ChE 422 Design Report

Continuous Production of Biodiesel

Conducted by: Daniel Bieber Stuart Houle Kathlene Jacobson

Date Due: April 7, 2008 Department of Chemical Engineering University of Saskatchewan

Date received

Executive Summary
The objective of the proposed design project was to produce biodiesel and make it economically competitive with conventional diesel by utilizing low quality feedstocks and a solid acid catalyst. A Canadian Climate Change Action Plan was produced in 2000 that will be implemented in 2010 that states conventional diesel must have a 2% blend of biodiesel. This plan will create a Canadian demand of 500,000,000 litres per year. SFA will produce 17,000,000 litres per year of biodiesel by converting triglycerides from waste cooking oil and greenseed canola in a continuous process to meet Saskatchewans demand. The plant consists of three main sections; a canola crushing plant, a biodiesel conversion stage and finally a biodiesel/glycerol separation stage. The canola crushing stage uses a screw press to extract 75% of the oil from the canola seed and a membrane separator to extract the remaining 25% maximizing oil recovery and also will produce a valuable meal. The biodiesel conversion stage uses a solid acid catalyst, zinc ethanoate supported on silica to achieve 95+ conversion in a fixed bed reactor. Finally gravity separators will be used to separate biodiesel from glycerol. A conservative economical analysis found that the capital cost for the entire plant was $2,800,000. Using a 10% discounted rate, the net present value of the plant was $5,300,000 after 10 years of operation, giving a discounted cash flow rate of return of 49%. This concludes that the plant could produce biodiesel on a scale to be competitive with conventional diesel.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Gordon Hill for his assistance and guidance with this project, and his patients during the days we abused his open door policy. We would also like to thank Dr. Richard Evitts for his assistance in solving any issues we had with our HYSYS simulation, Dr. Mehdi Nemati for his assistance with heat exchangers and mixers, and Dr. Ding-Yu Peng for his patients and guidance in our design of the hexane stripper. A great deal of thanks goes Dr. Dalai for giving us the opportunity to work on this project and for his additional guidance throughout the year.

Additional acknowledgments; Zenneth Faye, CEO of Milligan Biotech, for letting us tour their Biodiesel plant located on campus. Blair Harker, Chemical Engineering Student, for helping us with design of our canola crushing plant by sharing her past work experience.

ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi Nomenclature .................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Qualitative Process Description .................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Physical Canola Extraction ................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Solvent Extraction............................................................................................ 12 2.1.3 Meal Preparation .............................................................................................. 16 2.2 Overview of Biodiesel Production ...................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Gum Removal from Canola Oil ....................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Mixing of Reactants ......................................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Conversion to Biodiesel via a Fixed Bed Reactor ........................................... 19 2.2.4 Methanol Recovery .......................................................................................... 20 2.2.5 Separation of Reaction Products ...................................................................... 21 3.0 Simulation Results ...................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Process Simulator and Fluid Package Used ........................................................ 22 3.2 Canola Extraction................................................................................................ 24 3.3 Meal Preparation ................................................................................................. 28 3.4 Biodiesel Conversion .......................................................................................... 29 3.5 Heat Exchangers and Process Heaters ................................................................ 32 3.6 Simulation Summary .......................................................................................... 34 4.0 Process Alternatives .................................................................................................... 35 4.1 Canola Extractor Using Only the Screw Press ................................................... 35 4.2 Evaporator for Hexane Separation ...................................................................... 36 4.3 Production of Biodiesel via Homogeneous Catalyst and Batch Reactor ............ 38 5.0 Safety Analysis ........................................................................................................... 41 6.0 Equipment Sizing and Costs ....................................................................................... 43 6.1 Roll Mill .............................................................................................................. 43 6.2 Rotary Steam Cooker E-111 ............................................................................... 44 6.3 Screw Press C-110 .............................................................................................. 44 6.4 Leacher H-120 .................................................................................................... 44 6.5 Membrane Pump K-122...................................................................................... 45 6.6 Membrane Separators H-140 .............................................................................. 45 6.7 Hexane Evaporator R-150................................................................................... 45 6.8 Hexane Stripper D-160 ....................................................................................... 46 6.9 Hexane Flash Drum H-180 ................................................................................. 46 6.10 Desolventer/Heater H-130 & E-132 ................................................................. 46 6.11 Heat Exchangers ............................................................................................... 47 6.12 Mixer Design .................................................................................................... 48 6.13 Fixed Bed Reactor............................................................................................. 49 6.14 Flash Drum w/ Mist Eliminator ........................................................................ 49 6.15 Gravity Separators ............................................................................................ 50 iii

7.0 Economics ................................................................................................................... 51 7.1 Alternative 1: Negating Glycerol Sales .............................................................. 53 7.2 Alternative 2: Using Grade 1 Canola as the Feedstock ...................................... 54 7.3 Alternative 3: Using an Evaporator for Hexane Extraction ................................ 56 7.4 Alternative 4: Selling Glycerol at Current Prices ............................................... 57 7.5 Alternative 5: Selling Glycerol at Current Prices using an Evaporator .............. 58 7.6 Alternative 6: Producing Value Added Products from Glycerol ........................ 59 8.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 60 9.0 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 62 10.0 References ................................................................................................................. 63 Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 65 A.1. Sample Calculation for Sizing and Cost of Area 100 ....................................... 66 A.2. Sample Calculation for Sizing and Cost of Areas 200 and 300 ...................... 78 Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 138 Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 139

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Tailpipe Emissions of Biodiesel Relative to Conventional Diesel Figure 1.2: Transesterification Reaction in the Presence of a Base Catalyst Figure 1.3: Esterification Reaction in the Presence of an Acid Catalyst Figure 1.4: Mechanism for the Simultaneous Transesterification and Esterification of FFA and TGs Figure 2.1.1i: Rotary Steam Cooker to Evaporate Moisture for the Canola Seed Figure 2.1.1ii: Schematic of o Typical Screw Press used for Physical Extraction of Canola Seed Figure 2.1.2i: Rotocel Type Extractor for Hexane Leaching of Cake Figure 2.1.2ii: Nanofiltration Membrane Separator Schematic to Recover Hexane Figure 2.1.2iii: Falling Film Evaporator for Hexane Recovery Figure 2.1.3: Marc Desolventer/Toaster Unit to Produce Meal Figure 2.2: PFD for Area 200 Conversion to Biodiesel Figure 3.2.1: HYSYS PFD of Canola Extraction Facility Figure 3.4.1: HYSYSTM for the Biodiesel Conversion Process Figure 4.2.1: Canola Extraction Facility Using Evaporator Separator (H-150a) Figure 4.3.1: Basic Schematic of Convention Biodiesel Production Utilizing Homogeneous Catalyst in a Batch Reaction Figure 7.1: Cash Flow Analysis Figure 7.1.1: Cash Flow Analysis with Negating Glycerol Figure 7.2.1: Albertas Grade 1 Canola Prices Figure 7.2.2: Cash Flow Analysis Using Grade 1 Canola Figure 7.3.1: Cash Flow Analysis Utilizing Our Designs Prices, But Using an Evaporator Instead of a Membrane Separator Figure 7.4.1: Cash Flow Analysis Using Current Prices and a Membrane Separator Figure 7.5.1: Cash Flow Analysis Using Current Prices and an Evaporator

List of Tables
Table 3.2.1: Important Parameters for Physical Extraction of Canola Oil Table 3.2.2: Important Stream Parameters for Chemical Canola Oil Extraction Table 3.4.1: Important Stream Parameters before Biodiesel Conversion Table 3.4.2: Important Stream Parameters after Biodiesel Conversion Table 3.5.1: Parameters of Heat Exchangers Used in Process as Modeled by HYSYSTM Table 3.5.2: Parameters for Process Heaters in Biodiesel Plant Table 3.5.3: Energy Required for the Process as Calculated by HYSYSTM and by the Short-cut Method. Table 4.1.1: Energy Savings Associated with Screw Press Only Operation Table 4.1.2: Comparison of Physical Extraction versus Combined Extraction Table 4.2.1: Cost Comparison between Evaporator and Membrane Separator Table 4.2.2: Energy Comparison between Membrane and Evaporator Separator Table 5.0: Chemical Hazard Information Summary Table 6.11.1: Heat Exchanger Size and Cost for Area 100. Table 6.11.2: Area 100 Unit Sizing and Cost Table 6.14: Sizing and Cost Summary of Fixed Bed Reactor and Flash Drum Table 7.5.1: Summary of Economic Alternatives

vi

Nomenclature
A-Area ABD Annual depreciation ADME Direct manufacturing expenses AGE General expenses AI - Investment AIME Indirect manufacturing expenses AIT Income taxes AME Manufacturing expenses ANCI Net cash income ANNP Net annual profit after taxes ANP Net annual profit AS- Sales ASTM-American Society for Testing and Materials ATE- Total expenses BI Business interruption loss Cbm Bare module cost CFC Fixed capital CTC- Total capital investment CWC Working capital D,d-Diameter DBEP - Discounted breakeven point DCFRR - Discounted cash flow rate of return es-Stage efficiency fD - Discounted factor F & EI Dire and explosion index FFA - Free Fatty Acids Fsolid-Mass Flowrate of Solids in Leacher Fsolvent Mass Flowrate of Solvent in Leacher H-Specific Enthalpy H-Height (kg/s) (kg/s) (kJ/kg) (m) (m) (m2)

vii

Le-Length m=Mass flowrate mbiodiesel-Mss flowrate of biodiesel mglycerol-Mass flowrate of glycerol nov-Number of stages NPV - Net Present Value Nseparators Number of Separators PFD-Process Flow Diagram ppm-parts per million P-Power Q-Volumetric Flowrate T-Temperature TG - triglycerides U-Heat Transfer Coefficient u-Velcoity V-Volume Xn-Mass/mole ratio in nth stage of underflow/liquid steam xn-Mole fraction in liquid stream in stripper Yn-Mass/mole ratio in nth stage of overflow/gas stream yn-Mole fraction in gas stream in stripper z-Packing Height Greek Symbols

(m) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s)

(kW) (m3/s) (C) (kW/m2K) (m/s) (m3)

(m)

rbiodiesel-Density of biodiesel rbulk-Bulk density rcatalyst-Density of catalyst rg-Density of Gas

(kg/m3)

(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)

rglycerol-Density of glycerol rl-Density of liquid

(kg/m3) (kg/m3)

viii

1.0 Introduction
Sustainable fuel alternatives have recently become a high priority for many countries and will play a large role in the chemical industry in the near future. Biodiesel is an alternative fuel for the following reasons; it is biodegradable, non-toxic, has low emission profiles and is environmentally beneficial (Krawczyk, 1996). Biodiesel fuel has the potential to reduce the level of pollutants and the level of potential or probable carcinogens (Krawczyk, 1996). Furthermore, biodiesel is an alternative fuel that can be used in unmodified engines with the current fuelling infrastructure (US Dep. Of Energy, 2001) and it is made from renewable biological sources such as vegetable oils and animal fats. With recent technology, diesel engines have become more powerful and 30-35% more efficient than a gasoline engine because of a higher compression ratio. Through the higher compression ratio, diesel engines operate at a higher efficiency, which increases fuel economy by 40%. In addition, diesel fuel contains approximately 15% more energy per unit volume compared to gasoline. Diesel engines are considered cleaner because they burn all excess fuel in its tank enabling it to reduce carbon monoxide and black soot emissions. Furthermore, low-sulfur diesel has been created to reduce sulfur emissions. However, if biodiesel replaces or is blended with diesel, sulfur emissions and soot will be further reduced. In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, biodiesel was the only alternative fuel to pass the health effects test. In Figure 1.1 below, it can be seen that a twenty percent blend of biodiesel will reduce the particulate matter emissions by 10%, and the hydrocarbon emissions by 20% when compared with conventional diesel. Also, figure 1.1 indicates nitrous oxide emissions are increased in comparison to petroleum diesel 1

because it burns at a higher temperature. However, fuel additives or a catalytic converter can be used to reduce nitrous oxide emissions.

Figure 1.1: Tailpipe emissions of Biodiesel relative to Conventional Diesel http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/trucks_and_buses/biodiesel_graph.gif Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to possess an overall positive life cycle assessment. NRCan analyzed the life cycle of biodiesel on a based on GHG emissions. Their analysis found biodiesel produces 64-92% fewer emissions compared with petroleum diesel. Furthermore, while analyzing the fossil fuel consumption, biodiesel yields as much as 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle, compared to only 0.83 units for petroleum diesel (Kiss et al., 2005). In accordance with the Kyoto Accord, Canada must reduce their CO2 emissions to 10% below the 1990 levels. Biodiesel will help achieve this goal as there are no net CO2 emissions as biodiesel is produced from vegetables oils made from the consumption of CO2 through photosynthesis. Furthermore, the Canadian government has legislated R.F.

standards which will implement a 2% biodiesel content in diesel by 2012, resulting in a Canadian biodiesel demand of 500 million liters. Biodiesel has not become a vastly popular alternative fuel worldwide due to its higher cost when compared with traditional petroleum diesel. Currently, the National Biodiesel Board states that a 20% blend of biodiesel costs $0.20 more per gallon than pure petroleum diesel. The two major hurdles in the commercialization of biodiesel are its large production costs and raw material costs. The production of the alternative fuel consists of alkyl esters derived from either the transesterification of triglycerides (TGs) or the esterification of free fatty acids (FFAs) with short-chained alcohols. The chemical reactions for both transesterification and esterification as shown below.

CH3OCOR1 CHOCOR2 + 3CH3OH CH2OCOR3 Triglyceride Methanol

CH2OH CHOH CH2OH Glycerol

CH3OCOR1 CH3OCOR2 CH3OCOR3 Methyl esters (biodiesel)

Figure 1.2: Transesterification reaction in the presence of a base catalyst

RCOOH+
FFA

CH3OH
Methanol

CH3OCOR

+ H 2O

Methyl esters (biodiesel)

Figure 1.3: Esterification reaction in the presence of an acid catalyst

Triglycerides are most commonly available as straight vegetable oils (canola oil) and free fatty acids are available as a low quality oil or waste cooking oil (WCO). The use of either can be used to make biodiesel, and both will be discussed as feedstocks in

the following report. WCO is a preferable feedstock over refined vegetable oil because it is a cheap, low quality oil and will aid in achieving economical feasibility in biodiesel production. The amount of WCO generated in each country varies depending on the use of vegetable oil. An estimate of the potential amount of WCO from the collection in the European Union (EU) is approximately 0.7 to 1.0 Mtonnes per year. The United States and Canada produce on average, 9 and 8 pounds of yellow grease respectively, per person (Kulkarni, 2006). Currently, WCO is collected from households and restaurants are disposed of as either animal feed or an environmental pollutant. Thus, WCO offers significant potential as an alternative lowcost biodiesel feedstock which could partly decrease the dependency on petroleum-based fuel. The production of biodiesel from WCO is challenging due to the presence of undesirable components such as free fatty acids (FFAs) and water. Usage of homogeneous alkali catalyst for transesterification of such feedstock suffers from serious limitation of formation of undesirable side reactions. One such reaction is saponification, which creates the serious problem of difficult product separation and ultimately lowers the ester yield. Homogeneous acid catalysts have the potential to replace alkali catalysts since they do not show measurable susceptibility to FFAs and can catalyze esterification and transesterification simultaneously. However, slow reaction rate, requirement of high temperature, high molar ratio of oil and alcohol, separation of the catalyst, serious environmental and corrosion related problems make their use non-practical for biodiesel production (Lotero et al, 2005). Currently a dual step process has been used for biodiesel preparation from high FFA containing WCO. The first step of the process is to reduce FFA content in the oil by esterification with methanol to methyl esters catalyzed by an acid (generally sulfuric acid) followed by transesterification process, in which

triglyceride (TG) portion of the oil reacts with methanol and base catalyst (usually sodium or potassium hydroxide) to form ester and glycerol. The current process is not economical as it involves a number of steps including washing of the esters to remove acid/alkali catalysts in addition to creating contaminated water disposal issues. Solid acid catalysts have the strong potential to replace liquid acids, eliminating separation, corrosion and environmental problems. Through a summer research project, which this design project was spawned, it was discovered that solid acid catalyst was capable of producing biodiesel to meet ASTM standards in a small scale batch reactor. More specifically, research found Zinc Ethanoate supported on silica is capable of simultaneous transeterification and esterification to produce quality biodiesel (mechanism can be seen in Figure 4). To our knowledge, there are no reports on the utilization of solid acid catalysts for the production of biodiesel from WCO in a single step. Therefore, in an attempt to develop a robust solid acid catalyst that can simultaneously catalyze esterification as well as transesterification reaction, different types of solid acid catalysts are synthesized and evaluated for biodiesel preparation from WCO. Also, influence of various reaction parameters such as molar ratio of WCO to alcohol and catalyst loading was studied in the present investigation.

H 3C H 3C
-H 2 O O

R' H 3C R
O

C+

C+

O O CH3 R
'

O O CH3 L

OH2 L

ESTERS

O - R "O H L

H 3C R' E S T E R IF I C A T IO N T R A N S E S T R I F IC A T IO N
L+ O R C OH C OH

OHR"

H 3C R

O L

R'

OR"

+
L

OH

R'

OR"

H 3C R'

O C H 3O H

OR"

L C H 3O H

O L

L + = a c id s ite o n c a ta ly s t s u r fa c e R = a lk y l g ro u p o f a c id R ' = c a rb o n c h a in o f f a tty a c id R " = g ly c e rid e

Figure 1.4: Mechanism for the simultaneous transesterification and esterification of FFA and TGs The use of cheap low quality feed stocks such as waste cooking oil (WCO) in combination with green seed canola oil (canola that has not matured due to frost) will help in improving the economical feasibility of biodiesel. In Saskatchewan, the availability of these low-cost raw materials is vast. Based upon 8lb/person of WCO (Kulkarni, 2006) in Canada and the Saskatchewan population, it is possible to maximize the utilization of WCO and make up the remaining feedstock requirements with green seed canola. Saskatchewan produces 150 tonnes/year of WCO and 30,000 tonnes/year of greenseed canola to process 15,000 tonnes/year of biodiesel. Furthermore, whenever biodiesel is produced, glycerol is produced as a byproduct. The process detailed above produces 4,750 tonnes of crude glycerol every year. It should be noted that this process involves a separable solid catalyst and removal of methanol by flash distillation creating a higher quality crude glycerol. A higher quality of glycerol is produced because it is not contaminated with catalyst, there will be minimal

water content (no washing of finished product to remove catalyst), and minimal methanol content (methanol recovery maximized by distillation of entire product mixture before separation). There is much debate over the value and demand of glycerol. However, the demand for glycerol is high in the United States, China, and many developing countries. Glycerol has thousands of uses in many industries, such as food, medical, lubrication, and tobacco industries. The use of solid acid catalysts benefits the economics of the process further by reducing the amount of process steps, eliminating water use and toxic waste streams. This project analyzed the design and economics of continuous biodiesel production utilizing a solid acid catalyst with the above mentioned feedstock and incorporates innovative methods of an onsite canola crusher.

2.0 Qualitative Process Description

Description of converting raw canola seed and pre-treated waste cooking oil into biodiesel, while creating valuable side products such as meal and glycerol. 2.1Canola Extraction Overview Since the primary method to obtain triglycerides for biodiesel comes from Saskatchewan Canola seeds, a process in order to extract this oil needs to be developed. There are many approaches in extracting the oil out of canola seed. Two examples include physical extraction to obtain the oil, and other uses a combination of physical and solvent extraction. Most biodiesel producers use the physical extraction method as it is inexpensive and easy to operate (Faye 2008). However, the physical extraction method has a disadvantage as it leaves a large portion of oil in the seed, therefore increasing operating expenses as more seeds need to be purchased. Another alternative to acquire canola is to purchase the refined canola from a crushing facility already in operation. However, purchasing refined canola oil is prohibitively expensive as that oil can be used for human consumption which makes it of high value (Faye). The Salamander Fuels Association (SFA) plant will use a combination of physical and solvent extraction using hexane. SFA intends to design the facility to maximize the recovery of oil in the range of 95%-99% (OBrien, 2000). This will minimize our consumption of canola seed and our operating cost because the extraction scheme maximize the oil recovery for the feed. Through the use of physical and chemical extraction, SFA gains another benefit by producing a high protein by-product called meal. After the oil has been extracted from

the seed, the remaining material can be sold as a high value meal to livestock owners (OBrien 2000). The livestock owners demand a feed that is low in fats because any fat present in the meal will lower the daily intake of solid feed matter by the livestock as explained by Litherland (2005). According to Racz, as long as the fat/oil content in the meal is lower than 6% by weight there should be no decrease in solid material consumption for the livestock (2004). Given this constraint of low oil content animal meal, SFA must meet these requirements through physical and solvent extraction. According to OBrien, this can be achieved through chemical and physical extraction as there is <1% residual oil in extracted material which meets the criteria set above. Even though chemical extraction is expensive, there is an added bonus of a value-added meal. In fact, according to OBrien [approximately] 70% of the returns in processing soybeans is due to the sale of meal. (2000). This is an added benefit to our extraction and biodiesel process as it will give SFA an extra cash flow to help offset the high processing costs of biodiesel (Zhang et al. 2003).

2.1.1 Physical Canola Extraction The first step in the canola extraction process is to remove the hull or the seed coat from the canola seed. Removal of the hull is beneficial to the overall process as it exposes the oil from the seed and minimizes the material in the process, thus reducing energy requirements. Also, removing the hull increases the protein content of the meal which is a desirable trait for livestock feed (OBrien 2000). Roller mills crack the hull and expose the innards of the seed into a fine cake to make processing easier (OBrien 2000). Oil is lost from cracking the hull during the milling stage, which is the only main 9

drawback to de-hulling. This oil loss is minimal in comparison to what is gained from the revenue of high protein meal and energy savings. The flaked seed is then sent to a rotary steam cooker to reduce the water content of the seeds down to 9-10% by weight (OBrien 2000). The water content has to be brought to this low level because the hexane used in the extraction and the water in the seed are immiscible. Therefore, a seed with a high water concentration prevents the penetration of hexane into the seed (Perrys, 1999). This means the effectiveness of the oil recovery will be reduced if the moisture in the seed is not removed. Therefore, a rotary steam cooker, as shown in Figure 2.1.1i, will be employed to cook the seeds, and evaporate the water until the seeds moisture content is at the desired level. According the Perrys, this type of cooker is the most common type of indirect heat rotary dryer (2008) used in industry and thus SFA decided to use this equipment because of the industry confidence in the said equipment.

Figure 2.1.1i: Rotary Steam Cooker to Evaporate Moisture for the Canola Seed. Taken from Perrys Handbook (2008), Pg. 12-78, Fig 12-60

10

Next, the seeds are sent to a screw press where 75% of the extracted oil is recovered by physical extraction (OBrien 2000). Figure 2.1.1ii shows the inner workings of a screw press that is utilized in SFAs canola extraction facility. A screw press is essentially a continuous screw auger that applies pressure on the canola seed as it is conveyed through the screw. The combination of the barrel and the screw form a pocket that is ever decreasing down the length of the screw. The decreasing size of an individual pocket and the friction caused by the moving screw increases the pressure on the canola seed. This increased pressure causes the oil in the flaked seed to be separated from the canola cake. The separated oil is then collected at the bottom of the screw as shown in figure 2.1.1ii, on the next page. The remaining cake travels down the screw press and collects at the nozzle on the same plane of the screw. The cake is then sent to solvent extraction to recover 95-99% of the in-situ oil in the seed (OBrien 2000).

Figure 2.1.1ii: Schematic of a Typical Screw Press used for Physical Extraction of Canola Seed
Obtained from http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/abeng/alternativefuels/images/screw

11

2.1.2 Solvent Extraction After the physical extraction, the canola cake is then sent to the solvent extraction train which uses hexane to leach the oil out of the cake. Hexane was chosen as the desired solvent because it has high oil solubility, ease of evaporation, abundant availability, and historically low price (OBrien 1999). Hexane has one major drawback as it can be harmful to worker safety. According to the MSDS for hexane, health effects may include: impaired fertility, harmful through inhalation, irritant, CNS depression, and serious health damage. (MSDS 2005). Solvent extraction begins with canola cake being sent to a rotocel type extractor as shown in Figure 2.1.2i below. In this extractor, the canola meal is feed in a countercurrent manner to the hexane solvent to maximize the mass transfer of oil into the hexane solvent. Maximum mass transfer is achieved in counter-current operation because the greatest oil concentration gradient in each stage exists when the solvent and the cake are feed in opposite directions from one another.

Figure 2.1.2i: Rotocel Type Extractor for Hexane Leaching of Cake Taken from Perrys Handbook (2008), Pg. 18-62, Fig 18-86 12

In the rotocel, solvent is fed into isolated compartments which contain a fixed amount of solid cake. Mass-transfer of solute to solvent is achieved by percolating the solvent through the solid in an open screened bottom compartment. After percolating through the solid, the solute rich solvent runs through a mesh screen into a holding tank before being pumped into the next stage. Each compartment is rotated around a pivot point. The solids are subjected at each stage to the solvent spray collected from the bottoms of the following stage. After the cake has been subjected to the specified number of stages of solvent washings, the floor of the compartment opens up and the solids are collected and sent for further processing. The cake that was leached is now referred to as marc which consists of 30% hexane and 70% meal (OBrien 2000). Overflow from the leaching process called micella is loaded with 25% oil and 75% hexane (OBrien 2000). After the leaching unit, the oil in the micella needs to be separated from the hexane and recombined with the oil recovered in physical extraction. The hexane concentration needs to be reduced down to 200 ppm (OBrien 2000). The low concentration can be achieved through separation using either a membrane separator, an evaporator, or a hexane steam stripper. Next, the micella from the leacher is sent to a nanofiltration membrane for the first stage of hexane recovery. A schematic of a nanofiltration membrane separator is shown in figure 2.1.2ii below, which gives the configurations for permeate and concentrate (retentate) flow through the membrane system.

13

Figure 2.1.2ii: Nanofiltration Membrane Separator Schematic to Recover Hexane Taken from Perrys Handbook (1997), Pg. 22-41, Fig 22-53 Nanofiltration was selected based on the research of Ribeiro et al. They did a study using different types of membrane separators on typical micella compositions (1:3 w/w) in order to recover hexane from the micella (2006). The goal of the membrane separator is to lower the energy requirements of hexane separation. High energy requirements are of major concern for the canola crushing industry which currently uses evaporation separation techniques (Ribeiro 2006). Membrane separation is possible because of the large molecular weight difference between triglycerides (canola oil) and hexane, 900 g/mol and 86 g/mol respectively. Through this size difference, a reduction in the pore size will enhance the relative diffusivity by allowing only the hexane to pass through the membrane (Ribeiro et al. 2006). In the research of polyamide/polysulfone SEPA GH nanofiltration membranes, Ribeiro et al. found optimum conditions of the membrane separator at 15MPa and 59C with a permeate oil concentration of 8.0% wt and retentate oil concentration of 67% wt

14

(2006). This gives comparable results to the evaporator case that concentrates the oil to 60% wt (OBrien 2000). Given the similar performance between the membrane separator and the evaporator, the membrane separator was chosen for our design because of the added energy savings. The permeate hexane is recycled to the leaching unit and the retentate micella is sent for second stage separation. The second stage of separation uses steam evaporation to recover more of the hexane from the micella. Using a long vertical tube falling film evaporator as shown in figure 2.2.2iii on the next page, the oil in the micella will be concentrated to 95% wt. The evaporator consists of a vertical single-pass shell and tube heat exchanger discharging to a very small vapour head. Micella enters into the bottom of the heat exchanger and comes in contact with countercurrent saturated steam. As the steam condenses, the hexane is vaporized from the micella and the oil stays in liquid form. The two phase mixture is sent to a tank where hexane vapour is recovered off the top of the tank and the liquid oil falls to the bottom of the tank where it is drawn off. The advantages of this style of evaporator are; its low cost, large heating surface, small floor space and low liquid hold-up (Perrys 2008). Thus it is an ideal choice for our process. The recovered hexane from the evaporator is recycled to the leaching unit, and micella is sent to the third stage of separation.

15

Figure 2.1.2iii: Falling Film Evaporator for Hexane Recovery Obtained from: < http://www.praj.net> The third and final stage of hexane recovery is the counter current hexane stripper which uses high temperature steam at 130C in contact with the oil to remove the hexane. After the stripper column, the oil contains less than 200 ppm of hexane and is recombined with the physically extracted oil. This complete process recovers 99% of the oil present in the seeds.

2.1.3 Meal Preparation After the oil has been extracted from the seed in the leaching unit, the marc from the underflow is now a high protein meal with approximately 30% hexane. The marc contains <1% of the residual oil (OBrien 2000) initially in the seed. This meal is ideal for livestock feed as it contains 44% protein and approximately 1% fat (Racz 2004). Since >97% of the canola meal is used for animal feed, the hexane must be recovered from the marc and the meal must be subjected heat treatment. The heat treatment is to inhibit enzymes which allows the livestock to consume more meal thus increasing their body mass (OBrien 2000). These two criteria are achieved by using a

16

desolventer and toaster (DT) unit. The DT unit consists of hollow stay bolt tray uppers and solid dryer trays to remove the hexane from the meal. Figure 2.1.3 shown below displays a schematic diagram of a typical DT unit that would be used in industry and for our design.

Figure 2.1.3: Marc Desolventer/Toaster Unit to Produce Meal Taken from :< http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0532e/t0532e25.gif> The upper section of the DT unit uses steam that travels upward through the hollow trays while the marc travels downward. The rising steam continually evaporates the hexane out the meal and recycles it back to the leaching unit. Low pressure steam is used for this process of evaporating hexane. The lower portion of the DT unit is used to toast the meal by blowing hot air at 100C over the meal in the solid trays. The toasting denatures protease inhibitors (trypsin and chyrmotrypsin inhibitors) and the enzyme urease. This gives the meal a longer shelf life and improves the digestibility of the meal for the cattle (Racz 2004). The meal is then ready to be sold to Canadian and American markets.

17

2.2 Overview of Biodiesel Production The canola oil obtained from the canola extraction process previously described is combined with citric acid and allowed to settle in gravity separators to remove the gums. From here, it is then combined with 2 million L/year of pre-treated waste cooking oil and 12million L/year of excess methanol. This mixture will be pumped to a pressure of 4240 kPa (g) via reciprocal pump and heated to 200C via two heat exchangers and a fired heater. The high pressure, high temperature feed is then sent to a fixed bed conversion reactor that is filled to 50% volume with Zinc Ethanoate/Silica. Within the reactor, simultaneous esterification and transesterification of the TGs (canola oil) and FFAs (waste cooking oil) occur to achieve a minimum conversion of 95% to fatty acid methyl esters (biodiesel) and glycerol. The effluent mixture is then depressurized to atmospheric pressure while maintaining the high temperature. This enables the use of a flash drum with a mist eliminator to capture the methanol as vapor from the product mixture and recycle it leaving a mixture of desirable products: biodiesel and glycerol. The separated methanol is recycled back to the original mixers to minimize methanol consumption. The product mixture is then fed into three gravity settlers to allow for glycerol to be separated from biodiesel by utilizing their density differences. 2.2.1 Gum Removal from Canola Oil Unit L-163 is three mixing tanks that are used to extract the canola gums from the canola oil. Once the mixing tank is full a 50% citric acid/water mixture will be added until the citric acid solution is 2500ppm. Once the mixture is added the solution will be mixed for 10 minutes. The citric acid is used to flocculate the gums together. Water will be added until the mixture reaches 2% water by volume, and then it will be mixed for another 20 minutes. A gum will appear at the top of the tank which will then be sucked 18

off using a wet vacuum. The gum will then be re-distributed to the canola meal for added protein. Oil will be drained from the bottom of the tank through a strainer to purify the oil and before being sent to the reactor. 2.2.2 Mixing of Reactants The treated canola oil from SFAs on-site canola crushing plant is fed to mixer L210 to combine the canola oil, pretreated waste cooking oil and methanol. It should be noted that the waste cooking is treated at both the Regina and Saskatoon processing plants prior to reception. WCO will be trucked from both processing plants to SFA and pumped into storage tanks which provide enough oil for two weeks of operation. The waste cooking oil is filtered to remove particle matter and treated to remove the water created during the frying process. Furthermore, the methanol fed into the second mixer is a combination of fresh methanol and make-up methanol recovered from the flash drum to be discussed in section 2.2.3. 2.2.3 Conversion to Biodiesel via a Fixed Bed Reactor After the reaction mixture is obtained from the second mixing tank, the mixture is pressurized to 4240 kPa using a reciprocal pump and heated to 200 C using two heat exchangers and a fired heater as shown in figure 2.2 on the next page. The high temperature, high pressure mixture is fed into a fixed bed reactor (P-220) to convert TGs and FFAs into methyl esters (biodiesel) and glycerol. The reaction that facilitates the conversion is simultaneous transesterification and esterification (mechanism can be viewed in Figure 1.4). The packing of the fixed bed is Zinc Ethanoate supported on Silica, which acts as a strong acid site for both reactions. In preliminary laboratory research, it was observed that this particular catalyst was capable of 95+% conversion to

19

methyl esters in the presence of a 3 wt% catalyst and a 1:18 oil to alcohol molar ratio. Furthermore, the catalyst was found to be stable and reusable. Two reactors will be employed by SFA. Catalyst recharging will be performed once a week by switching the continuous flow to the first reactor to the second reactor. The first reactor will be drained and recharged using methanol and hexane. The methanol will remove the polar constituents from the catalyst, where the hexane will remove the non-polar constituents. During this time, an automated system will allow for continuous production to continue in the second reactor.

Figure 2.2: PFD for Area 200 Conversion to Biodiesel 2.2.4 Methanol Recovery The product mixture obtained from the fixed bed reactor is fed to a flash drum, H230, where the pressure will be dropped to atmospheric and the temperature will remain at 200 C. The flash drum will vaporize the methanol from the biodiesel in the mixture. This recovered methanol will be directed to mixer L-223 (figure 2.2) to combine with fresh methanol to act as make-up methanol. The hot methanol is cooled in a heat exchanger that is used to partially heat the reaction mixture before it reaches the fixed

20

bed reactor (E-213B). The methanol recovery stream is further cooled in another shell and tube heat exchanger using cooling water (E-232). Heat exchanger (213A) removes heat from the biodiesel/glycerol mixture and adds the energy to the reactant stream before the reactor. Finally, the biodiesel/glycerol mixture is sent to gravity settlers for separation.

2.2.5 Separation of Reaction Products The treated product mixture of biodiesel and glycerol are fed into gravity settlers after being cooled in a heat exchanger in contact with the reaction mixture. Unit H-300 are three gravity settling tanks which will be utilized to ensure continuous production. Once the tank is full it will be left alone for a minimum of 4 hours for sufficient separation to occur. Since glycerol has a higher density of 1215kg/m3 and biodiesel has a lighter density of 880kg/m3, the glycerol will all settle to the bottom and the biodiesel will float to the top. Once separation occurs the tank will be drained off the bottom through a density control valve into a glycerol basin. After the glycerol is fully removed and the solution turns to pure biodiesel the valve shuts. Another hose will be attached to the bottom of the tank and the biodiesel will be pumped into its own separate basin.

21

3.0 Simulation Results

3.1 Process Simulator and Fluid Package Used HYSYSTM 2006 was the simulator chosen to model the biodiesel process. This process simulator was chosen because of its capability to incorporate thermodynamic models to predict the energy requirements of the individual units. This allowed us to analyze the energy requirements/surpluses of the process and to optimize the system accordingly. A particular advantage of the energy parameters within the HYSYSTM model allowed us to design heat exchange systems to maximize the utilization of sensible heat within the process. The fluid package used in this simulation was the Non-Random Two Liquid (NRTL) thermodynamic modeling system. The NRTL thermodynamic model was chosen as it was the same model used by Zheng et al in 2003 for modeling an alkali catalyst for biodiesel production. The NTRL fluid package had adequate modeling parameters for each of the components. This NRTL method could define most components from the HYSYSTM component library including: water, hexane, citric acid, glycerol, air, and methanol. However, biodiesel, which is mainly composed of methyl esters, and canola meal could not be defined from the NRTL component library and had to be defined from the Hypo Manager tool in HYSYSTM. Thus, the simulation had to make some assumptions regarding these two components. However, the simulation can still be trusted to give accurate results based as Zhengs publication and his biodiesel process results. With the thermodynamic package defined, this model should give a reasonably accurate representation of how an actual plant would behave. The biggest problem

22

associated with using HYSYSTM as a process simulator, is that it does not take into account pipeline pressure losses, as there are no pipeline connections for the simulator. Therefore, before an actual facility is completed, a pressure loss survey should be conducted to analyze the pipeline friction losses throughout the plant. From this study it may be determined that the pumping requirements are drastically different than what is present in the HYSYSTM simulation.

23

3.2 Canola Extraction The Process Flow Diagram (PFD) of the Canola Extraction process and meal preparation process is shown in figure 3.2.1 below.

Figure 3.2.1. HYSYS PFD of Canola Extraction Facility. Due to the limited unit operations in HYSYS, most separators where modeled as splitters. Material streams are shown in blue and energy streams are in red. Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 give parameters for the material streams For SFAs design, both physical and solvent extraction were used to maximize the recovery of canola oil from the canola seed. In physical extraction, the seed is first run through rolls mills to crush the seed into a fine powder to allow for easier extraction. This process was not modeled in

24

HYSYSTM as it would be a redundant unit in the simulation as HYSYSTM does not model solid crushing. The crushed seed is then sent to the rotary steam cooker, E-111, to bring the water content down to 4% (OBrien 2000) by heating it to 91C as shown in Table 3.2.1. In order to model this unit, SFA used a shell and tube heat exchange model in HYSYSTM to determine the amount of low pressure steam that is required to heat up the incoming feed to 91C. The steam rate was found to be 265 kg/hr at 148C and 4.5bara. Table 3.2.1: Important Parameters for Physical Extraction of Canola Oil Stream After roll Mill Steam 1 (Saturated Steam) Steam 2 (Liquid) 2 Oil Recovered Oil to Hexane Recovery Oil Flowrate (kg/hr) 2080 265 (steam) 265 (water) 2080 1726 354.47 Meal Flowrate (kg/hr) 2080 N/A 2080 0 2080 Temperature C 25.0 148 147 91 91 91

Once the canola seed had the right moisture content, it was sent to the screw press C-110 where 75% of the oil was extracted out of the seed (OBrien 2000) this was modeled using a component splitter in HYSYS. The remaining 25% of the canola is recovered using hexane extraction. Once 75% of the oil is recovered via the screw press, the remaining canola oil is extracted using a hexane leaching system capable of 98% canola oil recovery. (OBrien 2000). The Oil to Hexane Recovery stream from figure 3.2.1 is cooled to 59C using a 10.0C, 756.0 kg/hr water stream in the shell and tube heat exchanger E-112. This temperature decrease is needed for optimum recovery of canola oil in the hexane leacher H-120.

25

The counter-current leaching operation using a hexane solvent is modeled as a splitter unit in HYSYSTM . Unfortunately, the splitter was the only unit for leaching simulation as there is no other suitable unit within HYSYSTM. Thus literature data from OBrien (2000) was used to model and specify the leaching operation of splitter H-120 in the simulation. Staging of the leacher is discussed in appendices A and E of the report. The oil rich micella is pressurized to 15 MPa using a reciprocating positive displacement pump K-122 before being sent to the nanofiltration membrane separators to remove the hexane from the oil. This pressure is needed to accomplish the separation as explained by Ribeiro et al. (2006). The efficiency of the reciprocating pump was specified at 75% as shown in Ulrich (2004). The power requirement of K-122 was determined to be 11 kW from the HYSYSTM simulation. According to HYSYSTM, the discharge temperature of the micella from the pump is 71C. It will then have to be cooled 59.0C for membrane separation (Ribeiro, 2006) by using a heat exchanger with a 1260 kg/hr 43C counter-current water stream. The nanofiltration membrane, H-140, was modeled using a splitter and specifying the recovery of hexane in the system. Membrane separation has an advantage over other forms of separation because of the minimal energy requirement in comparison to evaporation techniques (Ulrich, 2004). According to Wu, the separation of hexane from triglycerides is possible due to differences in their molecular weights, 86 to 900 kg/kgmol, respectively (Wu 1999). Also, hexane has a greater diffusivity with respect to oil when the pore size gets smaller and thus membrane separation is possible (Wu 1999). When Ribeiro et al. tested the separation power of the nanofiltration membranes, they found that 68.0% of the oil was retained in the retentate at 59C and the permeate stream

26

only had 8% oil by weight (Ribeiro 2006). Using the research by Ribeiro et al., H-140 splitter was modeled under the same conditions as shown in table 3.2.2 . Table 3.2.2: Important Stream Parameters for Chemical Canola Oil Extraction Stream Flow Rate Oil wt% Hexane wt% Temperature C (kg/hr) Micella 1331 36 63 59.0 Micella HP 1331 36 63 59.0 LT* Retentate 436.3 75 25 59.0 Permeate 895.1 82 12 59.0 Hexane Evap 1 103 0 1.0 70.0 Micella Evap 334 98 2 70.0 Hexane Steam 228.0 N/A 98 110.0 Hexane 0.72 N/A 1.0 25.0 make-up 24 1666 9 91 59.0 14 1666 9 91 59.0 *Has a pressure of 15MPa for membrane separation as presented by Ribeiro et al. The oil rich retentate, from the membrane separator, is then sent to an evaporative unit R-150. In this unit, steam is used to evaporate 95% of the hexane originally in the micella feed. As shown in table 3.2.2, the amount of power required to accomplish this separation is 12.5 kW as determined by the Non-Random Two Liquid (NRTL) fluid package in HYSYSTM. The remaining canola oil and hexane is sent to a steam stripper, D-160, to increase the recovery of hexane from the micella. After the evaporative unit R-150, the hexane evap stream only contains 1.7% wt hexane in the stream and the micella will be further purified by running the micella into a steam stripper. In the stripping unit, a counter-current steam of 130C and 101.3 kPa, produced the by the boiler E-182, is used to lower the hexane concentration down to 200 ppm in exiting canola oil stream. The stream rate required to obtain this specification is 223.0 kg/hr. The exiting canola oil with greater 99.98% purity, as shown in table 3.2.2, is then mixed with the remainder of the canola oil that was extracted via physical separation

27

in mixer L-161. The hexane rich steam is then cooled to condense the water and hexane using heat exchangers E-164 and E-165. A gravity separator is used to separate both the hexane from the water in unit H-180. Hexane is then recycled back to the hexane leacher H-120. Hexane recovered from H-140, R-150, D-160, is recycled back to the hexane leaching unit H-120. A make-up hexane stream of 5200 kg/year is needed to maintain the source hexane rate of 1.22x107 kg/year which is needed for solvent extraction. As shown in the hexane recycle stream in figure 3.2.1, a balance was incorporated within the PFD to reduce the degrees of freedom and make the recycle problem solvable. This specification requires that the recycle stream for the leaching system must be equivalent to what was arithmetically determined by mixer L-182. Without this specification, the inlet hexane rate could not be determined in the simulation and the subsequent flows for the separation would be zero in the simulation.

3.3 Meal Preparation After hexane extraction of the canola seed in leaching unit H-120, the remaining seed is further processed to be sold as a protein rich canola meal for animal feed (OBrien 2000). The underflow of the leaching system consists of solids which contains 30% hexane and will be purified to make meal. This mixture of hexane and meal is known as marc. The marc is removed of hexane through the use of a steam desolventer at 70C and warm air drying as shown in table 3.2.2 on the previous page. The hexane desolventer is modeled by using the component splitter H-130 and air exchanger E-132. The energy requirement for the hexane desolventer is approximately 61 kW and it will require a steam rate of 80 kg/hr to remove 99% of the hexane in the marc (OBrien, 2000). The

28

removed hexane is recycled back into the leaching unit H-120. The meal is cooled to 25C by contacting the meal to air within the bottom part of the desolventer. Through the use of the air cooled heat exchanger, E-132, the air rate needed for cooling the meal is approximately 424 tonnes/day of air. The resultant meal will be produced at a rate of 2.1tonne/h and sold as a low cost animal feed.

3.4 Biodiesel Conversion After 95%-99% of the canola has been recovered for the feedstock seed, it then enters into the process to produce biodiesel and glycerol. A PFD for the biodiesel conversion process is shown in Figure 3.4.1.

Figure 3.4.1: HYSYSTM for the biodiesel conversion process. Material streams are
shown in blue and energy streams are shown in red. Please note that Stream 39 comes from the canola extraction process. Tables 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 show important stream parameters

29

Table 3.4.1: Important Stream Parameters before Biodiesel Conversion Stream Flowrate Wt% Oil Wt% Temperature (kg/hr) Methanol (C) 32 1887 100 0 40.0 Inlet 1330 0 100 43.0 Methanol 26 (WCO) 148 100 0 25.0 31 3365 60 40 34.0 35 3365 60 40 200.0 Table 3.4.2: Important Stream Parameters after Biodiesel Conversion Stream Flowrate Wt% Wt% Wt% Temperature (kg/hr) Methyl Methanol Glycerol (C) Ester Rxn 3365 60 20 20 200.0 Product 33 626 0 100 0 200.0 30 626 0 100 0 63.0 34 2739 75 0 25 200.0 39 2739 75 0 25 55.0 Biodiesel 2064 1.00 0 0 55.0 Glycerol 675 0 0 100 55.0

Pressure (kPa) 101.3 101.3 101.3 4240 4240 Pressure (kPa) 4240 101.3 101.3 101.3 101.3 101.3 101.3

After the canola extraction process, the canola oil is mixed with 208 tonnes/year of citric acid to emulsify proteins in the canola feed called gums (OBrien 2000). The gums are separated through strainer H-170 where 100% of the gums are removed from the oil and combined with the meal to increase its protein content. The canola oil will be combined with 1000 tonnes /year of waste cooking oil (stream 26), and 9000 tonnes/year of methanol (Inlet methanol). Note the make-up methanol is only 5000 tonnes/year as 44% of the methanol is recovered from the reaction. After mixing the canola oil, waste cooking oil, and methanol; the mixture is then pressurized to 4240 kPa(g) using a 6kW, 75% efficient, multistage reciprocating pump to achieve the desired pressure as calculated by HYSYSTM.

30

According to experimental optimization done by Kathlene Jacobson in the summer of 2008, the reaction occurs best at 200C. The reactants will be heated to 200C via two heat exchangers E-213A, E-213B and a fired heater E-213 which was modeled to use 391.7 kW of power. With reactants specified at the correct reaction conditions, they are charged into a packed bed reactor which is modeled by the conversion reactor P-220. The reaction was specified in the global reaction set as shown in equation X which is the same reaction as specified by Zheng et al (2003). Triglyceride + 3CH3OH FAME + Glycerol (X)

Where the triglyceride is the canola oil and waste cooking oil reactants and FAME is Free Fatty Methyl Esters or biodiesel. Therefore to specify the reaction in the simulation, the stoichiometric coefficients were given as -1,-3,1,1 respectively for reaction X. From Jacobson et al. (2008) the reactor was specified to achieve 95+% conversion using zinc ethanoate/silica. The reactor was modeled as an adiabatic, isothermal and isobaric reaction to be consistent with Jacobson et al. Since the methanol was added in 50% excess, there is 4500 tonnes/year that can be recycled. A flash tank at atmospheric pressure is used to vaporize the excess methanol in unit H-203. The methanol leaves the separator at 200C and is used to heat up the reaction mixture. Finally, it is sent to a condenser, E-232, to cool it to 63.0C using 2x103 tonnes/year of water at 10.0C, before the methanol is recycled back to feed steam 37. The biodiesel and glycerol, which comes off the bottom of the separator H-230, are cooled through heat exchangers E-301 and E-213A to lower the temperature of the mixture before being sent to gravity separators H-300. In the three gravity separators, the

31

residence time will be approximately 3 hours and 100% separation will occur as observed in experiments (Jacobson 2008). The production of biodiesel was calculated by HYSYSTM to be 16,000,000 litres/year, which is within the desired constraints of the design. 3.5 Heat Exchangers and Process Heaters One advantage to our process is over 700 kW can be recovered via 11 heat exchangers as shown in Table 3.5.1. Table 3.5.1: Parameters of Heat Exchangers Used in Process as Modeled by HYSYSTM
Unit Transfer Energy (kJ/h) Tin Tout Tlm E-164 3x104 30 11 19 E-165 5x105 89 40 61 E-124 3x104 28 9 17 E-183 6x104 27 1 8 E-112 2x105 81 2 21 E-121 6x104 14 8 11 E-162 2x105 83 3 24 E-301 5x105 101 1 22 E-213A 2x105 67 0.75 15 E-213B 1x105 145 0.04 18 E-232 7x105 60 1 14

Therefore, with the aid of HYSYSTM SFA was able to maximize the recovery of excess heat from various process streams. These HYSYSTM values for the heat exchangers were then compared with the shortcut calculations presented in Ulrich (2004) and were found to agree within 0.47%. A detailed sample calculation is presented in Appendix A. With this small error associated between the shortcut and HYSYSTM calculated values, the HYSYSTM values were taken as reliable and were used to size the individual heat exchangers. Through the extensive use of heat exchangers, SFA was able to minimize the number of process heaters down to only two units, E-182 and E-213. The HYSYSTM parameters are shown on Table 3.5.2 as presented on the next page.

32

Table 3.5.2: Parameters for Process Heaters in Biodiesel Plant Unit No. Description Fuel E-182 Steam Fire-Tube No. 6 Fuel Oil Boiler E-213 Thermal Fluid No. 6 Fuel Oil Heater

Power (kW) 11 392

As shown in table 3.5.2, HYSYSTM was able to calculate the power requirement of the heaters from the heater simulation unit function. These values were compared to short-cut methods as shown in appendix A and agreed within 1% of each other. It is interesting to note that the process heater used to heat the reactant feed is the most energy intensive unit within the complete process as shown in Table 3.5.3 below. The heater E-213 consumes over 60% of the energy required for the process. Therefore, SFA recommends that more research could be direct towards finding a catalyst that does not require the reactants to be at a high temperature. Table 3.5.3: Energy Required for the Process as Calculated by HYSYSTM and by the Short-cut Method. Unit Energy (kW) % of Energy Consumed E-111 156.0 23.9 C-110 2.6 0.4 K-122 10.4 1.6 H-130 61.4 9.4 R-150 12.5 1.9 E-182 11.4 1.7 K-211 5.9 0.9 E-213 391.7 60.1 Total 651.9 100.0

33

3.6 Simulation Summary Based on the HYSYSTM simulation, our process is operating with correct mass and energy balances as predicted by the NRTL correlation package. HYSYSTM was an excellent tool used to find the energy requirements for all the units in the process. Based on the simulation of the complete process the utility requirement was determined. The advantage of using HYSYSTM was to configure the heat exchangers to maximize the sensible heat recovery in the process. The simulation also allowed SFA to optimize recycle streams such as; methanol and hexane recycle streams. With only mass and energy balances the recycle and heat recovery would be very difficult to calculate. Therefore, HYSYSTM made our lives easier because it gave us accurate results and made the design easier to optimize.

34

4.0 Process Alternatives

The alternative processes for canola extraction and traditional biodiesel production will be discussed in this section. 4.1 Canola Extractor Using Only the Screw Press In this alternative, the solvent recovery of canola oil is not considered and the extraction of oil is only achieved by the screw press. The advantage of this alternative is that the energy requirement is minimized. The energy savings associated with this alternative is $55,000 as shown in Table 4.1.1 below. Table 4.1.1: Energy Savings Associated with Screw Press Only Operation Energy Energy Solvent Cost Screw Cost Energy Extractor $0.08/kWh press $0.08/kWh Savings kW $/year kW $/year $/year 254.25 $146,448 158.62 $91,365 $55,083 Table 4.1.2: Comparison of Physical Extraction versus Combined Extraction Cbm Solvent Extraction Energy Revenue Profit by Using Solvent Cbm Screw Press Plant Plant Difference Saving from Meal Extraction in first year $ $ $ $ $/year $ $1,412,989 $2,771,758 $1,358,769 $55,083 $5,700,000 $4,286,148 Even though the energy saving associated with using only the screw press is quite significant, there is a disadvantage of using a screw press as it only recovers 75% of the oil within the seed (OBrien 1999). With this lower recovery of oil, more seeds will have to purchased, which will increase operating costs. Also a protein rich canola meal cannot be produced because it will still contain 25% oil, which is an unwanted attribute for livestock feeders (Ravel 2004). Therefore, Table 4.1.2 shows the complete cost comparison for the screw press and the proposed design.

35

From table 4.1.2, the combined extraction techniques of a screw press and a solvent extraction train will generate a high protein meal worth $5.7 million dollars per year in revenue. In the first year, the high revenue meal pays for the high capital cost and larger energy requirement in excess of $4.2 million dollars. In other words, the revenue from the meal pays for the hexane extraction facility in one year of operation. The screw press extraction was considered, but the combined physical and solvent extraction was chosen due to the value added meal. 4.2 Evaporator for Hexane Separation

Figure 4.2.1: Canola Extraction Facility Using Evaporator Separator (H-150a)

36

Another alternative to the crushing process is to use a falling-film evaporator instead of a membrane separator to perform the initial step in the oil/hexane separation process. The process is almost identical to the membrane separator cases in terms of extraction process steps as shown in the HYSYSTM process flow diagram (PFD) in figure 4.2.1 on the previous page. This separator alternative does not affect the biodiesel process in areas 200 and 300, only economics. The main difference between the steam evaporator and the nanofiltration separator is the degree of recovery of hexane from the micella. Steam separation achieves greater relative recovery of hexane at 93% compared to the 87% recovery in the membrane separator (Ribeiro et al. 2006). Also, the evaporator gives a pure hexane recycle stream whereas the membrane separator will give a recycle stream that contains 8.0% wt of oil (Ribeiro et al. 2006). Another advantage to the evaporator is that the individual capital cost for the unit is far less when compared with the membrane separators. The cost of the membrane separator is 88% greater than the evaporator as shown in Table 4.2.1 below. Table 4.2.1: Cost Comparison between Evaporator and Membrane Separator Cost of Evaporator Cost of membrane Separators % Difference $ Cbm $ Cbm $15,200 $132,000 88.5% Table 4.2.1 was calculated on the basis of using carbon steel as the construction material and the shortcut calculation procedure found in Ulrich (2004). A disadvantage of the membrane separator is the membrane needs to be replaced yearly whereas the evaporator does not require any major periodic maintenance.

37

The most obvious disadvantage to the evaporator is the energy requirement. The membrane separator will give $13,000 per year of energy savings as shown in Table 4.2.2 below. Given that the plant will run for 10 years, the energy saving per year will be enough to justify the high capital cost of the membrane separators in comparison to the evaporator. Table 4.2.2: Energy Comparison between Membrane and Evaporator Separator Energy Energy Cost Evaporator Cost Membrane Cost Savings kW $/year kW $/year 87 $ 14,798 12 $ 2,041 $ 12,757

% Savings 86%

Even though the membrane separator can pay for itself over the lifetime of the project, it does not give much economic advantage over the steam evaporator. The membrane separator was chosen due to the Kyoto accord and the Canadian Clean Air Act that requires carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be reduced by half of 1990 levels by 2012 (CBC 2006). The carbon credits will have to be monitored closely to determine when the membrane separator will be economically feasible. The current price for carbon credits is $5.50/ton of CO2 (Carbonfund 2007). A further study on the amount of CO2 produced by using the evaporator instead of the membrane separator would have to be undertaken to find the value of CO2 credits needed to make the membrane more economically attractive. 4.3 Production of Biodiesel via Homogeneous Catalyst and Batch Reactor In this alternative, conventional production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil is analyzed. This alternative is considerably more complex in comparison with the given acid-catalyzed process. In a homogeneous base catalyst process, a two step procedure is

38

needed to convert triglycerides to biodiesel and glycerol in the presence of a short-chain alcohol. However, an acid catalyzed batch reaction is required to neutralize the FFAs from the waste cooking oil in order to prevent the formation of soap through saponification in an alkali catalytic reaction. This neutralization occurs as an esterification reaction which produces methyl esters and water. The neutralized waste cooking oil can proceed to undergo transesterification by the homogeneous base catalyst. If oil has a free fatty acid (FFA) content greater than 2 wt%, it must be treated with liquid sulphuric acid (homogeneous acid catalyst) to remove the FFAs. WCO produced from Saskatchewan based processing plants is typically yellow grease that contains 5-15% FFA. Therefore, it must be treated with sulphuric acid to prevent saponification. In the alkali process, sulfuric acid and methanol are mixed together and fed into a primary batch reactor with pre-treated waste cooking oil to produce methyl esters and water. Excess methanol is added to speed up the rate of reaction of oil conversion to free fatty methyl esters. However, the excess methanol varies in literature from 1:6 1:50 on a molar basis. The neutralized waste cooking oil will be fed into a secondary batch reactor with methanol and potassium hydroxide. The potassium hydroxide acts as the homogeneous base catalyst to carry out the transesterification reaction. Also, canola oil can be added at this stage to increase biodiesel production. Typically, methanol is added to the neutralized oil in a 1:3, oil to alcohol ratio and is mixed with 1 wt% potassium hydroxide catalyst for thirty minutes. After thirty minutes, 80% reaction is achieved and solution is left for ninety minutes. After which the glycerol and catalyst can be separated from the biodiesel and methanol via gravity separation. The previous procedure is then repeated to achieve 95% conversion in the

39

second step of transesterification. Once the catalyst and glycerol have been separated from the product mixture, methanol is removed from the biodiesel by washing with water. The water is then removed by drying with a desiccant such as; silica or sodium sulfate. Some processes use distillation to separate the biodiesel, methanol, and glycerol. This method of methanol removal was seen in Milligan Biotechs facilities on the University of Saskatchewan Campus in October 2007. After separation a quality product of pure biodiesel is obtained. A simplified schematic of the conventional process is displayed in figure 4.3.1 below.

Figure 4.3.1: Basic Schematic of Convention Biodiesel Production Utilizing Homogeneous Catalyst in a
Batch Reaction

By comparing the conventional batch alkali process with SFAs acid catalyzed process, it can be concluded that the alkali process more complex and expensive.

40

5.0 Safety Analysis

In order to identify hazards and operability problems a safety analysis was performed using a HAZOP study and a DOW Fire and Explosion analysis. The purpose of HAZOP is to determine how the plant might deviate from its designed intent. The Dow Fire and Explosion Index is used to determine the possible explosion hazards and its economical impact on the plant. MSDS sheets were collected and attached in Appendix C. A summary of the MSDS is shown in Table 6 on the next page. The proposed process for the conversion of oil to biodiesel is a fairly safe process that has two major concerns. The first major concern is methanol at high pressure and temperature in the reactor. Since methanol has a low boiling point and a low flash point it has a high material factor of 16 according to the Dow Fire and Explosion Index in appendix C. Since the methanol is heated with a fired heater and pressurized to 4240 kPa creating a very explosive material. The fire and explosion index was calculated to be 243 which is an extremely high value. The full detailed analysis of the fire and explosion index can be found in exhibit A of Appendix C. The radius of exposure was found to be 243ft which would destroy the entire plant. From the previously described factors it was concluded that the reactors would be placed in a separate explosion proof room or in its own separate building outside the plant to ensure safety for the operators and plant equipment. If the reactors were to explode the cost of the area exposed went from $3,200,000 to $200,000 once the reactors were isolated. The estimated replacement time for the reactors would be 123 days giving a business interruption loss of $575,000. Refer to exhibit B in the appendix C for the unit analysis summary.

41

Table 5.0: Chemical Hazard Information Summary

Component LD-50 or LC-50 (route/species) LEL/UEL TLV/Exposure Limits 176 mg/m3 TWA ACGIH 50 ppm TWA-ACGIH 1000 ppm TWA 500 STEL 3500 ppm TWA 1760 STEL Reaction Hazards

Hexane

C6-H14

Oral toxicity: 25000 mg/kg (rat) Gas toxicity: 48000 mg/kg (rat)

Lower: 1.15% Upper: 7%

Can react vigorously with strong oxidizers

Canola Oil

n/a

No known toxicological effects from the product

Non-flammable

For oil mist: 10 mg/m3 None known for Liquid

Avoid contact with strong oxidizers Incompatible with oxidizing agents, potassium tartrate, alkali, alkali carbonates and bicarbonates, acetates, sulfides, and metal nitrates

Citric Acid

C6H8O7

Oral: 3000 mg/kg (rat)

Lower: 0.28 kg/m3 (dust) Upper: 2.29 kg/m3 (dust)

No known toxicological effects from this product

Methanol

CH3OH

Oral: 5628 mg/kg (rat) Dermal: 15800 mg/kg (rat) Vapour: 64000 mg/kg (rat)

Lower: 6% Upper: 36.5%

250 ppm TWA 200 STEL

Can react vigorously with oxidizers. Violent reaction with alkyl aluminum salts, acetyl bromide, chloroform + sodium methoxide, chromic anydride, cyanuire chlorite, lead perchlorite, phosphorous trioxide, nitric acid Exothermic reaction with chloroform + NaOH Stable; Incompatible with strong oxidizers Hygroscopic

Biodiesel Glycerol

n/a C4H8O3

No known toxicological effects from this product Oral: 8000 mg/kg (mouse)

None known None known

Not hazardous under the criteria of OSHA No known toxicological effects from this product

42

6.0 Equipment Sizing and Costs

This section of the design report gives an overview of the logic behind how each of the units were sized and priced in the process. For a more detailed quantitative description of how each of the units were sized please refer to the sample calculations in appendix A. After the units were sized, and the material of construction was determined, the bare module cost was found for each units using Ulrich (2004). According to Ulrich (2004), these bare module costs represent the purchase price of the unit, the installation cost, the unit foundation and installing the relative instrumentation. The prices for all the units in the process were obtained from Ulrich using a CE index of 400 as the text was published in 2004. However, to account for inflation, a more recent CE index of 528.7 obtained for October 2007 from the Chemical Engineering Magazine. (CE index 2008). This index value was applied to all the bare module costs of the units to account for inflation. All the units were chosen to be constructed of carbon steel because non-corrosive process fluids. Therefore it will be assumed that carbon steel will be chosen for the unit material unless otherwise stated. 6.1 Roll Mill The first unit that the canola seed encounters in the extraction process is the roll mill. The roll mill is where the canola seed is flaked into a thin layer. Roll mill energy requirement was determined by using the power equation presented in table 4.5a in Ulrich. The roll mill was designed to have a reduction ratio of four and from the HYSYSTM simulation the canola feed rate is 1.16 kg/s which gives a power requirement

43

of 1.0 kW (Ulrich 2004). The bare module cost for the roll mill was found to be $42,000 given from Ulrich figure 5.16. 6.2 Rotary Steam Cooker E-111 This unit heats the canola to remove the water in the canola seed to a 1-3% moisture content by heating to 91C. Using low pressure steam at 148.5C and the cooker was modeled as a heat exchanger with a heat transfer coefficient of 700 W/m2K from Table 4-15a in Ulrich. The heat transfer area was found to be 1.6 m2 and the bare module cost for the unit was found to be $15,000. 6.3 Screw Press C-110 One of the most important units of the process is the screw press because the majority of oil is recovered. In order to size this piece of equipment, the power requirement of the press was determined from Table 4.23c in Ulrich. By pressing 1.2 kg/s of canola seed, the power requirement was calculated to be 2.6 kW. The cost for the screw was determined to be $412,000 using figure 5.58 in Ulrich (2004). 6.4 Leacher H-120 The next unit in the extraction process is the solid-solvent leacher. The type of leacher used was the Rotocel design as it is simple and widely used in industry (Perrys 2008). To size this piece of equipment, the number of stages and residence time had to be determined from the equilibrium relationship of oil-seed-hexane interaction. An equilibrium relationship for oil/hexane and oil/seed was determined by Zaher et al. (2004). By using the rigorous stage wise calculation method as shown in appendix A and E, the number of stages for the leacher was determined to be 11 with a residence time of 6 minutes per stage. The bare module cost for this unit is $152,000 as given in figure 5.53 in Ulrich (2004). 44

6.5 Membrane Pump K-122 The micella is pressured up to the desired pressure of 15 MPa used for the membrane separators as explained by Ribeiro et al. (2006) using a multistage reciprocating pump. Since the temperature of the pump is operating below 200C and the pressure is relatively high, cast steel was used to construct the multistage reciprocating pump. From the HYSYSTM simulation and from the shaft work equation in Ulrich (2004) the pump requires 11 kW of power in order to achieve the desired outlet pressure. The bare module cost of the pump was determined to be $162,000 using figures 5.49 to 5.51 in Ulrich (2004). 6.6 Membrane Separators H-140 Using the research put forth by Ribeiro et al. (2006), nanofiltration membranes were designed for the initial hexane separation. By using the maximum experimental flux of 3.0x10-5m3/s.m2 (Ribeiro 2006) the total area of membranes was found to be 22.6m2. Since the maximum surface area of an individual membrane separators is 2.4m2 (Ulrich 2004), 10 parallel separators will have to be employed to handle the volumetric flowrate of micella in this process. For this area of membrane separator, the bare module cost for these units is $132,000 as determined from figure 5.57a in Ulrich (2004). 6.7 Hexane Evaporator R-150 In the falling film evaporator, hexane will be evaporated out of the micella using low pressure steam at 148C. This unit will require approximately 13kW of steam energy to evaporate the required amount of hexane. The procedure outlined in Ulrich on pages 133-136 (2004) was used to determine the dimensions of hexane evaporator. The evaporator was determined to have a height of 0.6m and a diameter of 0.3m. The bare module cost was determined to be $4,500 given by figure 5.22 (Ulrich 2004).

45

6.8 Hexane Stripper D-160 The rigorous calculation method was used to determine the dimensions of the stripper and was completed by using the stage wise equilibrium integration technique as shown in appendix E. The hexane steam equilibrium was modeled using Raoults law of ideal liquid-vapor equilibrium. This approximation gave reasonable results for a preliminary design of the column (OBrien 2000). Using the stage wise equilibrium method, the height of the column was determined to be 2.8m. The diameter of the column was determined by finding the stage efficiency in the column achieved by using 6mm Raschig Rings and using that value in equation 4.85 in Ulrich (2004). Using this method, the diameter of the column was found to be 0.44m or 44 cm. The stripping unit will be made from stainless steel because the steam in the column is corrosive. Given this material of construction, the stripper will cost $48,000 as given by figures 5.44-5.47 in Ulrich (2004). 6.9 Hexane Flash Drum H-180 In the flash drum, water and hexane are separated from each other from the resultant hexane steam mixture in stripping unit D-160. Assuming that the drum can hold 10 minutes of liquid, and using the smallest diameter possible 0.30m (Hill 1999), the flash drum was calculated to have a height of 0.8m. The cost of the flash drum is $18,000 as determined by figures 5.44-5.46 in Ulrich (2004). 6.10 Desolventer/Heater H-130 & E-132 The desolventer unit was the most difficult unit to size, as it consisted of an evaporator in the upper layers and an air dryer in the lower layers. Therefore, the upper portion of the column was modeled as an evaporator and the lower portion was modeled as extra vapour disengagement stages. Using this criterion, the upper portion modeled as

46

an evaporator was found to have a height of 1.5m and a diameter of 0.7m as calculated from pg 133-136 in Ulrich (2004). The lower portion of the column was found by adding two evaporator heights to the bottom of the evaporator. Therefore, the total height for the desolventer and heater was 2.8m. The cost of the unit was determined to be $100,000 as shown in figure 5.33 for a Rotary Dryer in Ulrich (2004). 6.11 Heat Exchangers Since all the heat exchangers are operating at temperature below 200C, the material used to make the heat exchangers will be carbon steel. Since there are so many heat exchanger units, Table 6.11.1 shows the area and costs associated with each heat exchanger in the process. A sample calculation for these values is given in appendix A for E-124 following the procedure given in Ulrich on pg. 191 (2004) and from Dr. Nematis notes (CHE 324 2006). Table 6.11.1: Heat Exchanger Size and Cost for Area 100. Bare Module Cost Cbm HX Unit Heat Transfer Area m2 (2008) E-112 7.0 $ 11,895.75 E-121 5.5 $ 11,895.75 E-124 1.9 $ 9,120.08 E-162 6.5 $ 11,895.75 E-164 0.3 $ 4,163.51 E-165 2.6 $ 9,913.13 E-183 2.2 $ 9,913.13 E-213A 9.4 $ 13,878.38 E-213B 3.2 $ 4,361.78 E-232 16.8 $ 23,791.50 E-301 5.1 $ 11,895.75

47

Table 6.11.2: Area 100 Unit Sizing and Cost

Unit Name Unit Number Roll Mill Cooker Screw Press Leacher Pump Membrane Evaporator Stripper

Height m

Diameter m

Area m
2

Power kW 1 2.6

Material Carbon Steel Carbon Steel Carbon Steel Carbon Steel Cast Steel Carbon Steel Stainless Steel

E-111 C-110 H-120 K-122 H-140 R-150 D-160

1.6

Cost $ $42,000 $15,000 $412,000 $513,000 $162,000 $132,000 $4,500 $48,000

10 22.6 0.6 2.8 0.3 0.44

6.12 Mixer Design First a volumetric flowrate was needed to design the mixer for the separation of gum from canola oil. The volumetric flow rate going into the mixers was 41m3/day. Three mixing tanks were used and rotated continuously. A plant height restriction of 5m was implemented therefore the unit height was determined to be 4m. Using a 2:1 height to diameter ratio the diameter was 2m giving a total volume of 12.6m3. The bottom of the tank is conical shaped to aid in oil drainage. The volume of the cone was determined to be .5m3 having a height of .5m and a diameter of 2m.The total volume of the tanks are 13.1m3. They will be filled with 10m3 of oil. Once the tank is full, a 50% weight mixture of citric acid and water will be added until a concentration of 2500ppm is reached. Water will be added until the total mixture is 2% by weight. A 40 hp sticky vacuum will be used to suck the gum off the top of the tank. The oil will be drained out of the bottom through a strainer. Our mixing blade will be .5m in diameter. The rule of thumb power consumption for mixing was estimated to be .5kW/m3 giving a total daily energy

48

requirement of 111MJ. Using figure 5.42 in Ulrich the current estimated price was found to be $55,800 for the three units. 6.13 Fixed Bed Reactor The fixed bed reactor is used for the conversion of triglycerides and free fatty acids into biodiesel (methyl esters) and glycerol. Due to the high temperature and pressure of this vessel, a stainless steel material will be used. The fixed bed reactor was difficult to size because of no kinetic data. Without kinetic data, the size of the reactor was based on the weight hourly space velocity, as defined by Vartuli et al, to obtain the residence time of the liquid. Furthermore the reactor was sized based on 50% volume of catalyst. From laboratory work, it was determined that a 3 wt% catalyst was capable of achieving the desired conversion. The volume of the reactor was found to be 175 L with a liquid residence time of 1.3min. The bare modular cost of this particular fixed bed reactor is $57,600. The remainder of the reactor parameters can be viewed in table 6.14 on the following page. 6.14 Flash Drum w/ Mist Eliminator This flash drum is used to separate methanol from glycerol and biodiesel, produced in the fixed bed reactor. A mist eliminator is employed to arrest any liquid that is carried along with the vaporizing methanol. This drum is designed for a residence time of ten minutes. Based on this, the flash drum was calculated to have a diameter of 1.94 m and a height of 2.04 m, giving a total volume of 12.1 m3. It is to be constructed of stainless steel, to withstand high temperature and pressure and will cost $144,900.

49

Table 6.14: Sizing and Cost Summary of Fixed Bed Reactor and Flash Drum
UnitNumber Description HeightofUnit(m) DiameterofUnit(m) Residencetime(min) Volume(m^3) Cbm P220 FixedBedReactor 0.96 0.48 1.32 0.173 D230 FlashDrum 2.04 1.94 10 12.06 $144,900.00

$57,600.00

6.15 Gravity Separators To design the gravity separators for this plant the first variable needed was the inlet flow rate of glycerol and biodiesel. The combined flowrate was 71.5m3/day and 3 tanks were designed to hold this volume for 4 to 6 hours of separation time. The dimensions of the tanks were 5m for the height and 2.5m for the diameter, giving a total volume of 24.5m3. Table 5.61 in Ulrich was used to determine the bare module cost of $1,100 for each unit.

50

7.0 Economics
A complete economic analysis proves that SFA has a strong potential for profitability. Many alternatives were considered, and the plant always sustained enough income to generate a net positive cash flow. A detailed cost analysis was performed for the alternative using a membrane separator for hexane extraction and conservative estimates for the price of diesel, glycerol and meal at $80/barrel, $.4/kg and $.38/kg respectively. The revenue generated from this plant was estimated to be 16.4 million dollars. The biodiesel, the meal and the glycerol produced 8.8, 5.7 and 1.9 million dollars respectively. The total capital investment for the proposed biodiesel plant was estimated to be $3,300,000. The total manufacturing costs was estimated to be $14,700,000 per year as shown in the detailed summary in table B-1 in appendix B. The direct manufacturing expense was estimated to be 13.8 million dollars per year. The cost for the raw materials, mainly greenseed canola, was estimated to be 11.7 million dollars per year. The cost of greenseed canola is around half the price of regular canola seed which has increased 65% from November 2007. The conservative price used for the greenseed canola was $.33/kg. It was estimated that it would take 17 operators to maintain and run this facility which will cost $820,000 annually. Other main factors contributing to the direct manufacturing cost are Supervisory and clerical labor, cooling water, maintenance and repairs and laboratory charges calculated to be $160,000, $110,000, $170,000 and $120,000 respectively. The annual cost for indirect manufacturing expenses was determined to be $590,000 which mainly consisted of overhead, packaging and storage. The total annual

51

general expense was estimated to be $640,000. Depreciation was determined to be$290,000 annually and income tax was estimated to be $600,000 per year. From all of these estimates, the after tax rate of return was determined to be a promising 48.6% as shown in figure 7.1 below. The discounted breakeven point (DBEP) was 3.5 years; the undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values were estimated to be $11.1 and $5.3 million dollars after 10 years of operation. In comparing this scenario with the one presented in alternative 7.3 it can be seen that the evaporator is more economical after ten years of operation. However, the membrane separator was chosen because it produces less CO2 emissions and requires less energy.

Figure 7.1: Cash flow analysis

52

7.1 Alternative 1: Negating Glycerol Sales The first alternative assumes the glycerol produced in plant is worth nothing. In order to produce a net positive cash flow, the price of biodiesel has to be increased to $90 per barrel, which is still realistic because the current price of diesel is $100 per barrel. This method produces a discounted cash flow rate of return of 30%. The undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values were determined to be $6,000,000 and $2,500,000 respectively, after 10 years of operation. The discounted breakeven point occurs after 4.5 years of operation. This alternative is the most probable worst case scenario and the plant still generates a positive net present worth.

Figure 7.1.1: Cash Flow Analysis with Negating Glycerol

53

7.2 Alternative 2: Using Grade 1 Canola as the Feedstock The second alternative is the worst case scenario because the plant would have to purchase expensive grade 1 canola seed as the major feedstock instead of the inexpensive greenseed canola. Since canola seed is the main raw material, the fluctuations in the price will have an extreme effect on our economics. The price of canola used for the analysis was $650/tonne.

Figure 7.2.1: Albertas grade 1 Canola Oil Prices In order for this process to still generate a positive net cash flow, biodiesel needs to sell at the same price as diesel at the current $100/barrel and the glycerol needs to be sold for $.7/kg. If these criteria are met, the discounted cash flow rate of return would be 18.5%. The undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values would be $3,200,000

54

and $950,000 respectively, after 10 years of operation. The discounted breakeven point will occur at 6.5 years.

Figure 7.2.2: Cash Flow Analysis Using Grade 1 Canola

55

7.3 Alternative 3: Using an Evaporator for Hexane Extraction The third alternative studied would be to use an evaporator instead of a membrane separator for the hexane extraction unit. This method produces a discounted cash flow rate of return of 50%. The undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values are estimated at $11,500,000 and $5,500,000 respectively, after 10 years of operation. The discounted breakeven point requires 3.1 years of operation. Although this alternative produces a higher discounted cash flow rate of return in comparison to the membrane case. Even though the evaporator case has favorable economics, it produces more CO2 emissions and consumes more energy than the membrane separator. Therefore, the membrane separator will be used for our project design.

Figure 7.3.1: Cash Flow Analysis Utilizing Our Designs Prices, But Using an Evaporator Instead of a Membrane Seperator.

56

7.4 Alternative 4: Selling Glycerol at Current Prices The fourth alternative was estimated using the current price of glycerol at $.7/kg. This alternative produces a discounted cash flow rate of return of 87.5%. The undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values are estimated at $22,800,000 and $11,800,000 respectively, after 10 years of operation. The discounted breakeven point requires 2.6 years of operation. This is best case alternative, so if glycerol prices remain high this biodiesel plant could make a fortune.

Figure 7.4.1: Cash Flow Analysis Using Current Prices and a Membrane Seperator

57

7.5 Alternative 5: Selling Glycerol at Current Prices using an Evaporator The fifth alternative uses the same prices for the products as in alternative 3, but uses an evaporator instead of the membrane separator for hexane extraction. This alternative produces a discounted cash flow rate of return of 88.9%. The undiscounted and 10% discounted net present values are estimated at $23,200,000 and $12,100,000 respectively, after 10 years of operation. The discounted breakeven point requires 2.6 years of operation.

Figure 7.5.1- Cash Flow Analysis Using Current Prices and an Evaporator

58

7.6 Alternative 6: Producing Value Added Products from Glycerol Another alternative considered was to produce value added products from the glycerol produced. The glycerol would be sent to a fixed bed reactor with a silica alumina catalyst. The four main products produced from this reaction are acetol, formaldehyde, acrolein and acetaldehyde. The reaction also produces many side products such as; Hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, acetone and allyl alcohol. Since these products have different volatilities the separation process to acquire the four main products would be too costly. A summary of the alternatives are displayed in a table below. Table 7.5.1: Summary of Economic Alternatives
Alternative GlycerolWorthNothing Grade1CanolaOil RegularGlycerolprice evaporator membraneseparator LowGlycerolPrice evaporator membraneseparator DBEPi=10% (years) 4.5 6.5 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.5 NPVi=0% ($) 6,000,000 3,250,000 23,200,000 22,800,000 11,500,000 11,100,000 NPVi=10% ($) 2,500,000 950,000 12,100,000 11,900,000 5,500,000 5,300,000 RateofReturn (%) 30 18.5 88.9 87.5 50 48.6

59

8.0 Conclusions
1. SFA will produce 15,000,000kg of biodiesel per year at $.59/kg giving an annual revenue of $9,000,000. 2. SFA will produce 15,200,000kg of canola meal per year at $.38/kg giving an annual revenue of $5,700,000. 3. SFA will produce 4,900,000kg of glycerol per year at $.59/kg giving an annual rate of $1,900,000. 4. Glycerol was deemed to be a viable source of income because the world demand is 1,600,000 tonnes/year and is increasing with new technology. 5. SFA will consume 30,000,000kg of greenseed canola per year at $.33/kg giving an annual cost of $9,800,000. 6. SFA will consume 1,100,000kg of waste cooking oil per year at $.15/kg giving an annual cost of $100,000. 7. SFA will consume 5,100,000kg of methanol per year at $.34/kg giving an annual cost of $1,700,000. 8. The total capital cost of the plant was determined to be $2,800,000. 9. At a 10% discounted rate the net present value after 10 years was calculated to be $5,300,000. 10. The after tax rate of return was calculated to be 48.6%. 11. In comparing the membrane scenario to the evaporator scenario for hexane separation, it was determined that the evaporator was more economical. But the membrane separator was chosen because of reduced CO2 emissions and energy requirements. 12. The acid catalyst, zinc ethanoate supported on silica has 95+ conversion rate.

60

13. The fixed bed reactor was deemed to be a severe hazard and will be isolated from the plant. 14. The heterogeneous acid catalysis process has fewer process steps in comparison with a homogeneous alkali catalyst process. 15. By utilizing a solid catalyst and a low quality feedstock, the biodiesel price is theorized to be competitive with current diesel prices.

61

9.0 Recommendations
1. The biodiesel reactor needs more kinetic data to obtain more accurate reactor properties and sizing. 2. Membrane separators need to be tested in pilot facility to determine their compatibility with the other units in the process. 3. Pipeline pressure survey should be completed before an actual plant is built to more accurately predict frictional losses and pumping requirements. 4. Supercritical CO2 oil extraction should be investigated as an attempt to lower the solvent extraction energy requirements in the given process. 5. More research should be conducted to find a catalyst that requires a lower reaction temperature. 6. Meal standards may change and physical extraction can be utilized for canola recovery to minimize energy and unit costs associated with solvent extraction. 7. Propylene glycol can be created as a value added product if glycerol demand decreases or glycerol supply increases from other biodiesel projects. 8. Profitability of project is largely dependent of on feedstock prices. More testing should be done on feedstocks other than canola seed as canola prices may rise to a level that will make this process uneconomical. 9. Further study on the characterization of the finished product is needed to ensure that produced biodiesel meets standards.

62

10.0 References
Carbonfund, Leading Offset Provider Value Chart, Carbonfund.org. 2007. April 3, 2008. < http://www.carbonfund.org/> CBC News, In Depth Kyoto and Beyond Trading Carbon, CBC News. November 3, 2006. < http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/carbon-trading.html> CE Index October 200, Economic Indicators, Chemical Engineering. February 2008. Pg. 68. Faye Zenneth, CEO Milligan Biotechnology, Foam Lake. Personal Communication. Forge, Frederic. Biodiesel An Energy, Environmental or Agricultural Policy? Library of Parliament. 8 February 2007 Litherland N.B. et al., Dry Matter Intake is Decreased More by Abomasal Infusion of Unsaturated Free Fatty Acids than by Unsaturated Triglycerides, J. Dairy Sci. 99 (2005) 632-643. Hill Gordon. Chemical Engineering Process and Design I, CHE 325, University of Saskatchewan (1999). Kiss, A.K.; Dimian, A.C.; Rothenberg, G. Solid Acid Catalysts for Biodiesel Production Towards Sustainable Energy. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 75-81. Krawczyk, Tom. Biodiesel. INFORM. Vol. 7, No. 8, August 1996. 800 Kulkarni, M.G. and Dalai, A.K. Waste Cooking Oil An Economical Source for Biodiesel: A Review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 2901-2913 Lotero, E.; Liu, Y.; Lopex, D.; Suwannakarn,K.; Bruce, D.A.; Goodwin, J.G. Synthesis of Biodiesel via Acid Catalysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 5353-5363. Nemati Mehdi, Chemical Engineering Heat Transfer, CHE 324, University of Saskatchewan (2006). OBrien Richard D., Farr Walter E., Wan Peter J., Introduction to Fats and Oils Technology, 2 edition. Champaign: AOCS. 2000. Pg. 109-135 & Pg.545. Perry R.H., Green D.W., Maloney J.O., Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7 edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. 1997. Perry R.H., Green D.W., Maloney J.O., Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 8 edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. 2008.

63

Racz V., Christensen D.A. , Whole Canola Seed use and Value, Prairie Feed Resource Centre. (2004). Ribeiro et al., Solvent recovery from soybean oil/hexane miscella by polymeric membranes, J. of Membrane Science 282 (2006) pg. 328-336. Sea News Circular, Canada Moves on Renewable Fuels, Sea News Circular. Vol: X, Issue:10. Jan., 2008. Titipong, I.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Dalai, A.K.; Bakhshi, N.N. Production of Biodiesel from Waste Fryer Grease Using Mixed Methanol/Ethanol System US Department of Energy, Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Information Series Fact Sheet, May 2001 Ulrich G., Vasudevan P. Chemical Engineering Process and Economic A Practical Guide 2nd edition. Process Publishing. Durham. (2004). Zaher F.A., El Kinawy O.S., El Haron D.E., Solvent extraction of jojoba oil from prepressed jojoba meal, Grasas y Aceites. 55, 2, (2004), 129-134. Zheng S., Kates M., Dube M.A, McLean D.D. Biodiesel Production from waste Cooking Oil 1. Process design and technological assessment, Bioresource Technology 89 (2003) 1-16.

64

Appendix A

Sample Calculations

65

A.1. Sample Calculation for Sizing and Cost of Area 100 Note: All Figures Referred to for the Sample Calculations are from Ulrich (2004) 1. Sample Calculation for Power Requirement of Roll Mill P = 0.20 m R Equation from Table 4.5a for Roll Crusher of medium hardness
P = 0.20(1.16kg / s)(4) P = 0.925kW Capacity = 1.16 kg / s Cp = $15,000 Fbm = 2.10 Cbm = (Cp)( Fbm) (CE index 2008 ) (CE index 2004 ) 528.7 400
.

Cbm = $15,000 x 2.10 x Cbm = $41,635.13

2. Sample Calculation for Rotary Steam Cooker E-111

H = H 2 H 1 For Steam Change H = 623 . 16 kJ kJ 2742 . 9 K From Steam Tables kg kg kJ H = 2119 . 7 Supplied to Coo ker kg P = H m P = ( 2119 . 7 kJ P = 85 . 1 kW P = UA (Ts T ) lm (Ts T ) lm = (T s T in ) (T s T out ) (T s T in ) ln( ) (T s T out ) (148 C 25 C ) (148 C 91 . 91 C ) (148 C 25 C ) ln( ) (148 C 91 . 91 C ) kg )( 7 . 36 x10 2 kg ) s
.

(Ts T ) lm =

(Ts T ) lm = 85 . 2 C A= A= P U (Ts T ) lm

( 85 . 1 x10 3 W ) W 700 ( 82 . 5 C ) m 2 C A = 1 . 63 m 2

66

Heat Transfer Coefficient Obtain from Table 4-15a, for Condensing Water on Hot side and Low-Viscosity Organics in Cold Side. The Bare module cost for the rotary steam cooker was found using Ulrich from Figure 5.24 for evaporators. Since the unit is at temperatures below 200C, then carbon steel was selected for materials of Construction. Since the steam cooker was operated at atmospheric pressures Fp=1.0

Cp = $5000 Fig 5.24 Fp = 1 Fbm = 2.3 Cbm = Fbm Fp Cp Cbm = $15,200.13 (CEindex 2008 ) (CEindex 2004 )

3. Sample Calculation for the Shell-&-tube Heat Exchanger. E-124 T T2 Eq. 4 70 from Ulrich R= 1 t 2 t1
(43.00 C 50.04 C ) (59.00 C 71.01 C ) R = 0.59 R= S= S= (t 2 t 1 ) Eq. 4 70 from Ulrich (T1 t1 )

(59.00 C 71.01 C ) ( 43.00 C 71.01 C ) S = 0.43 FT = 0.94 from Figure 4.22 pg .191 A= A= U ( Tout Q Tin ) lm FT

(9.4 x10 3 W ) W (300 2 )(16.7C )(0.94) m C A = 1.87 m 2

Same Procedure for all the Heat Exchanger in Area 100, 200, and 300. Results shown on Table 6.11.1

67

The bare module cost associated with heat exchangers was determined by using figures 5.36 to 5.38 in Ulrich (2004). All the heat exchangers will be constructed using carbon steel because all the units will be operating at temperatures below 200C. A pressure factor of one was used for all heat exchangers because the heat exchangers are all at atmospheric pressure.
Cp = $2300.00 Fm = 1 carbon steel Fp = 1 Fbm = 3 Cbm = Cp Fbm Cbm = $9,120.80 (CE index 2008 ) (CE index 2004 )

4. Sample Calculation for Screw Press Unit C-110

P = 2.5 m
. 0.5

P = 2.5(1.10 P = 2.62kW

kg 0.5 ) s

Duty Equation Obtained from Table 4.23c in Ulrich (2004). Using Figure 5.58, the Bare Module Cost of the screw press was determined. Carbon steel is used to be more economical
Cp = $130,000 Fbm = 2.4 Carbon Steel (CEindex 2008 ) Cbm = Cp Fbm (CEindex 2004 ) Cbm = $412,386.00

68

5. Sample Calculation for Number of Stages and Residence Time of Solid-Liquid Extractor as well as the Bare Module Cost H-120
Fsolid 0.664 kg / s = Fsolvent 0.370 kg / s Fsolid = 1.80 Fsolvent

Xn =

Fsolvent (Yn +1 Y1 ) + X 0 Operating Line Fsolid

X 0 = 0.556(0.282 0.282) + 0.165 X 0 = 0.165kgSolute / kgSolids Yn*+1 = mX n Y1* = (3.255)(0.165) Y1* = 0.537 kgSolute / kgSolvent (Y1* Y1 ) = 0.537 0.282 (Y1* Y1 ) = 0.256 kgSolute / kgSolvent 1 = 3.91 (Y Y1 )
* 1

nov =

1 dY Yn +1 (Y Y1 )

Yn

* 1

nov = 11 stages ( Simpson' s Rule) Time = 1hr Contact Time = Time 60 min = nov 11 Stages

Constact Time = 6 min Equilibrium Value from Canola Oil-Hexane Equilibrium Obtained from Zaher (2004). Bare module cost for leacher determined from figure 5.53.
Cp = $50,000 Fbm = 2.3 Cbm = Cp Fbm (CE index 2008 ) (CE index 2004 )

Cbm = $152,000.00

69

6.

Sample Calculation for Power Requirement of Membrane Pump Unit K-122 q P P= e (6.79 x10 4 m 3 / s )(15 x10 7 Pa) P= 0.75 P = 13.6kW Efficiency was estimated from Table 4.20 in Ulrich for Reciprocating Pump. Bare Module Cost was determined from figures 5.49 to 5.51. Cast Steel was used as the temperature of the Process was well below 200C. Cp = 25,000.00 Fm = 1.8 Cast Steel Fp = 1 < 10 b arg Fbm = 4.9 (CEindex 2008 ) Cbm = Cp Fbm (CEindex 2004 )
Cbm = $161,914.38
.

7. Sample Calculation for Size and Number of Nanofiltration Membrane 140

QTotal = 6.79 x10 4 m 3 / s ATotal = ATotal QTotal 6.79 x10 4 m 3 / s = Flux 3.00 x10 5 m 3 / sm 2 = 22.6 m 2

Units H-

L = 1.5m D = 0.5m ASeparator = DL ASeparator = (0.5m)(1.5m) ASeparator = 2.36m 2 N Separators = N Separators = N Separators ATotal ASeparator

22.6 m 2 2.36m 2 = 9.6

Flux Obtained from Ribeiro et al. Length and Diameter of Separator Obtained from Table 4.23b.

70

Bare Module Cost was obtained by using figure 5.57a in Ulrich. Nanofiltration was used for costing as that was the same membrane used by Ribeiro et al. 2006. Cbm=$132,175.00

8. Sample Calculation for Rising Film Evaporator Unit R-150

m vap = 4 .44 x10 2 kg / s H vap = 334 .5 kJ / kg P = H vap m vap P = (334 .5 kJ / kg )( 4 .44 x10 2 kg / s ) P = 12 .47 kW A jacket = A jacket = A jacket P U (T s T ) lm
.

12 .47 kW kW 0 .8 2 (87 .5 K ) m K = 0 .253 m 2

71

 l g u = 0.06 g

781 .3kg / m 3 3.06 kg / m 3 u = 0.06 3.06 kg / m 3 u = 0.957 mls

.

Across sec tion

m = gu

0.117 kg / s Across sec tion = (3.06 kg / m 3 )(0.957 m / s ) 2 Across sec tion = 0.040 m 4A D = cross sec tion
1/ 2

4(0.040 m 2 ) D= D = 0.23m H = H = A jacket

1/ 2

+D

0.253m 2 + 0.23m (0.23m ) H = 0.58 m

Procedure Outlined in Ulrich Pages 133-136 for Short-Cut Design. Physical Properties of Hexane from Perrys Handbook. Bare Module Cost was obtained from figure 5.22 in Ulrich. Carbon steel will be used because the temperature is low. The Evaporator will also operate under atmospheric pressure.

Cp = $1,500.00 Fig 5.24 Fp = 1 Fbm = 2.3 (CEindex 2008 ) Cbm = Fbm Fp Cp (CEindex 2004 ) Cbm = $4,560.04

72

9. Sample Calculation for Hexane Stripper Sizing Using Raschig Rings. Unit D-160 Determine the diameter of the column from short cut methods in Ulrich on Page 240. Figure 4.31.

x axis =

mM l l

0.756*100kg / kgmol* 0.0102Pa.s x axis = 1150kg / m3 x axis = 0.00068 es = 0.178 StageEfficiency for Bubble cap Tray
HETP = L K la

9.21x10 5 kgmole / s HETP = 5.844 x10 4 kgmole m 2 / m 3 s HETP = 0.987 m HETP es Equation 4.85 from Ulrich 0 .4 (0.987 m )(0.178) D= 0.4 D = 0.44 m z = Nov HETP D= z= z= x1 x 0 ( x x * ) lm 0.987 m

(0.241 0.0150 ) 0.987 m 7.92 x10 2 z = 2.81m

Mass Transfer Coefficient Obtained from Mass Balance on Column

73

Bare Module Cost for the Stripper was determined using Figures 5.44-5.47. Stainless Steel a there is corrosive materials in the stripper. 6mm Raschig rings were used in the tower.
C ss p = $3,800.0 Fbm = 1.2 Cbm = $4,560.0 Fp = 1 Fm = 4
a Fbm = 9.5 a Cbm = Cbm Fbm

(CE index 2008 ) (CE index 2004 )

Cbm = $47,715.18

10. Sample Calculation for Desolventor Energy Requirements/Sizing Units H-130 and E132 Treat as an evaporator that removes hexane from Meal.
.

m hexane = 2.81x10 1 kg / s H vap = 334.5kJ / kg P = H vap m hexane P = (334.5kJ / kg )(2.81x10 1 kg / s ) P = 61.38 kW A jacket = A jacket = A jacket P U (Ts T ) lm
.

(61.38kW ) kW 0.8 2 (91.6 K ) m K = 1 .6 m 2

74

 l g u = 0.06 g

625kg / m 3 3.06kg / m 3 u = 0.06 3.06kg / m 3 u = 0.855m / s

.

Across sec tion Across sec tion Across sec tion

m = gu 9.49 x10 1 kg / s = (3.06kg / m 3 )(0.855m / s ) 2 = 0.36m

1/ 2

4A D = cross sec tion

4 (0.36m 2 ) D= D = 0.68m H= A jacket

1/ 2

+ 3D

1.6 m 2 H = (0.68m) + 3(0.68m) H = 2.83m

Procedure Outlined in Ulrich Pages 133-136 for Short-Cut Design. Physical Properties of Hexane from Perrys Handbook. Bare Module Cost for the Rotary Dryer was found by using figure 5.33 in Ulrich. Material of construction is carbon steel because of the low temperature of the unit operation.

Cp = $50,000.00 Fbm = 1.5

Cbm = Cp Fbm Cbm = $99,131.25

(CEindex2008 ) (CEindex2004 )

75

11. Sample Calculation for Hexane Flash Drum H-180

l g u s , g = 0.06 g u s,g u s,g

973.0kg / m 3 3.06kg / m 3 = 0.06 3.06kg / m 3 = 1.138m / s

1/ 2

4VMg D= u g s,g

4 1.6169x10 5 kgmol / s 86.18 kg / kgmol D= (3.066kg / m 3 )(1.138m / s) D = 0.02m

1/ 2

Design to hold 10 minutes of liquid in the bottom of the Separator

.

Vliq =

(0.167 hours)

m3 Vliq = 0.2235 (0.167hour) h Vliq = 3.72 x10 2 m 3 4Vliq Le = D 4(3.72 x10 2 m 3 ) Le = (0.02m) 2 Le = 118.42m
Too big assume D=0.30m
4V liq Le = D 2 4 ( 3 . 72 x10 m 3 ) Le = ( 0 . 30 m ) 2 Le = 0 . 53 m Le / D = 1 . 75 H = 0 . 83 m

76

Procedure Outlined from Dr. Hills CHE 325 notes. Properties for water and hexane obtained from Perrys Handbook. Bare module cost was determined from figures 5.44 to 5.46 in Ulrich. Carbon Steel was used because there is no corrosive material in the feed. Cp = $3,000.00 Fm = 1 Fp = 1
a Fbm = 4.5 a Cbm = Cp Fbm

(CEindex 2008 ) (CEindex 2004 )

Cbm = $17,843.63

77

A.2. Sample Calculation for Sizing and Cost of Areas 200 and 300 12. Sample Calculation for the sizing of the canola mixers (L-163) Approximate volume needed for each tank

Using a rule of thumb of a 2:1 height to diameter ratio (Ulrich 579). A height of 4m and a diameter of 2m was used to calculate the actual volume. The tank is cylindrical with a conical funnel at the bottom. The propeller size was determined to be .5m in diameter which is the average maximum mixing blade size. (Ulrich 578)

Calculating the energy used for mixing assuming the tanks are filled with 12 cubes of canola oil. The rule of thumb for mixing is the power consumption should be between .3 to .7kW/m3 (Ulrich 578). A chosen conservative value of .5kW/m3 was used because canola oil is partially viscous but it is not thick.

78

From figure 5.42 in Ulrich using 6kW as the power consumption, the purchased equipment cost was estimated at 7,000$ and the unit was made of carbon steel giving a FBM of 2.0 Calculation for the bare module cost

Calculation for the current price using 528.7 as the current CE index value

13. Sample Calculation for Fixed Bed Reactor Determination of the density of catalyst Zn Ethanoate/Silica in the laboratory

catalyst = catalyst

weight _ catalyst Volume _ catalyst 2.1529 g _ catalyst = 3mL

Calculation of weight of catalyst based on 3wt% of oil.

massflowrate _ oil = 2035 Catalyst = 0.03 * 2035 kg hr 61kg = 86.3L kg 717.6 3 m

kg = 61g * hr

79

Using the LHSV definition as layed out by Vartuli et. Al as the weight of liquid reactant (ie. Methanol and oil) contacting a given weight of catalyst in one hour, we can find the LHSV based on the flowrate and the weight of catalyst:

amount _ of _ liquid 2222L / hr + 1687 L / hr = 45.3hr 1 = Volume _ catalyst 86.3L = residence _ time = 0.022hour = 1.3 min utes LHSV = We then know the reactor volume can be calculated using the volumetric flowrate of the oil multiplied by the residence time plus the volume of the catalyst. V = (2222L / hr + 1687 L / hr )0.022hr 1 + 86.3L = 1

The diameter and height of the reactor can then be calculated using the rule of thumb that the height should be twice the diameter.

d d V = r 2 d = (2d ) = 2 2
2V d = = 0.48m H = 2d = 0.96m
1/ 3

14. Sample Calculation for Fixed Bed Reactor Calculation for the Methanol Flash Drum after the reactor uses the same method as the flash drum for hexane. However it should be noted that for the density of liquid, a bulk density was calculated for biodiesel and glycerol using the equation:

bulk =

m glycerol + mbiodiesel m glycerol m ( ) + ( biodiesel )

glycerol

biodiesel

Where m represents the mass flowrate. Furthermore, it should be noted that the bare module cost was calculated for stainless steal due to the high temperature and pressure in place of carbon steal. A mist eliminator with the same diameter as the flash drum was also added to the bare module cost of the flash drum.

80

15. Sample Calculation for the sizing of the three gravity separators (H-300). Calculation for the approximate amount of glycerol/biodiesel mixture for each tank.

Calculation for the actual volume of each tank. The heights of the tanks were 5m and the diameters were 2.5m. The tank was cylindrical with a conical drain at the bottom.

Using figure 5.61 in Ulrich and a volume of 24.9m3 the capital cost was estimated at 750$ per tank. The tank was made of carbon steel giving a FBM of 2.1.

Calculation for the current price using 528.7 as the current CE index value

81

Appendix B Economics
Please Refer to Disc for More Details

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

Appendix C

HAZOP, MSDS, DOW FIRE and Explosion

HAZOP/Safety Considerations1: Identify Hazards by considering the following Process Parameters:
i) Flow: - design for a no flow situation (pump cavitation/failure) and purchase (2) secondary pumps for the biodiesel system - Flowrate to reactor is relatively low, and should not be considered hazardous

ii) Time: -Because flowrates are low and residence time in the reactor is short, overflow of the tank is not a concern iii) Frequency: - Consider frequency of loading new catalyst into the reactor or how often the catalyst need to be recharged with methanol (further research needs to be done on the reusability of the catalyst) iv) Mixing: - N/A v) Pressure: - Design for minimal pressure drop in the reactor across the packed bed. Reactor operates at 600 psi and could be considered hazardous. vi) Composition: - Methanol fed to the reactor in a 1:18 oil to alcohol ratio is considered carcinogenic and caution should be taken if pump fails, catalyst needs to be replaced or recharged.

98

vii) Viscosity: - liquid is used, no slurries or solids, no chance of freezing. Product liquid of high viscosity, thus pipe fowling should be considered to prevent build-up of pressure viii) Temperature: - Reactor operates at high temperature of 200 C and thus stainless steel will be utilized ix) pH: - N/A x) Separation: - Occurs in the gravity settling tanks after the reactor

xi) Level: - Flowrates and residence time are relatively low, therefore overflow is not of concern xii) Speed: - Pumps have moving parts, consider operator maintenance manuals for the pump attached to the reactor xiii) Information: - Documentation such as operating manuals, equipment specifications, design criteria and MSDS should be supplied to new users to communicate details of plant xiv) Reaction: - Reaction is mild and its exothermic properties are not of concern. All components of the reaction should be kept away from oxidizers. Refer to MSDS chart below for more information. xv) Operation: - N/A

99

General Operating Problems: xvi) Desired conversion is not achieved.: - If the catalysts activity degrades, then the necessary conversion of 95% will not be obtained. - Consider purging the reactor with methanol and hexane to recharge the catalyst (methanol to remove polar particles from the catalyst and hexane to remove non-polar particles) or to replace the catalyst since it is silica based and low-cost xvii) Pressure build-up: - Because the reactor is operating at a high pressure in order to keep the methanol in its liquid phase at 200C, pressure drop and build-up is of main concern - Pressure drop should be carefully monitored as well as the pumps performance xviii) Piping Design2: - High viscosity may cause fowling of pipes - advisable to: 1) Avoid the use of screwed fittings whenever practical. 2) Use welded fittings with long radius ells; avoid tees when possible.

100

Plant Safety1:
i) Safe Design: See HAZOP above ii) Pollution Prevention: - When catalyst is replaced, proper disposal methods will be required. - If spills occurred, MSDS should be consulted for proper clean up techniques iii) Lifecycle Analysis of Products: - Literature has reported a positive life cycle for the production of biodiesel (1:3). Further research should be done to establish life cycle for this particular biodiesel process iv) Inherently Safe Design: Goal: to eliminate all hazards in the process using the 10 concepts that follow: 1. Intensification: Use very small amounts of hazardous material so that if there is a leak the hazard will be small. Our plant is of small capacity, and few reactants are of concern Substitution: Replace hazardous materials with less hazardous ones. Our process has eliminated the need to dispose of contaminated water

2.

3. Attenuation: Use hazardous material under the least hazardous conditions. - N/A 4. Limitation: Limit the effects of failures by equipment design or by change in condition rather than adding on protective equipment. - N/A 5. Simplification: Simpler plants provide fewer opportunities for error and less equipment that can fail. - Design based on using less equipment 6. Knock on Effect: Design so that a domino effect doesnt happen. - N/A. There is no inherent domino effect that could occur in the process. 7. Avoid Incorrect Assembly: - Since this is a grassroots plant, assembly will be required

101

8. Status Clear: It should be possible to see, at a glance, if valves are open or shut, if levels are ok, if correctly assembled. - Process controls will be used on the reactor, mixers, and settling tanks 9. Control: Control systems should be in place. - Process controls will be used on the reactor, mixers, and settling tanks 10. Survival: If a hazard occurs personnel should be protected. - Determine a fire, explosion, and emergency evacuation plan

102

Process Safety Management System:

Employee safety training which includes: o Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) for hearing protection, protective clothing, eye protection, and proper footwear (steel toed CSA approved) o Hazardous materials (eg. METHANOL) used on-site, how and where to locate the MSDS sheets on the materials and on-site via National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) signs Documentation such as operating manuals, equipment specifications, design criteria will be given to new users to communicate details of plant Employee training in fire, explosion, and emergency evacuation plans Maintenance plans for equipment being installed

103

Chemical Hazard Information and MSDS:

Definitions: LD-50/LC-50: Lethal Dose 50. The dose that kills half (50%) of the animals tested. LEL/UEL: Lower/Upper Explosive Limit. Is the limiting/maximum concentration (in air) that is needed for the gas to ignite and explode. TLV: Threshold Limit Value. The reasonable level to which a worker can be exposed without adverse health effects. IDLH: Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health. The exposure to airborne contaminants that is likely to cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects or prevent escape from such an environment.

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Appendix D Simulation Results

Please Refer to Disc for More Information

138

Appendix E

Rigorous Calculations For Leaching and Stripping Units

Please Refer to Disc for More information

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146