis. The final stage is the actual FT synthesis followed by products
separation using distillation before selling the end product to customers. Figure 2 shows a
block diagram depicting the major stages of the designed process.
Monoethanolamine
Biodiesel
Steam
Hot Air
Oxygen Steam
Water
Wood Hot Air
Reactor Separation Reactor

Chipper Dryer System I System I System II
(Gasifier) (GC&C) (WGS)
Hot Humid
Air Tars, ash,
H2S, COS
NH3, HCl
Gasoline (C5-C12) Reactor Fuel Gas (C1-C4)

Products
Diesel (C13-C22) System III Unreacted H2, CO
Wax (>C23) Separation Water
(FT Process)
Figure 2 Block diagram of the design process
Stage 1: Biomass Conversion via Gasification

Pre-treatment steps are required before the gasification process. A wood chipper M-501 is
used to chip the wood feed material (a mixture of whole logs and forest waste residues)
into small wood chips with approximate size of 2 to 5 cm. The type of chipper employed
is a whole tree chipper, which consists of a large drum with cutting blades located in the
interior. The wood feed material (Stream 1) is passed through and ejected to the dryer
(Stream 1a). The dimensions of the cutting blades are specified to be about 15 cm in
Page 3
Group 5
width, 30 cm in length and about 5 cm in thickness. The power supply for a chipper of this
scale is typically in the range of 150 to 750 kW.
A wood chip dryer S-501 is used to reduce the moisture content of the wood chips (Stream
1a) from 50 % to 15 %, which is then fed to the lock hopper system via Stream 2. The type
of dryer employed is a single pass rotary drum dryer, which brings the wet wood chips
into contact with heated air inside a rotating cylindrical drum. Air from Stream 3 is heated
to 150 ˚C (Stream 3a) using an air heater. The heated air carries the moisture content from
the wood chips and exits the top of the dryer into the atmosphere as saturated air at about
80 ˚C. The cylindrical drum is positioned horizontally but on a slight angle so the material
can be conveyed via gravity as it passes from entrance to the exit. The interior of the drum
contains flights (thin rigid blades protruding from the drum walls) which cause the wood
chips to be fully dispersed in the hot air flow allowing for an even distribution of moisture
content.
Feeding of wood into the Gasifier R-501 is via a locked hopper system. The main function
of the system is to feed the dry wood chips (Stream 2) into the Gasifier without
depressurizing the gasification process. It consists of two pressure vessels (parallel locked
hopper system) in which the chips are ejected from each alternately. It operates on the
principle of intermittent feeding of wood chips across the pressure boundary induced by
the staged opening and closing of the valves located at the top and bottom of the charged
pressure vessels. While one vessel is discharging wood chips into the Gasifier, the other
vessel becomes pressurized. This allows for the system to have a continuous feed from one
vessel while the other reloads. The utility used to pressurize the vessels is high pressure
steam. It is known that commercial parallel lock hopper system can handle feeds of up to
100 ton/hr and pressures of more than 70 bar, which is well suited to the requirements of
this process.
Gasification reaction takes place in R-501 at 850 °C and 25 bar. A mixture of 50 %

dolomite and 50 % olivine is used as the bed material in the circulating fluidised bed, with
oxygen-enriched air (80 % oxygen and 20 % nitrogen) as the gasification medium. The
wood chips are sent into the Gasifier at 80 °C and 25 bar, and undergoes incomplete
combustion, releasing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, steam, methane and
Page 4
Group 5
traces of other impurities. In addition, high pressure steam (Stream 5) is provided to the
Gasifier at 400 °C and 40 bar as fluidising medium, while biodiesel purge stream (Stream
9) is sent to the Gasifier as additional fuel.
The chemical reactions and conversions involved in gasification are complex and still not
fully understood. Thus the amount of wood, enriched air and steam required, as well as the
product gas composition were scaled up from experimental literature values reported by
Hamelinck et al. (2004). A cyclone S-503 attached to R-501 returns bed materials and
large solid particles to the reactor. This prevents the loss of bed material from the Gasifier
and reduces fouling in downstream processes.
Since R-501 and Steam-Methane Reformer (SMR) R-502 operate at similar temperatures
and pressures, the tubular reformer reactor is placed within R-501. Heat is provided to the
endothermic reforming reaction via incomplete combustion of wood. The wood feed is
increased by approximately 10 % to supply the additional heat for the reforming process.
Stage 2: Gas Cleaning and Conditioning

The product gas from R-501 contains undesired solid and gaseous products such as
carbon, ash, tars, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, carbonyl sulphide and hydrogen chloride.
The presence of these products may cause fouling or corrosion in downstream equipment
and piping, as well as catalysts deactivation (catalysts poisoning) and should therefore be
removed prior to the FT reaction.
The first step in gas cleaning is the use of a dust (ceramic) filter S-504 which removes fine
solid particles that have not been removed in S-503. Syngas (Stream 11) leaves R-501 at
850°C and passes through the ceramic filter, where the carbon and ash contents are
completely removed. This helps prevent both fouling in heat exchanger X-502 and
accumulation of particles in subsequent gas cleaning steps.
Tar in the syngas is removed using a biodiesel scrubber C-501. The scrubber operates at
24 bar, using rapeseed oil methyl ester (RME) as the solvent. Syngas (Stream 14) enters
the packed column at 400 °C and leaves at 80 °C (Stream 15). On the other hand, biodiesel
from the hot air stripper C-502 mixes with the biodiesel make-up stream (Stream 16), and
Page 5
Group 5
is cooled to 40 °C before entering the scrubber. The catalytic cracking properties of olivine
when used as a bed material in R-501 reduce the concentration of heavy tars in the syngas.
This serves to reduce the quantity of biodiesel required for the scrubbing process.
As water condenses at the operating temperature of the scrubber, it mixes with the
biodiesel and needs to be removed. This is achieved using the biodiesel-water separator
S-505. The densities of water and tar-loaded biodiesel are 998 kg/m3 and 900 kg/m3
respectively. Thus, the tar-loaded biodiesel eventually floats above the water, enabling
separation to occur using a standard decanter. The water is sent to wastewater treatment
while the biodiesel is recovered. 99.9 % of the tar-loaded biodiesel is sent to C-502 for
regeneration, while the remaining is sent to R-501 as fuel. This prevents accumulation of
tars in the biodiesel recycling system, while utilising the heating values of biodiesel and
tars.
Tars are stripped off the tar-loaded biodiesel from S-505 with hot air at 120 °C in the hot
air stripper. The stripper operates at 120 °C and close to atmospheric pressures, therefore
the tar-loaded biodiesel is heated to 120 °C while the pressure is reduced to 1 bar prior to
entering the stripper. The stripping efficiency is targeted to be 95 %. The cleaned biodiesel
then combines with a biodiesel make-up, cooled to 40 °C and pumped to 23.9 bar, before
re-entering the scrubber.
The main function of the amine scrubber is to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
syngas. Although CO2 is not reactive in downstream processes, its presence at high
concentration (38 mol %) greatly increases the size and thus cost of equipment and energy
requirements downstream. The scrubber operates at 25 °C and at about 23.5 bar in a
packed column, using 30% monoethanolamine (MEA) solution as the solvent. The targe
removal efficiency of CO2 in the scrubber is 95%. Although hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is
also soluble in MEA solution, its removal can be neglected as both concentrations and
removal efficiency of this compound is low in MEA.
The MEA solution is regenerated in the steam stripper by heating it up to its boiling point
(100 °C). The CO2-rich MEA solution enters the stripper at 90 °C and 1 bar. Therefore,
the stripper requires external heating from reboiler X-509 to maintain its operating
Page 6
Group 5
temperature at 100 °C. At high temperatures the solubility of CO2 in MEA solution
decreases. The vapour containing MEA, water and CO2 leaves from the top of the stripper
(Stream 30), and is cooled to 80 °C in a condenser X-508. This stream is then sent to a
two-phase separator S-506, where carbon dioxide is vented to the atmosphere, and the
liquid stream containing MEA and water is returned to the stripper. On the other hand, the
lean MEA solution (Stream 29) mixes with a make-up stream, and is returned to the
scrubber after cooling and pumping.
The main function of the water scrubber is to remove ammonia from the syngas. The
scrubber operates at 25 °C and 22 bar in a packed column, with a removal efficiency of
99 %. No regeneration of water is done due to the high solubility of ammonia. Fresh water
is continuously used while the ammonia-rich water is sent to wastewater treatment.
The final two stage of the gas cleaning steps are the zinc oxide filters and active carbon
guard beds. The main function of the zinc oxide filter is to adsorb hydrogen sulphide and
carbonyl sulphide in the syngas. 95 % of hydrogen sulphide is removed in this packed
column at 25 °C and 22.6 bar, while carbonyl sulphide is completely removed under this
condition. The active carbon guard bed serves as a guard bed for the catalysts downstream
(in R-502 and R-503), as it is also sensitive to catalyst poisoning compounds. It is assumed
that complete removal of traces of any remaining undesired product from the gas cleaning
processes occurs here. It operates at 25 °C and about 21.6 bar.
For sorbent replacement purpose, two columns each for the zinc oxide and carbon guard
beds are to be installed in parallel. Initially the valves settings are such that the syngas
passes through both columns in series. When breakthrough in the first columns occurs, the
valves connecting it are shut and only the second column operates while the spent sorbents
are replaced. After replacement, the valve settings are opposite from the initial settings,
such that the syngas flows through the second column into the first column, until the
breakthrough in the second column occurs. This process is repeated as required for both
columns.
A gas conditioning step in the form of a steam reformer is used in the process. Its function
is to convert incoming methane (CH4) into carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2),
Page 7
Group 5
which are the main reactants for FT reaction. The chemical reaction involved is presented
as Equation 1.
CH4 + H2O CO + 3 H2 ∆H° = 206 kJ/mol (1)
This reaction increases the amount of FT reactants, and also increases the hydrogen-to-
carbon monoxide ratio from 1.6 to 2.1, which is closer to the requirements for the FT
reaction.
The tubular reactor R-502 consists of 50 tubes and operates at 850 °C and 20.1 bar. Clean
syngas (Stream 39) from the active carbon guard bed is preheated with the reformed
syngas (Stream 41) to about 630 °C. This is then sent to the reformer to react with medium
pressure steam on nickel oxide catalyst. Heat is supplied to the endothermic reforming
reaction through gasification of wood in the Gasifier, as discussed earlier. A conversion
efficiency of 39 % is achieved. Although this seems to be low due to the high pressure
which favours the backwards reaction, it brings the hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratio to
the desired level. The unconverted CH4 passes through the FT Reactor as an inert and
constitutes the fuel gas product.
Stage 3: Fischer-Tropsch and Distillation

FT process involves reacting CO and H2 gases to form hydrocarbons in an isothermal
slurry bed reactor R-503. Stream 43 feeds syngas into the reactor. The operating
conditions used are temperature of 240 °C, pressure of 20 bar and cobalt catalysts
suspended on alumina. Since this is an exothermic process, cooling is required to maintain
the temperature of the reactor. Equation 2 shows the chemical reaction involved:
CO + 3 H2 → -CH2- + H2O ∆HFT° = -165 kJ/mol (2)
The equation shows that a significant quantity of water is generated during the synthesis
reaction. The product distribution of hydrocarbons formed during the FT process can be
estimated by the Anderson-Schultz-Flory distribution in Equation 3.
Page 8
Group 5
Wn
= (1 − α ) α n−1 (3)
2
where W n is the weight fraction of hydrocarbon molecules containing n number of
carbons. The chain growth probability, α ranges from 0 to 1 and is dependant on

operating conditions such as temperature, pressure and catalyst used. A value of α = 0.89
was chosen as the optimum to maximise the diesel production.
The products from this synthesis are divided into four categories as shown below:
Fuel gas: Hydrocarbons ranging from C1 to C4 and unreacted syngas

Gasoline: Hydrocarbons ranging from C5 to C12
Diesel: Hydrocarbons ranging from C13 to C22
Wax: Hydrocarbons ranging from C22 onwards
Separation processes are required to separate the products before selling to consumers.
The vapour product obtained from the top of the reactor (Stream 45) is cooled and sent to
a three-phase decanter (S-508). This is used to separate water, gaseous products and other
liquefied light hydrocarbons. The water obtained from FT process is sent to wastewater
treatment via Stream 47, while the gases in Stream 46 are sold off as fuel gas. The
liquefied light hydrocarbons are returned to the main liquid stream in Stream 44b and sent
for further separation.
The liquid product obtained from the FT Reactor exits the Reactor as slurry containing the
suspended catalyst particles. Hydrocyclone S-507 separates the heterogeneous catalyst
from the liquid product and subsequently returns the solids to the reactor top. The liquid
products in Stream 44a and Stream 44b combine to form stream 44 which is the feed to the
first distillation column C-508. Two distillation columns in series (C-508 followed by
C-509) are used to separate gasoline, diesel and wax. The internals of these columns are
sieve plates (20 stages) and the distillation is conducted at a constant pressure of 300 kPa.
The products in streams 48, 50 and 51 are then sent to storage tanks before being
transported to the consumers.
Page 9
Group 5
2.2 Process Flow Diagram
LTD.
Page 10
Group 5
2.3 Stream Table

Streams
Compositions
1 1a 2 3 3a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Wood (kg/s) 22.1 22.1 22.1 - - - - - - - - -
Oxygen (kg/s) - - - 123 123 123 - 5.76 5.76 - - 0.250
Nitrogen (kg/s) - - - 463 463 463 - 21.7 1.26 20.4 - 0.822
Tar (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - 0.000349 0.331
Biodiesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - 0.00500 -
Hydrogen (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbon Monoxide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbon Dioxide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Water (kg/s) 22.1 22.1 3.89 5.86 5.86 24.0 11.5 - - - - -
Methane (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ethylene (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ammonia (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Chloride (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - -
Carbonyl sulphide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbon (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ash (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monoethanolamine (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel gas (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gasoline (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wax (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total flowrate (kg/s) 44.1 44.1 26.0 592 592 610 11.5 27.4 7.02 20.4 0.00535 1.40
Temperature (°C) 25 25 80 25 150 80 400 25 25 / 484 25 80 120
Pressure (bar) 1 1 1 / 25 1 1 1 40 1 1 / 25 1 24.2 / 25 1
Page 11
Group 5
Streams
Compositions
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17a 18 19 20 21
Wood (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oxygen (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nitrogen (kg/s) 1.50 1.50 - 1.50 1.50 - - - - - - -
Tar (kg/s) 0.336 0.336 - 0.336 0.00402 - 0.0174 0.0174 0.349 0.349 - 0.349
Biodiesel (kg/s) - - - - - 0.00500 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 - 4.995
Hydrogen (kg/s) 0.529 0.529 - 0.529 0.529 - - - - - - -
Carbon Monoxide (kg/s) 4.48 4.48 - 4.48 4.48 - - - - - - -
Carbon Dioxide (kg/s) 18.8 18.8 - 18.8 18.8 - - - - - - -
Water (kg/s) 14.4 14.4 - 14.4 - - - - 14.4 - 14.4 -
Methane (kg/s) 3.40 3.40 - 3.40 3.40 - - - - - - -
Ethylene (kg/s) 0.270 0.270 - 0.270 0.270 - - - - - - -
Ammonia (kg/s) 0.0558 0.0558 - 0.0558 0.0558 - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Chloride (kg/s) 0.0000703 0.0000703 - 0.0000703 0.0000703 - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide (kg/s) 0.00854 0.00854 - 0.00854 0.00854 - - - - - - -
Carbonyl sulphide (kg/s) 0.000463 0.000463 - 0.000463 0.000463 - - - - - - -
Carbon (kg/s) 0.547 - 0.547 - - - - - - - - -
Ash (kg/s) 0.425 - 0.425 - - - - - - - - -
Fuel gas (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gasoline (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wax (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total flowrate (kg/s) 44.7 43.7 0.973 43.7 29.0 0.00500 5.02 5.02 19.7 5.35 14.4 5.34
Temperature (°C) 850 850 850 400 80 25 120 40 80 80 80 80
Pressure (bar) 25 24.5 24.5 24.4 23.9 1 1 1 / 23.9 24.4 24.2 24.2 24.2 / 1
Page 12
Group 5
Streams
Compositions
21a 22 23 24 25 26 27 27a 28 28a 29 30
Wood (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oxygen (kg/s) - - 0.250 0.250 - - - - - - - -
Nitrogen (kg/s) - - 0.822 0.822 1.50 - - - - - - -
Tar (kg/s) 0.349 0.0174 - - 0.00402 - - - - - - -
Biodiesel (kg/s) 4.995 4.995 - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen (kg/s) - - - - 0.529 - - - - - - -
Carbon Monoxide (kg/s) - - - - 4.48 - - - - - - -
Carbon Dioxide (kg/s) - - - - 0.939 - 4.46 4.46 22.3 22.3 4.46 17.8
Water (kg/s) - - - - - 0.144 144 144 144 144 144 7.00
Methane (kg/s) - - - - 3.40 - - - - - - -
Ethylene (kg/s) - - - - 0.270 - - - - - - -
Ammonia (kg/s) - - - - 0.0558 - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Chloride (kg/s) - - - - 0.0000703 - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide (kg/s) - - - - 0.00854 - - - - - - -
Carbonyl sulphide (kg/s) - - - - 0.000463 - - - - - - -
Carbon (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ash (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monoethanolamine (kg/s) - - - - - 0.0619 61.9 61.9 61.9 61.9 61.8 3.00
Fuel gas (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gasoline (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wax (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total flowrate (kg/s) 5.34 5.01 1.07 1.07 11.2 0.206 211 211 229 229 210 27.8
Temperature (°C) 120 120 25 120 25 25 100 25 28 90 100 100
Pressure (bar) 1 1 1 1 23.4 1 1 1 / 23.4 23.9 / 1 1 1 1
Page 13
Group 5
Streams
Compositions
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Wood (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oxygen (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nitrogen (kg/s) - - - - 1.50 - - 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 -
Tar (kg/s) - - - - 0.00402 - - 0.00402 - - - -
Biodiesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen (kg/s) - - - - 0.529 - - 0.529 0.529 0.529 1.03 -
Carbon Monoxide (kg/s) - - - - 4.48 - - 4.48 4.48 4.48 6.80 -
Carbon Dioxide (kg/s) 17.8 17.8 - - 0.939 - - 0.939 0.939 0.939 0.939 -
Water (kg/s) 7.00 0.144 6.86 7.00 - 0.901 0.901 - - - 2.99 4.48
Methane (kg/s) - - - - 3.40 - - 3.40 3.40 3.40 2.07 -
Ethylene (kg/s) - - - - 0.270 - - 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.270 -
Ammonia (kg/s) - - - - 0.000558 - 0.0552 0.000558 - - - -
Hydrogen Chloride (kg/s) - - - - 0.0000703 - - 0.0000703 - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide (kg/s) - - - - 0.00854 - - 0.000427 - - - -
Carbonyl sulphide (kg/s) - - - - 0.000463 - - - - - - -
Carbon (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ash (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monoethanolamine (kg/s) 3.00 0.0619 2.94 3.00 - - - - - - - -
Fuel gas (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gasoline (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wax (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Temperature (°C) 80 80 80 100 / 114 25 25 25 25 25 630 850 450
Pressure (bar) 1 1 1 1 23.1 1 / 23.1 23.6 22.1 21.1 21 20.1 21
Page 14
Group 5
Streams
Compositions
43 44 44a 44b 45 45a 46 47 48 49 50 51
Wood (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oxygen (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nitrogen (kg/s) 1.50 - - - 1.50 1.50 1.50 - - - - -
Tar (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Biodiesel (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen (kg/s) 1.03 - - - 0.205 0.205 0.205 - - - - -
Carbon Monoxide (kg/s) 6.80 - - - 1.07 1.07 1.07 - - - - -
Carbon Dioxide (kg/s) 0.939 - - - 0.939 0.939 0.939 - - - - -
Water (kg/s) 2.99 - - - 6.66 6.66 - 6.66 - - - -
Methane (kg/s) 2.07 - - - - - - - - - - -
Ethylene (kg/s) 0.270 - - - 0.270 0.270 0.270 - - - - -
Ammonia (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Chloride (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbonyl sulphide (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carbon (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ash (kg/s) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel gas (kg/s) - - - - 2.34 2.34 2.34 - - - - -
Gasoline (kg/s) - 0.947 0.722 0.225 0.225 0.225 - - 0.943 0.00372 0.00372 3.03E-13
Diesel (kg/s) - 0.887 0.887 - - - - - 0.00358 0.884 0.872 0.0115
Wax (kg/s) - 0.743 0.743 - - - - - 9.36E-20 0.743 0.0108 0.732
Temperature (°C) 240 240 240 35 240 35 35 35 130 360 360 480
Pressure (bar) 20 3 3 19.7 20 19.9 19.7 19.7 2.5 2.5 2 2
Page 15
Group 5
2.4 Process Alternatives

Gasification fluidising agent
The fluidising agent used in this design is oxygen-enriched air containing 80 % oxygen
and 20 % nitrogen, with the presence of steam. Other options of fluidising agents are
steam, air and pure oxygen. The presence of nitrogen greatly enhances the production of
ammonia, which causes fouling and catalysts poisoning. Besides, the presence of
unreacted nitrogen in the Gasifier and downstream processes increases the sizes of
equipment and pipes, and subsequently, the costs. Therefore the presence of nitrogen in
the fluidising agent is to be avoided.
Clearly air is the cheapest option amongst all, with the drawback of high concentration of
nitrogen present. Pure oxygen or steam is the best options in term of syngas quality, but
are also the most expensive fluidising agents. Therefore there is a trade off between the
cost of fluidising agent, gas cleaning and capital costs. Oxygen-enriched air is a much
cheaper option compared to pure oxygen and steam. Moreover, the presence of steam
reduces the composition of nitrogen to 7 % of the total fluidising agent. Thus, this option
of using oxygen-enriched air with steam has been chosen for the process.
Pressurised gasification vs. atmospheric gasification

The Gasifier in this design operates at 850 °C and 25 bar. A comparison of atmospheric
gasification and pressurised gasification is as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of atmospheric and pressurized gasification

Criteria Atmospheric Gasification Pressurized Gasification
Gas Gas Compressor required to Depending on gasification
Compressor raise pressure of clean syngas pressure chosen and pressure
to 20 bar before FT Process drop across gas cleaning, a
Gas Compressor costly – at compressor may or may not be
least 5 million NZD needed.
Operating Cost of about 17 If a compressor is required, it is
million NZD per year likely to cost less and would be
Outlet temperature of cheaper to run
compressor estimated to be
500 °C, needs further cooling
before FT Reactor, therefore
adding to utility cost
Page 16
Group 5
Reactor Large Reactor required Smaller reactor but reactor

would be expensive due to
thicker walls
Blower Required to push gas through Not required
gas cleaning and conditioning
system
Gas Cheaper columns since lower Columns would have to be
Cleaning pressure rating constructed to meet pressure
demands so likely to be more
expensive
Auxiliary Large diameter pipes required, Smaller diameter pipes but rated
Equipment uneconomical for this case. to a higher pressure
It is clear that pressurized gasification has numerous advantages over atmospheric

gasification on a large scale production basis. Therefore, pressurization is recommended
for the gasification process, with pressures up to 25 bar suggested. It is uneconomical to
use pressures above 25 bar for gasification since the feed system becomes more expensive
(Hamelinck et al., 2004), as well as an increase in cost for reactors and columns required.
Therefore, from an economic point, pressurized gasification at 25 bar has been chosen for
the design.
Combining R-501 and R-502

As mentioned in the process description in Section 2.0, the Gasifier and Reformer operate
at similar temperatures and pressures. The Gasifier is an internal combustion reactor, heat
of which is self-supplied by partial combustion of wood in the reactor. Conversely, the
tubular reformer reactor is to be heated externally. More commonly the reformer is placed
within a furnace, which requires the combustion of fuel.
Combining the Gasifier and the Reformer, the heat required by the reformer is supplied by
the gasification of wood in the Gasifier, thus saving cost in both constructing and
maintaining the furnace, as well as for fuel. A 10 % increase in amount of wood feed is
used to supply the extra heat required in the combined reactor. In term of capital
investment, constructing the combined reactor is more expensive than constructing the
Gasifier alone due to the doubled gasifier size, extra construction materials as well as
labour required. However, the saving in construction of a furnace and the operating costs
is expected to be able to cover the extra expense in construction of a combined reactor and
Page 17
Group 5
wood costs. Further economic study is to be done to verify the feasibility of this combined
reactor.
Removal of tars in Gas Cleaning

The removal of tars could be achieved by catalytic decomposition of tars (tar cracking) or
wet scrubbing. Both methods were reported to achieve high removal efficiency (> 95 %).
An advantage of tar cracking over wet scrubbing is the production of light hydrocarbons,
which are valuable to the process. Meanwhile, the downside in terms of operating costs is
that the catalysts required for tar cracking is usually more expensive compared to the
solvent used for wet scrubbing. Furthermore, wet scrubbing requires significantly lower
temperatures (below 100 °C), since the solubility of tars in the solvent is higher at lower
temperatures. Tar cracking often requires temperature in excess of 900 °C, with the
presence of catalysts. The solvent used in this design is biodiesel at 40 °C, and is
regenerated in a hot air stripper. The purge stream of the tar-loaded biodiesel is sent for
combustion in the Gasifier to recover the heating values of tars and biodiesel.
Removal of ammonia
Similarly, ammonia can be removed via ammonia cracking or wet scrubbing. Both
ammonia cracking and wet scrubbing have been reported to achieve removal efficiency of
over 99 %. Thermal cracking requires a temperature of 1300 °C, while catalytic cracking
requires a temperature of 900 °C. The advantage of ammonia cracking over wet scrubbing
is the production of H2, which is one of the reactants in the FT process. However, the
drawback is the high temperature and expensive catalysts required. On the other hand,
water is often used as the solvent for wet scrubbing of ammonia due to the high solubility
of ammonia in water. The water scrubber proposed in this design requires much lower
operating costs in terms of solvent and operating temperature compared to ammonia
cracking.
Product Upgrading after FT Synthesis

The ASF distribution dictates the distribution of products obtained from the FT synthesis.
The use of an α value of 0.89 results in significant quantities of wax being produced. A
possible option in upgrading is hydrocracking the resultant wax to form lighter fractions
such as diesel and gasoline. This would involve an additional piece of equipment with
Page 18
Group 5
associated catalysts. Depending on the type of cracking used, high temperatures or

reactants such as steam or hydrogen would be required for the process. Based on this, the
cost associated with hydrocracking would be high. Nevertheless, this option should be
considered in the case where either the price for wax drops or the value of lighter products
such as diesel or gasoline increases significantly. The use of a cracking unit is beyond the
scope of this project. Additionally, the price of wax is currently satisfactory, yielding
annual revenue of approximately 27 million NZD/year.
Recycle of FT Reactor Output Gas

The conversion of hydrogen and carbon monoxide over the FT Reactor is 80 % and 84 %
respectively. Thus, the output vapour stream from the FT Reactor would still contain
unreacted hydrogen and carbon monoxide in addition to water, light hydrocarbons and
other inert gases. A possible method to increase the plant efficiency would be to recycle
this gas stream. Two possible options for recycling this fuel gas stream would be:
Return the stream to the gasifer as fuel

Return the stream to the reactor inlet
Both options would require a compression of the gases before feeding into the reactors.
Also, the presence of inert gas would require a purge in the recycled stream to prevent a
build-up of these gases within the system.
The alternative of recycling the reactor output gas was not used since the overall
conversion of the reactants is already sufficiently high. Also, the current fuel gas price
favours the direct sale of the product gas to consumers. Investment in a compressor to
return the unreacted syngas would be ideal in the case where the FT synthesis conversion
is low or when the fuel gas price is low.
Page 19
Group 5
3.0 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
LTD.
Page 20
Group 5
L-5027-100- L-5028-100-
L-5026-100-SS SS SS
L-5030-
100-CS
L-5029-100-CS L-5031-100-CS
L-5022-650-SS
L-5002-2200-CS
L-5004-100-SS
L-5011-550-Cu L-5015-550-SS L-5017-550-SS
LTD.
Page 21
Group 5
L-5033-
100-SS
L-5044- L-5043-
100-SS 100-SS
L-5040-
250-SS
L-5037- L-5036-
L-5039- L-5038- 65-SS 65-SS
65-SS 65-SS
L-5051-65-SS
L-5050-
65-SS
LTD.
Page 22
Group 5
L-5025-350-SS
L-5041-250-SS
L-5061-
250-SS
L-5070-
350-SS
L-5068-
L-5069-350-SS 350-SS
L-5072-350-SS L-5230-
200-CS
L-5082-
100-CS
L-5066-350-SS
L-5065-350-SS
L-5076-350-SS L-5077-350-SS L-5079-350-SS
L-5075-350-SS L-5074-350-SS
L-5086- L-5085-
350-SS 350-SS
L-5094-
100-SS
L-5094-
150-SS
LTD.
Page 23
Group 5
L-5114-250-SS
L-5120-250-SS
L-5108-250-SS
L-5112-250-SS
L-5141-250-SS L-5134-250-SS
L-5142-250-SS
LTD.
Page 24
Group 5
L-5148-250-SS
L-5149-250-SS L-5151-200-SS L-5150-200-SS
L-5172-350-SS
L-5153-300-SS L-5154-300-SS
L-5169-
350-SS
L-5159-
L-5160-100-SS 100-SS
L-5155-150-SS
L-5158-100-CS
LTD.
Page 25
Group 5
L-5089-350-SS
L-5203-100-SS
L-5185-
300-CS
L-5178-
500-CS
L-5220-650-SS
L-5217-650-SS L-5182-150-CS
L-5210-200-CS
L-5198-
300-CS
L-5215-
650-SS
L-5225-
200-CS L-5226-200-CS
L-5227- L-5228-
200-CS 200-CS
LTD.
L-5032-650-SS
Page 26
Group 5
3.1 Heat Integration

Table 2 shows the heating and cooling required for the plant without heat integration. The
equipment code corresponds to the equipment labels in the PFD (Section 2.2).
Table 2 Utility (heating and cooling) demand without heat integration

Equipment code Description Utility type Duty (MW)
X-501 Dryer Air Heater Heating 76.7
X-502 Syngas Cooler Cooling 38.4
X-503 Biodiesel Cooler Cooling 0.9
X-504 Biodiesel Heater Heating 0.5
X-505 Air Heater Heating 0.1
X-506 Amine Cooler Cooling 68.5
X-507 Amine Heater Heating 59.6
X-508 Steam Condenser Cooling 8.7
X-509 Stripper reboiler Heating 19.3
X-510 Reformer Preheater Heating 16.5
X-511 Reformer Cooler Cooling 25.1
X-512 Fuel Gas Cooler Cooling 7.9
X-513 Condenser 1 Cooling 4.7
X-514 Reboiler 1 Heating 4.9
X-515 Condenser 2 Cooling 2.5
X-516 Reboiler 2 Heating 3.0
R-503 Fischer-Tropsch reactor Cooling 33.1
Gasoline cooling Cooling 0.2
Not included in
Diesel cooling Cooling 0.7
PFD
Wax cooling Cooling 0.9
Total heating 181
Total cooling 192
As shown in the table, a significant amount of heating and cooling utilities is required. In
order to reduce the utility demand and costs, heat integration has been suggested. A heat
integration scheme proposed is as shown in Figures 3 and 4 (not to scale and correct to 3
significant figures). The figures show the duties (kW) on each heat exchanger together
with the temperature of the streams (°C). The equipment labels correspond to the
equipment labels in the P&ID, which has heat integration included.
Page 27
Group 5
630 °C
S-501
R-502 150 °C
850 °C
640 °C 240 °C
X-504 X-512
8636 kW 16462 kW
480°C 360 °C 100 °C 136 °C 25°C
X-505 Cleaned
Gasifier 850°C 814°C 757 °C 531°C 400 °C 400°C syngas from
product gas X-519 X-515 X-511 X-503 guard bed
3039 kW 4905 kW 19322 kW 11179 kW 0 kW
480°C 360 °C 100°C 118°C 100 °C 150 °C
Dist. 2 reboiler Dist. 1 reboiler MEA reboiler Cooling water
170 °C 60°C 60°C 81 °C

X-502 X-509 0 kW X-510 8702 kW X-514 4729 kW
46577 kW
100°C 150 °C
42 °C
Cooling water MEA condenser Dist. 1 condenser
LPS X-501
10312 kW
25 °C
Dryer air
33146 kW
92 °C
R-503 Water recycling stream at 80 kg/s, 10 bars
Figure 3 Heat integration scheme (Part 1 of 2)
Page 28
Group 5
(a) (b) (c)
25 °C 35 °C 35 °C
Cooling water Cooling water Cooling water

X-507 X-521 X-517
8945 kW 266 kW 116 kW
35 °C 152 °C 85°C
CO2-rich 28 °C 90 °C Tar-loaded 80 °C 120 °C 25 °C 120 °C

Stripping air
MEA solution X-508 59553 kW biodiesel X-520 476 kW X-516 104 kW
100 °C 360 °C 130 °C
Regenerated MEA solution Diesel product Gasoline product
(d) (e) (f) (g)
Regenerated 120 °C 40 °C 240 °C 35 °C Dist. 2 condenser Wax product 480 °C 35 °C

FT fuel gas
biodiesel X-506 867 kW X-513 7850 kW 360 °C X-518 2536 kW 360 °C X-522 941 kW
Cooling water Cooling water Cooling water Cooling water
Figure 4 Heat integration scheme (Part 2 of 2)
Page 29
Group 5
As shown in Figure 3, product gas from the Gasifier R-501 is available at 850 °C, which
is sufficiently hot to provide heat to the reboilers (X-511, X-515 and X-519) operating at
temperatures above high pressure steam (400 °C) available. The excess heat from this
stream is supplied to the dryer air, which has the highest heating demand in the plant. On
the other hand, the Reformer outlet stream is also available at 850 °C, and is used to
preheat the Reformer inlet syngas to 630 °C in X-512. The excess heat is also used to heat
the dryer air in X-503.
A significant amount of heat (33.1 MW) is available from the exothermic Fischer-
Tropsch reaction. However, this amount of heat cannot be directly used to heat up the
dryer air, as it is not sensible to pass the dryer air stream through the FT Reactor R-503.
Therefore, a water cycle is proposed for heat exchange between R-503 and the dryer air.
This cycle also passes through the condensers (X-510 and X-514) of the steam stripper
and Distillation Column 1. In order to heat the water to sufficiently high temperature
(minimum temperature difference of 10 °C for heat exchange), the water cycle is
pressurised to 10 bar. At this pressure, the heat supplied is solely used to increase the
temperature of water, rather than to vaporise it.
The total heat supplied to the dryer air stream by the Reformer outlet, the Gasifier product
gas and the water cycle is 66.4 MW, which is insufficient to heat the dryer air stream to
150 °C. Although there is heat available from other hot streams, the remaining 10.3 MW
is supplied by low pressure steam to ensure a level of flexibility in terms of control. Apart
from that, two extra heat exchangers (X-509 and X-505) were added to the water cycle
and the Gasifier product gas streams respectively as temperature control buffers. In case
of process failures in other heat exchangers in these streams, cooling water is supplied to
these heat exchangers to cool the hot streams to appropriate temperatures. The maximum
duty designed for the “dummy” heat exchangers X-505 and X-509 is 10 MW and 20 MW
respectively, which is about half the total cooling duty of the heat exchangers upstream.
According to Figure 4(a), the CO2-rich MEA solution is heated up to 90 °C with the
cleaned MEA solution. The latter is then further cooled with cooling water to 25 °C
before returning to the MEA scrubber.
Page 30
Group 5
Ideally, the tar-loaded biodiesel is should be heated up by the cleaned biodiesel. However,
unlike the MEA recovery system (MEA scrubber and steam stripper), there is no external
heat provided to the hot air stripper for biodiesel regeneration. The proposed solution is
for the diesel product stream (Stream 50) to heat the tar-loaded biodiesel stream in X-520.
This configuration fulfils the minimum temperature difference requirement, as shown in
Figure 4 (b). Besides, the heat in the gasoline product stream is also recovered in the hot
air stream to the hot air stripper using X-516, as shown in Figure 4(c).
As shown in Figure 4(d), (e) and (f), the cleaned biodiesel stream, FT fuel gas stream and
Distillation Column 2 condenser are cooled using cooling water. Besides, cooling water is
also provided for further cooling of gasoline, diesel and wax products to 35 °C for
storage, as shown in Figure 4 (b), (c) and (g).
The total cooling required is 21.5 MW, and is provided by cooling water at 20 °C and 1
bar, while the total heating required is 10.3 MW, which is supplied by low pressure steam
at 133.5 °C and 3 bar. Table 3 shows a comparison of utility required with and without
the heat integration system. Both the heating and cooling required were reduced by
170 MW, and this holds 94 % of the heating and 89 % of the cooling required without
heat integration.
Table 3 Comparison of utility requirement with and without heat integration

Heating (MW) Cooling (MW)
With heat integration 10.3 21.5
Without heat integration 181 192
Difference 170 170
% difference 94% 89%
3.2 Control Strategy

The design of the FT liquid fuel plant by Future Fuel Technology Ltd. includes a
preliminary instrumentation and control strategy as presented in the piping and
instrumentation diagram. The primary objectives in the implementation of this scheme
are:
(a) Safe plant operation

(b) Ability to monitor plant operation and performance
Page 31
Group 5
(c) Achieve desired or design production output

(d) Achieve required product quality
(e) Keeping cost to a minimum
Specifically, these control schemes enable the control and minimization of disturbances,
while mitigating any effects that these disturbances may cause. Furthermore, the use of
the control schemes should allow the operators of the plant to monitor and manipulate the
process variables in meeting the required plant performance such as product quality or
throughput. The following sections briefly discuss the control strategy for each section of
the plant with reference to the P&IDs. The majority of the control strategies employed in
this design are single input single output (SISO) systems that can be implemented
relatively easily with PID controllers.
Biomass Conversion
Wood feed into the Gasifier R-501 is a key parameter that requires control in this section
of the plant. A single programmable logic controller (PLC-501) is used to achieve this.
The rate of wood feed into R-501 is controlled by varying the conveyor motor speeds via
variable speed drives with electrical signals from the PLC. This PLC is also used to
control the locked hopper wood feed system. This is done by the opening and closing of
valves V-503 to V-508 in sequence to ensure that pressurization is maintained in the
Gasifier. As per all the valves in the control scheme, these valves are controlled
pneumatically, which require an I/P converter (not shown on P&IDs) to convert digital
PLC signals to valve action.
The two key parameters that need to be controlled in R-501 are the pressure and
temperature within the vessel. Pressure is maintained at approximately 25 bar and is
achieved by the valve (V-509) controlling flow rate of high pressure steam into the
reactor. Temperature is a function of the partial combustion reaction of wood and is thus
controlled by the flow rate of oxygen into the Gasifier. A variable speed drive (VSD-504)
is used to control the compressor (P-502) feeding the oxygen required for gasification.
Due to the high temperatures within the Gasifier, the temperature sensor (TT-502) used
would likely be an infrared type digital sensor.
Page 32
Group 5
Gas Cleaning and Conditioning

The gasification product gas exits the reactor at 850 °C. A significant quantity of heat is
recovered from this stream by passing the hot gases through four other unit operations:
Air heater X-503, Reboilers X-510, X-514 and X-518. A bypass method as described in
Part E below is used to avoid process upsets from spreading from one operation to the
other. Furthermore, a cooler X-505, controlled by TIC-501, is used to absorb the residual
heat in the stream to achieve the desired temperature of 400 °C before entering the
Biodiesel Scrubber C-501. Flow and composition (indicating) sensors AI-501 and FI-501
inform the operators on the quality and quantity of the syngas produced from gasification
process.
The control strategies for both the Biodiesel and MEA gas cleaning steps are similar. The
liquid flow within the scrubber is matched with the flow rate of syngas entering the
columns using a ratio controller (RC-501 and RIC-501). The rate of make-up liquid
entering the system is also adjusted by a flow controller (FC-501 and FC-502). In each of
the four columns, level is maintained by means of level sensors controlling the outflow of
the liquid streams. Buffer tanks T-503 and T-505 are used to absorb any excess liquid
within the system to avoid column overflow. The flow rate of tar-loaded biodiesel stream
being purged can be set by the plant operator using flow controller FIC-501. The absorber
(C-501, C-503) and stripper (C-502, C-504) columns operate at large difference in
pressure. Reducing valves V-519 and V-530 reduce the high pressure of the liquid exiting
the absorber to a lower pressure within the stripper.
The flow rate of water into the water scrubber C-505 is controlled by a pump (P-506)
linked to a VSD (VSD-505). A ratio controller (RIC-502) determines this flow rate by
measuring the flow rate of syngas into the column. The flow rate of water out of the
scrubber is controlled by the liquid level in the column. A series of guard beds are used to
adsorb any remaining impurities contained in the syngas. The valves controlling the flow
to the guard beds (V-540 to V-559) are placed in manual, requiring the plant operator to
adjust the flow through them only when necessary. These valves do not require frequent
adjustment (in the order of once every few months) and thus a manual control has been
chosen for this part of the process. The operator would take action based on the results
Page 33
Group 5
from syngas sampling (V-546, V-547, V-556 and V-557) which is likely to be conducted
using laboratory techniques.
Fisher-Tropsch Process
Before entering the FT Reactor R-503, the syngas is fed into a SMR R-502. Steam is a
reactant in the process and thus the flow rate is adjusted by a ratio controller (RIC-503)
based on the flow rate of syngas. Temperature within R-502 is assumed to be similar to
the temperature within the Gasifier and thus no temperature control is implemented. In
the FT Reactor, the synthesis reaction occurring is exothermic and thus continuous flow
of cooling water through the reactor is required to maintain its temperature. The flow rate
of cooling water is controlled by TIC-504 which regulates control valve V-561. The
cooling water forms a loop around the plant, transferring heat from one unit operation to
another as described in Section 3.1 with its control scheme discussed below. The gaseous
products from the FT Reactor are cooled using cooling water. The flow rate of non-
condensable gases is used to control the pressure within R-503 by pressure controller
PIC-504. The levels of the aqueous and organic phase within the three phase separator
(S-508) are controlled using two level controllers: one at the total liquid surface and the
other at the interface level. Both controllers are used to manipulate valves that regulate
the flow of water and organic products out of the vessel. The pressure of the liquid
products from the FT Reactor is reduced to the distillation operating pressure using
V-568.
Distillation
Both the distillation columns are controlled using a standard DV configuration. The heat
input to the Reboilers (X-514 and X-518) is fixed by the operator using a flow controller
on the heating medium (FC-504 and FC-506). The flow rates of distillate from the
columns are used to control the temperature of the columns. Rate of cooling medium into
the condensers (X-513 and X-516) is used to control column pressure while the level
within the column is controlled using the valves (V-574 and V-578) on the bottoms
product. Flow indicators (FI-502, FI-504, FI-506 and FI-507) on each of the product
streams (Fuel Gas, Gasoline, Diesel and Wax) allow the plant operators to monitor and
record the rate of liquid fuel production from the plant.
Page 34
Group 5
Cooling Water Loop

The cooling water loop was developed for the design as part of heat integration, allowing
the transfer of heat from hot streams requiring cooling to cold streams requiring heating.
A significant quantity of heat is generated in the FT Reactor and is passed on to heat air
for the dryer using X-502. Pressure within the closed loop is maintained by a centrifugal
pump P-508 through a VSD (VSD-506) and pressure controller (PC-504). The pump is
located on the inlet side of R-503 while the sensor is located on the outlet. There are two
reasons in justifying the placement of these instruments:
(a) It is expected that the largest pressure drop in the cooling water loop would occur
within this reactor.
(b) Pressure control for the water within the reactor is crucial in ensuring boiling of
the water does not occur.
It is assumed it would be possible to maintain and control the pressure of the entire
cooling water loop using this method.
Heat exchanger X-508 has been placed on the cooling water stream as a “dummy” cooler.
If insufficient heat is loss in the air heater (X-502), possibly due to an equipment failure,
cooling water controlled by a temperature controller (TIC-503) would be used to bring
the temperature of the stream down to desired levels. This control prevents the
propagation of disturbances that could upset downstream processes. Bypass streams are
used in the case where the flow of cooling water through a unit operation needs to be
controlled without affecting the total flow of the cooling water stream. This cooling water
stream is passed through two condensers (X-509 and X-513) before returning to the FT
Reactor. It would not be ideal to control the entire flow rate of the cooling water stream as
this may result in P-508 running dry or excessive pressures within the system. Bypasses
are used to ensure only the required flow of cooling water is passed through the
condensers while the remaining flow may be diverted directly into the next downstream
operation. A bypass is also used for the FT Reactor to ensure cooling water is still
allowed to circulate through the system even when the heat loading on the reactor is low.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between controlling the full stream and using a bypass
method.
Page 35
Group 5
NO BYPASS
UNIT
Less flow required
Valve Shuts Downstream affected
WITH BYPASS
Downstream less affected
UNIT
Less flow required
Valve Shuts
BYPASS
Flow Diverted to Bypass
Figure 5 Schematic showing a comparison between no bypass and with bypass introduced
The preliminary control strategy has been proposed for the design. It is however, only a
basic control strategy that requires more detail studies before implementation. In
particular, it has been assumed that interaction between process variables can be
neglected. It has also been assumed that all variables can be measured and controlled;
naturally, some of the variables proposed may be too difficult or costly to control. Safety
is crucial in the operation of a plant. Thus, control strategies focused on this factor and
prevention of loss must be further developed.
Page 36
Group 5
4.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A comprehensive economic analysis can be used to judge the feasibility of the proposed FT
liquid fuels plant. To fully evaluate the economic feasibility of this project, different methods
are applied to measure the overall economic performance of the project. This is a useful
activity in project planning as it acts as a decision making tool. Based primarily on the net
present value (NPV), it would assist in making decisions on the viability of this particular
investment. In the analyses carried out, the useful plant life timeline is assumed to be 15 years
with no plant salvage value at the end of the project useful life.
4.1 Total Capital Investment

The total capital investment refers to the total amount of money to be invested into the
project. This can be estimated from the major plant item costs (MPICs). All the MPICs
were estimated using equipment cost sources such as the correlations provided by
Tijmensen et al (2002) and SCENZ (2002). The methods used for scaling up, adjusting
for inflation and currency exchanges can be found in the Appendix.
The total capital investment is broken down into three categories which include direct,
indirect costs and working capital. Direct costs cover all major installed physical
equipment, for example; MPICs, piping, instrumentation and controls and electrical
components. Using an overall Lang factor of 1.74 multiplied by the sum of the MPICs
gives the total direct costs. Indirect costs are related to engineering, construction,
contingency and contractor’s fees, where a Lang factor of 0.8 multiplied by the total
MPICs gives the total indirect costs. Working capital includes costs associated with the
commissioning of the plant; these costs are estimated to be roughly 15 % of the direct and
indirect costs combined. In this case, overall individual Lang factors for direct and
indirect costs taken from SCENZ were applied.
Table 4 below shows the expected costs (MPIC) for equipment lumped together in
accordance to their mode of operation. Note that these costs below already include the
1.74 direct costs Lang factor.
Page 37
Group 5
Table 4 Physical costs according to equipment type
Equipment type MPIC Contribution

Storage vessels $12,002,891 4.0%
Dryer (including chipper) $45,912,521 15.2%
Conveyors (including lock hopper) $13,144,158 4.3%
Heat exchangers $2,143,150 0.7%
Separation units (including distillation columns) $96,779,427 32.0%
Gas cleaning units $42,140,668 13.9%
Gasifier $43,834,518 14.5%
Fischer - Tropsch reactor $38,675,357 12.8%
Steam - Methane reformer $7,735,071 2.6%
TOTAL $302,367,763
This table shows that the separation units (packed columns and distillation units)
contribute a significant 32 % to the overall physical plant cost. The dryer and Gasifier are
the most expensive single pieces of equipment in the plant with each having a cost of
about 15 % of the total. The cost for the SMR is relatively low and is used to reflect the
additional cost required in integrating the Gasifier with the Reformer. The total costs
displayed in the table above represent the direct cost which amounts to about 303 million
NZD.
Full calculation details of the total capital investment can be found in the economic
analysis appendix. The estimated total capital investment for this project is expected to be
about 508 million NZD. The breakdown of the total capital investment into direct and
indirect costs along with the working capital needed for this project is shown in
Figure 6 below.
Page 38
Group 5
$66,697,634
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Working capital
$140,047,526 $304,603,368
Total capital investment = $511,348,527.5
Figure 6 Breakdown of total capital investment into direct, indirect costs and working capital
An estimate of the depreciation was determined using the standard straight line method. A
depreciation of about 12.3 million NZD after the plants 15 years of operation was
obtained using a value of 7 % depreciation on the sum of MPICs (uninstalled, not
including Lang factor). This is an important figure as it gives an indication to the
reduction in value of the plant equipment during its 15 years of operation.
4.2 Operating Costs

Operating costs cover the necessary capital required to procure materials needed for the
plant to operate and produce the necessary output of 90 million litres of fuels per year.
These include the wood feed material, solvents, cooling, heating, electricity utilities and
catalysts. The total expenditure towards the plants operating costs is expected to cost
about 96 million NZD per annum, where Figure 7 below illustrates the breakdown of
these operating costs.
Page 39
Group 5
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
Annual operating costs
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
Figure 7 Breakdown of annual operating costs for the plant.
This figure shows that purchase of wood feed material contributes to 75 % of the total
costs at about 71 million NZD per annum.
4.3 Profitability Analysis

A profitability analysis assesses the economic feasibility of the plant over its 15 years
operating lifetime. The NPV, internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period are the
three economic tools used to analyse the economic performance assuming the plant is
operating at full designed capacity of 90 million litres of liquid fuels per year.
The biofuel liquid product produced is separated into gasoline (C5 to C12), diesel (C13 to
C22) and wax (C22 and above), while fuel grade gas (C1 to C4) is also produced. Table 5
below summarises the annual production of these fuels along with the revenue generated
by selling the products at current market prices.
Page 40
Group 5
Table 5 Annual production and profit generated from biofuel product
Fischer - Tropsch fuel type Annual production (kg/yr) Annual profit ($/yr)
Gasoline 27,917,443 41,793,780
Diesel 26,056,662 32,228,595
Wax 19,386,373 26,956,048
Fuel gas 183,174,998 55,407,180
Total 256,535,477 156,385,604
The total annual revenue generated is found to be about 157 million NZD per annum and
is obtained from the income made from selling these four products. From this figure a net
annual uniform benefit of $61,000,000 (subtracting the operating costs from the total
profit) is to be expected. An NPV analysis is carried out over 15 years at varying discount
rates to determine the IRR. The IRR refers to the discount rate at which the NPV of the
investment equals to zero. Figure 8 below summarises the NPV analysis carried out.
$500
$400
$300
$200
NPV (Million)
$100
$0
-$100 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
-$200
-$300
-$400
Discount Rate, i
Figure 8 NPV for discount rates of 0% to 30%.
Page 41
Group 5
From interpolation of this plot, the IRR was found to be about 8.41 %. At this discount
rate, the payback period equals the plant lifetime of 15 years. If the minimum acceptable
rate of return (MARR) is set below 8.41 %, then the decision to invest in this plant would
be acceptable.
Next, a discount rate below the IRR was then chosen. This value of 7 % produces a plant
net present value of 46 million NZD. Figure 9 below is an illustration of the payback
period over the 15 years (note that year one starts after the total initial fixed capital
investment has been made).
$100
$0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-$100
NPV (Million)
-$200
-$300
-$400
-$500
-$600
Year
Figure 9 NPV over time at a discount rate of 7%.
This figure shows that at about year 14, the NPV is equal to zero which tells us that the
payback period is 13 years, i.e. after the completion of the 13th year the total initial capital
investment of $508,000,000 is recovered and the plant starts generating a positive NPV
(positive annual cash flow).
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis

To determine the best possible economic case for the project, a sensitivity analysis was
carried out to see how the manipulation of different key parameters had an effect on the
NPV. Prices for selling the gasoline, diesel, wax and fuel gas FT products were
investigated, as well as the annual cost for the wood feed material. Figure 10 below shows
Page 42
Group 5
the results of altering the current selling price of each of the fuel products (only changing
one at a time) on the NPV.
140
Gasoline price 120
Diesel price
100
Wax price
Fuel gas price 80
NPV (Million)
60
40
20
0
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%-20
-40
-60
Percentage increase in products sale price
Figure 10 Sensitivity analysis with NPV for varying product sale price.
From these results, it can be concluded that the effect of altering the prices of gasoline,
diesel and wax are all relatively similar. For each of these products, the NPV remains
positive as long as either of their selling prices does not drop its current retail value by
14 %. The fuel gas is more sensitive showing a negative NPV when the retail value drops
by 9 %, while for every 1 % increase in its current retail value the NPV increases by
about 5 million NZD. Therefore, the project would benefit greatly in an economical sense
if the fuel gas price was to increase even by a small amount, while the price of liquid
products are not as sensitive.
The annual wood feed material annual cost is of some concern as it takes up a significant
portion (75 %) of the total annual operating costs; therefore it is wise to investigate how
the NPV varies for various lower annual wood feed costs. Figure 11 below illustrates the
change in NPV as the cost of wood feed is altered.
Page 43
Group 5
160
140
120
100
80
NPV (Million)
60
40
20
0
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115%
-20
-40
Percentage of wood feed annual cost
Figure 11 Sensitivity analysis with NPV for varying wood feed annual costs
This analysis shows that the maximum annual cost of wood cannot increase by more than
7 % if the NPV is to remain positive. For every 1 % in which the annual cost for wood is
altered, the NPV changes by about 6.5 million NZD. There is benefit for the plant in
altering the price of wood as the wood is currently bought at either $40/m3 or $50/m3
(depending on availability of different wood quality). If all the wood is to be bought at the
lower price of $40/m3, the annual cost for the wood feed becomes only 61 million NZD
per annum. In this case, the NPV versus discount rate as shown in Figure 12 below
generates an IRR of about 11 %. This is a significant improvement from the current
8.41 %. Therefore this would be the best scenario for this plant to generate as much profit
as possible.
Page 44
Group 5
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
NPV (Million)
$200
$100
$0
-$100 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
-$200
-$300
-$400
Discount Rate, i
Figure 12 NPV versus discount rate for minimum wood cost of $40/m3.
Page 45
Group 5
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
5.1 Discharge into Environment

The issue of sustainability and environmental impact has been considered in the design of
the plant. As a method to better understand the impact of the operating plant on the
environment, an input-output schematic has been presented in Figure 13. The figure
shows that resources such as biomass, water, chemicals and air enter the plant. Apart from
both the main products and by-products that exit the plant, other discharges into the
environment also occur. These discharges may have detrimental effects on the
environment and thus may require steps in mitigating them. Table 6 summarizes these
discharges, possible effects and possible methods in overcoming the effect.
Figure 13 Overall input-output for the FT plant.
Table 6 Possible Discharges from the FT plant

Discharge Description Effects Method
Dust Produced in the Potential land/soil Ensure optimum
gasification reaction. pollution as both the operating conditions to
Removed by dust filter and the dust reduce production of dust.
filter. needs to be land- Disposal in appropriate
filled. landfill site.
Burnt Tar Produced in the Gaseous discharge Optimisation of
gasification reaction. into the environment gasification reaction to
Removed from and may contain reduce production of tar.
Page 46
Group 5
syngas by biodiesel pollutants such as Alternative technologies

scrub followed by carbon monoxide. for destroying tar, e.g. tar-
combustion in flare. cracking.
Purge Minor release of Gaseous discharge Optimized sizing of
Syngas syngas during wood into the environment hoppers may reduce the
feed using locked and may contain amount of syngas loss.
hopper. Combusted pollutants such as Return syngas into
in flare. carbon monoxide. gasifier. This option is
Reduce plant expensive and is thus not
efficiency. recommended.
Wastewater Three main sources: Potential water Ensure sufficient

By product from pollution if untreated treatment of water before
gasification water enters discharge into
reaction environment. environment.
Water scrubbing Continuous process
By product from improvement using better
FT Reaction alternatives may help
reduce wastewater
produced in the process.
Consider recycling water.
Carbon Scrubbed from Greenhouse gas that Carbon sequestration may
Dioxide syngas using MEA could cause global be a possible option to
solution. Released warming. consider due to the
directly to already high cost required
environment. in removing carbon
dioxide.
Spent Occasional discharge Potential land / soil Consider regeneration of

Catalyst, that occurs when pollution. Some spent catalyst.
Bed material is used up. materials may Ensure that material is
Material Needs to be land- contain toxic disposed of in an
and filled or regenerated. substances such as appropriate landfill site.
Packing heavy metals, i.e.
cobalt catalysts.
It is ideal to determine the actual effects of these discharges on the environment before
investing additional cost in trying to solve the associated problems. The discharges into
the environment from the plant are in fact relatively minor. Most of the problems
associated with the discharges can be solved with current technology. However, cost is
the major constraint in implementing a perfectly “green” plant.
Page 47
Group 5
5.2 Energy
The designed plant aims to produce liquid fuels from a renewable energy source.
Naturally, the source and conversion efficiency of energy used on the site needs to be
considered carefully. Benefits from using renewable sources may be easily nullified by
the use of fossil fuels in the production process. Transport of wood onto site has not been
considered specifically in the design process, but could be a major factor in the feasibility
of this design. Ideally, the distance between the site and biomass source should be kept to
a minimum. Transport should also be as efficient as possible, using fuels produced on site
in a self-sustaining operation.
Heat integration has been implemented as part of the design within practical limits. This
method has been effective in reducing the quantity of energy required to operate the plant.
Nevertheless, the designed plant still relies on some utilities, such as electricity and small
amounts of steam. These utilities should also be verified to be from a renewable energy
source.
Page 48
Group 5
6.0 SAFETY AND HAZARD ANALYSIS
The safety assessment of this project was carried out in three main stages: qualitative
analysis, quantitative analysis (Dow’s Fire and Explosion Index and Chemical Exposure
Index) and Hazard and Operability study (HAZOP). A qualitative analysis was done on the
main process units of the plant to identify the three most hazardous process units, on which
the quantitative analysis was carried out. HAZOP was then done on the most hazardous unit
operation suggested by the result of quantitative analysis.
A web search on incidents related to the specific technology employed has shown that no
particular safety-related incidents have been reported so far. However, an incident on a
related technology was reported in April 2008, where an explosion occurred on a pressurized
coal gasifier at SG Solutions, Indiana. A flanged opening on the gasifier failed and syngas
was released as a result. The syngas released at 28 bar ignited and caused the explosion. Two
fatalities were reported in the incident. The preliminary findings indicate that a fine will be
assessed for violations that include not having a written operating procedure with safe
operating limits for certain equipment including gasifiers and heat exchangers.
Page 49
Group 5
6.1 Qualitative Analysis

Part 1 of the safety assessment was carried out by qualitatively classifying the major
process equipment, according to the operating temperature and pressure, chemical
reaction involved, and presence of flammable substances. The classification of the
equipment is as shown in Table 7. This ranking method does not comply with any
standard analysis method, but is only used as a screening method for quantitative safety
study.
Table 7 Classification of major process equipment (Y=“Yes”, N=“No”)

Hazardous /
Temperature Pressure
Ranking Reaction flammable
(°C) (bar)
substances
1 < 50 < 2 N N
2 ≥ 50 <2 N Y
More
or < 50 ≥2 N Y hazardous
3 ≥ 50 ≥2 N Y
4 ≥ 200 ≥2 N Y
5 ≥ 200 ≥ 10 Y Y
The process conditions and equipment rankings are tabulated in Table 8 (equipment code
according to PFD). As shown in Table 8, the Gasifier R-501, SMR R-502 and FT R-503
have the highest ranking of 5. Therefore a quantitative analysis (fire and explosion index,
chemical exposure index) was carried out on these three units to justify the most
hazardous unit operation.
Page 50
Group 5
Table 8 Operating conditions and ranking of major process equipment
Approximate Approximate Hazardous /

Equipment Description Type temperature pressure Reaction flammable Ranking
(°C) (bar) substances
C-501 Biodiesel Scrubber Packed column 80 24 N Y 3
C-502 Hot Air Stripper Packed column 120 1 N Y 2
C-503 Amine Scrubber Packed column 23 25 N Y 3
C-504 Steam Stripper Packed column 100 1 N Y 2
C-505 Water Scrubber Packed column 25 22 N Y 2
C-506 Active Carbon Guard Bed Packed column 25 22 N Y 2
C-507 Zinc Oxide Filter Packed column 25 21 N Y 2
C-508 Distillation Column 1 Tray column 250 2.5 N Y 4
C-509 Distillation Column 2 Tray column 420 2 N Y 4
M-501 Chipper Disc chipper 25 1 N N 1
R-501 Gasifier Circulating Fluidised Bed 850 25 Y Y 5
R-502 Steam-Methane Reformer Tubular reactor 850 20 Y Y 5
R-503 Fischer-Tropsch Reactor Slurry Bed reactor 240 20 Y Y 5
S-501 Dryer Rotary Drum dryer 120 1 N N 2
S-502 Air Separation unit Pressure Swing adsorption 25 2 N N 3*
S-503 Cyclone Cyclone 850 25 N Y 4
S-504 Dust Filter Ceramic filter 850 25 N Y 4
S-505 Biodiesel-Water Separator Decanter vessel 80 23 N Y 2
S-506 CO2-Amine Separator Vapour-Liquid separator 80 1 N Y 2
S-507 Cyclone Hydrocyclone 240 20 N Y 4
S-508 Three-Phase Separator Decanter vessel 80 20 N Y 2
*Note: S-502 was given a ranking of 3 due to the pressure swing.
Page 51
Group 5
6.2 Fire and Explosion Index

Based on the qualitative analysis, the Gasifier R-501, SMR R-502 and FT Reactor R-503
have the highest ranking for hazard. Therefore, Dow’s Fire and Explosive Index (F&EI)
is calculated for each of these equipments. This is a simple method to determine the areas
of greatest loss potential in a particular process. Table 9 shows that the most hazardous
unit operation in the plant is FT Reactor. HAZOP was carried out on this reactor to
identify conditions that requires improvements.
Table 9 Fire and Explosion Indices (F&EI) for R-501, R-502 and R-503
Reactor FEI
R-501 109
R-502 101
R-503 123
6.3 Chemical Exposure Index (CEI)

The CEI calculations were performed on the three most hazardous process units
identified: the Gasifier R-501, SMR R-502 and FT Reactor R-503. Among the chemicals
present, carbon monoxide, ammonia, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen sulphide are listed
in the Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) by American Industrial
Hygiene Association (2010). Table 10 shows the CEI and hazard distance calculated for
the three units, in case of largest process pipe rupture.
Table 10 The Chemical Exposure Indices and hazard distance for process pipe rupture
Reactor CEI Hazard Distance (m)

R-501 119 1185
R-502 92 920
R-503 112 1116
Only carbon monoxide contributes to the CEI values due to its high concentration in the
streams involved. Thus the CEI values are only dependent on the pipe sizes, pressure and
temperature of these reactors. The results show that the gasifier has the highest CEI,
attributed by its large pipeline involved (650 mm diameter compared to 350 mm for R-
502 and R-503). Besides, the lower temperature in R-503 leads to a higher CEI compared
Page 52
Group 5
to R-502. The operating pressures of the reactors range from 20 to 25 bar, which are
relatively close. Thus the pressures do not affect the CEI values significantly.
The highest CEI for R-501 revealed that it is the most hazardous unit in case of process
pipe rupture. However, the F&EI calculated in previous section indicates that the FT
Reactor is the most hazardous process unit in case of fire and explosion. Therefore a
HAZOP was done on this unit. In a real design case, HAZOP should be done on more
process units, and should at least include the three most hazardous process units identified
qualitatively.
6.4 Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP)

The result from F&EI calculations revealed that the FT Reactor R-503 is the most
hazardous process unit. Therefore, HAZOP was done on this process unit. Figure 14
shows the P&ID of R-503. Four nodes were identified as shown in the figure:
Node 1 – Cooling water inlet for reactor cooling

Node 2 – Syngas inlet from steam-methane reactor (R-502)
Node 3 – Catalyst return from hydrocyclone (S-507)
Node 4 – Fischer-Tropsch reactor (R-503)
Page 53
Group 5
Catalyst Return
Cooling Water
Inlet
Syngas Inlet
Figure 14 Four nodes on Fischer-Tropsch reactor for HAZOP

(full P&ID referred to Section 3.0)
Page 54
Group 5
The results of HAZOP revealed that no immediate action is required. Table 11 shows the
potential risks requiring attention. A full HAZOP report is appended in Appendix.
Table 11 Summary of potential risks requiring attention

Node Parameter Guide Word Causes Consequence RE RP
1. Flow rate No V-564 fail close Runaway reaction, explosion 1 1
Power failure 2 2
P-508 failure 2 2
Pipe blockage 0 0
Temperature control failure 2 2
Pipe breakage -4 -4
Cooling water release -6 -4
Too low V-564 failure Runaway reaction, explosion 1 1
Pipe blockage 1 1
Temperature control failure 2 2
Pipe leakage -2 -2
Cooling water release -4 -2
Reverse P-508 failure Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
Temperature Too high Temperature of supply water is Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
too high
2. Flow rate No Pipe breakage Syngas release -2 -1
Too high Too high flow rate from R-502 Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
Too low Pipe leakage Syngas release -1 1
Temperature Too high Abnormal heat exchanger (X- Runaway reaction, explosion 1 1
512) operation
Pressure Too high Temperature increase due to X- Runaway reaction, explosion 1 1
512 failure
Abnormal pressure from R-502 2 2
Composition Too high Different conversion in R-502 Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2

(H2, CO) Other reaction occuring R-502 2 2
3. Flow rate No Pipe breakage Liquid fuels/catalysts release -4 -4
Too low Pipe leakage Liquid fuels/catalysts release -3 -2
4. Temperature Too high High reaction rate Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
Low cooling rate 2 2
Pressure Too high High temperature, vaporisation Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
Pressure control failure 2 2
V-568 fail close 1 1
Composition Too high High syngas flow rate in Runaway reaction, explosion 2 2
(syngas) Pressure control failure 2 2
V-568 fail close 1 1
Note: R E, R P represents risk scores to environment and people respectively. A risk score
of greater than 0 indicates that the design needs to be reviewed in safety aspect.
Page 55
Group 5
Assumptions in HAZOP
Since the plant is currently under the design stage, a few assumptions were made to make
the HAZOP study possible. Upon considering the impact of hazards on people, it was
assumed that the plant is fully automated, and there would be one person on-site 10 % of
the time, for sampling, supervision, or material handling purpose. Besides, it was assumed
that the company has the ability and resources to handle the release of solid or liquids
within the facility. In case of flammable and toxic gas release outside help might be
needed. On the other hand, the only safeguard equipped for the FT Reactor – the pressure
relief valve is expected to be tested regularly, and response efficiently in case of pressure
increase in the reactor.
Runaway reaction and explosion

Causes
As shown in Table 11, the highest risks associate with high temperature in the reactor,
which leads to runaway reaction, pressure build-up, explosion, fire and/or fatality. The
main causes can be categorised into four categories: low cooling rate, high temperature,
high pressure and high concentration of reactants in the reactor.
1. Low cooling rate

The temperature of the exothermic FT reaction is maintained at 240 °C using cooling
water (Node 1). A low cooling rate leads to an increase in temperature of the reactor, and
subsequently a runaway reaction. Under normal operating conditions cooling water enters
the reactor at a flow rate of 80 kg/s, temperature of 92 °C and pressure of 10 bar.
As the temperature of the reactor is controlled by adjusting the flow of cooling water via
valve V-564, failure in temperature controller or V-564 would affect the cooling rate.
Failure in temperature control is expected to occur once a year, while the chance of failure
in V-564 is expected to be 10 % per year. On the other hand, a pump (P-508) is used to
maintain the pressure of the water cycle at 10 bar, and is located upstream R-503.
Therefore, a power or pump failure would directly affect the cooling rate of the reaction.
The occurrence of power or pump failure is expected to be once a year.
Page 56
Group 5
Besides the failure in process equipment and instrumentation, abnormal situations in the
piping, such as pipe leakage, breakage or blockage could also affect the cooling rate of
the reaction. Amongst these, a partial pipe blockage is the most probable one, with an
expected frequency of once every ten years. In contrast, complete pipe blockage, pipe
leakage and pipe breakage are less likely to happen, and are not expected to occur during
the lifetime of the plant.
The cooling rate of the reactor is also affected by the inlet temperature of cooling water.
An increase in temperature of inlet cooling water reduces the cooling rate, which could
lead to a runaway reaction. As the cooling water supplied to the reactor is in a water
cycle, which passes through three process heat exchangers, a temperature controlled heat
exchanger and the FT Reactor, the occurrence of process upset or failure in temperature
control is expected to be once a year.
Alternatively, in case the cooling water rate is higher than expected, the temperature of
the reactor would reduce, hence slowing down the reaction rate. This might affect the
product quality, but should not cause damages to people and environment. Thus no risks
were identified for high cooling rate.
2. High temperature
A high temperature in the reactor could be identified as both the cause and the
consequence of a process upset, due to the exothermic properties of the reaction. This
sub-section focuses on the causes leading to high temperature in the reactor.
Abnormal operation of heat exchanger X-512 would affect the temperature of inlet
syngas, which might lead to an increase in temperature of the reactor. The probability of
this situation occurring in a year is expected to be 10 %. Conversely, a low temperature in
the inlet syngas would reduce the reaction rate, but is not expected to cause damages to
people and environment as mentioned earlier.
Apart from that, an increase in reaction rate leads to release of more heat, and
subsequently increase the temperature of the reactor. This process upset would probably
happen once a year.
Page 57
Group 5
3. High pressure
A high pressure in the reactor would favour the FT synthesis, and lead to an increase in
reaction rate. As a result, more heat is release, temperature rises, and runaway reaction
occurs. The normal operating pressure of the reactor is 20 bar. Possible causes of high
pressure in the reactor include high pressure in inlet syngas, vaporisation of liquid fuels in
the reactor, failure in sending products away from the reactor.
As the pressure in a gas stream is directly proportional to its temperature, an upset in

X-512 could lead to a high temperature in the inlet syngas stream, and thus the increase in
pressure. The likelihood of this situation is expected to be 10 % a year. To trace the
process further upstream, a high pressure in the SMR R-502 outlet also directly leads to a
pressure increase in the syngas entering R-503. The occurrence of such process upset in
R-502 is expected to be once a year.
Apart from directly leading to a runaway reaction, high temperature in the reactor could
also increase the pressure of gases in the reactor, or vaporise the liquids in the reactor.
Both situations directly increase the operating pressure of the reactor, and hence favour
the exothermic reaction. This is expected to occur once a year.
On the other hand, since the reactor is pressure controlled, a failure in the pressure
controller or valve V-568 would lead to an increase in pressure of the reactor. The failure
in pressure controller is expected to be once a year, while the failure in V-568 is expected
to be once every ten years.
On the contrary, a decrease in the pressure of the reactor is not expected to cause damages
to people and environment. In this case, the liquid products in the reactor would vaporise,
until equilibrium is reached, or the pressure controller would reduce the amount of gas
leaving the reactor. In the worst scenario, a back flow of the liquid and gaseous products
leaving the reactor would lead to damages to the reactor and adjacent equipment. Thus no
risk was identified associated to decrease in the operating pressure of the reactor.
Page 58
Group 5
4. High concentration of reactants

The reactants of FT process are CO and H2. Clearly an increase in these compounds
would favour the FT reaction, and increase the reaction rate. Under normal operating
conditions, syngas entering the reactor contains 45 mol % of H2 and 21 mol % of CO. A
process upset in R-502 may increase the concentration of reactants in the syngas, and this
is expected to occur once a year.
On the other hand, there could be other unexpected reactions (such as water-gas shift
reaction) occurring in R-502 or R-503, affecting the concentrations of H2 and CO in the
inlet syngas or in R-503. This type of process upset would probably occur once a year.
High syngas content in R-503 also favours the FT process. This could be caused by high
syngas flow rate into the reactor, or low outlet flow of the gaseous products. Again, a high
syngas flow rate into the reactor is caused by high syngas flow from R-502, which is
expected to occur once a year.
As mentioned earlier, since the reactor is pressure controlled, a failure in pressure

controller or valve V-568 could restrict the flow of gaseous products out of the reactor.
The H2 and CO contents in the gaseous products remain in the reactor, hence increasing
the concentration of these compounds and favour the FT synthesis. The pressure control
failure is expected to occur once a year while V-568 failure is expected to happen once
every ten years.
Consequences
Runaway reaction and explosion in R-503 is likely to cause fatality to people on-site. As
it was assumed that one person would be on-site in 10 % of the time, the fatality of this
person was chosen to be the consequence scenario on people during the HAZOP study.
Upon consideration on the environmental impact, explosion in R-503 would lead to major
release to the facility, since there is a large amount of flammable gases (syngas and fuel
gas) and liquid fuels in the reactor.
Page 59
Group 5
Chemical release
Apart from high temperature and runaway reaction in the reactor, process or equipment
upset could also lead to other consequence and risks to people and environment. A pipe
leakage or breakage might or might not critically affect the process, but would lead to
release of chemicals to the environment. Moreover, most of the process streams involve
flammable and/or toxic chemicals. Thus a chemical release incident, even in small
amount, could cause severe damage to people and environment.
Cooling water release

The release of cooling water at high temperature and pressure could lead to severe injury
in one person on-site 10 % of the time. Meanwhile, it was not expected to cause damage
to the environment.
Syngas release
A major syngas release could lead to permanent health effects on people off-site due to
the toxicity of CO. It could also lead to fatality if there are people on-site, since the
concentration of CO in most streams are high (> 20 %). On the environmental impact, as
syngas release is much more difficult to handle compared to liquid release, even a minor
syngas release to the environment might require outside help. A major syngas release is
also likely to cause long term impact to the plant, as well as associated fines or penalties
by the government authorities.
Liquid fuels and catalysts release

As mentioned earlier, it was assumed that the company is capable to handle release of
liquid fuels and/or catalysts. Therefore there should be no legal or public relation
consequences associated. On the other hand, release of liquid fuels and catalysts at high
temperature and pressure could lead to severe injury to one person on-site 10 % of the
time.
6.5 Corrective Actions

The HAZOP has shown that based on the current design of the FT Reactor, some
situations with Risk Scores of RP = 2 and RE = 2 may arise. In particular, a runway
reaction causing high temperatures, high pressures, an explosion and subsequently fire
Page 60
Group 5
and fatality has been found to be a definite possibility. The HAZOP study has also shown
that corrective actions must be taken to reduce the risks of these events occurring. At the
current design stage of the project, it is recommended that the design surrounding the FT
Reactor be improved. The two following recommendations are thus suggested:
Secondary reaction control mechanisms capable of acting independently from the

original. Currently, control of the synthesis reaction is via cooling water circulated
through the reactor. In the case where the flow of cooling water fails, there would be
a runaway reaction with associated consequences. A secondary temperature controller
and backup pump supplied with a guaranteed source of cooling water should be a
minimum to include in this design.
Implementations of a temperature interlock system. Besides the flow of cooling
water, controlling the flow rate of reactants into the reactor is another possible
method in controlling the reaction. The use of a temperature interlock that would
limit or completely stop the flow of reactants into the reactor should be a considered
safeguard to reduce the risk in this system.
These suggestions effectively increases the safeguards scores in the HAZOP study and
thus reduces the risks scores.
In the case of chemical release to the environment, construction of bunds would limit to
extent of liquid fuels released to the surroundings. Naturally, the release of these liquids
must be contained as quickly as possible while avoiding any possible ignition sources.
Use of instruments capable of detecting the presence of dangerous vapours such as carbon
monoxide and hydrogen sulphide should be considered on site. This would alert operators
in the case of a leak and reduce endangerment of personnel.
The safe operation of the plant is highly dependant on the use of instruments and pieces
of equipment. Most of the safeguards suggested above are active devices that would
require maintenance and testing. It is important that this is done thoroughly and on a
regular basis. Also, subsequent HAZOP studies are recommended in ensuring that safety
is maintained.
Page 61
Group 5
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the design achieved at this point, the following recommendations are proposed by
the team:
Validation of material balance calculations by means of pilot scale trial studies.

Modelling the reactions involved in the design has been particularly difficult due to
the complexity of the mechanisms involved. Despite extensive review of literature,
obtaining accurate compositions of the reaction products has not been easy. This
affects the reliability of the design and causes a high level of risk in terms of both
operating and investing in a plant such as this. More extensive experimental pilot
scale studies may yield more reliable results and thus reduce the uncertainties
associated with the technology applied in the plant.
Improve the economics outlook of the plant. The economics analysis conducted show
that the plant is only marginally viable under ideal conditions. Thus, under present
conditions, it is not worth investing in this plant. The economics of the plant can
change based on both market factors (beyond control) and process (within control).
Sourcing of cheaper equipment, increase in plant efficiency and reductions in
operating cost are possible methods that could improve the outlook. Also an increase
in the market price for renewable fuels, which in most cases is beyond the designer’s
control, may significantly improve the viability of this design.
Optimisation considering various the process alternatives. Alternatives to the process
have been suggested in Section 2.4. Qualitative methods have been used in this design
to determine the ideal configuration. However, extensive quantitative optimisation
using different configurations, possibility up to the economics level could be able to
provide a better design than achieved here.
Conduct a more detailed economic analysis. A more thorough economic analysis
would be required if the designed plant were to be built. This economic analysis
would take up significant resources and should only be conducted after the initial plan
for the plant has been through the approval stage.
Improve the safety and loss prevention aspects of the plant. The HAZOP study
conducted on only the FT Reactor has shown that there is much to be improved in
terms of safety. More extensive safety analysis should be conducted on the entire
Page 62
Group 5
plant. It is important that additional considerations be placed on the safety aspects of

the plant.
Page 63
Group 5
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Future Fuel Technology Ltd. has been given the task in designing a plant producing liquid
fuels from biomass. The pathway taken for the process is via gasification of biomass, gas
cleaning and conditioning, FT synthesis followed by product separation. The specification of
the project was to produce 90 million litres of liquid fuels per year, consisting of gasoline,
diesel and wax. Based on the design achieved so far, the following tasks have been
completed. Relevant conclusions have also been drawn based on the completed tasks:
Research on the processes involved in the design was conducted. Various alternatives
of the process were considered and the ideal case was chosen.
The diagram showing the main steps of the process in the form of a PFD has been
drawn up.
Material and energy balances for the entire process were completed. Based on the
balances, the flow rates of the different components across the process have been
compiled into a stream table.
A preliminary control strategy for the plant has been proposed. The control strategy
was then implemented into a P&ID which has also been drawn up.
The economics of the process were evaluated. In particular, estimation of the total
investment, operating cost and expected revenue were made. An IRR analysis was
then conducted and a NPV value obtained. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on a
few important parameters to observe their effects on the plant’s economics.
The IRR of the design was found to be 8.41 %. Using a discount rate of 7 %, the net
present value of the plant was found to be 46 million NZD. The payback period for
the plant is found to be 13 years, suggesting that the plant is only marginally viable.
The economics outlook of the plant was found to be particularly sensitive to the price
of fuel gas and wood cost.
Safety analysis in the form of the Dow’s F&EI and CEI were conducted on three unit
operations considered to be the most hazardous. A comprehensive HAZOP was
completed on the FT Reactor.
Relevant recommendations to the design have been proposed.
Page 64
Group 5
9.0 REFERENCES
Process Design: Overall and General
1. Towler, G., Sinnott, R. (2008) Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice

and Economics of Plant and Process Design. MA, United States: Butterworh-
Heinemann.
2. Douglas, J.M. (1985) A Hierarchical Decision Procedure for Process Synthesis.
AIChE Journal 31(3), 352-362.
3. McKetta, J. J. (1993). Chemical processing handbook. New York: Dekker.
4. Tijmensen, M. (2002). Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer
Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 23(2),
129.
5. Hamelinck, C., Faaij, A., Denuil, H., & Boerrigter, H. (2004). Production of FT
transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and
optimisation, and development potential. Energy, 29(11), 1743.
6. van Vliet, O. P. R., Faaij, A. P. C., & Turkenburg, W. C. (2009). Fischer–Tropsch
diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost
analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 50(4), 855.
Biomass Conversion: Pre-Treatment and Gasification
1. Northern Wood Heat: Infocard 9: Wood Chippers

Retrieved from
http://www.northernwoodheat.net/htm/Publications/FinnishInfoCard9.pdf
2. Patent Storm: Single Pass Rotary Dryer US Patent 5746006 Description
Retrieved from
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5746006/description.html
3. Fischer-Tropsch.org Dry Biomass High Pressure Feed Systems
Retrieved from
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/40904/40904-fr/5%20-
%2077%20-%20%2086,%20%2040904-fr,%204.29.pdf
Page 65
Group 5
4. Goswami Y. (1986). Biomass Gasification. Alternative Energy in Agriculture (1986).

CRC Press. Vol. II, Ed. D, Chapter 4, 83–102.
5. Sutton D., Kelleher B., Ross J.R.H. (2001). Review of Literature on Catalysts for
Biomass Gasification. Fuel Processing Technology. 73(2001), 155–173.
6. Jared, P., Marano, J. (2002) Benchmarking Biomass Gasification Technologies for
Fuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
7. Li, X. (2004). Biomass gasification in a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 26(2), 171.
Gas Cleaning and Conditioning
1. Boerrigter H., Calis H.P., Slort D.J., Bodenstaff H., Kaandorp A.J., den Uil H., Rabou
L.P.L.M. (2004). Gas Cleaning for Integrated Biomass Gasification (BG) and
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Systems. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN),
Petten, The Netherlands, report ECN-C--04-056.
2. Kohl A., Nielsen R. (1997). Gas Purification (5th Edition). Gulf Publishing Company,
Texas.
3. Mwandila G., Pang S., Gilmour I., Williamson C. (2008, September). Tar Removal in
a Hot Gas Bubble and Spray System for Gas Cleaning after Biomass Gasification.
Paper presented at Chemeca 2008 Conference, Newcastle City Hall, New South
Wales, Australia.
4. Newman S.A. (1985). Acid and Sour Gas Treating Processes. Gulf Publishing
Company, Texas.
5. Xu C., Donald J., Ohtsuka Y. (2010). Recent Advances in Catalysts for Hot-Gas
Removal of Tar and NH3 from Biomass Gasification. Fuel (2010), doi:
10.1016/j.fuel.2010.02.014.
6. Zwart R.W.R. (2009). Gas Cleaning Downstream Biomass Gasification (ECN-E--08-
078). Energy research centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
7. Palmeri N., Cavallaro S., Bart J. C. J. (2008). Carbon Dioxide Absorption by MEA.
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 91 (2008) 1, 87–91.
Page 66
Group 5
8. Dave N., Do T., Puxty G., Rowland R., Feron P.H.M., Attalla M. I.(2009).CO2
capture by aqueous amines and aqueous ammonia – A Comparison. Energy Procedia
1 (2008) 949–954.
9. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Aspen-Plus Simulation. Retrieved from
http://shgr.unlv.edu/030904_quarterly/Boehm%20San_Diego_March_5_2004.pdf
10. Ma’mun S., Nilsen R., Svendsen H.F. (2005). Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in 30
mass % Monoethanolamine and 50 mass % Methyldiethanolamine Solutions. J.
Chem. Eng. Data. 2005, 50, 630-634.
11. Calgon Carbon Corporation. (n.d.). Application Bulletin: Sulphur Control with Metal
Oxide-Impregnated Carbon. AB-1023--12/99. Retrieved from
http://www.calgoncarbon.com/documents/SulfurContrtolwithMetalOxide-
ImpregnatedCarbon.pdf
Fisher-Tropsch Synthesis and Distillation
1. Dry, M. E. (2002). High quality diesel via the Fischer-Tropsch process - a review.
Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 77(1), 43.
2. Anderson, R. B., Kolbel, H., & Ralek, M. (1984). The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Orlando: Academic Press.
3. Calemma, V., Gambaro, C., Parker, W. O., Carbone, R., Giardino, R., & Scorletti, P.
(2010). Middle distillates from hydrocracking of FT waxes: Composition,
characteristics and emission properties. Catalysis Today, 149(1-2), 40-47.
4. Davis, B. H. (2007). Fischer−Tropsch Synthesis: Comparison of Performances of
Iron and Cobalt Catalysts. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 46(26),
8938.
5. Kölsch, P., Sziládi, M., Noack, M., Caro, J., Kotsis, L., Kotsis, I., et al. (2002).
Ceramic Membranes for Water Separation from Organic Solvents. Chemical
Engineering & Technology, 25(4), 357.
6. Sie, S. (1999). Fundamentals and selection of advanced Fischer–Tropsch reactors.
Applied Catalysis A: General, 186(1-2), 55.
7. Storch, H. H. (1951). The Fischer-Tropsch and related syntheses. New York: Wiley.
Page 67
Group 5
Control Strategy and Material Selection
1. Svrcek, W. Y., Mahoney, D. P., & Young, B. R. (2000). A real-time approach to

process control. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Craig, B. D. (1989). Handbook of corrosion data. Metals Park, OH: ASM
International.
3. Appendix B: Chemical Engineering Design Corrosion Charts with permission from
IPC Industrial Press Ltd.
Economics
1. XE.com: United States Dollars (USD) to New Zealand Dollars (NZD) rate.
Retrieved from
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=1&From=NZD&To=USD.
Date Retrieved: 10 March 2010
2. XE.com: Euro (EUR) to New Zealand Dollars (NZD) rate.
Retrieved from
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=NZD
3. INFOCOMM – Market Information in the Commodities Area: Natural Gas Prices
Retrieved from
http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/gas/prices.htm#links
4. Alibaba.com: Paraffin Wax Buy, Offer, Deal
Retrieved from
http://www.alibaba.com/buyeroffers/Paraffin_Wax.html
5. U.S. Energy Information Administration: Independent Statistics and Analysis.
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
Page 68
Group 5
6. Bouman, R.W, Jesen, S.B, Wake, M.L, Earl, W.B (2005), Process Capital Cost
Estimation for New Zealand 2004. Christchurch, Society of Chemical Engineers New
Zealand (SCENZ) Inc.
7. Matches’ Process Equipment Cost Estimates
Retrieved from
http://www.matche.com/EquipCost/
Date Retrieved: 10 June 2010
8. Statistics New Zealand: Consumer Price Index (Inflation)
Retrieved from
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/CPI_inflation.aspx
Date Retrieved: 10 June 2010
Safety
1. Mannan, S., & Lees, F. P. (2005). Lee's loss prevention in the process industries.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
2. Crawley, F., Preston, M., & Tyler, B. (2008). HAZOP. Rugby: Institution of Chemical
Engineers.
3. Fire & explosion index hazard classification guide. (1981). New York: American
Institute of Chemical Engineers.
4. Dow's process safety guide. (1967). New York: American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
5. Production at Coke Gasification Plant Will Resume After Investigation (2008, April
28). Inside Indiana Business. Retrieved from
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=29090
6. Howard Greninger. (2008, April 29). Two killed in synthetic gas explosion at coal
plant north of Terre Haute. Tribune Star. Retrieved from
http://tribstar.com/local/x1155750267/Two-killed-in-synthetic-gas-explosion-at-coal-
plant-north-of-Terre-Haute
7. SG Solutions Terre Haute Plant Starts Up. (2008, August 6). Coal Gasification News.
Retrieved from
http://coalgasificationnews.com/2008/08/06/sg-solutions-terre-haute-plant-starts-up/
Page 69
Group 5
Page 70

Process Design Case Study 2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Process Design Case Study 2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Department of Chemical and Process Engineering

ENCH 463 Process Engineering Design 3

Executive Summary iii

1.2 Design Task 1

1.3 List of Assumptions 2

2.0 Process Description 3

2.1 Process Outline 3

2.2 Process Flow Diagram 10

2.3 Stream Table 11

2.4 Process Alternatives 16

3.0 Piping and Instrumental Diagram 20

3.1 Heat Integration 27

3.2 Control Strategy 31

4.0 Economic Analysis 37

4.1 Total Capital Investments 37

4.2 Operating Costs 39

4.3 Profitability Analysis 40

4.4 Sensitivity Analysis 42

5.0 Environmental Impact 46

5.1 Discharge to Environment 46

6.0 Hazard Analysis 49

6.1 Qualitative Analysis 50

6.2 Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) 52

6.3 Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) 52

6.4 Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) 53

6.5 Corrective Actions 60

Figure 1 Biomass to liquid fuel via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

1.2 Design Task and Project Scope

1.3 List of Assumptions

2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

2.1 Process outline

Reactor Separation Reactor

Gasoline (C5-C12) Reactor Fuel Gas (C1-C4)

Figure 2 Block diagram of the design process

Stage 1: Biomass Conversion via Gasification

Gasification reaction takes place in R-501 at 850 °C and 25 bar. A mixture of 50 %

Stage 2: Gas Cleaning and Conditioning

CH4 + H2O CO + 3 H2 ∆H° = 206 kJ/mol (1)

Stage 3: Fischer-Tropsch and Distillation

CO + 3 H2 → -CH2- + H2O ∆HFT° = -165 kJ/mol (2)

where W n is the weight fraction of hydrocarbon molecules containing n number of

carbons. The chain growth probability, α ranges from 0 to 1 and is dependant on

Fuel gas: Hydrocarbons ranging from C1 to C4 and unreacted syngas

2.2 Process Flow Diagram

2.3 Stream Table

2.4 Process Alternatives

Pressurised gasification vs. atmospheric gasification

Table 1 Comparison of atmospheric and pressurized gasification

Reactor Large Reactor required Smaller reactor but reactor

It is clear that pressurized gasification has numerous advantages over atmospheric

Combining R-501 and R-502

Removal of tars in Gas Cleaning

Product Upgrading after FT Synthesis

associated catalysts. Depending on the type of cracking used, high temperatures or

Recycle of FT Reactor Output Gas

Return the stream to the gasifer as fuel

3.0 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM

3.1 Heat Integration

Table 2 Utility (heating and cooling) demand without heat integration

480°C 360 °C 100 °C 136 °C 25°C

480°C 360 °C 100°C 118°C 100 °C 150 °C

Dist. 2 reboiler Dist. 1 reboiler MEA reboiler Cooling water

170 °C 60°C 60°C 81 °C

Figure 3 Heat integration scheme (Part 1 of 2)