Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas
Team Alpha
Ayesha Rizvi
Bernard Hsu
Jeff Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Mentor
1
Dan Rusinak- Middough
Spring 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Figures: ............................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Tables: ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 7
3.
Discussion............................................................................................................................ 10
4.
Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................................... 13
5.
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 15
5.1.
Design Basis..................................................................................................................... 15
5.2.
Block Flow Diagram ......................................................................................................... 17
5.3.
Process Flow Diagram ..................................................................................................... 18
6.
Material and Energy Balance .............................................................................................. 30
6.1.
Material Balance ............................................................................................................. 30
6.2.
Energy Balance ................................................................................................................ 37
7.
Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 39
7.1.
Aspen Streams ................................................................................................................ 39
8.
Annotated Equipment List (Data Sheets)............................................................................ 47
9.
Economic Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 50
9.1.
Annual Revenue .............................................................................................................. 50
9.2.
Annual Operating Costs .................................................................................................. 53
9.3.
Total Installed Cost.......................................................................................................... 57
9.4.
Simple Payback ............................................................................................................... 63
9.5.
Econ Spreadsheet............................................................................................................ 64
10.
Utilities ................................................................................................................................ 68
11.
Conceptual Control Scheme................................................................................................ 69
12.
Major Equipment Layout .................................................................................................... 78
2
13.
Distribution and End-Use Issues Review ............................................................................. 81
14.
Constraints Review.............................................................................................................. 84
15.
Applicable Standards .......................................................................................................... 93
16.
References .......................................................................................................................... 94
17.
Group Member Resumes .................................................................................................... 96
18.
Project Communication File .............................................................................................. 106
Table of Figures:
Figure 1: US Oil Production and Imports ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Weekly US Retail Gasoline Prices, Regular Grade............................................................. 8
Figure 3: Block Flow Diagram......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5: First Part of Methanol Reaction and Separation ............................................................ 20
Figure 6: Second Part of Methanol Reaction and Separation........................................................ 21
Figure 7: Methanol Heating ........................................................................................................... 22
Figure 9: Methanol-To-Gasoline Reaction ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: MTG Product Cooling and Water Sepataion/Treatment .............................................. 26
Figure 11: Product Refining and Final Product .............................................................................. 28
Figure 12: Methanol Reaction and Separation .............................................................................. 30
Figure 13: NVP vs. Gasoline Price .................................................................................................. 51
Figure 14: NPV% vs. LPG% ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 15: Cost of Syngas vs. Plant Cost vs. Maintenance/Utilities Cost ....................................... 54
Figure 16: NPV vs. Cost of Syngas .................................................................................................. 54
Figure 17: NPV vs. Plant Cost ......................................................................................................... 56
Figure 18: Direct Field Costs .......................................................................................................... 58
Figure 19: Indirect Field Costs ........................................................................................................ 59
Figure 20: Yearly Expenses............................................................................................................. 68
Figure 21: Methanol Reaction Control Scheme ............................................................................. 69
Figure 22: Methanol/Syngas Separation Control Scheme ............................................................. 71
Figure 23: Methanol Heating Control Scheme .............................................................................. 72
3
Figure 24: MTG Reactor Control Scheme ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 25: MTG Effluent and Water Treatment Control Scheme .................................................. 74
Figure 26: First Distillation Column Control Scheme ..................................................................... 75
Figure 27: Second Distillation Column Control Scheme ................................................................ 76
Figure 28: Third Distillation Column Control Scheme .................................................................... 77
Figure 29: Major Equipment Layout .............................................................................................. 78
Figure 30: Major Equipment Layout .............................................................................................. 79
Figure 31: Process Layout .............................................................................................................. 80
Figure 32: Refinery Transport ........................................................................................................ 82
Figure 33: Newton County, Indiana ............................................................................................... 83
Table of Tables:
Table 1: MTG Effluent Composition (lbmol/hr) ............................................................................. 33
Table 2: MTG Effluent Composition (wt%) .................................................................................... 33
Table 3: Light Gas Flow Rates ........................................................................................................ 35
Table 4: Hydrocarbons Stream Flow Rates .................................................................................... 35
Table 5: LPG Flow Rates ................................................................................................................. 36
Table 6: Gasoline Product Composition (lbmol/hr) ....................................................................... 36
Table 7: Methanol Reaction and Separation ................................................................................. 39
Table 8: Methanol Separation and Syngas Recycle ....................................................................... 40
Table 9: Methanol Heating and MTG Effluent ............................................................................... 41
Table 10: Catalyst Regeneration .................................................................................................... 42
Table 11: Water Treatment ........................................................................................................... 43
Table 12: Product Separation ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 13: Final Distillation Column ................................................................................................ 45
Table 14: Equipment List for First PFD Diagram ............................................................................ 47
Table 15: Equipment List for Second PFD Diagram ....................................................................... 48
Table 16: Equipment List for Third PFD Diagram ........................................................................... 49
Table 17: Equipment List for Water Treatment System ................................................................ 50
Table 18: Direct Field Costs ............................................................................................................ 58
Table 19: Indirect Field Costs ......................................................................................................... 59
Table 20: Non-Field Costs .............................................................................................................. 60
4
Table 21: Non-Field Cost Summary................................................................................................ 61
Table 22: Project Cost Summary .................................................................................................... 62
Table 23: Investment Timeline, Revenues ..................................................................................... 65
Table 24: Investment Timeline, Utilities Expenses ........................................................................ 66
Table 25: Investment Timeline, Income and Taxes ....................................................................... 67
Table 26: Gasoline and LPG Composition ...................................................................................... 92
Table 27: Deethanizer Distillate and Syngas Purge Compositions ................................................ 93
5
1. Abstract
One of the greatest problems facing this country is the current energy crisis. World oil
production peaked in 2005, and prices have been going up in recent years. Much of the U.S.’s
oil is also imported, leading to reduced energy independence. Due to this crisis, many methods
of producing liquid fuels for transportation and heating are being researched. One way to help
abate the current problem is to make gasoline and liquified petroleum gas (LPG, C3 to C4) from
renewable sources. Our project will take municipal solid waste-derived syngas (H2 and CO) and
convert it into gasoline pool blend stock, which can be blended in a refinery, and LPG, which
can be used for heating or as a fuel for specially modified automobiles. Our gasoline and LPG
will also have a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuel derived gasoline and LPG. By using this
process, a renewable and local fuel can be produced which will fit into the current
infrastructure. The first step of our process will be taking syngas with an H2 to CO ratio of 2:1
and turning it into Methanol. Methanol will then react over the ZSM-5 catalyst to produce a
mixture of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons will be separated by distillation, and a product stream
of C5+ gasoline and LPG will be produced and sold. Our process is based upon the Mobil
Process, which has been demonstrated in a plant in New Zealand which produced about 14,000
barrels of gasoline per day.
6
2. Executive Summary
In the United States, gasoline is derived from the processing of oil. In 1970, domestic
production of oil peaked and imports sharply rose, and by 1995, oil imports had exceeded
domestic production. A barrel of oil constitutes 42 gallons. On average, according to the
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), 19.36 gallons of gasoline are generated
from a single barrel of crude oil. This means that 43% of a barrel of oil translates to gasoline.
(cite http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm?view=production). The EIA stated in 2009,
Americans used 3.3x109 barrels of gasoline—about 1.38x1011 gallons in a single year.
Figure 1: US Oil Production and Imports
7
Consequently, the prices of gasoline peaked on July 4, 2008 at a national average of
$4.11/gallon as shown in Figure 1. The prices dropped sharply in Q1 2009, however they have
been on the increasing trend once again. Because of international crises littering the Middle
East in 2011, and with the United States becoming ever increasingly dependent on imported,
foreign oil, the price of oil is largely variable, thus leading to unstable prices in gasoline. The
conceptual scheme for this process was developed in January 2011, when the average retail
gasoline price was $2.89 per gallon national average. By mid-April 2011, the national average
had soared to $3.79 per gallon, and following a steady increase on a per-week basis. Energy
independence is thus an impeccable and indispensible quality that must be pursued with
rigorous research and innovation. The first step towards energy independence would be to
produce gasoline, the largest use derived from crude oil, from renewable resources.
Figure 2: Weekly US Retail Gasoline Prices, Regular Grade
The project begins with syngas obtained from municipal solid waste at the Newton County
Indiana landfill. The syngas is delivered to our chemical production plant in a 2:1 H2:CO ratio
and Methanol is produced. The aim is to produce gasoline components, mainly (C5-C10
8
hydrocarbons), from Methanol. The process will produce 15,974 barrels per day of C5+
Gasoline and 4,263 barrels per day of LPG. The MTG process will run three circulating fluidized
bed reactors in parallel and will use the ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst. The Methanol reactor will be
modeled as a boiling water reactor using a copper-zinc-alumina catalyst. The methanol reactor
has a syngas recycle stream and 2% of the total syngas is purged in order to maintain the
correct 2:1 ratio. The methanol flows into the three MTG reactors and produces a stream of
hydrocarbons and water. The hydrocarbons are separated from water and then enter 3
distillation columns. The final product from these columns is the LPG and the gasoline product.
Start-up will be conducted with energy from the syngas feed, or if natural gas if needed. This
process was demonstrated in New Zealand, in a plant that produced 14,000 barrels of gasoline
per day and this process is also slated for construction in South Dakota
(http://www.exxonmobil.com/Apps/RefiningTechnologies/sellsheet_09_mtg_brochure.pdf)
and Primus Green energy in Pennsylvania.
The Total Installed Cost of the entire process was quoted at $ 27 Million from the Aspen
Icarus Economic Simulator running on a 2009 American Gulf Coast basis. The TIC was quoted
with Indirect Field Costs including fringe benefits, burdens, consumables, scaffolding,
equipment rental, field services and temporary construction utilities, at $1.9 Million and NonField Costs such as freight, taxes, basic and detail engineering, material procurement, G and A
Overheads, contract fees and contingency, of $3.4 Million. ASPEN does not account for OSBL
costs, however, and the prices it gives are often below what would be expected (the TIC of a
unit priced in Icarus is generally <2 times the cost of the equipment price from Icarus). To
account for these discrepancies and omissions, we multiplied our overall plant ISBL installed
cost by 7, which makes the overall OSBL plant cost $374 million. The operating cost was also
scaled up, although the utilities were not, since they were based on the overall
thermodynamics of our process. Our utilities cost was mainly from the electricity to power a
compressor, which we priced at $.07/kwh, although the cooling water price still accounted for a
little over two million dollars a year. We tried to bring down our utilities as much as possible
since we had a lot of heating and cooling, which would have very negatively affected both our
bottom line and the overall environmental impact of our gasoline. With the syngas price
9
included, which we bought at $250/ton, the operating cost of this process per year was quoted
at $514 Million, with the greatest cost being the syngas feed. The syngas was priced so that the
IRRs of our group and the gasifier group were similar, since our projects are strongly linked.
Annual revenues are $689 Million using $2.75/gallon of gasoline product and $1/gallon of LPG
product. The IRR for this project assuming 20 year plant life is 30% and has a simple payback of
only 3.4 years. The project will be located at the site of the landfill in Newton County, Indiana,
and will be coupled along with the gasification plant that will convert the municipal solid waste
into syngas. For the economic calculations for this process, the utilities are counted separately
from the gasification process and the facilities are different as well. More information on the
facilities and equipment layout is in section 12.
3. Discussion
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is largely a renewable resource. The average American
generates 650 times their bodyweight in trash throughout their lifetime. Questions were asked
about how landfill space can be dealt with. Converting MSW to syngas is an efficient way of
converting waste into a useful chemical precursor for producing other important industrial
chemicals.
Syngas at a 2:1 H2:CO ratio is fed to a methanol reactor where the reaction occurs as:
2H2 + CO  CH3OH
(Equation 3.1)
This reaction occurs at 725 psi, 270ºC and over 99.5% selectivity. The Methanol for the
Methanol-to-Gasoline (MTG) process does not need to be purified as in a traditional methanol
production process, so therefore distillation columns are not a part of the methanol production
portion of the process. The methanol reactor is a boiling water reactor. Since the methanol
production generates a large amount of heat, boiler feed water is used to create steam at 400
10
psia from the boiling water reactor. The catalyst used in the methanol production is a CopperZinc-Alumina catalyst which will be replaced every 4 years. The methanol reactor runs at a
conversion of 0.4, so the effluent will contain methanol and syngas. Methanol coming out of
the methanol reactor is cooled several times so that it can be separated from the syngas to
produce syngas recycle and purge streams, the first cooling process is used to make steam at
72.5 psia. The steam that is made from the process is sold along with the extra light gases (C1C2) from this process to the gasification plant at $40 million per year and will be used to
generate electricity and help provide heat for the gasification process. About 2% of the total
syngas is purged in order to maintain the 2:1 H2:CO ratio of the feed and to purge out
noncondensing contaminants. Methanol reactor effluent is cooled and separated into syngas
and methanol streams. Following the separation, the methanol product will be reheated prior
to entering the MTG reactors. The final heating of methanol product is in a fired heater, which
will bring the methanol to 310ºC. The fuel for the fired heater is the C1-C2 light gas
components from the syngas purge. The MTG effluent is a mixture of hydrocarbons and water.
The MTG process will convert any byproducts that may come out of the methanol reactor,
mainly higher alcohols and DME to the same hydrocarbons and water product
(www.nacatsoc.org/20nam/abstracts/P-S9-33C.pdf).
In the MTG process, methanol is reacted over the ZSM-5 catalyst in a circulating
fluidized bed reactor. Three MTG reactors in parallel are used because of upper size scale
limits. The ZSM-5 catalyst was patented by Mobil in 1972 (U. S. Patent 3,702,886) and costs
$53.40/lb. In the MTG process, the reactor is run at 626ºF (330ºC) at the inlet and 752 ºF
(400ºC) at the outlet and the pressures at the inlet and outlet are at 210 and 185 psia
respectively.
The circulating fluidized bed schemes can be seen in figure 8 of this report. The
methanol comes into the bottom of the column with a fluidizing velocity of 10 ft/sec, along with
recently regenerated catalyst. Methanol is converted to hydrocarbons and water in the column,
and this product, along with some of the catalyst, comes out of the top of the reactor. The
catalyst is separated from the products in a cyclone, and any coke on the catalyst is burnt off
11
using air. We have added a cyclone for the flue gas to make sure that no catalyst becomes
entrained in the flue gas and goes out of our process. This regeneration makes the catalyst very
hot, so we cool the catalyst by converting boiler feed water to steam, which can be used in our
process or sold to the gasification group. This method of cooling is better than using cooling
water because it allows us to use the heat from the reaction for other processes in our plant.
The catalyst will still need to be replaced every year, however, since the high partial pressure of
water in the reactors (from the product of the MTG reaction) damages the catalyst.
We used the circulating fluidized bed reactors (which have only been demonstrated on a
pilot-plant scale) as opposed to the fixed-bed reactors for a number of reasons. First of all, the
constant catalyst regeneration in the fluidized bed reactors means that the reactors do not
have to be taken off line to have the catalyst regenerated. With the fixed bed scenario, swing
reactors are normally used, since the catalyst has to be regenerated about every two weeks in
that scenario. The catalyst fixed reactors also experience a problem called band aging. The
catalyst ages in bands, so the reactors have to be monitored to make sure that the band isn’t
too close to the end of the reactor, which could lead to unconverted methanol coming out of
the reactor. In the circulating fluidized bed reactors, the catalyst is constantly regenerated, so
this is not a problem. The fluidized bed reactors can also turn methanol into gasoline, which
takes an extra step in the fixed bed process (methanol is reacted to make dimethyl ether, which
is then converted to gasoline). A recent report on the Mobil process and gasification from the
NREL reinforced our decision. The report predicted that a fixed bed scenario would result in a
33% increase in the cost of the gasoline compared to a fluidized bed scenario (Phillips, Tarud,
Biddy, & Dutta, 2010, p. 49).
The MTG process yields 56 wt% water and 44 wt% hydrocarbons. The MTG effluent is
separated, with the water stream entering a water treatment portion of the process and the
hydrocarbons stream entering a series of three different distillation columns for product
separation. The first distillation column separates the C1-C3 components from the C3-C10
components. The C3-C10 components are sent to the second distillation column, where one
part of the final gasoline product exits from the bottoms and the distillate is C3-C5 components.
12
This distillate enters the third and final distillation column, which has C5 components exiting
the bottoms and mixing with the gasoline product from the second distillation column. This
creates the final gasoline product which will be cooled and stored. The distillate from the third
distillation column is the LPG product, which is also cooled and stored as well. LPG will be sold
for various heating purposes and the gasoline product will be sent to local refineries for further
processing. We will be transporting our gasoline and LPG by train.
While this process is currently in a great economic position due to the current gas prices
in Q1 and Q2 2011, the process also has the potential to help solve America’s energy crisis. The
gasoline produced from this process is premium gasoline, virtually sulfur free and emits lower
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than its oil derived equivalent. Starting with the renewable
resource of municipal solid waste, otherwise just occupying landfill space, contaminating
groundwaters and providing a breeding ground for rodents and roaches, a highly valued
necessity is produced. While ethanol and other biofuels are being developed, the MTG process
is generating a fuel that fits seamlessly in to America’s current energy infrastructure.
4. Recommendations and Conclusions
A. Energy Independence
This process is highly recommended for construction and implementation. The use of a
renewable resource in order to produce an essential and currently indispensible fuel is essential
to the energy independence of the United States, and with growing concern over the depletion
of the world’s oil supply, other sources of fuel need to be researched. Gasoline as a fuel fits the
current day infrastructure, drop-in fuel, and within the next 20 years, which is the projected life
of this project, it is possible that the implementation of other fuels will begin.
B. Environmental Consciousness
Locally, the reduction of municipal solid waste from a landfill will reduce the pollution of
the local environment. The contamination of groundwaters by leakage, residual soil
13
contamination from the waste, offset of methane created by decaying organic waste, sheltering
of disease carriers, such as roaches, rats and dust are largely eliminated with the reduction of
landfill space from this process. The gasoline produced from this process is also virtually free of
any sulfur, unlike gasoline derived from oil and provides a smaller carbon footprint that its oilderived equivalent.
C. Location
The project will be located at the Newton County Landfill in Indiana. This is the largest
landfill that accepts waste from the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The area also features a
railroad close by, so that the final products can be sent off by train back to the Chicago Metro
Area for further refining. The largest landfill of America’s second city is the ideal place for this
process.
D. Revenue
While the price of gasoline is extremely volatile due to the unstable prices in oil, the
price for this the gasoline product and the LPG products can be much more stable due to the
fact that the sources are a renewable source. While the gasoline product will require refining
and blending after it leaves the plant, the price of the gasoline is still comparable to that of the
gasoline derived from oil. The yearly revenue of this process is $689 million. The simple payback
of the process is 3.4 years, and with a net income of $110 million per year, this process is highly
profitable. Rising gasoline prices and possible GHG regulations would make this process even
more economical.
E. Operating Cost
The operating cost is fairly high, with the price of syngas per ton being the highest at
nearly $500 million annually. The total installed cost of this process was rated at nearly $374
million, thus the annual cost of syngas is around 4/3 of the TIC of the plant. Furthermore, with
the ZSM-5 catalyst requiring replacement every year, the Cu-Zn-Al catalyst requiring
replacement every 4 years and the utilities cost, the operating cost per year is above $35
14
million per year. However, despite this, the annual profit for the process still is over $110
million per year, thus leading to the very low break-even period.
5. Appendices
5.1.Design Basis
The basis for the mass balance of this process begins with 6000 short tons per day of
syngas. This will produce 15,974 barrels per day of gasoline product and 4,263 barrels per day
of LPG. The reactor sizing calculation for the MTG reactor is based off the amount of catalyst in
the reactors.
The reactor sizing needs to take into account both the necessary heat transfer from the
reactor and the kinetics of the reactor. Since the methanol reaction approaches equilibrium
quickly, the heat transfer must be dispersed throughout the whole reactor.
The kinetic sizing is based upon the GHSV for this reaction at similar conditions, which is
8000 hr-1. The volume is then equal to the flow rate through the reactor per hour divided by
8000. This is equal to around 176.01 feet cubed.
6.65 ∗ (105 )
𝐿
𝑚3
𝑓𝑡 3
𝑚𝑖𝑛
∗ .001
∗ 35.315 3 ∗ 60
∗ 8000ℎ𝑟 −1 = 176.01 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐿
𝑚
ℎ𝑟
(Equation 5.1)
The thermal part of the reactor sizing is based upon the heat exchanger relation
Q=UA(Log mean temperature difference). With a heat transfer coefficient of 100
Btu/(hr*ft^2*F), the area needed is 75865 feet squared
(557 ∗ 106 )
𝐵𝑇𝑈
ℎ𝑟
𝐵𝑇𝑈
100
∗ 73.386°𝐹
ℎ𝑟 ∗ °𝐹 ∗ 𝑓𝑡 2
= 75865.42𝑓𝑡 2
(Equation 5.2)
15
With 3” tubes (large enough to hold the catalyst), a tube fraction of .44 (Kern, 1950) and
height to diameter ratio of 4:1, 1608 tubes are needed. The numbers of tubes depends on the
diameter of the reactor, and were scaled up from the data in Kern, 1950. The volume of the
reactor was achieved by iterating the diameter of the reactor until the volume was what was
predicted from the thermal specifications. The dimensions of the reactor are 15 feet in
diameter and 60 feet in height. The difference between the inner and outer diameter of the
tubes was considered to be negligible.
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = # 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠 ∗ 𝑝𝑖 ∗ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 ∗ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
(Equation 5.3)
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = # 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠 ∗ 𝑝𝑖 ∗ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ (𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 2 )/4
(Equation 5.4)
The volume of the tubes in the reactor is 4741 ft3, much larger than what is needed by
the kinetics of the reactor. This means that more volume (with 3 inch tubes) is needed for heat
transfer from the reactor than is needed for the volume of the catalyst. We will use spent
catalyst in our reactor as packing, which reduces the overall catalyst activity, since other
materials may make the heat distribution throughout the reactor uneven. Using other materials
could also cause reaction hot spots to occur in the reactor. This is undesirable because the it
could decrease the overall conversion in the reactor, or create undesirable side products. Spent
catalyst is also a cheap source of packing. For the startup of the reactor, we can use spent
catalyst from a different reactor.
According to one of the authors of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
report on the Mobil Process, the MTG fluidized bed reactors’ size is essentially the size of the
catalyst inside the reactor. Since we have the amount of catalyst that we need in total, from
this we can get the total volume that we need. Similarly, we need a fluidizing velocity to keep
the catalyst coming out of the top reactor, which we estimated at 10 ft/sec (3.04 m/s). From
this velocity we sized the diameter, and thus the length of our column. The basic calculations
that were used to size the reactors are included below.
16
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡 = √
𝐿
1 𝑚𝑖𝑛
95400 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∗ 60 𝑠𝑒𝑐 ∗ 4
𝑚3
𝑚
1000 𝐿 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 3.04 𝑠
∗ 3.28
𝑓𝑡
= 2.7 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑚
(Equation 5.5)
40761 𝑙𝑏 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑡
)
𝑙𝑏
93 3
𝑓𝑡
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 =
= 77.9 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡
2.7 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡
(
(Equation 5.6)
5.2.Block Flow Diagram
Figure 3: Block Flow Diagram
Figure 3 depicts the block flow diagram for this process. Starting with the syngas feed to
the methanol reactor, methanol is produced, with a conversion of around 40%. Because of this
17
low conversion, some syngas from the methanol reactor is not reacted and leaves with the
methanol. The methanol/syngas product is then cooled so that the two components can be
separated from each other. The syngas is then recycled, with a small amount (2%) being
purged to keep down levels of contaminants. The recycled syngas then reenters the methanol
reactor and the more pure methanol is then primed for entrance to the MTG reactors. The
MTG reactors produce a stream of vaporized hydrocarbons and water, with a conversion of
over 99.5%, ideally around 99.95% with proper catalyst regeneration. The water is separated
from the hydrocarbons and then treated, and the hydrocarbons stream enters the first
distillation column. The distillate of the deethanizer is C1-C3 compounds, and the bottoms
product enter the second and the third distillation columns, where the final LPG and Gasoline
product are produced by the separation of the hydrocarbons. These products are then cooled
and then sent to tankage for storage, awaiting transportation to the refinery via train.
5.3.Process Flow Diagram
Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram
Figure 4 depicts the overall view of the process flow diagram of this process. This
project is concerned with the conversion of syngas to Methanol, and then the conversion of
18
that Methanol to C5+ Gasoline Components and LPG. The refining of the final gasoline product
and the production of syngas from municipal solid waste are not within the scope of this
project. The process has been scaled for 6,000 tons per day of syngas and will produce
15,974barrels per day and 4,263 barrels per day of LPG. The process has five major sections:
Syngas to Methanol Reaction, heat exchange for all major processes, Methanol to Gasoline
Reaction, water separation and treatment, and product refining. This schematic will be broken
down into subcomponents of each major section in order to more clearly elaborate upon
stream numbers and how the components are used within the heat exchange section and what
streams are being produced at various stages. A detailed account of the stream make-up and
content is provided in the Material Balance section 6.1 and also in the Custom Stream Summary
in section 7.1. The control scheme is not included here in this section but is explained in full
detail in section 11.
19
Figure 5: First Part of Methanol Reaction and Separation
20
Figure 6: Second Part of Methanol Reaction and Separation
21
The first step in the process is converting syngas feed to methanol in the methanol
reactor. Syngas is fed directly into the process from the gasifier. This direct feed is connected
to a valve which can flare off the incoming syngas if needed for safety reasons (reactors going
down, etc.). The fresh feed (1) is connected to the recycle stream (2) and forms the methanol
reactor (R1) feed stream (3). Since R1 is a boiling water reactor, excess heat is given off by the
reactor and steam is generated by sending water into the steam drum (V1). 400 psia steam (4)
is sent off while blowdown from the mud drum(V2) keeps the percentage of total suspended
solids down. The hot methanol product stream (5) coming out of R1 is then fed to the waste
heat boiler (F1). Because the effluent of the methanol reactor is still hot, it is used to generate
steam at 5 bar (72.5 psia) in F1. The generation of steam in F1 is the first part of a series of heat
exchangers that will cool down the mixed methanol product.
Coming out of F1 is the cooler methanol product stream (6) and this flows into the
MeOH/Light Gas Exchanger (E1). Using the distillate (C1-C3 components) from the Deethanizer
(T1), (6) further cools down into a cooler methanol product stream (8) while the distillate exist
at a higher temperature (12) and enters the LG header. Stream (8) enters the Recycle
Syngas/Methanol Exchanger (E2). In E2, (8) the methanol is further cooled with the recycled
syngas stream (15) from the Flash Unit (V5). Leaving E2 is a heated recycle syngas stream (16)
and a cooled methanol product (9). Stream (9) enters the third and final heat exchanger, the
Methanol Trim Cooler (E3). In order to cool (9), a cooling water stream is used. Leaving E3 is a
warmer water stream and a cold methanol stream (10). Stream (10) enters V5, a flashing unit
that separates the methanol and the syngas. The syngas stream (14) from V5 is sent to
compressor (C1), and leaves as stream (15), where it enters E2 as discussed earlier. The
methanol coming from the bottom of V5(13), with the output controlled by a valve, and 13
enters the Cool MeOH/Cool gasoline heat exchanger (E20). The other stream entering E20 is
the stream (30) from E9. E20 sends the methanol to the Methanol-Gasoline Preheater (E4) and
sends the hydrocarbons (61) to the Hydrocarbon Trim Cooler (E10).
22
Stream (13) is the methanol stream
from E20 and enters E4, the MethanolGasoline Preheater. Entering E4 is (13) and
the gasoline product from the MTG reactors
(54). Stream (54) is hot and thus its heat is
transferred into the methanol stream (13) in
order to prepare the methanol feed for the
MTG reactors. Stream (13) leaves E4 as
preheated methanol (24) and the gasoline
stream (54) exits as stream (56) where it will
enter the Gasoline Trim Cooler (E14). The
preheated methanol (24) enters the
Feed/Product Heat Exchanger (E5). Entering
E5 is (24) and a water stream (21) from the
top of the MTG reactor. Exiting E5 are a
water stream (25), discussed later, and the
heated methanol stream (18). The stream
(18) will then be further heated by the
Methanol Fired Heater (F2).
Figure 7: Methanol Heating
23
Figure 8: Methanol-To-Gasoline Reaction
24
Figure 8 shows the entire Methanol to Gasoline Reaction, with the three reactors that
are in parallel. Upon inspection, all three of the reactors are identical, thus their streams are
the same and each have the same label. However, in order to find the total output of the MTG
Reactors, when one stream is calculated, the entire amount in the process is actually 3 times
the calculated value. Light hydrocarbon gas from the LG header is used as a heat source for F2
so that (18) will be heated further to produce stream (19), which is methanol ready for the MTG
reactors. Exiting F2 is flue gas from the burnt light gases. The MTG Reactors (R2-4) all have
identical control schemes and streams. Following the heating of (18) to create hot methanol
(19), the MTG reactor will operate at over 99.5% conversion and any other carbon components
contained within (19) are converted to a hydrocarbons/water mixture. Stream (23) the mixed
water/hydrocarbons/catalyst stream exits the MTG reactor and enters the Catalyst/Product
cyclone (U1-3). This cyclone separates the catalyst from the MTG product, with the catalyst
entering (F3-5) the MTG Catalyst Decoker and the water/hydrocarbons stream (22) being the
MTG product mixed with the effluent of the other MTG reactors. F3 regenerates the catalyst
using air to burn the coke off of the catalyst. About 2% of the carbon in the feed is coked on to
the catalyst. Coked catalyst enters the (U4-6) Catalyst/Flue Gas Cyclone, in order to recycle any
catalyst that was entrained in the flue gas. The catalyst will enter (E6-8), the Catalyst Heat
Recovery Steam Generator, where the catalyst is cooled using boiler feed water and then the
catalyst is fed back into the MTG reactor. The sum of all the streams labeled (22) (they all have
the same flowrates and compositions) is the final MTG reactor product (21).
25
Figure 9: MTG Product Cooling and Water Sepataion/Treatment
26
Before the product refining stage is outlined in detail, water and light gas separation
process must be expanded upon. Shown in Figures 9 and 10, the water and light gas separation
phase of this process begins with the Product/Water heat exchanger (E9). The hydrocarbons
and water stream (25) from E5 enters E9. Also entering E9 is stream (35), which is the bottoms
product from the Water/Hydrocarbon Flash Drum (V7) from further down this water separation
process. Exiting E9 is a hydrocarbons stream (30) which proceeds to the E20 Methanol Trim
Cooler, and a water stream (36) which proceeds to the wastewater treatment process. As
mentioned above, leaving E20 is stream (61) hydrocarbons, which have been heated by
methanol product from V5. Stream (61) enters the Hydrocarbon Trim Cooler E10, where it is
cooled by a cooling water stream. Exiting E10 is a cool hydrocarbons stream (31) and warmer
cooling water. Stream (31) enters the Hydrocarbon/Water Decanter V6, where the
hydrocarbons and the water are separated. The water stream (32) is throttled to make stream
(60). These two combine to make stream (60), which is fed into the Water/Hydrocarbon Flash
Drum V7. The distillate of this flash drum is the Light Hydrocarbon Gas (33), which is sent off to
the LG header, which will be used to fire F2. Stream (33) is the light hydrocarbons (C1-C3). The
bottoms product of V7 (34) is water. Stream (34) is pumped by the Water Centrifugal Pump P1
and exits the pump as stream (35). Stream (35) is the water that enters E9 in order to cool the
stream (25).
From V6, the hydrocarbons stream (37) enters the Hydrocarbon Centrifugal Pump P2,
where it exits as stream (38). Stream (38) enters the Deethanizer Distillation Column T1. The
bottoms product of T1 is a hydrocarbons stream (39) containing C3-C10 components. Stream
(39) will enter a second distillation column (T2). The distillate product of T1 is a C1-C3 product
(11). The distillate from T1 first enters the Deethanizer Distillate Partial Condenser (E11). Also
entering E11 is a cooling water stream. The hydrocarbons distillate leaving E11 is sent to the
Deethanizer Condensate Flash Drum (V8). Distillate components of V8 are flared off while the
bottoms product form stream (11) the C1 and C3 components from T1.
27
Figure 10: Product Refining and Final Product
28
The C3-C10 Hydrocarbons stream (39) enters the Hydrocarbon Distillation Column (T2),
coupled with steam as well from the Hydrocarbon Distillation Column Reboiler (E16). The
bottoms product of T2 (51) is part of the final gasoline product. The distillate of T2 is a
pentanes and LPG stream, which is sent to the Hydrocarbon Partial Condenser (E12). Also
entering E12 is a cooling water stream. Leaving E12 is a warmer cooling water stream and
cooled LPG and pentanes, which enters the Condensate Flash Drum (V9). V9 is connected to
the Hydrocarbon Condensate Pump (P5), where part of its bottoms product is recycled back
into T2 for further processing. The product coming out of V9 is the LPG and pentanes stream
(53) that is fed into the Hydrocarbon Finishing Distillation Column (T3), the third and final
column of this process. The distillate product from T3 is the LPG stream. It first passes through
the Hydrocarbon Partial Condenser (E13) where it is cooled by a cooling water stream. The LPG
stream coming out of E13 enters the Condensate Flash Drum (V10). Part of the product from
V10 enters the LPG condensate pump (P6) and is pumped back into T3 as a recycle stream. The
final LPG product leaves V10 and is the final LPG product (55) which enters LPG storage. The
bottoms product of T3 is a pentanes stream (42) that is mixed with (51) to create (54). Stream
(54) enters the Methanol/Gasoline Preheater (E4). Also going in to E4 is the methanol stream
(13) from V3. Leaving E4 is the heated methanol stream (17) going to E5 and a cooled gasoline
product stream (56). Stream (56) enters the Gasoline Trim Cooler (E14), where is it cooled by a
cooling water stream and exits as stream (57). Stream (57) is the final gasoline product from
this process and goes directly to gasoline storage.
29
6. Material and Energy Balance
6.1.Material Balance
A full material balance is done around both the Methanol Reactor and the MTG
reactors. A component balance of both the LPG and product streams can be constructed and
shown below. The process was scaled for 6000 short tons per day of syngas. The material
balance around the Methanol Reactor is shown schematically in Figure 6A-1 and numerically in
Table 6A-1. The material balance was conducted in iterative fashion and the numbers at the
25th iteration are used as it is at the 25th iteration that the numbers have already converged in
reasonable fashion. The conversion of the Methanol Reactor is set to 0.4 per pass and
calculated on a basis of 6000 short tons per day of syngas.
Figure 11: Methanol Reaction and Separation
30
Figure 10 depicts the methanol reactor, with the syngas recycle and fresh feed, and also
with the methanol effluent (5). The equations used for the Mass balance for the Methanol
Reactor loop are:
𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 = (𝐶𝑂 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑦𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑠 + 𝐶𝑂 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒) ∗ (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛) −
𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚
(6.1.1)
𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 = (𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑦𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑠 + 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒) − (𝐶𝑂 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑦𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑠 +
𝐶𝑂 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒) − 𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 − 𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚) ∗ 2
(6.1.2)
𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 = 𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 + 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒
(6.1.3)
𝐻2 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 = 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∗ 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒
(6.1.4)
𝐶𝑂 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 = 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∗ 𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒
(6.1.5)
𝐻2 𝐵𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑡𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 − 𝐻2 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒
(6.1.6)
𝐶𝑂 𝐵𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑡𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐶𝑂 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 − 𝐶𝑂 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒
(6.1.7)
𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻 (𝑜𝑢𝑡) = (1 − 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛) ∗ 𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻(𝑖𝑛)
(6.1.8)
Entering the Methanol Reactor are the SYNGAS (1) and the recycle stream (2) composed of:

15657.67 lbmol/hr CO from SYNGAS

31315.35 lbmol/hr H2 from SYNGAS
31

21736.17 lbmol/hr CO from SECOND (Recycle - Purge)

52679.94 lbmol/hr H2 from SECOND (Recycle = Purge)
For the PRODUCT stream (5),

256.52 lbmol/hr CO with PRODUCT

33.60 lbmol/hr H2 with PRODUCT

6775.76 lbmol/hr MeOH PRODUCT

10047.44 lbmol/hr CO in RECYCLE

24498.34 lbmol/hr H2 in RECYCLE
The product stream (5) is cooled through several heat exchangers so that the Methanol
can be separated from the CO and H2. The separated Methanol is then reheated through heat
exchangers and a fired heater and then sent to the MTG reactor. CO and H2 gas are separated
in the Methanol/Syngas Flash Drum V4 and sent back as both the recycle and purge stream. 2%
of the CO and H2 that are recycled back to the Methanol Reactor are purged in order to
maintain 2:1 syngas ratio and to eliminate contaminant buildup.
For the PURGE stream,

110.52 lbmol/hr CO

269.48 lbmol/hr H2
The methanol from the methanol reactor, after separated from the syngas, is reheated
and sent to the three MTG reactors. The process flow diagram of a single MTG reactor is shown
in Figure 5. Equations for the mass balance of the MTG reactors are:
Compound (effluent, norecycle )  %oftotal * ( MeOH ( produced , total)) / 100
Equation 6.1.9
32
CompoundinEffluent(total)  Re cycleComponent (OneTrialEa rlier )  Compound (effluent, norecycle )

trial#
 Compound (effluent, norecycle ) *[(1 LGConversion) * ( LPGConversion) * (Re cycleConversion )]
i n
i 1
Equation 6.1.10
TotalFlowrateThroughMTG Re actor   CompoundInEffluent(total)
(Equation 6.1.11)
TotalFlowrateThroughMTG Re actor   CompoundInEffluent(total)
(Equation 6.1.12)
The equations for the MTG reactor
include the sum of compounds flowing
through the MTG reactor. The component
balance of the hydrocarbons compounds are
shown in Table 1. Entering the MTG reactor
is 14957.54 lbmol/hr MeOH. The
composition, by wt %, of the effluent leaving
the MTG reactor is shown in Table 1
Table 1 shows the weight composition
of the MTG effluent. It shows that by weight,
water consists of 56% of the MTG product,
with the other 44% being hydrocarbons
ranging from C1-C9 and aromatics. There are
no hydrogen gas, CO, CO2, C10 and C11
Table 2: MTG Effluent
Composition (wt%)
Table 1: MTG Effluent
Composition (lbmol/hr)
33
aromatic components. C5 and C6 are the highest hydrocarbon concentrations in this MTG
effluent at 7.22 wt% each, with C8 and C9 aromatic compounds being prevalent as well at 4.13
wt% for each. Light gas components C1 and C2 together consist of roughly 0.64 wt% of the
MTG effluent, and C3/C4 components, which make up the LPG product for this process are 6.4
wt%. The sum of all gasoline components in the MTG effluent is 34.5 wt%. It should be noted
here that when the water is separated in Decanter V6, there will be some hydrocarbons left
over from the separation process. Following the decanting process will be a flash unit that will
separate the light gas components that will be contained within the separated water.
Table 2 shows the actual lbmol/hr flow of each component leaving the MTG reactor in
the MTG effluent. With the inlet flow of MeOH at 14957.54 lbmol/hr, the sum of all
components leaving the MTG reactor is also at 14957.54 lbmol/hr, showing that the process is
indeed running at 99.5% conversion of the feed. The amount of water produced by the MTG
reaction is 8376.221 lbmol/hr with the C5 and C6 components at 1080.612 lbmol/hr each and
C8 and C9 aromatic compounds at 618.4224 lbmol/hr each. The total flow of hydrocarbons
coming out of the MTG reactors is 6581.319 lbmol/hr. Following the MTG reactors is the water
separation process for the decanter.
With the water and hydrocarbon flowrates both known for the MTG reactors, the
following equations are used for the mass balance on the Decanter (V6):
Water (out , flash )  water( produced , total)
LightGasComponentFlowRate  LGConversion * CompoundinEffluent(total)
Equations 6.1.13 and 6.1.14
34
ComponentOutofLiquidFlash  (1  LGConversion) * CompoundinEffluent(total)
Equation 6.1.15
Using the assumption that all of the water is completely miscible
with the light gas components of the hydrocarbon components,
the flow of water out of the decanter is 8376.221 lbmol/hr, or
8606.014 lbmol/hr with the light gas components. These
component flow rates are shown in Table 3. In order to account
for the light gas flowrates as it enters the Water/Hydrocarbon
Flash Block (V7), the assumptions that all of the CH4, all of the
C2, and 30% of the C3 components were partially miscible with
the water and thus were separated from the hydrocarbons with
the water. The presence of C3 components in the light gas phase is to increase
Table 3: Light Gas Flow Rates
the heating value of the light gas stream. The flowrate of the
light gas stream is 229.793 lbmol/hr for the light gases that were extracted with
the water from the decanter V6. This then leaves the hydrocarbons stream
without water, C1 and C2 components, and 70% of the C3 components that were
from the stream leaving the MTG reactor. Table 4 outlines the hydrocarbons
stream that leaves the bottom of the decanter and enters the first distillation
column, the deethanizer. It is noted from Table 4 that the stream is completely
devoid of the light gas components C1 and C2, with a remaining portion of C3
intact and the hydrocarbons stream is completely devoid of any type of water
components.
Table 4: Hydrocarbons
Stream Flow Rates
35
Following the final product refining for the three distillation
columns, the component make-up for both the LPG and the final
gasoline product are calculated. For the LPG product, the
assumptions are that all of the C3, C4, and 10% of the C5
components from the hydrocarbons stream make up the LPG
product. For the gasoline product, 90% of the C5 components from
the hydrocarbons stream and 100% of all components with higher
molecular weight than C5 are included. This leads to the
configuration shown in Tables 5 and 6. Section 7.1 outlines the
Table 5: LPG Flow Rates
stream summaries for every single stream in the process. Please
refer to the stream summary for flowrates, temperature and
pressure details.
Table 6: Gasoline
Product Composition
(lbmol/hr)
36
6.2.Energy Balance
The energy balance is done around the methanol reactor. To begin this, equation 6.2.1
is used:
∆𝐻𝐹𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝑚𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻,𝑜𝑢𝑡 ∗ ∆𝐻𝐹𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻 − 𝑚𝐶𝑂,𝑖𝑛 ∗ ∆𝐻𝐹𝐶𝑂 − 𝑚𝐻2 ∗ ∆𝐻𝐹𝐻2
(6.2.1)
Values for the mass flowrates are :
mco,in = 8611.7 lbmol/hr
mH2,in = 17223.4 lbmol/hr
mmeoh,out = 8226.711 lbmol/hr
Values for the standard heat of formations are:
∆HF (meoh) = -75630.6 Btu/lbmol
∆HF (co) = -47443.6 Btu/lbmol
∆HF (H2) = 0 Btu/lbmol
Thus,
∆𝑯𝑭𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓
= -580873500 Btu/hr
Now, to find the temperature coming out of the reactor, equation 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 are used:
∆𝐻𝐹𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = ∑(𝑚 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ) ∗ (𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛 ) + 𝑄
𝑐𝑝 = 𝑎𝑇 +
𝑏𝑇 2
2
+
𝑐𝑇 3
3
+
𝑑𝑇 4
(6.2.2)
(6.2.3)
4
37
Given that the heat surrounding the methanol reactor is zero, Q = 0 and for equation
6.2.3, the constants a, b, c and d are specific to the compound, the heat capacities of CO, H 2
and MeOH are found at T=518ºF:
Cpco = 3587.74 Btu/lbmol ºF
CpH2 = 3567.70 Btu/lbmol ºF
Cpmeoh = 5120.24 Btu/lbmol ºF
Setting 6.2.2 equal to 6.2.1, Tout can be found:
Tout = 736.23º
F
38
7. Calculations
7.1.Aspen Streams
The Process Flow Diagram section 5.3 gives a graphical overview of each stream and
how it interacts with components of the process. In order to elaborate more in these streams,
the following tables elaborate on the amount of the composition of each stream in the process.
Table 7: Methanol Reaction and Separation
Table 7 corresponds to Figure 5 and 6 (first part of first page of PFD) the Methanol
reactor, the syngas feed and part of the recycle stream. Stream (1) the syngas feed for the
entire process from the gasifier enters at 725 psi, 518ºF and consists of 31935 lbmol/hr of H 2
and 15967 lbmol/hr of CO. Stream (2) the stream that is from the compressor enters at 725 psi
and 345ºF and contains 22464 lbmol/hr of CO and 57182 lbmol/hr of CO, H2 along with 576
lbmol/hr of MeOH. Both streams (1) and (2) combine to make stream (3). The first methanol
product stream (5) is at the same conditions as stream (1) but contains 15948 lbmol/hr MeOH,
along with 58373 lbmol/hr H2 and 23059 lbmol/hr CO. Stream (6) has the same composition as
stream (5) but has a lower temperature at 333ºF. The low pressure steam (7) is at 73 psi,
306ºF and consists of 11023 lbmol/hr of H2O. The cooled MeOH stream (8) has the same
39
composition and pressure of stream (5) but is at a temperature of 292ºF. Cold MeOH stream
(10) entering V5 is the same as (8) in terms of composition and pressure but at 102ºF. Stream
(9) leaving E2 is at 725 psi and at 294ºF and contains 58373 lbmol/hr H2 and 23059 lbmol/hr CO
and 15948 lbmol/hr MeOH.
Table 8: Methanol Separation and Syngas Recycle
Table 8 corresponds to Figure 6 (second part of the first page of PFD), the Methanol
reactor with the syngas recycle. The light gas from the deethanizer (11) is at a lower pressure
than the other components at this stage of the process due to it being the distillate from T1. It
should be noted that the syngas recycle stream (16) contains some methanol in it, 588
lbmol/hr, and this is not a problem due to the fact that it is being fed back into the methanol
reactor. Stream (11) to stream (12), and the temperature increase is 185 ºF. Pure methanol
stream (13), exiting from the bottom of the Methanol-Syngas Flash drum V5 contains 15,361
lbmol/hr of MeOH at 435 psi and 86ºF, and contains trace amounts of H2 and CO, at 23
lbmol/hr and 136 lbmol/hr respectively. Stream (13) is heated to stream (70), from 86ºF to
40
209ºF and the exact same pressure and composition. Stream (3) the hydrocarbons that are
used to heat stream (13) exit as stream (61). These are from heat exchanger E9 further down
the process. Coming from the top of V5 is the recycle syngas stream (14). (14) has composition
of 58,350 lbmol/hr H2 and 22,911 lbmol/hr CO, and 588 lbmol/hr MeOH at 435 psia, 86ºF. The
Recycle Syngas Compressor C1 compresses (14) to be stream (15), raising the pressure to 725
psia and temperature at 194ºF. The cost of the compressor is fairly high and has a power
output equal to over 20,000 HP, as noted in the annotated equipment list. In reality this
compressor will be broken up into a series of compressors, which will each have cooling.
Table 9: Methanol Heating and MTG Effluent
Table 9 corresponds to Figure 7 of the PFD. Stream (18) is the pre-fired heater MeOH
stream, at 435 psia, 364ºF, and the exact same composition as stream (61). In order to heat
stream (18) to a greater temperature, the fired heater F2 is employed because the temperature
of the MeOH stream is required to be at 590ºF before entering the MTG reactors and this
temperature is otherwise unobtainable by steam. Stream (19) is at 590ºF and enters the MTG
41
reactors as stream (20), which is a split stream of (19). Stream (22) is the water/hydrocarbons
stream coming out of each MTG reactor. Stream (21) is the combined stream (22) from each
MTG reactor, with a composition of 15,111 lbmol/hr water, 211.8 lbmol/hr light gas, 792.5
lbmol/hr LPG, and 2290.8 lbmol/hr gasoline product.
Table 10: Catalyst Regeneration
Table 10 outlines the very first part of Figure 7, the first heat exchangers that are
heating up the MeOH, and priming it for the MTG reactors. These streams in Table 10 show the
MeOH before it enters the fired heater. Stream (71) is the methanol stream after passing
through the first heat exchanger and is at 237ºF. When stream (71) becomes stream (24), the
temperature is raised to 362ºF, and yet again to 364ºF as stream (18). The first stage of MeOH
heating occurs with the gasoline product, then with the MTG effluent, stream (21). These heat
42
exchangers are employed so that the fired heater F2 has less of a heat load that is required, and
thus saves on cost, while cooling other components to the needed temperature.
Table 11: Water Treatment
Table 11 corresponds to Figure 8 from the PFD, following the MTG reaction. Starting
with stream (25), which has the same composition as stream (21) but is at 362 psia, 409ºF, the
water/hydrocarbons effluent of the MTG reactors is cooled 3 more times in series. Stream (25)
is cooled in to stream (30), which is at 332ºF. Eventually, the MTG product is cooled to 72ºF as
in stream (31), which enters the V6 Water/Hydrocarbons Decanter. The water from the
decanter is stream (32), and sent to the water treatment flash unit V7. The flash unit produces
the light gas stream (33), which has composition of 0.041 lbmol/hr water, 2.6 lbmol/hr light gas,
0.55 lbmol/hr LPG, and 0.62 lbmol/hr of gasoline product. The water stream (34) out of V7 runs
at 15,109 lbmol/hr of water, with 0.02 lbmol/hr of light gas and gasoline product. The water is
pumped as stream (35) and is used to cool down the MTG effluent stream (25). The
hydrocarbons component of stream (31) will exit V6 as stream (37), shown on table 12. As
noted from the PFD, with each cooling operation, the final cooling is done with a heat
exchanger with cooling water. The cooling water is so that the stream can achieve a cooler
temperature than what the other streams throughout the process can provide. This cooling
43
water however is costly, as discussed in the economics and the utilities section, and it is
possible that an air cooling scheme can be used here to alleviate costs.
Table 12: Product Separation
Table 12 outlines the hydrocarbons stream (37) leaving the decanter V6. It is at 362
psia, 68ºF, and has composition of 2 lbmol/hr water, 211.8 lbmol/hr light gas, 792.5 lbmol/hr of
LPG, and 2290.8 lbmol/hr of gasoline product. It is pumped through P2 to become stream (38),
which is at a higher temperature, 391ºF. Stream (38) enters the deethanizer T1. Bottoms
product of T1 is stream (39), at 363 psia, 365ºF, and with composition of 2 lbmol/hr water,
0.004 lbmol/hr light gas, 670 lbmol/hr LPG and 2290.1 lbmol/hr gasoline product. Stream (11)
is the treated distillate of T1, after flowing through V8 and refluxing back in to the column,
stream (11) is at 391 psia, 71ºF, 0 lbmol/hr water, 209.2 lbmol/hr light gas, 121.5 lbmol/hr LPG,
and 0.02 lbmol/hr gasoline product. Stream (11) flows back to the very beginning of the
process where it is used to cool down the methanol product for the very first time. The
bottoms stream (39) is sent to the second distillation column T2. Since stream (39) consists
mainly of hydrocarbons C3+, the second distillation column will separate the lighter
hydrocarbon components (C3, C4) from the heavier components (C5+).
44
Table 13: Final Distillation Column
Table 13 shows the streams from Figure 9 of the PFD. Stream (39), already discussed,
feeds in to the second distillation column T2. The bottoms product of T2 (51) is one part of the
final gasoline product. (51) is at 250 psia, 425ºF, and contains 0.14 lbmol/hr water, 6 lbmol/hr
of LPG, and 1599 lbmol/hr of C5+ gasoline product. The distillate product of T2 is fed in to V9
flash and refluxed back to T2. The distillate stream (53) is at 220 psia, 189ºF and contains 1.44
lbmol/hr of water, 0.004 lbmol/hr of light gas, 664 lbmol/hr of LPG, and 691 lbmol/hr of
gasoline product. It should be noted here that T2 mainly is used to collect the heavy
components of the final gasoline product. While Table 13 does not give the full compositions of
each hydrocarbon in the streams, it should be noted that distillate (53) contains mostly C5
hydrocarbons and lower, while the bottoms product has components C6 and heavier. (53) is
fed in to the third distillation column T3. The bottoms product of T3 is stream (52), which is at
73 psia, 198 ºF and contains 0.16 lbmol/hr water, 1.6 lbmol/hr of LPG, and 206 lbmol/hr of
gasoline product. The majority of this stream consists of the C5 components that were in
stream (53). Streams (52) and stream (51) both combine to create stream (54), which has the
composition of the final gasoline product of this process. Stream (54) is initially hot, at 315ºF,
45
73 psia, and contains 0.3 lbmol/hr water, 7.6 lbmol/hr LPG and 1805 lbmol/hr gasoline
product. Stream (54) is cooled twice to become stream (56), then stream (57) at 73 psia, 77ºF,
and the same composition of stream (54). Once again, the transition from stream (56) to
stream (57) involves the use of cooling water. The distillate of T3 is stream (55) at 96 psia,
101ºF, containing 1.3 lbmol/hr water, 0.004 lbmol/hr light gas, 663 lbmol/hr light gas and 485
lbmol/hr gasoline product. The majority of the heavier components of the gasoline product
have been removed at this point so the 485 lbmol/hr of gasoline product in stream (55) is just
C5 components. Stream (55) is not cooled and goes directly to storage.
46
8. Annotated Equipment List (Data Sheets)
Tables 14-17 give specific detail about each piece of equipment in this process, starting
with the corresponding number on the PFD, the name of each individual part, a brief
description of its function, its operating temperature (ºF), its operating pressure (psia), and its
cost in USD.
Table 14: Equipment List for First PFD Diagram
47
Table 15: Equipment List for Second PFD Diagram
48
Table 16: Equipment List for Third PFD Diagram
49
Table 17: Equipment List for Water Treatment System
It should be noted that each MTG reactor costs $4,580,000, the Recycle Syngas
Compressor C1 rated at $4,792,600, the deethanizer at $772,900, the second distillation
column at $587,100, and the third distillation column at $397,900. C1 has a driving power of
29,498 HP and constitutes the largest price for any single piece of equipment throughout this
process. The MTG reactors will cost the most overall, with C1 coming in second, and the
various heat exchangers and cooler costing a large portion of the rest of the process. Detailed
analysis of equipment costs are outline in the next section, the economic evaluation.
9. Economic Evaluation
9.1.Annual Revenue
All economic evaluation was done using the Aspen Icarus Economic Simulator. The total
revenue per year for this process is estimated at $ 688.9 Million per year with a profit of $104
Million per year. A single year counts as 8000 hours of uptime for the process. The IRR for this
project is 30% for a 20 year plant life. Simple payback is calculated to be 3.4 years. Revenue
sources are detailed as below.
50
Gasoline Product:
15,974 Barrels per day = 670,908 gallons per day of gasoline product is produced from
this process. The spot price of $3.00/gallon provided by the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) of the Department of Energy (DoE) of the United States is the gasoline derived from oil
sources. Since the gasoline from this process is not sold directly to consumers but to refineries
instead, the price is lowered to $2.75/gallon. The volumetric flow rate of gasoline that is
𝐿
produced is 1801.3593𝑚𝑖𝑛. Thus at a price of $2.75/ gallon, the cost of gasoline per year is
1801.3593
𝐿
𝑚𝑖𝑛
∗ 60
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
∗ 8000
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
∗ 0.264
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝐿
∗ 2.75
$
𝑔𝑎𝑙
= 628,147,786
$
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
(9.1.1)
NPV Versus Gasoline Price
8000
6000
NPV (Millions)
4000
2000
0
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00
N…
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
Dollars Per Gallon of Gasoline (Spot Price - .25)
Figure 12: NVP vs. Gasoline Price
Figure 12 shows the dependence of our NPV on the spot price of gasoline. For every
$0.25 increase in the price of the final gasoline product, the NPV increases by around 900
million dollars. The trend for this sensitivity analysis is linear. It should be noted here that for
this particular process, should the price of gasoline go under around $2.35/gallon, the NPV will
51
be negative. Higher prices could also mean a very large profit for this process, however. The
NPV of our process doubles with a selling price of around $3.15/gallon. Note that the NPV
percentage used for all of the data, unless mentioned otherwise, is 5 percent.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG):
4,263 Barrels per day equals 179,046 gallons per day of LPG product is produced from
this process. The estimated price for LPGs is rated at $1/gallon, which is a discounted rate from
the price of propane (a constituent of LPG). In addition, the volumetric flow rate of Liquefied
𝐿
petroleum gas is 479.21596 𝑚𝑖𝑛 at 60 degree F, thus the estimated rated price of $1/gal is used to
calculate the cost of LPG per year.
479.21596
𝐿
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
∗ 60 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 ∗ 8000 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 ∗ 0.264
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝐿
$
$
∗ 1 𝑔𝑎𝑙 = 60,765,820𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
(9.1.2)
The total revenue is the sum of all these revenue sources:
$628,147,786 + $60,765,820 = $688,913,606/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
(9.1.3)
NPV Versus LPG Price
4000
3500
NPV (Millions)
3000
2500
2000
NPV
1500
1000
500
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Dollar Per Gallon of LPG
Figure 13: NPV% vs. LPG%
52
4.00
5.00
Figure 13 shows how the LPG product impacts the NPV for the process. When the LPG
price is reduced 75% to $0.25/gallon, then the NPV is only about 50% of the NPV when the LPG
price is $1.00/gallon. Doubling the price of LPG to $2.00/gallon does not double the NPV
however. At the given selling prices of each product, the final annual revenue is
$688,913,606/year. This graph shows that we can deal with large fluctuations in the LPG price
without nearly as much of a change as there would be if there was a large fluctuation in the
price of gasoline. This is mainly because we produce less LPG than we do gasoline, and because
gasoline costs much more than LPG, so we make more money off of it.
9.2.Annual Operating Costs
The annual operating cost for this process was calculated in the Aspen Icarus Economic
Simulator. After accounting for the TIC, it is necessary to account for the annual operating cost
before the simple payback of this process can be calculated. Factors such as catalyst prices,
cooling water, steam, and syngas are accounted for in the annual operating cost. These are the
utility costs.
Syngas:
The syngas for this process is obtained from the gasification plant adjacent to this
process. The cost of the syngas is rated at $250/ton. 6000 tons per day of syngas is required by
this process, therefore, the daily cost of syngas is $1.5 million, and annually, the syngas costs
$460 million (with the discount from selling the steam and light gas) and is the single most
expensive component of the entire process. The annual cost of syngas exceeds the cost of the
entire plant.
53
5.00E+08
4.00E+08
Cost of Plant
3.00E+08
Syngas Cost Per Year
2.00E+08
Maintenance/Utilities
Cost per Year
1.00E+08
0.00E+00
Costs
Figure 14: Cost of Syngas vs. Plant Cost vs. Maintenance/Utilities Cost
Figure 13 shows the cost of the syngas per year relative to the costs of the entire plant
and of the cost of maintenance and utilities per year. Assuming no salvage value for the plant,
the cost of the plant is 81% of the annual cost of syngas. The maintenance/utilities cost per
year amounts to 24.8% the annual cost of the syngas feed.
NPV
8000
6000
NPV (Millins)
4000
2000
NPV
0
-2000
0
50
100
150
200
250
-4000
-6000
Percent of Syngas Cost
Figure 15: NPV vs. Cost of Syngas
According to Figure 14, decreasing the cost of the syngas by 20% almost doubles the NPV for the
process, while increasing the syngas cost by 20% will decrease the NPV to around half of its normal
value. The price of syngas is the largest cost in the entire process, however it is a very stable cost
54
throughout the entire process because the plant is located directly adjacent to the gasifier and the
gasification feed is abundant and is the main material basis for this process. The price of garbage should
not change much which should also help keep the syngas cost constant. Syngas cost: $460,000,000/year
Catalyst:
The catalyst price is assumed to be constant and not changing throughout the years.
The copper, zinc, alumina catalyst for methanol production is at a price of $9.69/lb and 85,245
lbs are needed for this process. This catalyst will last 4 years before requiring replacement. The
ZSM-5 catalyst was quoted at $53.40/lb, where 89,865.38 pounds of catalyst will be needed
and replaced every year. The total catalyst cost is then calculated to be
$826,024.05/4 + $4,798,811.31 = $5,005,317.32/year
(9.2.1)
Cooling water:
The cooling water that is needed for this process runs at 70,000 gallons per minute. The
average cooling water cost for this process is $7.94/minute. The cost of the cooling water is
calculated to be $2.6 million /year. This price would have been much larger had we not utilized
a lot of heat transfer in our process.
Steam:
Steam at two different pressures, 100 and 400 psia, are required for this process.
30,400 pounds/hr of 100 psia steam is required, as well as 157,500 pounds/hr of 400 psia steam
is needed. We produce our own steam, however, so we do not have to pay for any of it. The
use of heat exchangers has also taken down our overall steam load, which has allowed us to sell
more of it to team Bravo for a higher profit.
55
The sum of these costs leads to an annual operating cost of $485,805,317/year,
including our feedstock price. However, throughout the process, this was not the operating
cost used, since other factors such as labor are missing. The Aspen Icarus Economic Simulator
reported an annual operating cost of $17.9 Million. The number given by Icarus was multiplied
by the factor of 7 and the price of the catalyst per year of $5,005,317.32 was added. The costs
of the cooling water and steam utilities were multiplied by 6 and subtracted from the operating
cost to give $114,438,811.
NPV Versus Plant Cost
1400
NPV Cost (millions)
1200
1000
800
600
NPV
400
200
0
0.00E+00
5.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.50E+09
Plant Cost (Dollars)
Figure 16: NPV vs. Plant Cost
As can be seen above, our plant cost has an effect on our NPV, but it is not as strong of a
trend as the gasoline or syngas prices. Even with a plant cost of 1 billion dollars, our NPV is still
above 200 million dollars. This is due to the high prices of gasoline and syngas feedstock. If the
gasoline price goes up, the economics will depend even less on the plant cost. If the plant was
56
more expensive because we were scaling our process up, this trend would probably not be
linear. Since our equipment’s economics generally follows the 6/10th rule, it would most likely
have a smaller effect than is seen here. The profit would probably go up since we were
producing more gasoline too.
9.3.Total Installed Cost
In order to account for the Capital Costs for this process, the Aspen Icarus Economic
Simulator was run with specifications and design basis as noted in the respective sections. The
Icarus Economic Simulator quoted the Total Installed Cost (TIC) of the entire process, excluding
the reactors, at $29,306,000 running on a 2009 American Gulf Coast cost basis. The TIC given
by Aspen’s Icarus is missing the cost for the methanol reactor, the three MTG reactors and the
estimations are very small. The overall total TIC, including the reactors and the factor is 7 is
$374,000,000.
The economic analysis of the TIC begins with the Icarus approximation. The largest
portion of the TIC as calculated by Icarus is the direct field costs of the process are broken down
into the following components: Equipment, Piping, Civil, Steel, instruments, Electrical,
Insulation, and Paint. These different components were simulated in the Aspen Icarus
Economic Simulator and are shown in Figure 17.
57
Figure 17: Direct Field Costs
The direct field costs as shown in Figure 16 have the following breakdown in Table 18:
Table 18: Direct Field Costs
The total direct field
cost is valued at
$10,461,791 USD on a 2009
Gulf Coast basis. The
breakdown of the direct
58
Figure 18: Indirect Field Costs
field costs follow that the equipment cost accounts for 48.1% of the Total Direct Cost (TDC).
Piping and electrical costs are much lower, accounting for 18.8% and for 12.4% respectively of
the TDC. The lowest costs are the paint and the steel, which are both about 1% of the TDC
each. While the direct costs take in to consideration the actual physical materials for the plant,
there are also indirect field costs accounted for as well. These indirect costs include start-up,
fringe benefits, burdens, consumables, insurance, scaffolding, equipment rental, field services
and temporary construction utilities. The large majority of these indirect field costs are for
labor purposes and thus are not the cost of the actual physical materials for the process, but for
the labor that will be involved. The graphical breakdown of the indirect field costs are as shown
in Figure 18 and the numerical breakdown in Table 18.
Aspen ICARUS
Indirect Field Cost Summary
C
Ind
ode
Description
MH
Ind
Cost
8
6
Start-up, Commissioning
Field Office Staff
52
52
C
4,300
4,300
Ind
ode
Description
MH
Ind
Cost
1
1
Fringe Benefits
316,200
Burdens
361,400
1
2
1
3
Consumables, Small Tools
45,200
1
4
Misc (Insurance, Etc)
113,700
1
5
Scaffolding
45,200
1
6
Equipment Rental
291,000
Field Services
108,500
1
8
1
9
Temp Const, Utilities
Construction Indirects Total
Table 19: Indirect Field Costs
59
23,800
1,305,000
The total indirect field cost is valued at $1,305,000 USD. This is 86.9% of the total labor
cost that was part of the direct field cost. The largest portion of the indirect field cost was the
burdens, rated at $361,400 USD, with fringe benefits coming in at $316,200. The two of these
together constitute half of the indirect field cost. It should be noted that the indirect field costs
are on an order of 10 lower than the direct field costs.
The third major cost that is accounted in the TIC by Aspen’s Icarus Economic Simulator is
the non-field costs. These costs include the freight total, taxes, basic engineering, detail
engineering, material procurement, G and A overheads, contract fees, and contingency. The
graphical breakout of these costs are as shown in Figure 18 and the tabulated form of these
costs are shown in Table 19.
Table 20: Non-Field Costs
60
Aspen ICARUS
Non - Field Cost Summary
C
Code
Description
Ind MH
Ind Cost
5
5
Other Freight
358,200
Freight Total
358,200
C
Code
Description
Ind MH
Ind Cost
6
2
Materials Taxes
Taxes and Permits Total
559,700
559,700
C
Code
Description
Ind MH
Ind Cost
7
1
Basic Engineering
476
48,200
Detail Engineering
1,041
100,300
Material Procurement
Engineering & HO Total
432
1,949
33,000
181,500
7
2
7
3
C
Code
Description
Ind MH
Ind Cost
9
0
G and A Overheads
380,669
Contract Fee
Other Project Costs Total
469,472
850,141
9
1
C
Code
Description
Ind MH
Ind Cost
9
9
Contingency
Contingency Total
2,469,714
2,469,714
Table 21: Non-Field Cost Summary
The non-field costs vary widely, with the contingency being the largest component at
$2,469,714 USD. Taxes, contract fees and G and A Overheads also account for a large part of
this total, coming in at $559,700, $469,742, and $380,669 respectively.
61
Overall, the TIC of this process (without reactors, which were priced separately) is
estimated to be $16,190,346 USD as quoted by ICARUS. The overall breakout of the costs
summed together is shown in Table 20.
Table 22: Project Cost Summary
About 70% of the TIC is from the total field costs and the other 30% is from non-field
costs.
For the three MTG reactors, the NREL (national renewable energy laboratory) was
contacted to see how large their reactors were in their report on this process. The price of their
reactors from their report was used, so their data was taken and scaled up to the reactor sizes
62
for this process. Their pricing was also updated to a 2009 basis, since theirs was on a 2007 basis.
This was done by updating using the CEPCI index. Since the size had already been calculated,
the MTG reactors were cost using the following equation:
(438 𝑓𝑡 3 )
𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑇𝐺 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 (2007) = (
500 𝑓𝑡 3
.54
)
521.9
(9.3.1)
𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑇𝐺 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 (2009) = 525.4 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
(9.3.2)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑇𝐺 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑑𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 (2009) = 3 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑇𝐺 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 (2009)
(9.3.3)
To outline the costs for the installed cost, the TIC as calculated by Icarus (without the
reactors) is rated at $16,190,346. The total field costs, which includes direct and indirect field
costs is 72.7% of the TIC and 27.3% of the TIC comes from non-field costs, such as freight, taxes
and permits, engineering, other project costs and contingency. The methanol reactor has an
installed cost of $12.33 million and the MTG reactors have a total installed cost of $13.78
million, as mentioned earlier.
9.4.Simple Payback
The simple payback is the amount of time required for the process to generate revenue
following the TIC, the total startup cost, and the operating cost per year. The simple payback
for this process is calculated with the equation:
Simple payback = Cost of Plant Upfront / Money Brought in per year
(9.4.1)
In order to calculate the Annual revenue per year, the price of the products is
determined, and assumed to be static and unchanging. Using a price of $2.75/gallon for the
gasoline product, which is the EIA spot price - $.25 for gasoline in today’s market, and a price of
$1/gallon of LPG, the simple payback is 3.4 years.
From the mass balance, 15,978 barrels of gasoline product per year are produced from
this process. This leads to revenue of $628.147 Million per year from gasoline product. The
63
LPG product is 4263 barrels per year, which will have a price of $60.766 Million per year. This
leads to an annual revenue of $688.913 Million. The operating cost per year is $114,438,811
per year. The plant cost upfront is $374 million.
Using eq. 9.4.2, the simple payback for this entire process is rated at 3.41 years. The
NPV for the process for all given factors is $1,473 Million with an IRR of 30.3% based on a 20
year plant life and assuming no salvage value.
9.5.Econ Spreadsheet
The following tables show the spreadsheet that was used to evaluate the economics of our
process. A rate of 2 percent for inflation was used for the spreadsheet, with a life of 20 years.
While many of these numbers change every year because of inflation, the costs everywhere
else in the report were the first year’s costs, since those are the most relevant, and a good
approximation of the costs for the plant. There was no production during the first year, since
the plant was being built, however maintenance was still factored in, since work would have
been done on the plant. The maintenance was approximated as 3 percent of the total capital
cost of the factory plus the price of the catalyst per year. The utilities costs do not include any
steam or natural gas cost because we generate our own steam and we burn our own light gas
for heating. The syngas cost was the price that we were paying (250$/ton) minus the revenue
that we earn for selling the syngas back to the gasifier group. We have calculated a loan
expense in excel, and have also included the corporate taxes (40%) as instructed. The IRR was
determined to be 30.3%, and the NPV was $1,473,274,000. The pie chart shows the breakdown
of yearly costs, with the first year’s loan expense being included. It can easily be seen that the
main costs for our plant are the syngas (feedstock) cost and the taxes. The cooling water costs
have been taken down to less than 1% of the yearly costs through good usage of heat
integration in the process.
64
Investment
Timeline
Capital Cost
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
$ (373,912,000.00)
Revenues
$ 688,912,608.63
$ 702,690,860.81
$ 716,744,678.02
$ 731,079,571.58
$ 745,701,163.01
$ 760,615,186.27
$ 775,827,490.00
$ 791,344,039.80
$ 807,170,920.60
$ 823,314,339.01
$ 839,780,625.79
$ 856,576,238.30
$ 873,707,763.07
$ 891,181,918.33
$ 909,005,556.70
$ 927,185,667.83
$ 945,729,381.19
$ 964,643,968.81
$ 983,936,848.19
$1,003,615,585.15
Table 23: Investment Timeline, Revenues
65
Utilities
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Loan Expense
Cooling water
-$18,695,600.00
-$$18,130,196.69
-$17,536,523.21
-$16,913,166.06
-$16,258,641.05
-$15,571,389.78
-$14,849,775.96
-$14,092,081.45
-$13,296,502.20
-$12,461,144.00
-$11,584,017.89
-$10,663,035.47
-$9,696,003.93
-$8,680,620.81
-$7,614,468.54
-$6,495,008.66
-$5,319,575.78
-$4,085,371.25
-$2,789,456.50
-$1,428,746.01
-$2,610,000.00
-$2,662,200.00
-$2,715,444.00
-$2,769,752.88
-$2,825,147.94
-$2,881,650.90
-$2,939,283.91
-$2,998,069.59
-$3,058,030.98
-$3,119,191.60
-$3,181,575.44
-$3,245,206.94
-$3,310,111.08
-$3,376,313.31
-$3,443,839.57
-$3,512,716.36
-$3,582,970.69
-$3,654,630.10
-$3,727,722.71
-$3,802,277.16
Electrical cost
(Compressor)
-$12,141,376.80
-$12,384,204.34
-$12,631,888.42
-$12,884,526.19
-$13,142,216.71
-$13,405,061.05
-$13,673,162.27
-$13,946,625.52
-$14,225,558.03
-$14,510,069.19
-$14,800,270.57
-$15,096,275.98
-$15,398,201.50
-$15,706,165.53
-$16,020,288.84
-$16,340,694.62
-$16,667,508.51
-$17,000,858.68
-$17,340,875.86
-$17,687,693.37
Table 24: Investment Timeline, Utilities Expenses
66
Maintenance
-$25,466,189.57
-$20,667,378.26
-$21,080,725.82
-$21,502,340.34
-$21,932,387.15
-$22,371,034.89
-$22,818,455.59
-$23,274,824.70
-$23,740,321.19
-$24,215,127.62
-$24,699,430.17
-$25,193,418.77
-$25,697,287.15
-$26,211,232.89
-$26,735,457.55
-$27,270,166.70
-$27,815,570.03
-$28,371,881.44
-$28,939,319.06
-$29,518,105.45
-$30,108,467.55
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(514,114,355.06)
(523,457,326.85)
(532,970,195.97)
(542,655,512.27)
(552,515,834.19)
(562,553,726.79)
(572,771,759.71)
(583,172,504.87)
(593,758,534.09)
(604,532,416.53)
(615,496,715.87)
(626,653,987.41)
(638,006,774.91)
(649,557,607.21)
(661,308,994.67)
(673,263,425.30)
(685,423,360.75)
(697,791,231.93)
(710,369,434.39)
(723,160,323.46)
Income Before
Year Taxes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Corporate Taxes
(40%)
$174,798,253.57
$179,233,533.96
$183,774,482.05
$188,424,059.31
$193,185,328.83
$198,061,459.48
$203,055,730.29
$208,171,534.93
$213,412,386.50
$218,781,922.48
$224,283,909.92
$229,922,250.90
$235,700,988.16
$241,624,311.12
$247,696,562.03
$253,922,242.53
$260,306,020.43
$266,852,736.88
$273,567,413.80
$280,455,261.69
$69,919,301.43
$71,693,413.58
$73,509,792.82
$75,369,623.72
$77,274,131.53
$79,224,583.79
$81,222,292.12
$83,268,613.97
$85,364,954.60
$87,512,768.99
$89,713,563.97
$91,968,900.36
$94,280,395.27
$96,649,724.45
$99,078,624.81
$101,568,897.01
$104,122,408.17
$106,741,094.75
$109,426,965.52
$112,182,104.68
Table 25: Investment Timeline, Income and Taxes
67
Income after Tax
-$373,912,000
$104,878,952.14
$107,540,120.37
$110,264,689.23
$113,054,435.58
$115,911,197.30
$118,836,875.69
$121,833,438.18
$124,902,920.96
$128,047,431.90
$131,269,153.49
$134,570,345.95
$137,953,350.54
$141,420,592.90
$144,974,586.67
$148,617,937.22
$152,353,345.52
$156,183,612.26
$160,111,642.13
$164,140,448.28
$168,273,157.01
Yearly Expenses
2%
4%
3%
<1%
Syngas Cost
12%
Corporate Taxes (40%)
Maintenance
Loan Expense
Electrical
Cooling Water
-79%
Figure 19: Yearly Expenses
10.
Utilities
The cooling water comes at a price of 250 dollars per million gallons. This results a fairly
high price for cooling water. The cost of cooling water has been taken down significantly by
smart usage of heat exchangers, however. Similarly, the need for both low and high pressure
steam has been significantly decreased by the usage of heat exchangers in this process. Neither
high nor low pressure steam is needed to run this process, since more than enough steam will
be generated throughout the process. Our steam is mainly produced from the boiling water
reactor, however we also generate high pressure steam from the cooling of the ZSM-5 catalyst
and from the cooling of the methanol product. The steam and light gas flows can all be seen in
the PFD section of this report. No natural gas is needed to run the fired heater because we have
excess light gas that we can use. We have a large amount of excess steam and light gas, so we
sell it to group Bravo for 40 Million Dollars a year. For the start-up of our process, we may need
68
excess natural gas. We may be able to use syngas from the gasifier, however, which would cut
down on the natural gas cost.
The largest utility price is from the compressors which compresses our recycled syngas.
The compressor in our PFD is modeled as one compressor, however in reality it would be a
series of compressors. The compressor is approximately 22,400 hp, which results in a cost of
$12.1 million per year, with an electricity price of $.07/kwh. This cost can be minimized by
separating the methanol at a higher pressure, but this would result in more Carbon Monoxide
and Hydrogen being dissolved in the condensed Methanol. The exact economics of the pressure
drop and recompression versus the lost carbon monoxide is beyond this project scope, but
could be useful in decreasing the utilities cost. It may also be advantageous to buy electricity
from the gasifier group, since it would probably come at a smaller cost, however we had not
investigated this by the end of our project.
11.
Conceptual Control Scheme
Figure 20: Methanol Reaction Control Scheme
69
The start of the control scheme starts off with the syngas from the gasifier. There is a
valve (normally closed) that can open if the pressure builds up in the pipe, which would lead the
gas to a flare. This is a safety measured used in case part of the rest of the plant goes down and
there is still new syngas coming in. There is also a flow indicator control (FIC) which acts as the
“master” in the master-slave loop with the FIC on the recycle syngas loop. The amount of
syngas that is purged in the recycle depends on the flow of the fresh syngas, so that the flow to
the methanol reactor is constant. The amount of water that flows into the methanol reactor
(only about 15% of the flow is turned to steam) depends on the level of the steam drum, which
has a level indicator control (LIC). The boiler feed water is controlled by a valve controlled by
the LIC, as seen above. The amount of steam that comes out depends on the temperature of
the methanol product (another master-slave loop). If the temperature is too high, the pressure
will increase in the steam drum and some of the boiler water will go back into the tubes of the
heat exchanger, thus increasing the amount of steam and lowering the outlet temperature of
the product. The methanol is then used to boil low pressure steam (5 bar). The pressure of the
steam is kept constant by a master slave loop where the pressure out is the master and the
level of the boiler is the slave. If the pressure of the steam increases, the level will be decrease
by changing the boiler feed water flow rate through adjusting a valve, and thus the heat
exchanger area will decrease, producing less steam and lowering the pressure of the steam.
70
Figure 21: Methanol/Syngas Separation Control Scheme
The methanol then flows through a series of heat exchangers into a flash drum. The
pressure of the drum is measured, and the amount of compression in the compressor is
adjusted so that the recycled syngas comes out at the specified pressure. The level of the tank
is measured and adjusted through a valve for the condensed methanol.
71
Figure 22: Methanol Heating Control Scheme
The methanol then flows through another series of heat exchangers. The trim heater is
a fired heater that uses our light gases as a fuel source. The temperature is regulated by noting
the effluent temperature and changing the flowrate of the light gas (by using a valve) so that
the effluent temperature stays constant. The flowrates of methanol to the Methanol to
Gasoline (MTG) reactors has to be held constant, so we measure the flow and close/open
valves to ensure that the product flowrate stays constant at its specified flowrate.
72
Figure 23: MTG Reactor Control Scheme
The catalyst is separated from the gas by using a cyclone (U-1-3), and the catalyst drops
down into a regenerator (F3-5). The regenerator uses air to burn off the coke, and the amount
of air that comes in depends on the flow of the catalyst. The hot catalyst is then cooled by
making steam. The amount of water in the heat exchanger is controlled by a LIC which changes
a valve on the boiler feed water (BFW), and the amount of steam out is controlled by
temperature of the out coming catalyst. If the catalyst is too hot, more steam will be let
through, and therefore more of the water will be boiled. The separated gaseous
hydrocarbon/water product combine from the 3 reactors, and the flowrate is controlled with a
FIC and a valve.
73
Figure 24: MTG Effluent and Water Treatment Control Scheme
The hydrocarbon/water product is then cooled through a series of heat exchangers. The
temperature of the product coming out of the trim cooler (E-10) is measured, and the flowrate
of cooling water depends on that temperature, so that the temperature is held constant. The
mixed product then goes to a decanter, where the water and the hydrocarbon products are
separated. The level is measured, and from the level the flowrates of both streams out of the
decanter are determined. The water product is put through a valve to lower the pressure to
approximately atmospheric pressure, and then sent to a flash drum, where the remaining
hydrocarbons in the liquid come out. The pressure of the line is measured, and the valve is
open/closed depending on the pressure. The liquids from here go to a pump, and the level of
the flash drum affects how far open the valve on the outgoing water line is open. The water is
then put through a heat exchanger and goes to wastewater treatment.
74
Figure 25: First Distillation Column Control Scheme
The hydrocarbon stream from the decanter (stream 37 from the previous picture) is
then brought to another pump, and the flowrate to the column is changed by a valve, whose
position depends on the level of the decanter. The reboiler’s heat duty is controlled by the
flowrate of steam, which depends on the flowrate of the hydrocarbons into the distillation
column. This controller uses bias controller however, so that changes in the flowrate do not
result in quick and large changes in the steam flowrate. This scheme keeps the heat transfer for
the flow fairly constant. The bottoms’ flowrate depends on the level of the column, and is
controlled by a valve which is controlled by the LIC. The distillate is partially condensed, and if
the pressure in the column gets too high, some of the distillate bypasses the condenser to
lower the column’s pressure. The separator has a PIC control which is connected to a normally
closed valve, which can open if the pressure in the tank builds up. The flowrate of the liquid
75
back to the column depends on the column’s temperature, and is modulated through a control
valve. The vapor distillate goes to heat exchanger E-1, and then to the light gas line.
Figure 26: Second Distillation Column Control Scheme
The bottoms of the previous distillation column go to another distillation column, with a
control scheme similar to the last distillation column. The heat flux is kept fairly constant based
upon the flowrate in by using a master-slave loop as seen above. The control scheme for the
distillate is the same as mention for the previously mentioned distillation column. The level of
the separator for the distillate changes the flowrate of the distillate out, which goes to another
column. The bottoms from this column mixes with the bottoms of the next column, as seen
below.
76
Figure 27: Third Distillation Column Control Scheme
The final distillation column separates the distillate from the last column into 2
fractions, one of which is mainly pentanes, the other of which is mainly C3-C4 compounds
(LPGs). The distillate is LPG and the bottoms is combined with the bottoms from the last
distillation column. The control scheme for this distillation column is the same as the last two.
The gasoline components out goes through 2 heat exchangers to cool it to room temperature.
The temperature of the gasoline out is brought to the desired value by a trim cooler, using
cooling water. The cooling water flowrate depends on the temperature of the gasoline, which
helps keep the gasoline’s outlet temperature constant.
77
12.
Major Equipment Layout
Figure 28: Major Equipment Layout
The placement of our plant with respect to the gasifier plant can be seen above.
This MTG process is directly north of the MSW site at the Newton County Landfill. Directly east
to the MTG process is the gasification process. The flare is placed away from the groups and
side-wind from the processes, as a safety precaution. If there was a leak in part of our process,
and the flare had to be used, we would not want the flare to be blown towards the process. By
putting the flare away from our process and Bravo’s process, we reduce the possibility of
explosions in our plants.
78
Figure 29: Major Equipment Layout
The overall plant layout is depicted in Figure 27. With the wind blowing northeast, the
Offices, Administrative Offices and Main Offices/Conference Rooms, A, B, and C are located in
the southwest corner of the process so that visual supervision of the plant is easily accessible.
The offices are also downwind of all of the equipment and tankage for safety reasons. Just
west of the offices is the car parking lot, and to the east of the offices is truck parking. The
parking has been situated 75 feet from the tankage, in case there were any fires or explosions
in the tank area. The utilities are just east of the truck parking, which is still a good distance
from the tankage. The tankage of the process is roughly 3 times the size of the entire process
and there is enough tankage to store the gasoline for about a month. At the southeast corner
of the tankage is the treatment center and directly west of the tankage is the process. The
79
process is shown in more detail in figure 28. The fired heater is in the northeast part of the
factory, a good distance from the tankage and the process for safety reasons but not at the
other side of the plant for economic reasons. The fired heater is kept downwind from the
process because it has a flame, and most of the components used in this process are
flammable.
Figure 30: Process Layout
Figure 28 shows the layout of the process, G. For the process, the compressor is given a
shelter in the very southeast corner of the process as C. Thirty feet from the compressor are
the methanol reactor R1 and the 3 MTG reactors R2. Each reactor is spaced 13 feet apart.
Located west of the reactors are the heat exchangers. Each heat exchanger is 6 feet apart.
North of the heat exchangers are the distillation columns, the decanter, and pumps, about 60
feet away. The decanter is the furthest west of all these objects. Thirteen feet east of the
80
decanter is a pump , then the distillation columns are 25 feet away from the pumps. Distillation
columns are 25 feet away from each other in the eastern direction.
13.
Distribution and End-Use Issues Review
Both products of this process are liquid phase, and the gasoline product that is
produced must be refined before it can be sold to the consumer. In order to have the product
refined, it must be transported to a refinery. There are two refineries that are available close to
the location of this process: ExxonMobil in Joliet, IL and British Petroleum in Whiting, IN. The
ExxonMobil refinery in Joliet, IL is a key supplier of refined petroleum products to the
Midwestern United States and is currently able to refine 250,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It
produces about 9 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel/day. The British Petroleum refinery
in Whiting, IN has a higher capacity, with the refining capability of 405,000 barrels of raw crude
oil per day and it produces 15 million gallons
of refining products. In order to transport
the gasoline product to these refineries, a
railroad will be employed. A railroad going in
the north/south direction along Rte. 41 and
16 is about 3 miles west of Brook, a town
adjacent to the process. Going in the
east/west direction along Rte. 24 is another
railroad about 3 miles south of brook. The
railroads cost will be estimated to be about
$200-250 per foot from ballast up, and an
automated switch off of the mainline will
cost between $35,000-50,000 with a manual
switch estimated between $20,000-25,000.
Figure 31: Refinery Transport
Figure 32: Refinery Transport
The railroad crossing, flashing lights without
81
gates is estimated at $15,000 and these prices do not include land purchases or leases.
There are also several possible additions that can be made to this process as time
continues. There is a high concentration of durene in the final gasoline product. Durene is an
isomer of tetramethylbenzene that has a high melting point. This is not desirable in cars as it
can cause icing in carburetors and problems in the fuel line. In order to further purify the final
gasoline product from the Durene, it can be reacted out before being stored as the final
gasoline product. This will lead to a more premium product, and can be subsequently sold at a
higher price to the local refineries than the current modeled product. The purified Durene can
be used as a feedstock for plastics. Similarly, the Durene can be reacted with light
hydrocarbons to
produce gasoline
components with
lower melting points.
Patents have been
filed for these
methods, which
include Patent No.
4524231 (purification,
4973784 (reaction of
Durene with C1-C4
Oxygenates) and
4387261
Figure 32:
33: Newton
Newton County,
County, Indiana
Indiana
Figure
(Dealkylation of
Durene with ZSM-12
Catalyst).
The second addition that could be made to this process is the alkylation of the C4 olefins
to increase the gasoline yield. The C4 olefins in this process are comprised entirely in the LPG
82
product. The alkylation of these components will allow for a greater yield of the final gasoline
product and a lower yield for the LPG product. With a higher yield of gasoline product, which
has the higher selling price, the economics of this process could possibly change for the better
as to increase the amount of gasoline product being produced.
Yet another addition to this process could be the usage of air coolers to reduce the
cooling water loads. For this process, cooling occurs in several steps: the first for the initial
methanol product produced from R1, the second for the MTG effluent, and the third for the
final product before storage. While cooling is done with components that are downstream of
the process, the final cooling stage for each of these streams is a cooling water stream. Cooling
water costs 250 dollars per million gallons while using air to cool these streams is free. With
the use of air coolers, the cooling water loads would be greatly reduced, thus changing the
cooling water usage and therefore cutting the costs of the cooling water utility.
One area for further investigation in this process is using a different catalyst
regeneration method for the ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst. Currently, air is used to burn coke off the
catalyst, and using boiler feed water as a cooling medium, the catalyst is regenerated and fed
back in to the column. This process may produce higher alcohols, but the methanol reactor can
convert these into gasoline components along with the methanol. There are other methods of
regenerating the catalyst, including using a stream of light hydrocarbons and another method
using Nitrogen. A method for the Nitrogen regeneration, which is supposed to help the catalyst
last longer, can be seen in patent number (5059738). This regeneration scheme is built around
a fixed bed reactor that is taken offline, but it may be able to be used in a circulating fluidized
bed too. The Nitrogen regeneration also can help regenerate the catalyst better than the light
hydrocarbon method. Steam could be used to help regenerate the catalyst, but the catalyst is
damaged under high partial pressures of water, so this is not a viable method of catalyst
regeneration.
83
14.
Constraints Review
There are many constraints on this project which have various degrees of importance.
The constraints vary from competing processes to specific design standards and problems, like
syngas purification.
The Mobil Process has been done on an industrial scale, however only 1 plant has been
implemented on this scale. More plants are being built, but it is still fairly new in terms of
utilization. Fluidized bed MTG reactors have never been implemented on an industrial scale,
though they have been done on a pilot plant scale. This means that the plant will be more
expensive than it would be if the process had been demonstrated many times in many different
situations. This would result in a higher contingency for the project, and is part of the reason
that the total plant cost was approximated as the TIC is multiplied by seven.
There are also established alternatives, such as conventional drilling and refining of
crude oil. These processes have been proven and used for many years, and also have economics
that will be easier to predict than our process. There is less inherent risk in these processes
than our process because of the reasons mentioned above, but this does not mean that the
process is not viable. The process has advantages over the conventional methods, such as lower
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and a renewable feedstock. Although the economics are not
known as well as the economics for these plants, the profits may actually produce a higher
profit margin than these processes, and therefore be a better economic choice too. Alternative
liquid fuels such as ethanol and algae-derived biofuels will also compete with the final product
as alternative sources of transportation fuels. These processes have many of the same benefits
as the gasoline product (GHG reductions, etc.), however this process’ products will fit easily into
existing infrastructure as compared to these alternatives. There are also other processes that
turn Syngas into gasoline, most notably the Fischer-Tropsch process. The Fischer-Tropsch
process has been used on the industrial scale in both Germany and South Africa, and is the best
known Syngas to gasoline process. Similarly, there is a newer process called the TIGAS process
which converts the Syngas to gasoline in one step. There is a large push for a change in fuels,
84
however, so whether or not our products are a good investment will come down to the
economics of our process versus other alternative energy or syngas to gasoline processes.
There will be a large market for liquid transportation fuels, so we will not have to worry about
one technology cornering a market very fast, since it would need such a large amount of
feedstock. Similarly, any non-gasoline based alternative fuel would also need time for engines
and infrastructure to change before it took over a majority of the liquid fuel market.
This process, due to the syngas to methanol conversion, also needs relatively pure
syngas (very low sulfur). While this does decrease the gasoline product’s SOx emissions and
makes it more environmentally friendly, this purity problem does constrain the process. The
process may not be economically viable if a high sulfur feedstock, such as petroleum coke, is
used. This problem will only affect the economics of the syngas cleanup which is a problem for
the design of the gasification process, thus it was not accounted for. The feedstock syngas is
specified at 270º C (518º F) and 50 bar. Compression is difficult and costly to achieve, however
it is a part of the gasification process, not the gasoline production. This process is at a high
temperature and pressure, so care must be taken to make sure that the pipes will not weaken
and are replaced when necessary. The entire process operates below the maximum
temperature for carbon steel, based upon creep and fracture. Carbon monoxide is also deadly,
so detectors will be placed around pipes with carbon monoxide in the factory. Hydrogen and
Carbon Monoxide are highly combustible, so a purge to a flare must be maintained. The flare is
on the incoming syngas, and there will also be a pipe to the flare on our light gas line. There are
also valves to the flare off of all of the condensers of our distillation column. The valves open if
the pressure in the condenser gets too high. Through this scheme, syngas can be flared off
both in the beginning of the process and after the separation, which makes the process safer.
Flaring will only occur when something goes wrong in the process. Similarly, the space between
the truck lot and the tankage has been spaced apart by using safety guidelines from FM Global’s
property data loss sheets.
The process to convert syngas is a very exothermic reaction, which is the main
constraint on this process. Syngas at the conditions mentioned above is used and reacted over
85
a copper-zinc-alumina catalyst to achieve a 40% per pass conversion. To account for the excess
energy, high pressure steam (400 psia) is produced. Part of this 400 psia steam is used in the
process and the other part is sold to the gasification group to produce electricity. The reactor is
called a boiling water reactor, and is essentially a heat exchanger with the catalyst on the tube
side, with the steam being produced on the shell side. For the unreacted syngas, 98% is
recycled, and the recycle goes back to the reactor for further conversion. There will be some
byproducts, mainly DME and higher alcohols, but these are all converted to gasoline by the
MTG process, therefore detail was not elaborated upon for these miscellaneous components.
Methanol can be deadly if ingested, so care must be taken to make sure that no methanol leaks
out and gets into the water.
The syngas is separated from the methanol in a flash drum, with the temperature being
low enough that the methanol is essentially completely condensed. The syngas is
recompressed, reheated and sent back to the methanol reactor. The methanol is heated up
through a series of heat exchangers and a fired heater, and is then is sent to the MTG reactors.
There are no new hazards from this separation process, although care must still be taken due to
the syngas and methanol. The pipes should be cool enough to touch near the flash drum, so
insulation will be less important for the flash drum.
The 3 MTG reactors are circulating fluidized beds, similar to a fluid catalytic cracker.
Methanol comes in, and is converted over a zeolite catalyst (ZSM-5) to a mixture of
hydrocarbons and water. The gaseous hydrocarbons and some of the catalyst comes out the
top of the reactor, and is separated in a cyclone. The catalyst drops down into a furnace where
the coke is burned off with air. The flue gas goes out, and any catalyst that was entrained in the
flue gas is separated and sent back to the furnace with a cyclone. The catalyst is cooled by
producing steam, and sent back to the MTG reactors. The gaseous hydrocarbon/water product
are cooled and then separated later on, as mentioned in the PFD and initial control scheme
sections. The reaction occurs at a high temperature, so care must be taken to make sure that all
of the pipes are sufficiently insulated and replaced when they start to degrade. Methanol can
be poisonous when ingested, as mentioned above, and any unconverted methanol will stay
86
dissolved in the water. To keep this from being a problem, we run our reaction at essentially full
conversion (>99.5% conversion). The fluidized bed reactors also keep the problem of catalyst
band aging from being relevant.
There are a few important constraints with the MTG reactors. First of all, a higher
fluidizing velocity than we have used (10ft /sec) may be needed, which may make the reactors
dimensions unrealistic. We had to estimate the fluidizing velocity as 10 ft/sec because we did
not have data on it, and 10 ft/sec was a reasonable approximation. There is the problem of heat
transfer from the catalyst and the MTG reactors. The heat transfer coefficient when cooling the
catalyst is low, and requires large heat exchangers. The MTG reactors will also need cooling.
High partial pressures of steam will also damage the MTG reactors’ catalyst (ZSM-5), which is a
problem since the MTG reaction results in a lot of water (56 wt%). This means that the catalyst
has to be replaced every year, which results in the majority of our catalyst expenses. The water
may also have small amounts of hydrocarbons in them, which will need to be dealt with by
either our WWT plant, or the municipal wastewater treatment plant. There is also a
flammability hazard with the hydrocarbons, since they are combustible. The hydrocarbons
cannot be purged into the atmosphere because they contain carcinogenic compounds like
benzene, and thus must be flared instead of simply released.
The separation of the hydrocarbon and water phase occurs in a decanter, at a
temperature slightly higher than atmospheric (86º F). The water phase still has some
hydrocarbons left in it since it is at a high temperature, so we flash it down to near atmospheric
pressure to remove those hydrocarbons, then increase the pressure with a pump and send it
back to a heat exchanger. After being used as cooling water here, it goes to the wastewater
treatment area. The hydrocarbons go through a pump to increase their pressure, and are then
sent to distillation columns.
The final separation scheme consists of 3 distillation columns, arranged as seen in the
section 11. The hydrocarbons go into the first column, called the deethanizer. All of the C2compounds are removed in the distillate, along with some C3 compounds. The bottoms of this
column goes to the second distillation column. In this column, most of the C5+ compounds go
87
out the bottoms, and the distillate consists of C3-C6 compounds (mainly C3-C4). In the final
column, the distillate from the second column is separated into a LPG portion (the distillate),
and a gasoline portion (C5-C6). The gasoline portion is combined with the bottoms from our
second column to form our final gasoline. The final gasoline is cooled before it is sent to
tankage, the LPG leaves at 86º F, and therefore does not need to be cooled. All of these
hydrocarbons are highly flammable, and also cannot be vented to the atmosphere. For safety
reasons, a line has been placed in order to flare on all of our condensers, in case there is a
problem in the process. The flare operates off of the pressure of the condenser, as seen in the
initial control scheme.
The distillation is also, from our simulation, a bit difficult. The distillate from the
deethanizer comes out too cold to use cooling water if it is mainly composed of C2compounds. To keep the temperature high enough where we can use cooling water instead of
refrigeration, we have to have some of the C3 compounds come out in the distillate, which
results in a lower LPG yield, and thus a smaller profit. The detailed cost benefit analysis of
refrigeration versus higher LPG yield was out of the scope of this project, however we believe
the scheme using cooling water is probably the most economical choice. We use the light gas
for heating and we sell the rest to group Bravo, so the extra C3’s are not lost. We also have an
inefficient separation scheme, where part of the distillate of column 2 goes out the bottoms of
column 3, as seen in the PFD slides. This results in higher energy and cooling water usage, and
thus a higher price for utilities. We have run a sensitivity analysis in ASPEN to see if we could
separate the LPG and gasoline in 1 column, thus resulting in a lower energy usage. This was not
shown to be feasible, however. Even with 100 sages (at 100% efficiency) and a variety of reflux
ratios and feed stages, the separation was not sufficient. This is probably due to the fact that
gasoline needs a very low percentage of butane (need to design for the lowest butane
percentages, which occur in summer), while the LPGs should be fairly C5+ free. Our scheme will
easily be able to vary the butane percentage in gasoline when needed by seasonal changes,
however.
88
The process is highly energy intensive since there is a lot of heating and cooling
involved. This is because of the high temperatures of the reactions and the low temperatures of
the separations. Many heat exchangers are utilized in this process; however a detailed pinch
analysis of our process would help the economics. Steam is produced from within the process
and from reactors, which greatly helps the economics, but reduces the steam load, particularly
for high pressure steam, which would result in more electricity generation, done in the
gasification process, and thus a higher profit. There is also the possibility of not having a large
enough heat sink for the low pressure steam. About 200k lb per hour of this low pressure
steam is generated. There is not much use for it in the process, however as long as the
gasification process does have use for it, then it should not be a problem.
There are also constraints due to the product. The final gasoline product will have
higher percentage of Durene and olefins than legally allowed in gasoline at retail. This means
that the final gasoline product cannot be sold directly to gas stations; instead, it will have to be
sold at a lower price to refineries. It is possible to react the Durene or purify it out, but it
seemed as though blending was the most economical in this case. The methods to react out the
Durene and to purify it are described in detail in patent numbers 4524231, 4973784 and
4387261.
The olefins may need to be blended out, however the C4 olefins can be alkylated to
produce more gasoline, thus resulting in a higher profit—approximately a 1% higher gasoline
yield, and a 1% lower LPG yield. Although the alkylation could be done with Hydrofluoric Acid, it
would most likely be done with Sulfuric Acid, to avoid the environmental and health hazards of
using Hydrofluoric Acid. The alkylation will not change the economics dramatically.
The price of gasoline is a major constraint, as can be seen in the sensitivity analysis in
the economics section. The process is not profitable if it has to be sold for under $2/gallon.
Gasoline prices have recently been going up however, which has made our process economical.
Large variations in the price of gasoline make our process a risky but potentially extremely
profitable investment.
89
The process uses flammable and poisonous compounds at high temperatures and
pressures as mentioned above, but with the proper controls the plant will be very safe. Flares
are placed on certain lines in case there is a problem in our process. Our pipes will be replaced
when needed and routinely checked for leaks to make sure there are no health hazards. There
will also be carbon monoxide detectors around the areas that use syngas. Our flare and fired
heater are placed downwind from our process, so that we cannot accidently light part of our
process on fire from a leak. This also keeps the fires from heading towards our process or office
buildings. The office buildings are upwind from our whole process, and therefore should not be
affected by any releases or fires in our process. Our methanol is essentially completely
converted, and therefore should not pose much of an environmental hazard. We will have to
have some wastewater treatment for our water, however there should not be many
hydrocarbons left in our water, so it should be fairly pure. The purity of the water is shown in
the stream tables from above.
Our process follows all of the thermodynamics of the system. The property methods
were selected based upon what components were being separated, etc. The Peng-Robinson
method was used for most of the hydrocarbon separations, NRTL method for the streams with
methanol and syngas, and the SRK-KD method for the water-hydrocarbon separation. The SRKKD (Soave-Redlich-Kwong, Kabadi Danner modification) was used for that separation because it
is specifically made for hydrocarbon-water separations. Although there are not many pumps or
compressors in this process, the fluids will still flow well since pressure in the system is
constantly dropping until after the decanter. A pressure drop in the columns has been
approximated to be roughly equal to 1 psia per stage. There is a very slight imbalance in the
atom balance through the MTG reactors, but it is very small, and the conversions were actually
taken from literature. The errors seem to be from rounding.
Our main products are gasoline and LPG, however we do sell our steam and light gas to
the gasification group for a profit. Our gasoline and LPG’s compositions can be seen below in
Tables 23 and 24. The steam comes out at 400 psia (high pressure) and 5 bar (low pressure).
90
LPG product is composed of a mixture of gases, mainly the distillate from the deethanizer and
the purged syngas. The composition of those streams can also be seen below:
LPG
Gasoline
0.5296465
0.7255588
METHANOL
0
0
H2
0
0
CO2
0
0
H2O
6.40E-04
3.25E-05
CO
0
0
DME
0
0
METHANE
6.03E-12
1.06E-28
ETHYLENE
9.91E-08
9.15E-20
ETHANE
3.44E-06
9.19E-17
PROPYLEN
0.0209334
3.98E-09
PROPANE
0.1962999
8.32E-08
BUTENE
0.0580566
1.43E-04
ISOBUTAN
0.4394324
3.79E-04
BUTANE
0.2842056
2.10E-03
PENTANE
3.00E-04
0.1823337
HEXANE
4.60E-10
0.1824164
HEPTANE
4.88E-16
0.0780002
OCTANE
1.08E-22
0.0264195
NONANE
1.89E-28
0.0264195
BENZENE
8.14E-11
0.0225703
TOLUENE
6.99E-18
0.0238919
XYLENE
2.38E-23
0.1069305
DURENE
2.62E-38
8.81E-03
PENTENE
1.28E-04
0.0263558
HEXENE
1.09E-09
0.0263957
HEPTENE
2.18E-15
0.0528123
OCTENE
2.98E-21
0.0654197
NONENE
1.64E-27
0.0264188
ETHYLBEN
1.66E-23
0.0125756
Mass Density
GM/CC
Component Mass
Fraction
91
TRMBENZ
2.48E-30
0.1195145
TETMBENZ
3.00E-38
0.0100645
Table 26: Gasoline and LPG Composition
Deethanizer
Syngas
Distillate
Purge
Component Mass Fraction
METHANOL
0
0.0241813
H2
0
0.1510741
CO2
0
0
H2O
3.98E-09
0
CO
0
0.8247446
DME
0
0
METHANE
0.2156707
0
ETHYLENE
0.1068752
0
ETHANE
0.1308872
0
PROPYLEN
0.1403669
0
PROPANE
0.4060944
0
BUTENE
6.74E-06
0
ISOBUTAN
9.13E-05
0
BUTANE
7.58E-06
0
PENTANE
1.49E-09
0
HEXANE
3.18E-15
0
HEPTANE
6.01E-20
0
OCTANE
2.48E-25
0
NONANE
7.97E-30
0
DECANE
0
0
BENZENE
3.67E-15
0
TOLUENE
2.66E-21
0
XYLENE
2.02E-25
0
DURENE
3.48E-37
0
CUMENE
0
0
PENTENE
1.96E-10
0
HEXENE
3.59E-15
0
HEPTENE
1.29E-19
0
OCTENE
3.79E-24
0
NONENE
4.37E-29
0
92
ETHYLBEN
1.01E-25
0
TRMBENZ
8.60E-31
0
TETMBENZ
3.97E-37
0
Table 27: Deethanizer Distillate and Syngas Purge Compositions
The location will be near the Newton County landfill, where our gasification group is
getting their MSW feedstock. The surrounding area is all farmland, so there should not be a
large worry about having large amounts of people nearby.
The turndown ratio should be around 50 percent, which is very close to the average
turndown ratio. Due to the multiple MTG reactors, we may be able to operate even lower
however; it is possible that the distillation columns be the constraining factor. The methanol
reactor should be able to go lower, since we would just get a slightly better conversion. We
would also produce less steam in this case.
15.
Applicable Standards
There are a few standards that are applicable in this process. The syngas must come at a 2:1
ratio of Carbon Monoxide to Hydrogen, at 270 degrees Celsius and 50 bar. Sulfur and Halogens
poison our process, so they must be kept below 5 ppb. These conditions have been agreed
upon by group Bravo and achieved by their gasifier process.
There are a few important standards for gasoline. The most important one is octane,
which is generally represented by MON (motor octane number) and RON (research octane
number) values. Our gasoline, from all of the data we have seen, should be high octane,
equivalent to that of premium gasoline. Our gasoline will also have a slightly higher value of
olefins than is allowed by law (about 5% by volume). This would be a problem had we not
blended out our gasoline at another refinery. Most of our gasoline’s properties will be similar to
gasoline at a pump, including its Reid Vapor Pressure and density. The Reid vapor pressure was
93
kept down by making sure there wasn’t much C4- components in our gasoline (about .3%),
however this can be increased when needed due to seasonal changes in gasoline. Durene is also
a component that must be blended out in our gasoline. This will also be done in the refinery
that we send our gasoline to. The legal limit for Durene is 2%, and most refineries produce
gasoline with Durene concentrations of about .2-.3%, so the blending should not be a problem.
We also had to make sure that we weren’t getting much water in our gasoline. We do not have
any oxygenates in our gasoline, however, so a simple decanter run at a moderate temperature
separated the water and hydrocarbons within normal values.
16.
References
(1994). Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. In Volume 22 (pp. p 166-168).
Arthur W. Chester, Y. F. (1983, June 06). Treatment of effluent resulting from conversion of methanol to
gasoline in order to decrease durene and produce distillate, Patent 4387261.
C., A. G. (n.d.). Reacdtions of Alcohols over H+/ZSM-5 . North American Catalysis Society.
Cheng, S. H. (1990, November 27). Process for reducing the durene content of effluent resulting from
the catalytic conversion of C1 -C4 oxygenates to gasoline, Patent 4973784 .
Daviduk, N., & Siuta, M. T. (1976, December 12). Method for producing gasoline from methanol, Patent
3998899.
Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering. (2009). Methanol to Gasoline: Production of clean gasoline from
coal.
Fukui, H., Kurobe-shi, T., Kobayashi, M., Kurokawa-gun, M., Yamaguchi, T., Sendai-shi, M., et al. (2002).
Patent No. EP0868943B1. Japan.
94
James H. Beech, J. a. (1991, October 22). Method for reactivating MTG process catalyst, Patent number
5059738.
Kooy, P., & Kirk, D. C. (n.d.). The production of methanol and gasoline. Retrieved from
http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/energy/7D.pdf
Lee, S. (1990). Methanol Synthesis Technology. Boca Raton, Florida, United States.
Marsh, S., Hartlet, O., & Wright, B. (November 29th, 1988). Conversion of methanol to Gasoline- Patent
3788369.
Mobil Oil Corportation. (1972, November 11). Crystalline Zeolite ZSM-5 and the method of preparing the
same, Patent 3702886.
Phillips, S. D., Tarud, J. K., Biddy, M. J., & Dutta, A. (2010, January). Gasoline from Wood via integrated
gasification, synthesis and methanol to gasoline technology. Retrieved from nrel.gov:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47594.pdf
Renich, J. E., Yurchak, S., & Zahner, J. (September 13, 1983). Conversion of Methanol to Gasoline, Patent
4404414.
United States Energy Information Administration. (2011). Countries. Retrieved from EIA.gov:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production
US Energy Information Administration. (2011, January-April). Petroleum and other liquids: Spot Prices.
Retrieved from US Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm
Utah, U. o. (2010, 03 27). Arch 4011 University of Utah. Retrieved 04 19, 2011, from How much do
Americans throw away: students.arch.utah.edu/courses/Arch4011/Recycling%20Facts1.pdf
Yan, P. E.-y. (1985, July 18). Production of durene from alcohols and ethers, Patent number 4524231.
95
17.
Group Member Resumes
96
Jeffrey Tyska
1414 Naples Court, Bartlett, IL 60103
630.849.8371 jtyska1@gmail.com
Education:
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
Chicago, IL
Bachelors of Science in Engineering, expected May 2011
Major: Chemical Engineering
GPA: 3.92/4.00
Relevant Job Experience:
Illinois E.P.A. / Nestle U.S.A.
Bloomington, IL
Pollution Prevention / Energy Efficiency Intern
May 2010 – Aug 2010
Developed innovative cost-saving methods for improving wastewater quality and
increasing energy efficiency.
Recommended changes in wastewater treatment chemicals, parallel positioning for
a boiler, PID controlled pumps and piping insulation.
Proposed improvements that would result in savings of over $50K per year, with
less than a 3-year simple payback (as requested)
Research Experience:
Aug 2010 – May 2011
University of Illinois At Chicago
Researching the effects of reduction temperature and time on platinum and
palladium catalysts using dry impregnation and strong electrostatic adsorption.
Other Job Experience:
Bartlett Park District
Bartlett, IL
Gym/Field Supervisor
May 2007 - Present
Supervised sports activities. Responsible for preparing the facility, maintaining
participant safety, and resolving issues arising during events.
Camp Counselor
Jan 2007 - Aug 2009
Conducted organized activities for children. Collaborated with coworkers to insure
that all children were engaged and addressed any issues that arose.
Leadership:
Officer in the UIC chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE)
Member of Engineering Council and Engineering Week Council at UIC
Leader of my Senior Design group.
Awards:
Harry McCormick Award for top chemical engineering graduate at UIC
Caterpillar Scholarship
LA-CO Scholarship
97
BERNARD B. HSU
703 Mesa Drive
Naperville, IL 60565
630-391-3720
bbhsu2@uic.edu
OBJECTIVE
To work as a student pharmacist with a progressive company that will utilize and sharpen my education,
skills, and leadership capabilities.
EDUCATION
University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Pharmacy– Start Date, August 2011
Expected Date of Graduation, May 2015
 Doctor of Pharmacy, PharmD
University of Illinois at Chicago – Start Date, August 2007
Expected Date of Graduation, May 2011
 Bachelor of Science Chemical Engineering
 Senior Project: “Production of Gasoline Components from Synthesis Gas Derived by Municipal
Solid Waste” Project Website: [http://cheseniordesign.wikispaces.com/]
 Speciality Course: ChE 422 Biochemical Engineering, Professor: Dr. Raffi M. Turian
 4.0/4.0 Engineering GPA
 Member of the Honors College
 Enrolled in Guaranteed Professional Program Admissions (GPPA) for UIC College of Pharmacy
 Dean’s List: Fall 2007-Present
Neuqua Valley High School - Class of 2007
 Class rank: 21 / 970
INDUSTRY AFFILIATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS
International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineers (ISPE), UIC Student Chapter
President - September 2008 to December 2010
 Responsible for organizing the agenda for meetings and social events
 Authority to make final decisions in relation to the objectives of the organization
 Served as a liaison between industry professionals and faculty advisors
 Delegated responsibilities and tasks to officers and members
 Communicated events to other student chapters and other organizations
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Member – September 2008 to Present
 Attended meetings, social events and industry visits
98
WORK EXPERIENCE
University of Illinois Hospital- Central Pharmacy- Chicago, IL
Student Pharmacy Extern- Starting May 2011
Jewel-Osco- Osco Pharmacy- Chicago, IL
Student Pharmacist (CPhT)- Starting May 2011
Target Corporation - Super Target, Naperville, IL
Certified Pharmacy Technician (CPhT)- August 2010 to December 2010
Pharmacy Technician- December 2009 to August 2010
Team Member - August 2006 to December 2009
 Filled prescriptions and auto fills
 Created and modified all patient profiles in local database
 Conducted McKesson order for the pharmacy
 Trained in all departments on the Sales Floor
Chef Amaury’s Epicurean Affair- Aurora, IL
Food Service - June 2006 to August 2006
 Assisted head chef and all kitchen staff
 Performed kitchen preparation tasks and equipment maintenance
 Supported chef with food preparation
LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE
Powerlifting
 State-Level Competitor for the United States Powerlifting Federation (USPF)- October 2009
to Present
o Multiple Illinois-State Record Holder
 529 lbs. Deadlift at 198 lbs. wt. class, 20-23 Junior Division (10/10/2009)
 429.9 lbs. Bench Press at 220 lbs. wt. class, 20-23 Junior Division (8/7/2010)
 551 lbs. Deadlift at 220 lbs. wt. class, 20-23 Junior Division (8/7/2010)
 479.5 lbs. Squat at 198 lbs. wt. class, 20-23 Junior Division (3/5/2011)
 363.5 lbs. Bench at 198 lbs. wt. class, 20-23 Junior Division (3/5/2011)
Naperville Police Department
Safety Education Coordinator – June – August 2006 and 2007
 Responsible for safety education of children ages 4-6 enrolled in program.
 Assisted the Naperville Police Department, Fire Department, and the Junior Women’s Club in
passing a local ordinance for gas stations requiring clients to pre-pay at the pump
99
Ayesha Rizvi
Lincolnwood, IL  (773) 971-4457rizvi.ayesha@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
May 2011 University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Chemical Engineering graduate offering academic
research and internship experience.
Quickly learn and master new technology; equally successful in both team and self-directed
settings; and proficient in a range of computer systems, languages, tools and testing
methodologies.
EDUCATION
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) –
Chicago, IL
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering
Degree expected May 2011
Undergraduate Research Aide
August 2010 to Present
Researching in collaboration with Dr. Alan Zdunek and Dr. Sohail Murad on developing a low cost
desalination process based on an electric field facilitated ion exchange method
Administered and designed experiments to gather information into reports, graphs, and charts.
Senior Design Project
January 2011 to Present
Production of Gasoline Components from Synthesis Gas
The current energy crisis is the largest problem facing this country. Due to this crisis many methods
of producing liquid fuels for transportation and heating is being researched. Our project will
take municipal solid waste-derived syngas (H2 and CO) and convert it into gasoline and liquified
petroleum gas (LPG), which can be blended in a refinery, and LPG, which can be used for
heating or as a fuel for specially modified automobiles.
INTERNSHIP
Argonne National Laboratory
High Energy Physics Division Intern
June 2010 –August 2010
Recruited in the Summer 2010 Undergraduate Laboratory Internship
Worked with the neutrino group under the supervision of Dr. Djurcic
Developed computer programming skills using C++ and ROOT to simulate and analyze data for the
Double Chooz experiment in France
Authored an abstract and research paper summarizing work
VOLUNTEER HISTORY
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Conducted tours for guests and high school students at the October 2010 Midwest Chemical
Engineering Conference at the Illinois Institute of Technology
100
Society of Women Engineers (SWE)
Assisted in judging projects created by middle school students on how they fostered their interest
in math, science, and engineering entered in the Future City Competition in January 2010&2011.
Assisted in the Augusts 2009 LABFEST at Millennium Park by helping children who came to the SWE
booth to design their own ping-pong launcher and test to see how far their launcher projected a
ping-pong ball.
101
Mohammad Shehadeh
msheha4@uic.edu
6404 W 85th Pl, Burbank, IL, 60459
Cell: (773) 715-3353, Home: (708) 430-1567
U.S Citizen
Objectives
Education
To secure a cooperative education in the field of Chemical
Engineering that will challenge and strengthen my education and
professional skills.
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
Candidate for a Bachelor of Science and Engineering degree in May, 2011
Major: Chemical Engineering
G.P.A 3.1/4.0
Major Course Work
Thermodynamics, Material and Energy Balance, Properties of Materials,
Electric circuit analysis, Fortran Programming, Transport Phenomena I,II,
and III, Chemical Engineering Reactions, Chemical Engineering Lab I
and II, Senior Design I and II, Undergraduate Research, Chemical
Process Control.
Research Experience


Undergraduate research report about Geothermal Energy
Design of a Heat Pump Cycle with a Ground Source Connection
Senior Design Project
 The Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas (MTG Process)
My project took municipal solid waste-derived syngas (H2 and CO)
and converted it into gasoline, which can be blended in a refinery,
and LPG, therefore it could be used for heating or as a fuel for
specially modified automobiles.
Projects Website: cheseniordesign.wikispaces.com
Skills
Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint
Fortran and Matlab programming
Fluent in Arabic, knowledge in Spanish
 Aspen Plus Technology –Design of Chemical ProcessesWork Experience
123 Wireless, Chicago, IL
Shift Manager
June 2006 - Present
 Supervise workers and delegate tasks as appropriate.
 Manage inventory and employee schedule.
 Answer Multi-line telephones, provide information, and resolve
problems.
 Make daily- monthly payments expenses by fax or online for
customers.
 Balance and verify content of cash drawer daily.
102
 Perform opening and closing duties.
Private Organic Chemistry Tutor
September 2009-Present
Activities and Achievements
 AIChE (American institute for Chemical Engineers), Member
Dean’s list at Moraine Valley Community College.
103
Yacoub Awwad
17600 Pheasant Drive, Tinley Park, IL 60487
Phone (cell): (708)336-0502, (h): (708)429-4893
email: yawwad2@yahoo.com
CAREER OBJECTIVE
An enthusiastic, adaptable and achievement-driven individual seeking a job in manufacturing, offering
outstanding technical and communication skills.
EDUCATION
B.S. in Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, IL, expected graduation in May 2011
Main Courses: Thermodynamics, Introduction to Chemical Processes, Transport
Phenomena I, II, III, Senior Design I, II, and Electrical Circuit Analysis.
Renewable interests: To increase my knowledge of renewable technologies, I have
worked for the past two semesters on an additional research project in the field of
geothermal technology, examining the advantages and disadvantages of this type of
technology in heating and cooling buildings.
Design experience: in senior design II class, a complete design has been done for a
production of gasoline from synthesis gas process. The advantages that a person gain
through this experience is learning new important topic, in addition to that how team
work and communication between group members; to meet all the deadlines.
Engineering courses towards my B.S. degree, Moraine Valley Community College – Palos
Heights, IL, 2008.
Honors & Rewards: President’s & Dean’s List for 2007 & 2008.
Main Courses: Calculus I, II & III, Differential Equations, Physics I & II
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Sep 2005 – Present Sales and Cashier
Wendy’s Restaurant – Orland Hills, IL



Dealing efficiently with customer inquiries.
Working effectively as a team member.
Providing solutions to customers’ problems.
Achievement:
 Developed my communication skills.
 Listening to and understanding others, supporting their ideas, and treating them with
respect.
104
KEY SKILLS



Communications and interpersonal skills
Team work
Time management and self-management
LANGUAGES AND IT SKILLS
 Languages:
Arabic:
Native
English: Excellent
Spanish Basic
 IT: Microsoft Word, Excel, Maple, C++ ,Matlab and Aspen
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES & INTERESTS
Activities:
Active student member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE)
 Involved in technical site visits to companies and factories in the chemical
engineering field.
 Attended lectures and discussion forums organized by AICHE and presented by
“hands-on” experienced engineers from various companies.
Volunteer at St. George Church & the Orthodox Club, IL
 Member of the Fellowship of Saint John the Divine (FSJD)
 Member of the FSJD scout band
Activities during my study at Victor J. Andrew High School (VJA)
 Member of the VJA water polo team.
Interests:
Chess, soccer, football and keeping current with the latest technology in electronics.
105
18.
Project Communication File
Contact Info
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:20 AM
Team Alpha
ChE 397 Spring 2011
Name:
Email:
Cell:
Ayesha Rizvi
arizvi6@uic.edu
773-971-4457 Researcher
Bernard Hsu
bbhsu2@uic.edu
630-391-3720 Technical Writer
Jeff Tyska
jtyska1@gmail.com
630-849-8371 Group Leader
Mohammed Shehadeh
msheha4@uic.edu
773-715-3353 Webmaster
Yacoub Awwad
yawwad2@uic.edu
708-336-0502 Calculations
Group Email
che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
(sends to all members, must have
listserv access)
1/17/2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
11:22 PM
Skype Conference with Dan Rusinak
Attending:
Jeffrey Tyska
Bernard Hsu
Dan Rusinak
Discussed group dynamics and possible project options.
106
Team Role:
Subject
Re: First Group Meeting tomorrow
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, January 17, 2011 9:59 PM
that's fine, though we may need to talk for a little more than 30 minutes
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:14 PM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> I just confirmed with bernard that we will meet at 1:30 pm at CEB
> before class..
>
> sorry people, this is the last call..
>
> Mohammad.
>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:00:40 -0600
> > From: fattyllama@GMAIL.COM
> > Subject: Re: First Group Meeting tomorrow
> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
> > Perl's starts at 2. I was under the impression that no one would
> > have
> class
> > right before Perl's. It would be easier to do it after class, so
> > lets do
> it
> > after Perl's.
>>
> > See you then.
>>
> > Bernard
>>
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, moody shehadeh
> > <cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
> > > how about at 12:00 noon, because i have a class at 1:00 pm..?
>>>
> > > > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:21:44 -0600
> > > > From: arizvi6@UIC.EDU
> > > > Subject: Re: First Group Meeting tomorrow
> > > > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>>>
> > > > Hello,
>>>>
107
> > > > I would prefer to have the meeting before Perl's class tomorrow.
> Would
> > > > around 1pm at CEB work for everyone - right before Senior Design?
>>>>
> > > > -Ayesha
>>>>
>>>>
> > > > On Mon, January 17, 2011 12:46 pm, moody shehadeh wrote:
> > > > > I am free anytime before 1:00 pm on tuesdays, and anytime
> > > > > after
> 2:00 pm
> > > on
> > > > > M & W.
>>>>>
> > > > > Mohammad.
>>>>>
> > > > >> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:13:52 -0600
> > > > >> From: bbhsu2@UIC.EDU
> > > > >> Subject: First Group Meeting tomorrow
> > > > >> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Group,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We will have a group meeting to decide roles tomorrow. Please
> respond
> > > in
> > > > >> email if you would prefer to have this meeting before or
> > > > >> after
> Perl's
> > > > >> class.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Bernard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
1/18/2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
108
11:12 PM
Initial Group Meeting
1:00 Pm
Attending:
Ayesha Rizvi
Bernard Hsu
Jeffrey Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Assigned group roles and discussed possible group projects
Subject
Skype conference
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:14 AM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Team: Alpha, When do you want to conference today. I am going to a client at 2 PM today. If not
tonight.
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBB700.EBF58410]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
109
Subject
Re: ChE 397 Senior Design Group 1
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:55 PM
I will be at Corn Products this afternoon. 5:30-6 PM tonight is OK with me. Tomorrow at 2PM for the
whole group. You initiate the call.
If you cannot find me, call my cell 630-697-8111.................Dan
-----Original Message----From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:49 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
Subject: RE: ChE 397 Senior Design Group 1
Mr Rusinak,
I talked with my group. As a group we can talk on skype with you tomorrow at 2pm. I hope this time
works well with you since 4 of the members of my group are commuters.
On the flipside, Jeff Tyska and I would like to speak with you today both together any time between 315
and 6pm. Please let us know a time.
Thanks,
Bernard
On Tue, January 18, 2011 12:41 pm, Rusinak, Dan wrote:
> Leaving my office at 2:30 pm. Otherwise tonight............Dan
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:37 PM
> To: Rusinak, Dan
> Subject: RE: ChE 397 Senior Design Group 1
>
> I am leaving to meet with the group right now. Will let you know
> after the meeting the time.
>
> Thanks,
> Bernard
>
> On Tue, January 18, 2011 12:29 pm, Rusinak, Dan wrote:
>> Call today?
110
>>
>> From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 6:07 PM
>> To: Rusinak, Dan
>> Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
>> Subject: ChE 397 Senior Design Group 1
>>
>> Mr Rusinak,
>>
>> I am a member of Group 1 (Alpha) of Dr Perl's ChE 397 Senior Design
>> group.
>> Dr Perl has assigned my group to your mentorship. The members of
>> the group include:
>>
>> Ayesha Rizvi
>> Bernard Hsu
>> Jeff Tyska
>> Mohammed Shehadeh
>> Yacoub Awwad
>>
>> We are looking to schedule a time for either a conference call with
>> you, or to meet with you in person so we may be able to get
>> acquainted and to discuss with you the details of our design project. Please advise.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bernard
>>
>> ________________________________
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------->> ------ This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
>> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
>> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
>> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
>> strictly prohibited.
>> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
>> policies of Middough.
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
111
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Info / work for
tomorrow and tonight
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:57 PM
Ok, I realize this is sort of long, but everyone needs to keep up with what's going on in the group,
especially since we're talking to Dan tomorrow.
Bernard and I talked to Dan, and apparently we're behind where we should be right now. We essentially
need to find whatever chemical we want to make (not some basic one like methanol, but one mass
produced enough to find good information on) by tomorrow, though it sounds like the H2/CO ratio isn't
our problem, and we shouldn't have to worry that much about the amount of syn gas coming in when
choosing it. Ayesha will be emailing me some chemicals to look at, and I'll be looking at those and a few
tomorrow in the kirk othmer encyclopedia, which apparently has tons of information on this stuff.
If anyone is free from 9:30-10:45 and from 12:00 - 2:00 tomorrow I could use help researching the
chemicals. I'll check my email around 8:00 tomorrow, so email me tonight if you can help out.
If you can get to SES before 2, show up around 15 minutes ahead of time, we're probably going to get
grilled on this stuff tomorrow, so I'd like to make sure everyone knows what were doing, and why.
As a reminder, I need everyones schedules by tonight (free times), since I want to have the meeting
times done by the time we talk with Dan tomorrow.
From what he was saying, it sounds like a lot of our work will need to be done as a group.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Re: mohammad shehadeh schedule
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
112
Sent
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:22 PM
I'll actually be in SES (that's where the library is that has the book), if you can meet me there email me
back, if not I'll assume you didn't get the email and meet you in CEB
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> jeff here is my schedule, and u could add on it that i have work T nd
> Thu from 4-11 pm, and i will be there tomorrow at 9:30 in CEB to help
> you in researching. and i could be there earlier if you need me..
>
> MS
>
> To: msheha4@uic.edu
> From: cool_moody007@hotmail.com
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:54:17 -0600
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide
>
>
1/19/2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
11:21 PM
Skype Conference with Dan Rusinak
2:05pm at SES
Attending:
Ayesha Rizvi
Bernard Hsu
Jeffrey Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Dan Rusinak
Proposed project to Dan.
113
Subject
Re: ChE 397 Senior Design Research
From
Tim Klassen
To
Bernard Hsu
Cc
che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
Sent
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:29 AM
Hi Bernard, There are a number of sources that might be useful to you.
SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts) contains a lot of info both commercial and articles. Also useful is
Reaxys. For stronger concentration on the engineering side try Compendex (Engineering
Village.) All of these resources can be found from the Databases A-Z list on the library home page at
http://library.uic.edu/
Best,
Tim
On 1/19/11 1:15 AM, Bernard Hsu wrote:
> Mr Klassen,
>
> I am in Dr Jeffery Perl’s ChE 397 Senior Design course. I believe that
> Dr Perl has scheduled for you to come present to our class regarding
> our UIC library’s resources and how they will provide great aid to us
> during the course of our project.
>
> My group was wondering if you could steer us in the direction of the
> resources we can use to find information on chemical feedstocks and
> important industrial chemicals used and produced in the United States.
>
> My group leader has already cited the Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia for
> information on chemical technology, however we are looking for other
> sources as well. If you could help us, that would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bernard
>
-Tim Klassen
Science Librarian
Science Library
University of Illinois at Chicago
klassen@uic.edu
114
(p)312-413-3060
(c)312-282-4341
(f)312-996-7822
Subject
Ayeshas Schedule
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:19 AM
Attachments
<<Ayeshas schedule.xls>>
My Schedule is attached.
-Ayesha
Subject
Update on chemicals / schedule
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:57 PM
Attachments
<<GROUP_SCHEDULE(1).xls>>
The reports are pretty dense, so I'll have to tackle them properly over the weekend (or at least not at
night), but so far, this is basically my understanding of our situation.
Mixed alcohols - We have a full report on the economics of MSW to this, with the return appearing to be
10% per year. There are some companies starting to do similar things, however, all of their catalysts are
proprietary, and from my skimming of the article, it seems like identifying our catalyst/s would be the
biggest problem. We also have some detailed drawings for the exact process to make these. There are a
few safety concerns, but nothing that can't be gotten over. There also appears to be some push to get
butanol in gasoline, though it's hard to determine how popular mixed alcohols are quite yet. The reports
also seem to say that the process is sort of a modified fischer-tropsch, which may cause some problems
with the mentors.
Gasoline - We have the catalysts, and a basic understanding of how the processes work, but I'm not sure
that it will work economically. In the August 2008 issue of CEP (free from AICHE) there's an article on
biobutanol, most of which has to do with getting it from fermentation, but theres a graph of butanol
prices vs gasoline prices (in Chicago, funnily enough) and butanol is much more expensive, which means
that we would probably make less per year with gasoline than if we did mixed alcohols (one component
of which is butanol). It's also a little less chemical based, since there's a wider range of chemicals in
gasoline than mixed alcohols, but not by that much.
115
I'll try to talk to everyone tomorrow to get their thoughts on it, and I'll be talking to professor Perl
tomorrow to try to find out what the best choice here would be (and if either would count as chemical
production).
The schedule is attached, J = Jeff has class in that period, B = Bernard, etc.
1/21/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:24 AM
Subject
Notes
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, January 21, 2011 2:05 PM
Attachments
<<notes.doc>>
More notes, just read over this so we aren't researching the same stuff over and over again.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Re: skype conf TOMORROW 1:30PM
From
cool_moody007@hotmail.com
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Friday, January 21, 2011 8:37 PM
Cool i ll make an acount tonight..
Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide
----- Reply message ----From: "Bernard Hsu" <bbhsu2@UIC.EDU>
Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 3:00 pm
Subject: skype conf TOMORROW 1:30PM
To: <CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Group,
Lets have a skype conference tomorrow, Saturday January 22 at 1:30 PM so
that we may be able to discuss our current findings and that I can update
you on the status on our presentation. Let me know if you cannot make
this time.
Thanks,
Bernard
116
1/22/2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
10:12 PM
1/22/2011
Skype Conference
90 minutes
Attending:
Bernard
Ayesha
Mohammed
Yacoub
Jeff
Jeff assigned parts for the presentation
Subject
pictures of research
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:44 AM
Attachments
[Deleted]
i am sorry some are blurry
Subject
[Fwd: RE: CHE 397 SEnior Design]
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
117
Sent
Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:03 PM
Hi all,
So I emailed Perl asking him what was the 'Reports Outlines Established'
that he wrote on the schedule document that he gave us in class. And the following is what he sent me.
So I guess we should use the contents from box 4 from the course outline sheet that he gave us for our
presentation, and add information to it as we research.
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------Subject: RE: CHE 397 SEnior Design
From: "Prof. J. Perl" <Perl@uic.edu>
Date: Sat, January 22, 2011 3:36 pm
To: "'Rizvi, Ayesha'" <arizvi6@uic.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Ayesha:
Block 4 is the overall outline which you should begin to assemble. For this Tuesday it may look more like
a table of contents, but just get it started and fill in the elements pertinent to this first meeting. This will
be your semester-long work-in-progress and will be in a state of continuous production/improvement.
Continue to coordinate with your client/mentor.
Some of the bumps will be smoothed out during your presentations this Tuesday.
- Prof Perl -
University of Illinois - Chicago
Department of Chemical Engineering
Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
Adjunct Professor
810 S. Clinton Street
Chicago Illinois 60607
-----Original Message----From: Rizvi, Ayesha [mailto:arizvi6@uic.edu]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:14 PM
To: perl@uic.edu
Subject: CHE 397 SEnior Design
Hi Professor Perl,
On the class schedule that you gave us, there is a list of things that we should talk about on Tuesday.
What do you mean by Report Outlines Established?
118
thanks,
Ayesha
Subject
Presentation 1
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:13 PM
here is my part bernard, tell me if you need anything more, and i ll see you guys monday.
tc MS
Subject
presentation 1
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:30 PM
Attachments
[Deleted]
Hey Bernard this is my part tell me if something has to be changed. see you all Monday
Yacoub
1/23/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:26 AM
Subject
Slightly more detailed Block Flow Diagram
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:46 PM
Attachments
[Deleted]
This doesn't include any utilities, reboilers, etc., pumps or surge tanks, nor does it say what to do with a
lot of the water and LPG. It's pretty much what I've seen described in the .nz articl, so I'll have to check
119
the KO to make sure that it matches this. I wouldn't necessarily put it in this presentation, but it's a good
illustration of everything we have to watch out for.
120
Screen clipping taken: 1/29/2011 11:27 AM
Subject
Re: Presentation1
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:08 PM
Attachments
[Deleted]
On Sun, January 23, 2011 2:26 pm, Bernard HSU wrote:
> Ayesha,
>
> These look very good. Now I will begin to compile the presentation.
> Please
> send me the rest when you can.
>
> Thanks,
> Bernard
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Here are the slides that I came up with. I will try and add a few
>> more slides.
>> Let me know what you think about these.
>>
>> Ayesha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
1/24/2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
10:12 PM
Presentation Practice:
5:15-7:15 PM
Attending:
Ayesha Rizvi
121
Bernard Hsu
Jeffrey Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Presentation was practiced. Bernard was filmed first as he compiled presentation.
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9gi9ks5ggE is of Bernard presenting to the group
as if he were presenting to class.
Subject
Fwd: Process Question/ DME information
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, January 24, 2011 9:58 AM
Information from Dan's friend about the DME reaction, I'll talk to everyone about this in process design,
but I want to make sure everyone has the information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: TODD HARVEY <th.unitel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Process Question/ DME information
To: "Rusinak, Dan" <Rusinad@middough.com>
Cc: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>, "drus45@gmail.com" <drus45@gmail.com>
Dan and Jeff:
We actually have a project in house right now to make DME from Syngas. Feel free to contact me, I will
help as I can.
Traditionally DME is made by the dehydration of methanol (a little bit of a misnomer I believe, but that
is what the industry calls it). Simplified the chemistry is:
1. 2 CO + 4 H2 --> 2 CH4O (In First Reactor)
2. 2 CH4O --> C2H6O +H2O (In Second Reactor)
3. 2 CO + 4 H2 --> C2H6O + H2O (Net)
Note that the ideal H2/CO ratio is about 2.
Alternatively, some groups are working on a direct DME process from syngas.
1. 2 CO + 4 H2--> 2CH4O (In Only Reactor)
122
2. 2 CH4O --> C2H6O +H2O (In Only Reactor)
3. H20 + CO --> H2 +CO2 (In Only Reactor, Water Gas Shift Reaction)
4. 3 CO +3 H2 --> C2H6O +CO2 (Net)
Note that the ideal H2/CO ratio is about 1
The second route is most interesting for bio derived syngas which has a tendency to have an H2/CO ratio
around one when gasified.
It appears that the second route is less efficient due to CO2 production but that is a function of how we
draw our system. Consideration has to be given to the reformer/gasifier. For a syngas exiting the
reformer/gasifier with a H2/CO ratio of 1, the traditional technology would require a water gas shift
(WGS) reactor prior to the methanol synthesis reactor which will produce 1 mole of CO2 for every
additonal mole of H2 produced. For bio derived syngas, the alternate technology eliminates the WGS
reactor and eliminates the dehydration reactor. It however does have a much more involved product
recovery system.
I'm not sure what you have in mind ultimately but just a few initial thoughts.
Best Regards,
Todd Harvey
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
> Jeff: Looks like a full plate. It is within the scope of a senior
> design project. Go for it!
>
>
>
> Todd: Could you lend my group, Team Alpha, some guidance. I know that
> you are very busy, but you have so much knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dan Rusinak** PE***
123
>
> Chief Process Engineer
>
>
>
> *[image: PerformanceYouTrustGraywMiddough.jpg]*
>
>**
>
> *Middough Inc.*
>
> 700 Commerce Dr.
>
> Oak Brook, IL 60523
>
> 630-756-7010 Direct
>
> 630-756-7000 General
>
> 630-756-7001 Fax
>
> 630-697-8111 Cell
>
> *rusinad@middough.com***
>
> *www.middough.com*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:21 PM
> *To:* Rusinak, Dan; drus45@gmail.com
> *Subject:* Process Question/ DME information
>
>
>
> Dan
>
> We have finished the slides for the powerpoint on Tuesday, and we are
> set on doing gasoline right now, but I just want to make 100% sure
> that this is within the scope of a normal senior design project (not
> too many processes, so that we can do things in depth). Unfortunately
> I don't have a very clear idea of the scope of a normal senior design
> project. I have attached a somewhat detailed block flow diagram that I
124
> put together tonight from some of my sources, which admittedly doesn't
> include utilities, pumps, reboilers/condensers, etc, but covers most
> of the unit operations. If you could just look over it and verify that
> this would probably not be too much, I would appreciate it.
>
> Also, I remember that you said that you knew someone who was making
> DME from syngas. Could I get their email or phone number? We will be
> making DME as an intermediate, so part of our process may be very
> similar to what they are doing.
>
> Thank You
>
> -Jeff Tyska
>
>
> -----------------------------> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
>
-Todd Harvey
Unitel Technologies
411 Business Center Drive
Suite 111
Mt. Prospect, IL 60056
p: 847.297.2265
f: 847.297.1365
th.unitel@gmail.com
www.uniteltech.com
Subject
Presentation
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, January 24, 2011 2:54 PM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
125
Alpha & Bravo: I need to review your presentation before class tomorrow. Tonight!
Alpha, do you have a Wiki?
Have you contacted Dima, Magda and Todd?
Skype tonight? I found the problem with my mic. AOK
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBBBD6.48686DF0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
1/25/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:30 AM
Subject
Re: Powerpoint
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:56 AM
Team: Another point. On a carbon basis, what percent of the carbon goes to Syn gas and how much goes
to providing heat via the combustor?
Dan
126
-----Original Message----From: Rusinak, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:18 AM
To: 'Eleftherios Avtzis'; Dan Rusinak
Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
Subject: RE: Powerpoint
Larry: Good!
You should have an overall mass balance backup slide. Tonnes per day MSW in, Basis wet? Or dry?.
Solids to land fill TPD, ash, TPD , crude syn TPD, syn gas, CO2 TPD, steam/water in etc.
Also you show CO and H2 in the combustion section. Is this so? Or just C?
The object is to remove the gas from the sand and char and have only sand and char go into the
combustor.
You gas composition shows H2/CO to be 2.4 to 3.0. Alpha needs 2.05. Do you need a water shift
reaction? You do need to get rid of CH4.
Dan
-----Original Message----From: Eleftherios Avtzis [mailto:eleftherios88@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:15 PM
To: Dan Rusinak; Rusinak, Dan
Subject: Re: Powerpoint
New powerpoint.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com> wrote:
> AOK
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eleftherios Avtzis
> <eleftherios88@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Here it is and it's a bit bland but presents all the points we need
>> to present for Tuesday. I'm still confused by what is meant by
>> Engineering Standards and Industrial Standards. Also, is it alright
>> to Skype at 8:30 p.m. tonight instead of eight?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eleftherios
>
>
127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Re: Group Alpha's Powerpoint
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:27 AM
Look at Todd Harvey's email. Why are you doing a water shift reaction to make CO2? If you need CO2
get it from Alpha. I though you need just H2 and CO per your first equation? Where are you getting the
extra H2 from? Where are you getting the H2 from for the durene saturation?
Are you using the heat from the CO/H2=> MeOH reaction for the dehydration of MeOH to DME? Can
this be done in one reactor?
Dan
-----Original Message----From: Rizvi, Ayesha [mailto:arizvi6@uic.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:04 AM
To: drus45@gmail.com; Rusinak, Dan
Cc: CHE397GRP1
Subject: Group Alpha's Powerpoint
Hi Dan,
By any chance were you able to look over group Alpha's power point for today?
thanks,
Ayesha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
128
Subject
Re: FW: Process Question/ DME information
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:19 AM
SPEAK to Team Bravo! They will produce H2/CO 2.4 to 3.0.................................Dan
From: Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:13 AM
To: ChE 397 Design Group 1; drus45@gmail.com; Rusinak, Dan
Subject: Re: FW: Process Question/ DME information
Hi Dan, I had sent this out to the group yesterday too, we are going to go with the separate reactors
(and we are taking the water-gas shift out of our presentation). The reason for this is that group Bravo's
H2/CO ratio is always going to be quite a bit less than 1, and due to the nature of their feedstock they
will always need one to get the ratio to be correct. From my understanding about this, it would simplify
things if we had a 1:1 H2/CO ratio from our feedstock, but with our lower ratio all that process would do
is require 2 water-gas shift reactors and extra separations. I will email Todd back later today or
tomorrow, but right now I really want to focus on trying to make the changes that you had mentioned,
and making sure everyone still knows their part for the presentation.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Rusinak, Dan
<Rusinad@middough.com<mailto:Rusinad@middough.com>> wrote:
FYI............................Dan
From: TODD HARVEY [mailto:th.unitel@gmail.com<mailto:th.unitel@gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:53 AM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Cc: Jeff Tyska; drus45@gmail.com<mailto:drus45@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Process Question/ DME information Dan and Jeff:
We actually have a project in house right now to make DME from Syngas. Feel free to contact me, I will
help as I can.
Traditionally DME is made by the dehydration of methanol (a little bit of a misnomer I believe, but that
is what the industry calls it). Simplified the chemistry is:
1. 2 CO + 4 H2 --> 2 CH4O (In First Reactor) 2. 2 CH4O --> C2H6O +H2O (In Second Reactor) 3. 2 CO + 4
H2 --> C2H6O + H2O (Net) Note that the ideal H2/CO ratio is about 2.
Alternatively, some groups are working on a direct DME process from syngas.
1. 2 CO + 4 H2--> 2CH4O (In Only Reactor) 2. 2 CH4O --> C2H6O +H2O (In Only Reactor) 3. H20 + CO -->
H2 +CO2 (In Only Reactor, Water Gas Shift Reaction) 4. 3 CO +3 H2 --> C2H6O +CO2 (Net) Note that the
ideal H2/CO ratio is about 1
129
The second route is most interesting for bio derived syngas which has a tendency to have an H2/CO ratio
around one when gasified.
It appears that the second route is less efficient due to CO2 production but that is a function of how we
draw our system. Consideration has to be given to the reformer/gasifier. For a syngas exiting the
reformer/gasifier with a H2/CO ratio of 1, the traditional technology would require a water gas shift
(WGS) reactor prior to the methanol synthesis reactor which will produce 1 mole of CO2 for every
additonal mole of H2 produced. For bio derived syngas, the alternate technology eliminates the WGS
reactor and eliminates the dehydration reactor. It however does have a much more involved product
recovery system.
I'm not sure what you have in mind ultimately but just a few initial thoughts.
Best Regards,
Todd Harvey
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rusinak, Dan
<Rusinad@middough.com<mailto:Rusinad@middough.com><mailto:Rusinad@middough.com<mailto:R
usinad@middough.com>>> wrote:
Jeff: Looks like a full plate. It is within the scope of a senior design project. Go for it!
Todd: Could you lend my group, Team Alpha, some guidance. I know that you are very busy, but you
have so much knowledge.
Thanks,
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=112cea8929&view=att&th=12db8522a7288fee&attid=0.1&dis
p=emb&zw]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com><mailto:rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusi
nad@middough.com>>
www.middough.com<http://www.middough.com><http://www.middough.com>
130
From: Jeff Tyska
[mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com<mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com><mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com<mailto:jtyska1@g
mail.com>>]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:21 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan;
drus45@gmail.com<mailto:drus45@gmail.com><mailto:drus45@gmail.com<mailto:drus45@gmail.com
>>
Subject: Process Question/ DME information
Dan
We have finished the slides for the powerpoint on Tuesday, and we are set on doing gasoline right now,
but I just want to make 100% sure that this is within the scope of a normal senior design project (not too
many processes, so that we can do things in depth). Unfortunately I don't have a very clear idea of the
scope of a normal senior design project. I have attached a somewhat detailed block flow diagram that I
put together tonight from some of my sources, which admittedly doesn't include utilities, pumps,
reboilers/condensers, etc, but covers most of the unit operations. If you could just look over it and verify
that this would probably not be too much, I would appreciate it.
Also, I remember that you said that you knew someone who was making DME from syngas. Could I get
their email or phone number? We will be making DME as an intermediate, so part of our process may be
very similar to what they are doing.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
-Todd Harvey
Unitel Technologies
411 Business Center Drive
Suite 111
Mt. Prospect, IL 60056
p: 847.297.2265
f: 847.297.1365
th.unitel@gmail.com<mailto:th.unitel@gmail.com><mailto:th.unitel@gmail.com<mailto:th.unitel@gma
il.com>>
www.uniteltech.com<http://www.uniteltech.com><http://www.uniteltech.com>
131
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Fwd: Group Alpha's work percentages
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:10 PM
Attachments
[Table shown below]
This is the percentages I sent out to Perl for this last week. I realize that they may not be perfect, but
they are my best guess for this last week.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me and we can discuss them.
For this next week, I will probably be assigning some topics so we better know what is getting done,
although everyone will still have to add to it themselves. I know the hours that we have done for lab
have started a few problems, but if there are a lot of worries for the work percentages for this class I will
to set some modified system of it up. The next few week's hours will probably be more detailed too,
since much more work will have been done.
-Jeff Tyska
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Group Alpha's work percentages
To: "Prof. J Perl" <perl@uic.edu>
If you have any questions, feel free to email me back.
-Jeff Tyska
132
% of total
Ayesha
20
Bernard
25
Mohammed
15
Jeff
25
Yacoub
15
Total %
100
1/26/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:31 AM
Subject
Fwd: Team Alpha and Bravo Team Meeting with Dan
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:00 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Labaschin, Zachary <zlabas2@uic.edu>
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Team Alpha and Bravo Team Meeting with Dan
To: "Rusinak, Dan" <Rusinad@middough.com>, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>, ChE 397 Design Group
1 <CHE397GRP1@listserv.uic.edu>, "drus45@gmail.com" < drus45@gmail.com>
Cc: "Alena Nguyen (helloalena@gmail.com)" <helloalena@gmail.com>, "Bryan Isles
(bryanisles@gmail.com)" <bryanisles@gmail.com>, "David Garcia ( dgarcia057@hotmail.com)"
<dgarcia057@hotmail.com>, Eleftherios Avtzis < eleftherios88@gmail.com>
Greetings Alpha, Bravo, and Dan,
As we discussed in class today, we would like to set up a meeting between the two teams with Dan
present.
Wednesday, February 2nd (Next Wednesday) at 5:15 in the Chemical Engineering Building seemed to be
a consensus among the students.
As long as that is ok with you Dan, we would like to meet at this time.
Thanks,
133
Zack
1/27/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:32 AM
Subject
Re: scribe notes
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:00 AM
I can probably add a little more about the other groups from memory if Perl actually checks these things,
I think they're mainly for us though. The only things I would note with that file is that the stability
question is linked to the "limit of 10%" question, which is basically asking us to make sure that our olefin
content is below the legal maximum in gasoline.
-Jeff Tyska
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> I uploaded the notes from yesterdays presentation onto our wiki under
> SCRIBE NOTES. I only added questions/notes asked by the mentors to our
> group and to group Bravo's. The notes are basically key words or key
> points that the mentors pointed out to us. I promise next time I will
> be more attentive and take better notes!
>
> take care,
>
> Ayesha
>
Subject
Assignments for this weekend
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:18 PM
Attachments
<<assignments week
3.docx>>
I have attached a general assignment list for each person. Hopefully we can get this stuff by Monday,
but definitely by Wednesday when we talk to the other group and our mentor again. If you have any
questions or you had already been working on something else email me back and I'll sort it out.
134
Note that the information from these assignments should answer all of the questions for our group
during the last presentation.
Keep your information and sources in a word file, so we can refer back to them when possible. If you
cannot find something after a lot of searching email me back, as long as you have been actively working
and searching for it (which we will be able to see in the word file) we should be fine. I'm planning on
putting these word files on our wiki later too, so everyone can reference them and so that Perl and Dan
can follow what we're doing.
I would like to have a meeting on skype on Saturday evening (5 or so), to see where people are having
problems, and so we can check up on how things are going with the research. If you cannot be on skype
at this time, email me. I would also like to meet up before process control or at 5 15 in CEB if possible so
we can go over the details of our research, and keep everyone up to date. The exact time will probably
depend on how well the research is going.
Note that free patent sites can be generally a good source for finding out operating conditions. Also, it
looks like we will not be getting 5000 metric tons per day of syngas, unless some part of our process
wouldn't work with that. I will check our maximum scaling range from the KO tomorrow (I believe it was
in there).
If you have any questions email me back.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
Attachment Expanded:
Ayesha
-Information on the methanol process – Is there any way to run at a lower pressure or higher T, any
conversion data possible (w/ a 2 to 1 ratio), life/ any compounds needed to active our Copper-Zinc
catalyst? Any other information like pricing would help too, but I will be emailing Todd once we get this
information down to try to figure out some of the more obscure stuff.
-Try to find out the operating conditions of the MeOH reactor if possible. Note we will probably want a
very high selectivity. If possible, find out the conversion at those conditions (high is good, but definitely
not as important as selectivity).
Bernard
-Make / Upload Project Communications Files
-Research the MTG reactors/ ZSM-5 catalyst. How long will the catalyst probably last? Should we use a
fixed or fluidized bed? Operating conditions = ? Price of the catalyst = ? You might want to refer to the
135
large document on our wiki, though most of that stuff is way too much in detail. You might also try to
find the conversion of the reactors under whatever conditions if possible..
Jeff
- Find out the most feasible process to make Durene. What catalyst/conditions/other reactants are
needed, do we have those reactants or if not where can we get them, what is the final product of the
reaction?
- Do we need an alkylation reactor for anything? If so, what and where?
-Possibilities for uses for our LPG in our system = ? Would it be worth selling it?
-Distribution of molecules in our gasoline = ?
Mohammed
-Update the wiki page
1. Create a summary for the test page
2. Headers, etc. for the references page
3. Same headers, etc. for data page
4. Upload our presentation on its own page (future presentations will go there too)
5. Delete the test page
6. Anything else you think needs work
- I believe you were the one who was looking up the maximum olefin percentage in gasoline, if so find
out what it is, if not email me back and I’ll assign it to whoever else.
-Work with Yacoub on finding out conditions for our distillation columns and what products will come
out in each part. Refer to the flowsheet and the .nz document for references on the columns. This will
be a very important part of our material balance.
Yacoub
-I talked to larry, and we are now planning on using about 5000 metric tons of syngas, which will make
approximately 2500 metric tons of gasoline (premium grade). Find out how many barrels of oil this
would make (42 gallons per barrel, so you’ll just need the density of premium gasoline, which may be
the same as any other grade), and what the average price of premium gasoline (wholesale, not at
pumps) has been during the last year or so. From this, we should be able to calculate our maximum
possible earnings.
136
-Work with Mohammed on finding out conditions for our distillation column and what products will
come out in each part. Refer to the flowsheet and the .nz document for references on the columns. This
will be a very important part of our material balance.
1/28/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
11:33 AM
Subject
Very Important information on our scope, read soon
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:24 AM
As you can see from the messages below, Dan suggested the idea of just making a basestock for gasoline
production, instead of making gasoline. I want to get everyone's opinions on this, but personally I think
it would probably be a good idea, since our refining/alklyating/durene reaction steps seem to be almost
as complicated as the whole rest of our project. We would then be able to get into the details with our
process, and the scope would be closer to that of the other groups.
Yacoub and Mohammed - I believe we will still need a distillation column at the end, however, it may be
more advantageous to switch your research to our DME reactor, since we may not need some of the
complicated sets of columns at the end. I have done a little research on it myself, and the patent at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4098809.pdf might help. We will have to do a lot of the calculations
by hand and Aspen, but this research should give us a good idea of the types of conversion that we will
be getting.
Also, note that we may just be using a higher H2/CO ratio, and then occasionally purging our recycle
stream, which was actually what was done in the New Zealand plant. Larry's team does not seem to be
able to get the H2/CO ratio to below 2.4 without a lot of problems.
If you get a chance email me your opinion of the gasoline before our Skype meeting, but if you cannot it
is not a big deal. Note that Dan Rusinak will also be in our meeting at 5.
-Jeff Tyska
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Group Alpha Team Update
To: Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com>, "Rusinak, Dan" <Rusinad@middough.com>
Dan,
137
I will be checking in with my team to get their opinions on it, but I believe the basestock idea is probably
a very good one. It would certainly take out the problems of reacting the durene, blending, additives,
and alklyating our stream to get rid of the olefins. I believe that we would probably still need a
distillation column at the end to get rid of some of the water, but this shouldn't be a problem.
As for the Durene, I believe it will also clog up fuel injectors, and Mobil's site still advertised less than 2%
durene in the final product. It can be purified and possibly used as a feedstock for plastics, or reacted
with lighter hydrocarbons to produce other compounds. If we are going with the feedstock idea,
however, what exactly happens to it is should probably not worry us to greatly.
Do you happen to know where we could get some information about prices for the basestock to sell to
the refineries? I know we need some rough economics for the next presentation, and my only worry is
that we won't be able to figure out how much our final product is worth, since our product would be
different than most feedstocks to the refinery.
I will have to look at the exact implications of the higher ratio, however, I do not believe as of now that it
should affect our methanol or DME reaction negatively. The plant in New Zealand had a higher H2/CO
ratio, and instead of taking it down to around 2, they seem to have just purged the recycle gas
(unreacted syngas) when the H2 ratio got high, and fed it to the reformer. This may be our best idea,
since separating the hydrogen through membranes generally seems to require high temperatures, and
higher temperatures have a negative effect on our methanol synthesis. This may also mean that they
can send through a higher ratio if needed, since the New Zealand plant seems to be putting in roughly a
3:1 ratio from their natural gas. I will email Larry about this possibility.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff: Good progress. I am in and out to day. I am going to the
> theater tonight. I will be home until 8:00 PM. Text or email when you
> are having your Skype conference.
>
> I have being thinking about the scope of your project. I think a
> better choice is Syn Gas to gasoline basestock. Not gasoline. This may
> resolve some problems.
>
> Mobile is an integrated marketer of gasoline. In a refinery various
> types of basestock gasolines are blended to make the gasoline that is
> sold at the stations. The units that produce gasoline basestocks are;
> crude topping tower, isom, FCC, cat reformer, alkylate and so on. Each
> stream has different properties and composition,i.e., octane, sulfur,
> olifins, vapor pressure, aromatics etc. They are blended with
> additives to make the gasoline that is sold.
138
>
> You are making a stranded gasoline base stock at a garbage dump. Your
> BFD shows a blending block. Where are you getting the other base
> stocks? You are making a basestock that has great octane and low
> sulfur. You should sell your base stock to an integrated refinery, via
> pipeline or rail car. They will blend the olefin down.
>
> Carburettors are no longer used in cars. What effect does durene have
> on fuel injectors? can the additive package take care of it?
>
> All heterogeneous catalyst beds foul. Typically guard beds (2) are
> installed upstream to protect the main reactor.
>
> You do not need to know the exact composition to set up your Aspen model.
> The problem will be to make it converge. Once it solves you can change
> the feed composition. You need the simulation to do your cost
> estimate. Aspen IPE will make P&IDs for you.
>
> If Bravo sends you H2/CO at 2.4 can you handle It? What effect does it
> have on your process? Yield? Composition?
>
> Todd Harvey is a great teacher. He understand where you are in your career.
> Do not be afraid to call him. We have been trying to get him to be
> mentor in your course.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> There are a few things currently being worked on in our group. The
>> main goals right now are 1. Figuring out our operating conditions in
>> more detail, since these are needed for just about every balance that
>> we will do.
>> 2. Finding out more detailed information about our catalysts to see
>> how often we need to regenerate them, etc. since that was brought up
>> at the last presentation, and because they are such an integral part
>> of our process 3. Figuring out what we want to do with the Durene. I
>> have found a few options that Mobil has patented to deal with the
>> Durene, and I am currently reviewing them.
>> 4. Figuring out the details of our separations, especially the
>> alkylation reaction that we may require to deal with our high olefin content.
>>
>> I have assigned everyone parts that they are to have researched by
>> Monday, and everyone is instructed to take notes that we can upload
>> to the wiki. We will be meeting on Skype tomorrow evening to check in
>> on the research and to share information, then again on Monday.
139
>> Unfortunately I have a very important meeting for one of the clubs
>> that I'm in (which I need to be at for our UIC AICHE chapter also) so
>> I will not be able to make the Skype meeting this Wednesday at 5 pm,
>> however, I will make sure others from our group will be there and
>> will brief me on what was discussed. I am also available for meeting
>> on Tuesday after 5 or so if you would like to discuss the project on Skype.
>>
>> At the moment, the main problems I see coming up will be in our
>> separations. There will be many different components in our
>> distillation columns, and the exact concentrations depend on our operating conditions.
>> The concentrations will also determine some of the operating
>> conditions of the columns. There is also a fair amount of other
>> equipment associated with the separation steps that need to be dealt
>> with. I am currently reviewing Mobil's patents, which seem to have
>> more information on it than any other place I have seen. I also have
>> two people researching the columns for this weekend.
>>
>> I will be contacting Todd during the middle of the next week to
>> discuss whatever problems we see come up with the MeOH and DME
>> reactions. I have not emailed him yet because I don't want to waste
>> his time teaching us things that we could have found from our normal sources with a bit of work.
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments feel free as always to email or
>> call me back.
>>
>> -Jeff Tyska
1/29/2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
12:53 PM
Group Conference, Skype
5pm - 6:05pm
Updated status on project. Group will meet again
1/31/2011 10:30am to report on research.
Attending:
Bernard Hsu
Jeff Tyska
Yacoub Awwad
Ayesha Rizvi
Subject
1st Grp MTG TEAM ALPHA
From
Prof. J. Perl
140
To
jtyska2@uic.edu; bbhsu2@uic.edu; yawwad2@uic.edu; arizvi6@uic.edu; msheha4@uic.edu
Cc
'Dan Rusinak'
Sent
Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:53 AM
Attachments
<<20110128171115825.pdf>>
Team ALPHA:
Here are grades from First Group Meeting. Please review
- Prof Perl University of Illinois - Chicago
Department of Chemical Engineering
Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
Adjunct Professor
810 S. Clinton Street
Chicago Illinois 60607
141
1/31/2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
7:29 PM
Group Meeting
10:30 AM
CEB
Attending:
Ayesha Rizvi
Jeff Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Bernard Hsu (late 10:40)
Updated group on individual research assignments
Subject
Consultants for your Project
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, January 31, 2011 12:11 PM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Team Alpha: I spoke with some of my friends and they are willing to help you.
Stephen J. McGovern, PhD, PE. An independent refining consultant located in the Princeton NJ area.
sjmcgovern@hotmail.com<mailto:sjmcgovern@hotmail.com> 856-371-3463. Worked at Mobile
Research and Development before he retired. A world class consultant.
Rob Gallogly, Rob Gallogly [RGallogly@sbcglobal.net], 708-655-1610. Refining and petrochemical
Catalyst Technical Sales, BASF. Oak Park, IL. Knows the catalyst business inside and out.
When I mentioned Mobile's methanol to gasoline process they both chuckled.
Rob, my neighbor, across the street, is willing to come down town and talk to you as a group.
Seize the opportunity!
Dan Rusinak PE
142
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBC13D.1F23B230]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
2/1/2011
Saturday, February 05, 2011
3:33 PM
Subject
Fwd: UIC Senior Design Group Questions
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 3:11 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Subject: UIC Senior Design Group Questions
To: th.unitel@gmail.com
Todd,
I'm the leader of "group alpha" for our senior design class, and as I believe Dan mentioned, my group is
making a precursor (scaled back from refined gasoline production) which involves making DME and
methanol. We decided to go with the reactor design for the methanol and DME, since the H2/CO ratio
that the other group was feeding us was over 1, and I know you said that the single reactor version
made the separations more difficult. If you wouldn't mind answering a few couple I would really
appreciate it, as it would help formalize some of our operating conditions.
143
1. The stoichiometric H2/CO ratio for the Methanol from syngas reaction should be 2, but from some of
the sources I've read there is also the possibly of having a reverse gas shift reaction if there's any CO2
which would form CO and take away Hydrogen. Do you normally use a 2:1 or slightly higher (2.03:1, etc.)
ratio for this reaction, and if the reverse gas shift reaction happens, is there any way of predicting how
much it will happen?
2. How long do the catalysts last for each process (Copper-Zinc and Gamma-Alumina)? I haven't read
anything on regenerating either of them, though I am still looking. I also was wondering if you knew
exactly how low the concentrations of sulfur in the syn gas need to be. I know that it needs to be low
(sounds like only a few ppm), but it's hard to find any numbers.
I really appreciate your help on this, these are a couple of the important questions that we've had
trouble coming by actual numbers of good references on.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
2/3/2011
Thursday, February 03, 2011
11:30 PM
Subject
Re: catalyst regeneration and fixed vs fluidized bed info
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:00 AM
thanks bernard , you could next time just add them to the "Dialy notes and research data" page, or just
email me and i ll add them so we can have all our files in one page. not a problem :)
for group:
i think i finished designing our wiki, i hope it looks good as you guys wanted it to be, if anybody has any
suggestion please feel free to tell me.
me and yacoub also researched some information about the DME reactor and we posted a word note
page for it and the links where we got our notes from, and jeff there are four links that shows that the
pressure is in a range 3000-5000 kpa, you could also use these links to get more info about the DME
rectore, very helpfull ..
take care guys.
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 23:50:26 -0600
> From: bbhsu2@UIC.EDU
> Subject: catalyst regeneration and fixed vs fluidized bed info
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> Uploaded onto Wiki.
>
144
>
>
> This was research from the weekend, sorry it is up late. There is more
> for me to look into but this is what I have now.
>
>
>
> Thank,
>
> Bernard
Subject
Senior Design assignments
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:43 PM
I checked in with Perl, and it sounds like we're not really supposed to use aspen for the calculations for
the next presentation (need to do them by hand). The ASPEN process simulator is also not installed yet,
and he's talked to people, but he's not sure when its going to come in. I have started the simulation in
ASPEN however, which means that we can check that our calculations are at least somewhat realistic.
The hand calculations are a good way to check ASPEN's data too, I've already had to do this for the
methanol section mass balance.
With these things in mind, here are the assignments for the next few days (by Monday, but earlier is
better).
Jeff - Complete mass balance each component of system and the system as a whole, find out how much
Larry is selling us the syngas for, get most of the flowsheet done.
Bernard - Cost of our reactors/major unit operations Ayesha - Find data on gasoline component's prices
(Dan mentioned checking out things like FCC reactors, to see what comes out and how much it goes
for)
Yacoub - Energy Balance for the DME reactor (use heats of formation, Cp values, and correlations for
heat transfer from the reactor) Mohammed - Find data on gasoline component's prices (Dan mentioned
checking out things like FCC reactors, to see what comes out and how much it goes
for)
I will contact the guy from Mobil once we get some data this weekend for the economics of those
things, and I will contact the catalyst guy for prices once we find out exactly what copper-oxide catalyst
we're using (I'll look
tonight)
With this data, we will have the material balance and energy balance done, the flowsheet mostly or
completely done, and the economics partly done.
Hopefully we will be able to get quotes and finalized prices by wednesday (we all have tests next week,
so you don't want to leave much stuff for next weekend).
145
I realize that you may not be able to get quotes on stuff by Monday since the companies won't email
you in weekends, but the emails should hopefully be sent out by Monday. I will send out a sheet with
numbers on what we are making, and we will have to estimate how much we can sell it for, but we
should have numbers by Monday.
If you have any questions, feel free to email or call me back
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Fwd: UIC Senior Design Project Question
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 3:11 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen McGovern <sjmcgovern@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Subject: RE: UIC Senior Design Project Question
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Jeff, Much of the MTG development work was done under government contract. Detailed reports with
lots of detailed data are available through NTIS (national Technical Information Services). You should be
able to access the index of reports through your library. The reports were issued in the early 1980’s and
will have much better data than the patents will.
Steve
From: Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:11 PM
To: sjmcgovern@hotmail.com
Subject: UIC Senior Design Project Question
Stephen,
First off, I would like to thank you for volunteering to help us with our project. As I believe Dan
mentioned to you, we are making gasoline (untreated) from syngas via the Mobil Process. While
searching through patents I was able to find detailed outlet compositions of the reactors are certain
temperatures and pressures, however some of the compositions are a bit vague. Some of the
components are lumped together, such as C7,C8,C9 and C10+ aromatics.
Is there any way to accurately simulate those fractions in a simulation? I believe gasoline components
are commonly lumped into groups in refining, but I'm not quite sure how to accurately simulate lumped
components, and how to lump those components together, besides how the patents have done it. In
case you are curious about what some of our distributions look like, I have attached two excel files, both
146
of which describe sample product distributions, which are admittedly slightly different because of the
different operating conditions.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
2/5/2011
Saturday, February 05, 2011
3:32 PM
Subject
Skype meeting
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 10:27 AM
To check in with what everyone is finding out over the weekend, I think it's best that we meet on skype
on Sunday. Right now I'd like to make the time 2 pm (after lunch, before the super bowl), but if anyone
has a problem we can reschedule the time.
Also, a as a side note to the two people looking for example prices that we could sell our gasoline for,
look at the wiki for information about what comes out of the FCC unit operation (page 148 in the google
book)
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Start of mass Balance (overall components up to 3-phase Flash)
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 10:55 AM
Attachments
<<IterativeMassBalance.xls>>
I am still checking in with Yacoub to make sure that I gave him the non-zero CO/H2 in product one, if not
I'll tell you right when I find out. Note that this assumes a 2% purge, and no CO2/H2O/etc. in our
reactors which will not be true in the end. It will take me awhile to figure out the rest of the mass
balance, since it will depend on the components coming out of the MTG reactor, and that's still up in the
air (elemental balances are off, but I can't just make stuff up to correct it).
Use run 26, it will be the 25th run, it's sort of arbitrary but it's close to the SS value and I'm not sure that
we will ever get to the SS value (it depends on our characteristic time, Q/V , if it is small we will, if it is
large, maybe not.)
Subject
Re: Start of mass Balance (overall components up to 3-phase Flash)
From
Jeff Tyska
147
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 11:13 AM
This is the same data as he is using (CO with product, etc.) so use these numbers. You can still size it for
later trials if you would like, since we technically need the reactor to be big enough to deal with all of
the trials, though I'm not sure at what point you would like to stop, since it doesn't level out until much,
much later.
-Jeff Tyska
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still checking in with Yacoub to make sure that I gave him the non-zero CO/H2 in product one, if not
I'll tell you right when I find out. Note that this assumes a 2% purge, and no CO2/H2O/etc. in our
reactors which will not be true in the end. It will take me awhile to figure out the rest of the mass
balance, since it will depend on the components coming out of the MTG reactor, and that's still up in the
air (elemental balances are off, but I can't just make stuff up to correct it).
Use run 26, it will be the 25th run, it's sort of arbitrary but it's close to the SS value and I'm not sure that
we will ever get to the SS value (it depends on our characteristic time, Q/V , if it is small we will, if it is
large, maybe not.)
Subject
Fwd: Syngas Flow
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 2:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Syngas Flow
To: Eleftherios Avtzis <eleftherios88@gmail.com>
We have a purge stream that is basically H2/CO, and depending on how we do things we may very well
have a light gas purge stream (light hydrocarbons mainly) that we can sell back to you if necessary. Right
now the purge is small, about 2%, but we can make it a bit larger if that would help. I can tell you the
size of the light gas stream and it's composition once I input the data into aspen monday.
Get back to me as soon as you can and let's really try to confirm the value, since this changes all of our
calculations.
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Eleftherios Avtzis <eleftherios88@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
148
I'm still working on rough calculations and it appears half of the carbon coming in has to be combusted
for the purpose of heating the
sand that provides the energy for the endothermic reactions in the gasifier. I'm beginning to doubt that
8000 TPD of RDF will produce 4400 TPD of clean syngas. Probably half of that number. Make sure that
whatever you do, allow room for flexibility cause this is a centerline value. We fluctuate 5% up and
down. After the steam reforming and clean up, I don't know how much syngas we'll have. I'll do my
best to get you the values tonight. Either way go with a safe bet of 3000 TPD as extra syngas may be
used for energy and better than being unable to provide enough.
Best,
Eleftherios
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to double check, we're still getting 4400 tonnes per day right? Just want to make sure before we go
through all of the calculations and sizing.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Fwd: UIC Senior Design Catalyst Questions
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 3:10 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: <rgallogly@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: UIC Senior Design Catalyst Questions
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Sorry Jeff - timing
I am in california until the 14th. I don't have skype so ph or email until then I have meetings in chicago
the 16th and 17th. So I have time the 15th or 18th
Rob
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld
From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:20:06 -0600
To: <RGallogly@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: UIC Senior Design Catalyst Questions
Rob,
First off I would like to thank you for volunteering to help us with our project, everyone in the group
really appreciates it. We have a few questions regarding our catalysts (Copper-Zinc or Copper-ZincAluminum for the methanol process, Gamma-Alumina for the DME reaction, and ZSM-5 for our final
reactors), but it may work better if we meet up in person or over skype.
149
If you would like to meet up in person, the best time would probably be around 5:30 AM MondayWednesday at UIC or somewhere near there, or we might be able to get people to drive down to where
you are around 11:00 AM on a Tuesday. We have a lot of times when we could be on skype, so if you
would like to set up a time for that just email me back with some general times that would work for you.
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Group Meeting
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 05, 2011 3:41 PM
I've had two people say that they wanted to meet Monday morning (10:15 or
so) instead of on skype tomorrow afternoon, so we will meet then (Bernard I will talk to you throughout
the weekend and later Monday since I know you can't make it until later).
Note that this doesn't mean that you should be putting off your research, the things I asked you to
find/calculate are not easy to do, so they will probably take quite a bit of time. The things I asked you all
to look up are necessary, however, and I will be making sure everyone has put forth the effort into doing
their assignments on Monday.
-Jeff Tyska
2/6/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
7:53 PM
Subject
Mass Balance Calculations
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:49 PM
I have put the mass balance calculations up on our wiki, I can't use my old word file on this computer so
the word version of it will not be completely finished until Monday night, however everything else is up,
and all of the calculations are done. Everything here should balance, but it's hard to make 100% sure
since I have around 200 or so columns of data with 25 iterations.
I'll try to explain it better on Monday, and I'll also be looking up densities so we can see how many
barrels of oil we will be making (just a conversion, only problem is getting the densities of stuff) and how
much offgas we're making (Quite a bit actually, we need to figure out what to do with it)
150
I did my calculations for 3000 tonnes of syngas/day because Larry got back to me and said to use that
value for now to be safe, however he still doesn't know how much he is sending us, so I'll send that out
once I know.
It should be today. Virtually everything we're doing should be easily scalable, so I don't see this being a
problem. Use whatever values you have been using for this weekend.
2/7/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
7:55 PM
Subject
Revised Mass Balance
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 07, 2011 10:17 AM
Attachments
<<MTG Mass Balance.xls>>
Changed Percentages to LG stream, purge, and LPG stream (made it based on realistic assumptions)
Added
-Densities, MWs, 1000 bbl/day
Our data seems way too good (much higher conv than NZ), but whatever, ASPEN will probably sort it out
and I doubt the mentors will notice.
Ill repost it to the wiki
Subject
Fwd: Syngas Flow
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 07, 2011 10:51 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Syngas Flow
To: Eleftherios Avtzis <eleftherios88@gmail.com>
151
We have a purge stream that is basically H2/CO, and depending on how we do things we may very well
have a light gas purge stream (light hydrocarbons
mainly) that we can sell back to you if necessary. Right now the purge is small, about 2%, but we can
make it a bit larger if that would help. I can tell you the size of the light gas stream and it's composition
once I input the data into aspen monday.
Get back to me as soon as you can and let's really try to confirm the value, since this changes all of our
calculations.
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Eleftherios Avtzis
<eleftherios88@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm still working on rough calculations and it appears half of the
> carbon coming in has to be combusted for the purpose of heating the
> sand that provides the energy for the endothermic reactions in the
> gasifier. I'm beginning to doubt that 8000 TPD of RDF will produce
> 4400 TPD of clean syngas. Probably half of that number. Make sure
> that whatever you do, allow room for flexibility cause this is a
> centerline value. We fluctuate 5% up and down. After the steam
> reforming and clean up, I don't know how much syngas we'll have. I'll
> do my best to get you the values tonight. Either way go with a safe
> bet of 3000 TPD as extra syngas may be used for energy and better than being unable to provide
enough.
>
> Best,
> Eleftherios
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to double check, we're still getting 4400 tonnes per day right?
>> Just want to make sure before we go through all of the calculations and sizing.
>>
>> -Jeff Tyska
>>
>
>
2/9/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:02 PM
Subject
Re: Need of oil boiling advise
152
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:56 AM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Oil Boiler:
Glad to hear that you are whole. My group needs basic information on the typical compositions of the
various gasoline base stocks for a presentation. If you do not have the time for a conference call or quick
note can you point us in the right direction where we can find.
How are Kelly and Danny?
Dan
From: Quirke, Terry [mailto:tquirke@citgo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:07 AM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Subject: RE: Need of oil boiling advise
Sure, Dan. Give me a little time to get back to you. I'm actually very busy these days.
Oil Boiler
________________________________
From: Rusinak, Dan [mailto:Rusinad@Middough.com]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Quirke, Terry
Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu; Perl@uic.edu
Subject: Need of oil boiling advise
Terry: Heard rumors that you will be coming back to the office. When it happens I will believe it.
I am helping my friend Jeff Perl teach a senior design course at UIC. My group Team Alpha is making
gasoline from syn gas. They are using the Mobile Methanol to gasoline process. Actually built in New
Zealand.
They make a high octane, low sulfur and 12% olefin gasoline.
My first impression is that in a modern integrated refinery that the olefin can be blended away with the
other gasoline's in the gasoline pool, FCC, isom, Cat reform, natural topping crude tower etc.
Can you take some time out of your schedule and explain to my group, especially Jeff Tyska, what the
typical compositions of the various gasoline's are. 630-849-8371.
If you do not come back to the office I would still like to catch-up with you.
153
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBC82E.CE15D820]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Re: Update
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:22 PM
Attachments
<<Copy of Energy Balance
Data.xls>>
<<final mass balance
calculations.docx>>
<<MTG Mass Balance.xls>>
<<2ndpresentationslides.pptx>>
Dan,
154
We can meet tomorrow at 6, however Mohammed will be working and Yacoub may not be able to be
there. Bernard, Ayesha and myself could meet on skype however. If this would work we could meet on
Thursday and then have a meeting with Mohammed and Yacoub on Saturday to help make sure our
presentation is coming together properly.
So far we have completed a mass balance by hand (in excel) which is pretty complicated, I have
simplified the equations and I will be simplifying our data for the presentation. We have also done an
energy balance around our DME reactor, and we have our basic flowsheet. We are still trying to figure
out how much our product is worth, however if necessary we will put a vague scaling factor on the
normal price of crude oil and note that we will be refining the value once we know exactly what our
gasoline will look like. We are still trying to figure out the exact economics of our process, the economic
evaluator was installed however the reactors/tanks have more specifications that we need to input like
size, etc. We are still trying to figure out the sizes, and exactly how to put them into the economic
evaluator.
I have attached the energy balance calculations (not cleaned up but completed), the material balance
calculations and calculation sheet (calculations are not cleaned up, the calculation sheet is though), and
a few slides with how we broke up our process flowsheet. You may need me to explain the material
balance calculations on skype to really understand what is going on, the calculations were iterative (we
used the 25th trial), and there are a fair amount of assumptions/simplifications.
If you have any questions feel free to email or call me back, and unless you cannot make it I'd say
tomorrow at 6 PM is probably the best idea until sometime Saturday afternoon.
-Jeff Tyska
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
> Teams: do you want to Skype or call? I want to see where you are? I
> will try to raise Terry Quirke about gasoline compositions.
>
> Dan Rusinak PE
> Chief Process Engineer
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01CBC857.2807A250]
>
> Middough Inc.
> 700 Commerce Dr.
> Oak Brook, IL 60523
> 630-756-7010 Direct
> 630-756-7000 General
> 630-756-7001 Fax
> 630-697-8111 Cell
> rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
> www.middough.com
>
>
> ________________________________
155
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
>
Subject
Fwd: [Fwd: EXPO 2011: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas - Form submission
confirmation]
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:30 PM
I just signed up too, note everyone that the project name MUST be *Production of Gasoline from Syn
Gas, *and that registration is due by Monday
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu>
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:19 PM
Subject: [Fwd: EXPO 2011: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas - Form submission confirmation]
To: CHE397GRP1@listserv.uic.edu
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------Subject: EXPO 2011: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas - Form submission confirmation
From: "EXPO Phase 1 Registration" <@uic.edu>
Date: Wed, February 9, 2011 6:19 pm
To: bbhsu2@uic.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify that the following information is correct
Project Title: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas
First Name: Hsu
Last Name: Bernard
UIN: 657214613
Major: Chemical Engineering
Email: bbhsu2@uic.edu
Please send an email to Chris Kuyper at ckuype1@uic.edu if any of the information is incorrect
156
Subject
[Fwd: EXPO 2011: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas - Form submission confirmation]
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:47 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------Subject: EXPO 2011: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas - Form submission confirmation
From: "EXPO Phase 1 Registration" <@uic.edu>
Date: Wed, February 9, 2011 7:06 pm
To: arizvi6@uic.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify that the following information is correct
Project Title: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas
First Name: Ayesha
Last Name: Rizvi
UIN: 659005721
Major: Chemical Engineering
Email: arizvi6@uic.edu
Please send an email to Chris Kuyper at ckuype1@uic.edu if any of the information is incorrect
Subject
Re: Design Notes
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:13 PM
Hi,
I did find an olefin percentage.
According to this book: Petroleum Fuels Manufacturing Handbook The table on page 39 has a max vol%
of Olefins in Unleaded Premium Motor Gasoline 91 RON (Research Octane Number) of 20.0 vol%.
And it also stated that an FCCU (Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit) gasoline is the only blending component
with significant olefins.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lR4RlMo8krcC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=olefin+percentage+in+gaso
line&source=bl&ots=i5Klig2GUa&sig=Dy0B-V_y157
e0TeTHf7F5KCB7GnJE&hl=en&ei=yVtTTYSiOYXLgQez5rzoCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=
5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Now I just need to finalize the blending components and their pricing.
-Ayesha
On Wed, February 9, 2011 7:00 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> A few notes
> 1. We will have a meeting on Saturday afternoon on Skype to discuss
> our data/slides. Bernard, Ayesha and I will also be talking to Dan on
> Skype tomorrow night.
>
> 2. For the people I assigned to figure out the data for the maximum
> olefin percentage, did you ever find that? I think we'll still need to
> include it and the normal amount of durene in crude oil/FCC/whatever
> blends of gasoline if possible to show that we can blend out our
> problems.
>
> 3. The economics needs to be done soon, Bernard got some quotes which
> we can scale up for the reactors which we can use for most of our
> reactor stuff, but remember that we won't have ASPEN's economic
> simulator to figure stuff out with over the weekend.
>
> 4. Attached is a copy of our energy balance, if we want to change the
> size of the reactor we just have to plug numbers into this, and make
> sure the heat transfer rate out still holds.
>
2/10/2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
6:27 PM
Skype Conference
6:06 pm - 6:42 pm- 6:57 pm
Attending:
Jeff Tyska
Bernard Hsu
Ayesha Rizvi
Dan Rusinak
Discussed the upcoming presentation
Subject
Presentation Assignments
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
158
Sent
Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:51 PM
Feel free to email me back and I can change this a bit, but as of right now, this is what I have planned for
the presentation
Order
1. Flowsheet
2. Material Balance
3. Energy Balance
4. Economics
5. Answering mentors' questions from last week that we hadn't addressed in additional slides.
Assignments
Myself - Flowsheet slides, some material balance slides Bernard - Some material balance slides,
additional economics slides (quotes for reactors / scale up), compilation Ayesha/Mohammed Economics (Everything else, ASPEN stuff where we have it, prices for our gasoline/how we got it (comp
of other blends), transportation cost, etc.) Yacoub - Energy Balance slides (Explain what the calculations
were, how we did the calculation)
I'd like to have this in by Saturday afternoon, Saturday night at the latest so we can get them critiqued
by Dan, and know them a bit better than we did for the last presentation.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Revised Energy Balance
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:34 PM
Attachments
<<Copy of Copy of Energy
Balance Data.xls>>
I revised this since Dan said that there generally isn't much heat loss to the surroundings, because we
will be using a cylindrical reactor (not a spherical one), and because we had the pressure wrong.
2/11/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:02 PM
Subject
Senior Design
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
159
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 11, 2011 10:49 AM
We talked to Dan yesterday, he said that we can probably approximate the price from gasoline (will
have to be slightly lower), it should be somewhat close, he said that Dow won't give us a price. We have
run into some big problems, however.
1. We have gigantic reactors, and even with the biggest size Dan gave us, we'd probably have 50
reactors in our plant. We'll try to do something with ASPEN's sizing, but I'm not sure how we'll get
around this one.
2. Our yield of gasoline is terrible, we make almost 5 times as many hydrocarbon byproducts as we do
gasoline. Basically, we're wasting most of our feed. We can try to alkylate some of our butanes and
possibly propanes, but this takes a set of steps which are really complicated. Adam Kanyuh may be able
to help us, since UOP does have a license for one of the products.
This is stuff that we should have been able to catch from the mass balance (especially number 2 on that
list), but unfortunately I had no time to do anything but make sure my calculations were correct because
I've had to coordinate and essentially do quite a few other parts of the project. I know you guys are
working, but we're going to have to step it up. I've tried to spare you guys from constant work by picking
up all the slack, but quite frankly I have no more extra time to add to this project, and I'm burning out.
Many of the groups have been working at CEB until 8-9 PM on some days, and we're all going to have to
start getting up our work to that level. The reason that we have these major problems is because no one
besides me knows the process well enough to really check our data, and I don't have time to check it like
I should because I'm stuck doing the work for way more than I should have to. From now on, when I
assign something, it will have to get done, and everyone will have to be doing their fair share of the
project.
Note that I am telling this to everyone in our group, not just you two.
We will be meeting with Dan on Skype tomorrow at 3 pm.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Fwd: Skype/Process complications
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 11, 2011 2:06 PM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
<<gasoline blending.pdf>>
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: Skype/Process complications
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>, Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com>
160
Jeff: Alkylate your propane and butane with your excess olefin. These reaction, check, are often run at
very high pressure to reduce reactor volume and drive the reaction to higher MW products.
See attached file on gasoline blending. HF alkylation is EXTREMELYdangerous. Lots of literature. Use
sulfuric acid. I have an old book. Use the Kirh-Othmer as a first resource.
SRG straight run gasoline, from atmospheric has no olefins and a low octane rating.
Call.
*Dan Rusinak** PE***
Chief Process Engineer
*[image: PerformanceYouTrustGraywMiddough.jpg]*
**
*Middough Inc.*
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
*rusinad@middough.com***
161
*www.middough.com*
*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2011 1:23 PM
*To:* Rusinak, Dan; Daniel Rusinak
*Subject:* Re: Skype/Process complications
As a quick update, we've found out a few important notes since we last talked to you.
1. We will need to alkylate our butane (except for a bit for the gasoline in
winter) and our propane if posssible. I finally had the time to look over and digest my mass balance
calculations, and we are unfortunately producing quite a bit more of off gas than gasoline if we left the
process like it was. I found a document from a company that was trying to reverse engineer this process,
and they note that the butane is generally alkylated. From the research I've been doing, it looks like the
best bet is to try to alkylate the butane and some of the propane if possible to heaver compounds with
Hydrofluoric Acid (Sulfuric Acid and very cold temperatures was the other option). UOP actually licenses
out a HF alkylation process, so I'm going to be emailing Adam Kanyh (one of the mentors) to see if he or
anyone else he knows can help us with this step. From the example flowsheet, it will be somewhat
complicated.
2. Our reactors will be unbelievably gigantic. If we were to use the 13 ft diameter by 65 foot reactors, we
would probably need around 50 just for our methanol flowrate (Calculated with a 30 minute residence
time and the ideal gas law). ASPEN gives us data on the size/cost for all of the reactors, so for this
presentation I believe we will just have to go with a few gigantic reactors as opposed to a bunch of large
ones. This process was actually done in New Zealand with a higher flowrate, but I haven't been able to
find any information about the size of their reactors about the size of their reactors.
3. The average weight of durene in normal gasoline is about .2 to .3 %, and the limit is 2%, so we can
probably blend ours in fairly well is separation makes our project becomes too large for us to deal with
in detail.
4. Our olefins, from the average molecular weight calculation, is not that high (around 8% in our final
product), however, this may change when we alkylate our C4/C3 stream.
-Jeff Tyska
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan, the best time for us to meet on Skype tomorrow is at 3 pm, however we can change it if it doesn't
work for you.
162
I can't really go into detail about it right now since I'm supposed to be in class, but we're going to need
an alkylation step which will complicate things quite a bit since we are getting 4 or so times the amount
of Hydrocarbon gases as we are gasoline right now. We will also have to size our reactors in ASPEN,
since it looks like we would need an absurd amount of
13 feet diameter/ 65 feet height reactors for our process.
-Jeff Tyska
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Re: Newest Mass Balance, Notes on Energy Balance and Economics
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 11, 2011 4:43 PM
I was mistaken in the assumption that alkylation would be able to convert most of our non-olefinic
compounds to gasoline based products. We will get a much smaller conversion than what I had
predicted because of this, a total of a 1 % increase in our gasoline in exchange for another complicated
process. At this point I'd say that it isn't too good of an idea, and that we go back to trying to find prices
for LPG and selling that. I'm really not sure how this is going to turn out, but any extra
research/information on this stuff would really help.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Updates
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 11, 2011 10:42 PM
1. Ayesha and I had been looking up Sulfuric Acid Alkylation of our product to produce more gasoline. I
have uploaded a document on our wiki that she found that details the process. Unfortunately, our
butylene/propylene content is fairly small, so as of right now I think we may just need to make a lot of
LPG and hope that the mentors don't get annoyed with it. I'll probably change my mind 100 times on
this by tomorrow morning with extra research, but unfortunately I haven't seen any way to reach the
163
yields that some of the documents note. If anyone has an opinion on this or where we should be
heading, feel free to email me or the group back. I know Bernard had been saying that we should just go
ahead with our process and get our presentation done, and to me that's looking more and more likely to
be our best option.
I will update the mass and energy balances tomorrow morning before we talk to Dan.
-Jeff Tyska
2/12/2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
3:17 PM
Skype Conference
3:00pm - 3:58 pm
Attending:
Jeff Tyska
Bernard Hsu
Ayesha Rizvi
Yacoub Awwad
Mohammed Shehadeh
Side:
Jeff Tyska
Dan Rusinak
Discussed dynamics for the upcoming presentation
Questions for Dan regarding the presentation.
Subject
New Energy Balance
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:19 AM
The energy balance with the smaller sized reactor is included. Note that we have a huge temperature
rise, which cannot be dealt with through heat loss to the surroundings due to the small size of the
reactor. The temperature out is much larger than the temperature of our next reactor, however we will
be mixing this stream with a large recycle stream for the next reactors. The recycle stream is heated
somewhat, but not perfectly, so this stream could heat the recycle to the proper temperature. I believe
it usually leaves at
164
410 rather than 460 degrees Celsius, so theoretically it could cause problems, but for the sake of going
ahead just use this.
Yacoub, this will be your final data for the energy balance slides
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Final Mass Balance
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:15 AM
Attachments
<<Methanol Conversion
Final.xls>>
<<MTG no alkyl
corrected.xls>>
Unless Dan mentions something that we *have* to change, this is our final mass balance. I corrected a
couple of mistakes in my old slides, used molecular weights/densities from the patents (reflects the
alkenes), calculated the weight percent of alkenes and the weight percent of gasoline as our product.
The conversion is low (50%), but if we run our system at a slightly higher temperature we may be able to
get a higher conversion (it's hard to tell exactly). I would like to present the mass balance/flowsheet
slides for the MTG stuff, since there's a lot that I want to add which we don't necessarily have written
down.
I also attached a sheet that shows where I got the percent conversions of our MeOH/DME to
hydrocarbons, and it also shows that our elemental balance is correct within .5%.
I will try to find the actual patents on this stuff again, and make a few extra slides for the end of the
presentation (to be referenced in questions) later today. If you need help answering the Durene
question just text me, and I'll send out a quick slide on it, since I have all of the patents/data on it still in
one of my folders.
One last thing to note - For our flowsheet, we have coolers before flash separators. In reality, it's just a
cooling separator (one unit). I'll ask Dan at 3 to make sure this is ok, if not I'll edit it in Photoshop real
quick. For now, leave it though.
At this point, I believe everyone should have all of the information for their slides.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
mohammad slides
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
165
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:17 PM
Attachments
<<Gasoline Blending
Components.pptx>>
bernard tell me if i have to change anything, or add more stuff..
Subject
presentation 2
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:15 PM
Attachments
<<Energy balance for the
DME reactor.pptx>>
hera is my slides i think that i included all the important steps for the energy balance,
Yacoub
Subject
second presentation slides
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:36 PM
Attachments
<<2Presentation.pptx>>
I have attached updated slides for the presentation. Please review and let me know if I should change or
add anything.
Thanks,
Ayesha
2/13/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:03 PM
166
Subject
Fwd: energy balance
From
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
Sent
Sunday, February 13, 2011 1:03 PM
Attachments
<<Energy Balance with
smaller reactor.xls>>
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: energy balance
To: yacoub awwad <el_mr.y@hotmail.com>
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, yacoub awwad <el_mr.y@hotmail.com> wrote:
could you send me the newest energy balance spreadsheet you have , cause that is the newest one that i
found.
thanks
yacoub
From: jtyska1@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:11:18 -0600
Subject: Re: energy balance
To: el_mr.y@hotmail.com
Yacoub,
This is the wrong sheet. I sent out an email with an updated energy balance, and I told you in that email
to use that data. Our reactor sizing was completely and utterly wrong, which is why the heat loss
changes the temperature quite a bit for that spreadsheet. The other sheet says that the final temperature
is is around 460 degrees C or so but that's fine, just use it. I have to download an .xlsx converter on this
machine to see all of the slides but you should be using the data from the other spreadsheet, and the
units should be English (Convert Celsius to Farenheit, etc.).
-Jeff Tyska
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, yacoub awwad <el_mr.y@hotmail.com> wrote:
what up' Jeff
sorry for bothering you man but i think that i got the temperature at the recommended range of
change i got 1.35 Celsius for delta t and 1.32 for heat loss so you are right about that it doesn't has
a big effect. real quick i have a question for the sizing shall i keep same numbers as it says in this
spreadsheet
167
thanks,
Yacoub
> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:07:39 -0600
> From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: energy balance
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> It's not that there isn't some heat loss to the surroundings, it's just that
> the loss doesn't change the temperature much, since the reactor is much
> smaller than we had before, and has a small surface area. You can check this
> by changing the rate of heat loss from our reactor, and then goal seeking to
> find the new outlet temperature. From what I was trying, it was only
> changing things by a degree or two Celsius.
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Awwad, Yacoub M. <yawwad2@uic.edu> wrote:
>
> > Here what i have done so far, so email me ASAP please for any changes that
> > i could do to the slides.i have a question, Jeff you said " we
> > > have a huge temperature rise, which cannot be dealt with through heat
> > loss to the surroundings due to the small size of the reactor." so what
> > about
>>
> > &#916;HF=&#931;m*cp*(Tout-Tin)+Q Q:heat loss to surroundings
>>
> > Yacoub Awwad
2/14/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:05 PM
Subject
Re: Group Alpha Presentation 2
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 14, 2011 8:07 AM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Jeff, Bernard; Call me to discuss.
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBCC1E.3AA729B0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
168
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 12:31 AM
To: Rusinak, Dan; drus45@gmail.com
Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
Subject: Group Alpha Presentation 2
Dan,
This is our Presentation #2 for this Tuesday. Could you please review this and give us possible
suggestions for improvement?
Thanks,
Bernard
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Re: Group Alpha Presentation 2
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 14, 2011 9:25 AM
Is the "Components of gasoline" slide about our gasoline? If so then yes we can delete it. As for the parts
we'll discuss it once Bernard gets here, since I am not sure exactly who did what slides right now.
-Jeff Tyska
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:45 AM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> and jeff, tell us what slides each one of us are going to do so we can
> practice them before we meet, or should everybody present the slides
> he did..??
>
169
> > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:39:06 +0000
> > From: cool_moody007@hotmail.com
> > Subject: Re: Group Alpha Presentation 2
> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
> > bernard you could delete slide 30 , because you have the same
> > information
> for it in slide 28.
>>
> > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:31:15 -0600
> > > From: bbhsu2@UIC.EDU
> > > Subject: Group Alpha Presentation 2
> > > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>>
> > > Dan,
>>>
>>>
>>>
> > > This is our Presentation #2 for this Tuesday. Could you please
> > > review
> this
> > > and give us possible suggestions for improvement?
>>>
>>>
>>>
> > > Thanks,
>>>
> > > Bernard
>>>
>>
>
>
Subject
PRESENTATIONS!
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 14, 2011 2:25 PM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Teams: Where are your presentations for meeting #2 for my review?
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
170
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBCC53.15AE7DE0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 14, 2011 7:10 PM
Attachments
<<group_alpha_presentation_2_dans_edits[1].pptx>>
2/15/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:05 PM
Subject
Distributions
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:29 PM
Attachments
<<2nd set.docx>>
Professor Perl wanted to me to forward this to him, so that's why this is going to him too. I really dislike
doing this since I don't want to discourage anyone, and it's a bit hard for me to know exactly how much
you all researched things on the weekends, etc., but this is my best guess.
171
Since this is my responsibility I will have the final say on things, but next time I think we may try to
discuss this as a group, and hopefully everyone will be honest about the time put in. This may make
things more accurate too, since this is based upon how much you worked, not what came out of it.
-Jeff Tyska
2/18/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:09 PM
Subject
Re: Face to Face
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 18, 2011 12:18 PM
Attachments
<<image001.jpg>>
Wednesday 5:15 PM it is......................Dan
From: Labaschin, Zachary [mailto:zlabas2@uic.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 12:19 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan; che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu; Alena Nguyen (helloalena@gmail.com); Bryan Isles
(bryanisles@gmail.com); David Garcia (dgarcia057@hotmail.com); Eleftherios Avtzis
Cc: Perl, Jeffery; Robert Gallogly
Subject: Re: Face to Face
Dan,
Some of us have had our Aspen class moved to this afternoon, ending at 5:15, but I'm not sure how
many of us can stay afterward ( I will be able to). If today does not work out, next Wednesday should
alright as well (5:15), as I believe we have met at this time before.
Zack
From: "Rusinak, Dan" <Rusinad@Middough.com<mailto:Rusinad@Middough.com>>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:05:51 -0600
To: "che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu<mailto:che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu>"
<che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu<mailto:che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu>>, "Alena Nguyen
(helloalena@gmail.com<mailto:helloalena@gmail.com>)"
<helloalena@gmail.com<mailto:helloalena@gmail.com>>, "Bryan Isles
(bryanisles@gmail.com<mailto:bryanisles@gmail.com>)"
<bryanisles@gmail.com<mailto:bryanisles@gmail.com>>, "David Garcia
(dgarcia057@hotmail.com<mailto:dgarcia057@hotmail.com>)"
<dgarcia057@hotmail.com<mailto:dgarcia057@hotmail.com>>, Eleftherios Avtzis
<eleftherios88@gmail.com<mailto:eleftherios88@gmail.com>>, Bender
<zlabas2@uic.edu<mailto:zlabas2@uic.edu>>
172
Cc: "Perl, Jeffery" <perl@uic.edu<mailto:perl@uic.edu>>, Robert Gallogly
<robert.gallogly@basf.com<mailto:robert.gallogly@basf.com>>
Subject: Face to Face
Teams: We had talked about getting together Monday, 2/21. Presentations, use of Aspen, PFD formats,
open process issues etc. My wife informs me that everything in the world is happening that day.
Suggestions?
After work today? Maybe I can get Rob Gallogly to come if he is in town. I also need to check out a brew
pub by Dr Perl's office for a future AIChE meeting.
Thoughts?
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBCF65.F7AD08F0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subject
Re: Abstract
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
173
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 18, 2011 2:27 PM
You can probably start on a bit of it, I'm guessing that we'll still have some major changes, but some of
them will probably just be changing numbers.
-Jeff Tyska
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Do you think its time to start on the paper as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Bernard
>
> On Fri, February 18, 2011 12:10 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> > Apparently Perl was wrong since we just got an email saying that the
> > due date for our abstract is this Sunday. I'll try to have it done
> > by
> Saturday
> > evening, so that I can email it out to the group (and Perl) for
> > everyone to check over.
>>
> > -Jeff Tyska
2/19/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:10 PM
Subject
FW: Price - BLEND TN 120 - Inquiry # 1-8IIKKX - 3-Normal Priority
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 19, 2011 9:42 AM
hey guys, this the email that dow sent me after our the prsentation..has the price of the blend that has
close properties to our blend..
Subject: FW: Price - BLEND TN 120 - Inquiry # 1-8IIKKX - 3-Normal Priority
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:45:13 +0100
From: EDEUBEL@dow.com
To: msheha4@uic.edu
174
Hi
Blend TN120 is priced based on the Gasoline quote plus a premium. In Europe this is Eurobob Oxy NWE
FOB as published by Argus. Last night market closed at USD
870.25/MT
As this is a coproduct of a Naphtha cracker, the production costs are calculated on the basis of Naphtha.
Best regards
Esther Deubel
Dow Europe GmbH
Commercial Coordinator H&E
Phone: +41 447282113
Fax: +41 447283343
Email: edeubel@dow.com
www.dow.com
www.reach.dow.com
From: Martini, Jason (J)
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:27 PM
To: Empiastri, Roberta (R)
Subject: Price - BLEND TN 120 - Inquiry # 1-8IIKKX - 3-Normal Priority
Roberta,
The following is a Price that needs your attention. The contact called back requesting an update.
Comment/Question: Contact is a student working on a project. Would like to know what the ball park
pricing would be to produce the TN120 and how much would gas be charged after production. Student
did not mention if he was comparing to other products. He did have a TDS he found online.
Contact: Mr Mohammad Shehaveh
Account: University of Illinois
Contact - Street Address: 6404 W. 5th Place
Contact - City: Burbank
Contact - State: IL
Contact - Postal Code: 60459
Contact Country: United States
Telephone: (773) 715-3353
E-Mail: msheha4@uic.edu
Request Received Via: Telephone
175
Inquiry #: 1-8IIKKX
Service Request #: 1-514828980
Product: BLEND TN 120
Product Layer: Trade Product
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Regards,
Jason Martini
Customer Information Group
jmartini@dow.com
1-989-636-5334
Subject
Abstract
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:25 PM
Attachments
<<revised abstract.doc>>
So you all know, this is our rough abstract, I had written it and had Bernard look it over. I just sent it to
Perl and Dan, so we should be able to see their comments on it by Monday.
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Re: Assignments for the weekend
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, February 20, 2011 10:57 AM
i have uploaded what i have researched yesterday about cooling separators for gasoline production on
the dially notes page.
there are diffrent types of cooling separator and accumulators with diffrent properties and efficiencies.
ask me for any questions.
good luck on your exam guys.
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:37:16 -0600
> From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Assignments for the weekend
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> Assignments for this weekend
>
> Bernard - Figure out exactly what type of MeOH reactor we're using
176
> (Lurgi, ICI, Mitsubishi, etc.), and find out how we could model it if
> possible (packed bed of catalyst, etc). Our data had said that it
> operates at 270 C and 5 Mpa, but I'm not sure of much past that. You
> might ask someone from one of the other groups if you get stuck.
>
> Yacoub - Find the nearest railroad to our factory (Trash dump in
> Newton Country, IN), and look up the data on gasoline prices (not
> retail) the EIA site
>
> Mohammed - We will be using a few cooling separators, which I believe
> may be a few different pieces (cooler than a separator). Dan and one
> of our patents called one of them an accumulator, which I believe may
> be a more technical name. Try to find information on these, how well
> they work, how efficient is the water at cooling, etc.?
>
> Ayesha - Find information on residence time or kinetics for our
> Methanol/DME reactors (LHSV, GHSV, etc.) (LHSV = Liquid Hourly Space
> Velocity, GHSV = gas hourly space velocity). We will need data like
> this to try to size our reactors.
>
> Jeff - Sort out composition (our old one was at conditions that were
> well below optimal for catalyst life), write the calculator block code
> for our MTG reactors in ASPEN. Write a rough draft of our abstract.
>
>
> We will discuss the data on Monday morning before process. I know we
> have a test so I'll try to keep it short. Also remember that we will
> be meeting with Dan and possibly the catalyst guy in CEB at 5:15 on Monday.
>
> -Jeff Tyska
Subject
Fwd: Abstract
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:39 PM
Attachments
<<revised abstract2.doc>>
Dan's comments are below, I fixed the distillation thing, if someone can figure out how to add in the
GHG reduction part in 11 words feel free to do so (preferably without changing too much else in our
abstract). I'll wait until Perl gets back to me to submit this.
-Jeff Tyska
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com>
177
Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Abstract
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Jeff: The other big problem besides the oil crisis is land for garbage and the green house gas, methane,
21X. You are reducing garbage in land fills, green house gases and providing domestic transportation
fuels.
You are seperation compoments by "distillation" not by weight. Yes distillation indirectly separated the
components into molecular weight fractions.
Dan
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I have attached a copy of our abstract. If you wouldn't mind looking
> it over I would appreciate it. I'm also having Dr. Perl give his
> suggestions on it.
>
> Thank You
> -Jeff Tyska
>
Subject
Article on our stuff / Results
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:16 PM
So far I've had absolutely no luck finding more detailed compositions, unfortunately everything lists C5+
gasoline as one big clump. I'm going to be getting an article from the interlibrary loan which might help,
but is a shot in the dark. I've also contacted Tim Klassen to try to access some other government data,
he should be getting back to us about it soon (already got an email about looking for articles).
On the other hand, I've found a giant document that details almost exactly what we're doing. I don't
have a chance to really read through it yet, since I'm just on a quick break from work right now, but it
seems to detail the whole gasification to gasoline process with the Mobil process, and includes things
like detailed economics and ASPEN flowsheets. Note that on page 16 it also notes the maximum olefin
concentrations, and what regulations set them (we seem to be incorrect, it's at 5%, not 10%).
The document is at the following site, I'd definitely try to read over as much of it as possible, especially
for the parts that pertain to your weekend assignment (if applicable). I will be reading over it within the
next week or so.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47594.pdf
178
2/21/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:10 PM
Subject
Fwd: Abstract
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 21, 2011 10:22 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Prof. J. Perl <Perl@uic.edu>
Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: Abstract
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
I possible, add something about how your process maximizes energy production, minimizes energy
consumption and/or CO2 footprint
Also address unique elements so it doesnt appear to be simple Mobil process Clone
Otherwise looks real good!
University of Illinois - Chicago
Department of Chemical Engineering
Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
Adjunct Professor
810 S. Clinton Street
Chicago Illinois 60607
-----------------------------*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
*To:* Prof. J Perl
*Subject:* Abstract
Dr. Perl,
Attached is a copy of our abstract, Chris Kuypers said that we should have you check over it in her email.
I am also having our mentor, Dan, look over it before I send it in on Monday.
179
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
Subject
Final Abstract
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 21, 2011 12:28 PM
Attachments
<<revised abstract2.doc>>
This is the one we're sending in, unless anyone sees something that needs to be changed.
Subject
railroad info/prices
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, February 21, 2011 9:43 PM
whats up guys,
the file that contain all the information about railroads, gasoline prices it is now available on the wiki. So
,Jeff fell free to email for any questions or if you more information about something else.i will do my
best to help or if somebody else needs help in his/her part.
Yacoub
2/22/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:10 PM
Subject
Re: Further Assignments (Preferably for Wed. evening meeting)
From
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:35 AM
Ayesha, focus on the DME reactor stuff, I found an example GHSV for the methanol synthesis, with
conditions almost identical to ours. I also found catalyst prices for everything but the DME, luckily
enough.
180
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I finally found our product composition, it's in appendix B of that
> nrel document I sent out. The assignments here are a bit smaller, but
> I would like to have the information before we meet with Dan on
> Wednesday
>
> Yacoub - Find the address of the Newton County Landfill, then find how
> close it is to the other railroads (in miles). Note that you should be
> able to estimate this from google maps or even the railroad map if you
> can locate where the landfill would be on there and it has a scale.
>
> Bernard - Keep researching the methanol reactors, tell us what we need
> for the Lurgi reactor.
>
> Ayesha - Residence time / LHSV stuff for methanol / DME from the weekend.
> Try to find at least one residence time, though we'll need both by the
> next meeting for sizing.
>
> Mohammed - read pages 22 - 33 of the nrel document, and take notes.
> Try to understand everything, there is a lot of very useful
> information in this document. I will be rereading over this too, along with the whole document.
>
> Jeff - Get the ASPEN simulation up and running including the
> calculator block for the reactor, and possibly the calculator block
> for the splitter
>
2/23/2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
8:11 PM
Meeting In Person with Dan Rusinak
At CEB
5:15 PM - 6:15PM
Attending:
Dan Rusinak
Jeff Tyska
Mohammed Shehadeh
Yacoub Awwad
Ayesha Rizvi
Bernard Hsu
Group Bravo
181
Spoke about the past presentations and Dan answered
questions and gave advice regarding the presentations and how
they can be further improved.
Subject
RE: 2cd Group Mtg Team Scores - ALPHA
From
Prof. J. Perl
To
'Bernard Hsu'
Sent
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:06 PM
Thanks Bernard
- Prof Perl University of Illinois - Chicago
Department of Chemical Engineering
Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
Adjunct Professor
810 S. Clinton Street
Chicago Illinois 60607
-----Original Message----From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:54 PM
To: Perl@uic.edu
Subject: Re: 2cd Group Mtg Team Scores - ALPHA
Dr Perl,
In the future when you need to send an email to the 5 students in my group, you can place
"che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu" as the recipient and the email to reach all 5 of us. This may make it
easier for you rather than looking up 5 individual email addreses.
Thanks,
Bernard
On Wed, February 23, 2011 3:45 pm, Prof. J. Perl wrote:
> Team ALPHA:
>
> Here are grades from 2CD Group Meeting. Please review
>
> - Prof Perl >
> University of Illinois - Chicago
> Department of Chemical Engineering
182
> Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
> Adjunct Professor
> 810 S. Clinton Street
> Chicago Illinois 60607
2/24/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:16 PM
S
Re: Rail roads
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
S
ent
Thursday, February 24, 2011
4:09 PM
Later, going to a lecture at St Xavier. You up late? Skype?
Dan
From: Bernard HSU [mailto:fattyllama@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:01 PM
To: ChE 397 Design Group 1; Rusinak, Dan; drus45@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rail roads
Dan,
You spoke of a methanol reactor with catalyst in tubes and oil removing the heat of reaction.
Could you please elaborate?
Thanks,
Bernard
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rusinak, Dan
<Rusinad@middough.com<mailto:Rusinad@middough.com>> wrote:
Team Alpha, Can I see your final abstract for DE?
Concerning railroads. N/S along 41 & 16 about 3 miles west of Brook.
E/W along 24 about 3 miles south of Brook.
Cost: $200 to $250 per foot, from ballast up.
183
Automated switch off of main line $35K to $50K
Manual switch $20K to $25K
Road crossing, flashing lights, no gates, $15K.
Does not include land purchase or lease.
Go on to the next topic!
What else can I ask my estimator for?
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBD428.2F7A84D0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com><mailto:rusinad@middough.com<ma
ilto:rusinad@middough.com>>
www.middough.com<http://www.middough.com>
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
184
2/25/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:17 PM
S
ubject
Weekend
Assignments
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Friday, February 25, 2011
3:10 PM
Most of our work so far has been in ASPEN, and a lot of our data depends on it, so most of our
work for next week will be in ASPEN and ICARUS. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time on it, but I've
gotten gotten most of the ASPEN data to work during the last week week, so hopefully from here out it's
mainly refining our process.
Jeff - Revise the mass balance to reflect our new data. Talk to Dan about our process / catalyst
regeneration / water in gasoline problem. Figure out what we need to do next.
Bernard - Get the rough draft at least 80% done, more if possible. Whatever is not finished this
weekend will need to be finished early next week. Note that the energy balance will be done this
weekend, and so will the material balance.
Ayesha - Size the MTG reactors (we have 3, but they will all be the same
size) and the MeOH reactor with the LHSV/GHSV information that we were given. Also, figure
out the catalyst weight and cost for the catalyst.
Mohammed - Update the website. Put the mass and new energy balance up, and put stuff into
categories in the notes section. Edit the energy balance sheet so that the numbers are correct and there
are no spelling errors (it will be part of our report). Look at the nrel report I sent out before, and note
the cost of the chemicals/wastewater/etc. The nrel report whose economics we need to use for some
data has all of the prices done with 2007's index. Find out the conversion to make the prices updated
(for 2011).
Yacoub - I will send you a giant excel sheet and our corresponding flowsheet. Note where
temperature changes (except for heat exchangers), where it changes, and note the heat duty of those
units (temp will only change in units in our process). Make an excel file with the following data in
columns.
1. Unit
2. Heat duty
3. Stream in name
4. Stream in Temp
5. Stream out name
6. Stream out Temp
185
S
ubject
DESIGN BASIS
CHANGE
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Friday, February 25, 2011
4:11 PM
I talked to Larry and they're having trouble scaling down their process. I reran ASPEN and it's not
too much of a problem for us to scale up to 6000 english tons per day. Unless our reactors are a weird
size, or anyone has some very serious objections, I think we will go with that for now. Note that the final
temperatures in the energy balance should not change much.
Multiply the masses by 1.81, and then reevaluate real quick. I will send out the ASPEN data later
tonight
-Jeff Tyska
Subj
ect
Custom Stream Summary / Yacoub - Modified Weekend
Assignment.
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, February 25, 2011 6:53 PM
m
Atta
chments
There are a few things that will have to get hammered out later on (Water in our gasoline
mainly), but this is our current custom stream summary. Note that we generate steam, and use
essentially no steam or cooling water except for in the distillation columns, reactors, and our one heater
to get our MTG reactant to 330 degrees C.
Attached is the whole custom stream summary (any info you need is in there), and pictures of
our flowsheet. Note that stuff just got a lot more complicated because of the heat exchangers. Our price
will also go up somewhat because of it, we're around 12 million right now not including the
reactors/catalysts, which is admittedly not that bad considering that we practically doubled our feed in.
186
Yacoub I'm modifying your assignment, since Tom showed me a way to disp all of the heat
duties right on the flowsheet, I'll send you a separate email.
2/27/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:18 PM
S
ubject
Re: Correct Mass balance (new Basis,
composition)
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Sunday, February 27, 2011 1:46 PM
rom
o
ent
Ok sounds good, thank you.
-Jeff Tyska
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:32 PM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> jeff,
> i didnt need that stuff for the energy balance..!!, Energy blance is
> done and i ll upload it tonight, i just wanted these stuff (if they
> were ready) so i can upload them on the wiki and make the wiki look good, thats all..
>
> and for the flowsheet, dont worry about it, i got it.
>
> so the only thing that will be missing on the wiki for now is the
> economics thats all..
>
> mohammad
>
> > Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:16:44 -0600
> > From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> > Subject: Re: Correct Mass balance (new Basis, composition)
> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
> > After this next presentation, or before if we have time, I think
> > we're
> going
> > to have to sit down for a few hours and go over this process, since
> > I get the feeling that no one else really has a good understanding
> > of what's
> going
187
> > on, both in our process and with what has been done for our project
> > so
> far.
> > We don't have the economics yet, so I cannot send those to you. They
> should
> > be done sometime early next week (hopefully).
>>
> > The elimination of DME will not change anything in the new energy
> balance,
> > etc., except that it is taken out. All of the calculations are still
> > good because the moles of reactant into the DME reactor = moles of
> > product out
> of
> > the DME reactor.
>>
> > I have attached the new material balance with the DME columns taken
> > out,
> and
> > I made a new block flow diagram, though I am not quite sure why
> > they're needed for the energy balance (note that the methanol stuff
> > only changed because the change in our syngas rate).
>>
> > What do we need a cleaned up flowsheet for right now? I don't have
> > one because all of that stuff is in ASPEN, and to be honest, unless
> > you do it similar to a block flow diagram in excel or ppt, it won't
> > be looking any nicer than that any time soon (except for cropping
> > out the unecessary
> parts,
> > which can be done in paint or photoshop before the next
> > presentation. We will have to clean them up for the next
> > presentation, but that is
> probably
> > not our top priority right now.
>>
> > As for meeting up tomorrow morning, I won't be able to make it,
> > however
> we
> > will be meeting at 3 at Perl's and at 5:15 with Dan, so we can
> > probably
> just
> > talk informally at some point about what we found out over the
> > weekend,
> and
> > the rest of you can always discuss the stuff too.
>>
> > -Jeff Tyska
>>
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, moody shehadeh
188
> > <cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
> > > correction:
>>>
> > > not DME reactor, DME stream in the new mass balance.
>>>
> > > > Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:52:45 +0000
> > > > From: cool_moody007@hotmail.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Correct Mass balance (new Basis, composition)
> > > > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>>>
> > > > jeff,
>>>>
> > > > i need some stuff from you so i can upload on wiki by tonight if
> > > > you
> can,
> > > i think you already have all the stuff, i just want you to send
> > > them to
> > > me..:
>>>>
> > > > - fianl mass balance (without the DME reactor beacuse i think
> > > > the
> last
> > > one you sent had DME in it..!)
> > > > - final Block flow diagram without the DME reactor
> > > > - i know you sent pictures of the process flow diagram, but if
> > > > you
> have a
> > > clearer one it will better ( it looks like you took a picture for
> > > it, i
> dont
> > > know if you want to keep it the same?)
> > > > - i need the economic stuff that you guys did on aspen, like the
> > > equipments cost, a list of equipments, the sizing etc. (that if
> > > you are
> done
> > > with it.)
>>>>
> > > > the new revised Energy balance will be on wiki by tomoro morning
> > > > or
> > > tonight.
>>>>
> > > > thanks, mohammad.
>>>>
>>>>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:12:07 -0600
> > > > > From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> > > > > Subject: Correct Mass balance (new Basis, composition)
189
> > > > > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>>>>
> > > > > Well we'll be doing much better economically now, 87 wt% of
> > > > > our
> > > hydrocarbons
> > > > > go to gasoline, which is actually pretty close to what some of
> > > > > the
> > > other
> > > > > documents said. We'll be making about 23,000 barrels of
> > > > > gasoline
> per
> > > day,
> > > > > plus some LPG and light gas. If anyone has any questions on
> > > > > these calculations try to get back to me as soon as possible,
> > > > > since I'll
> > > mainly be
> > > > > working on other stuff later this weekend. I'll put the
> > > > > document on
> the
> > > wiki
> > > > > too
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
S
assignment
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Sunday, February 27, 2011
6:56 PM
hey guys,
i just posted on he wiki an important link that shows two methods to remove water from
gas.followed by two PDFs , each one explains separate method. hope that helps.
see you guys tomorrow
Yacoub
S
wiki upgraded.
190
ubject
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Sunday, February 27, 2011
7:12 PM
ok guys, i finished upgrading the wiki, i added a lot of more stuff and made it look better
,simpler , and more professional. i hope you guys will like it.
from now on, if anybody wants to add some notes or links on the wiki, just email them to me
and i will add them for you.
take care for now, see you tomorrow.
Mohammad
Subjec
Re: assignment**
t
From
ChE 397 Design Group
1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSER
V.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, February 27,
2011 10:43 PM
Put the numbers into excel in an organized manner. They may change so it's not necessary to
put them in if you don't want to, but you should make the sheet organized so we can just plug the
numbers in and have an organized heat stream sheet.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Awwad, Yacoub M. <yawwad2@uic.edu> wrote:
> hey Jeff
>
> i just saw wiki, and i noticed that someone did my part about the
> pictuers that i have to do on excel that i have done it already.
> so,what other things you guys need help with
>
> Yacoub
>
191
2/28/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:18 PM
S
ubject
RE: Need to reschedule todays 315pm Review for
Alpha
F
Prof. J. Perl
T
'Bernard Hsu'
S
Monday, February 28, 2011 10:09 AM
rom
o
ent
Unfortunately only metered parking with the occasional free space on Peoria, Green (1 blk east)
or Sangamon(1 blk west)
- Prof Perl -----Original Message----From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Perl@uic.edu
Subject: RE: Need to reschedule todays 315pm Review for Alpha
Dr Perl,
We will be driving as I have another class at 1 and Mohammed and Yacoub both have a test at 1.
Will there be parking?
Thanks,
Bernard
On Mon, February 28, 2011 9:47 am, Prof. J. Perl wrote:
> That's fine
> 14 N Peoria Street
> Suite 2-C
> 60712
>
> 1/4 block north of Peoria and Madison on west side of Peoria
>
> - Prof Perl >
> University of Illinois - Chicago
> Department of Chemical Engineering
> Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
> Adjunct Professor
> 810 S. Clinton Street
192
> Chicago Illinois 60607
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:45 AM
> To: Perl@uic.edu
> Subject: RE: Need to reschedule todays 315pm Review for Alpha
>
> Dr Perl,
>
> We can meet with you at 12pm today, however we will be missing Ayesha.
> What is the address to your office?
>
> Thanks,
> Bernard
>
>
>
> On Mon, February 28, 2011 8:42 am, Prof. J. Perl wrote:
>> I am not authorized to use your list serve
>>
>> Orignal message to you was rejected
>>
>> - Prof Perl>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Prof. J. Perl [mailto:Perl@uic.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:34 AM
>> To: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
>> Subject: Need to reschedule todays 315pm Review for Alpha
>>
>>
>> Alpha:
>>
>> I need to reschedule todays 315pm review meeting
>>
>> I have a function at the main campus (ERF) at 3pm today to schedule
>> around so anytime before 2pm today is ok and tomorrow morning or 3pm,
>> 4pm-5pm tomorrow
>>
>> Sorry
>>
>> - Prof Perl >> University of Illinois - Chicago
>> Department of Chemical Engineering
>> Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
>> Adjunct Professor
193
>> 810 S. Clinton Street
>> Chicago Illinois 60607
>>
>> 312-226-2436 work
>> 312-543-2322 mobile
>>
>>
>
>
>
Subj
ASPEN
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
Sent
Monday, February 28, 2011
6:18 PM
Atta
chments
<<withfluidizedbed.a
pw>>
Every time you edit it, resend it out (at the end), and document what changes you made and
why.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
3/2/2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
5:29 PM
Subj
Re: Weekly Meeting?
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
Sent
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
6:51 AM
Atta
chments
<<image001.jpg>>
Sounds good to me. @ 4 PM............................Dan
194
From: Eleftherios Avtzis [mailto:eleftherios88@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Subject: Re: Weekly Meeting?
Hello Dan,
I would like that. Keep in mind that our midterm may go past the 3:15 regular class time so 45:50 p.m. would be perfect (I have a 6:15 train). I'll call you tomorrow but I'm able to meet. I don't know
about everyone else just yet. Our Aspen is working well as we're receiving help from our Aspen class.
Zack and I are working on the report and need the discussion and design basis aspects. Sample
calculations and tables are in and an executive summary is being polished. Our stumbling block is still
synthesis gas cleanup and I haven't read too much of the book due to work on the design report.
Best,
Eleftherios
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Rusinak, Dan
<Rusinad@middough.com<mailto:Rusinad@middough.com>> wrote:
Teams: We have missed our meeting this week. March 8 is coming up. After class Thursday?
Other time?
Comments, suggestions?
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBD8A6.3B1EB4F0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com<http://www.middough.com>
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
195
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
S
Re: Questions
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
9:33 AM
Alpha: Thanks Terry! As a clarification, the deethanizer is run as a partial condenser. Condensing
mainly C2, but there will be some C3 in the liquid. Remember a partial condenser is a theoretical stage
so the vapor is richer in C2 than the liquid. The is how the C2 leaves the column as a vapor. All of the
liquid from the partial condenser is returned to the column.
Dan
From: Quirke, Terry
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:13 AM
To: Rusinak, Dan; Jeff Tyska; Daniel Rusinak; ChE 397 Design Group 1
Subject: RE: Questions
In a refinery, all light ends from many different units go to a common Saturates Gas Plant. A SGP
consists of (at least) 3 towers, a Deethanizer, a Depropanizer and a Deisobutanizer. As the names
suggest, the Deethanizer removes the ethane minus cut (methane, ethane and any entrained H2, H2S or
other gases) off the top to Fuel Gas. The Depropanizer takes LPG (95+% C3) as an overhead liquid
product and the Deisobutanizer (DIB) takes isobutane (iC4) off the top and Normal butane (nC4) as a
side cut. The bottom of the DIB is the C5+ stream that can go to gasoline blending, but it's very high
vapor pressure, so it is typically reprocessed in other units.
Most distillation towers start by setting the reflux temp at 100F which sets you're overhead
temp at 120-160 (depending on the fluids), which sets your top pressure and the number of trays in the
tower. The reason for working backwards is purely practical. We use 85 F cooling water as the final
cooling medium. Generally, we'll first remove most of the overhead duty with air fin fans, down to ~120
F, and then the cooling water exchangers condense the reflux down to 100F. (Again, this is just for
practical reasons because air cooling is cheap and available compared to CW cooling).
The Deethanizer should run about 330psig, the Deprop at 225 psig and the DIB at 75psig. Try
these. If they don't work, there's something wrong with your simulation. :)
196
Note: The Deethanizer is a total reflux tower. While ethane is condensed for reflux, none is
taken off the top as an overhead liquid product.
Good Luck
Terry
From: Rusinak, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Jeff Tyska; Daniel Rusinak; ChE 397 Design Group 1
Cc: Quirke, Terry
Subject: RE: Questions
Ok: My resident oil boiler, Terry Quirke, a very nice guy, is back from exile at Citgo. He will
explain how a de-ethanizer is run on a crude topping column system.
Question #2.
Back ground for Terry, Mobile Methanol to gasoline process. Want a C5+ product, LPG and fuel
gas.
Dan
From: Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:04 PM
To: Daniel Rusinak; Rusinak, Dan; ChE 397 Design Group 1
Subject: Questions
Dan,
When are we meeting this week? We could do it at the normal time on Wednesday, however I
will not be there. I have a few questions and updates, if you wouldn't mind giving us some advice. Email
to the group's listserv would be the best option for replying, since I will not be able to work on this
process Tues/Wed.
1. I think we figured out the water problem, we're using a modified SRK property set which was
modified to work with hydrocarbon/water mixtures. We're still getting some water in our gasoline, but
very little, and we can modify it if necessary.
2. As for the deethanizer, I'm trying to get the distillate column to a higher temperature,
however it is very difficult. We can increase the pressure (at 25 atm right now), but this only increases
the temperature about 10 degrees C per 10 atm. We can also distill out more C3 compounds, however
these could be used in our LPG, so we would essentially be burning part of our product. We currently
have our distillate coming out at 55 degrees F, would this be acceptable? Note that we are using a
partial condenser like you suggested.
3. For the next presentation we have to show heat loads for our unit operations. Do you think it
would be acceptable to have something like a flash block with a large heat duty (large temperature
197
change not due to change in pressure), or should we specify coolers/heaters whenever there is a
significant change in enthalpy?
4. In our process, we generate almost pure water. In our ASPEN simulation, I am using this water
for cooling water, and eventually turning it into steam. Would there be a problem with having steam
with trace hydrocarbon contaminants in it?
5. I modeled a boiler in our process, since we're currently burning our light gases to produce
steam. I have the steam produced, would it be acceptable for this project to just show that it was
produced, and note that we could offset some of our heat loads with it, or do we actually need to go in
and use it for the heaters?
We are currently sizing some of our systems and finalizing the main portions of our ASPEN
simulation. From here the economic analysis through ICARUS should not be too bad, and our heat
stream information comes right from ASPEN. We will probably make a new flowsheet, since our ASPEN
simulation is very confusing (lots of heat exchange).
Thank You
-Jeff Tyska
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
S
RE: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas
F
Prof. J. Perl
ubject
rom
T
o
'Bernard Hsu'; rusinad@middough.com;
drus45@gmail.com
C
che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu; Dan Rusinak
S
Wednesday, March 02, 2011 5:22 PM
c
ent
Fine make sure your mentor approves back to me
Thanks Alpha
University of Illinois - Chicago
Department of Chemical Engineering
Jeffery P. Perl, PhD, PE, CHMM
Adjunct Professor
198
810 S. Clinton Street
Chicago Illinois 60607
From: Bernard Hsu [mailto:bbhsu2@uic.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 5:07 PM
To: perl@uic.edu; rusinad@middough.com; drus45@gmail.com
Cc: che397grp1@listserv.uic.edu
Subject: Production of Gasoline from Syn Gas
Dr Perl and Dan,
Attached is Group Alpha’s rough draft of the final report for now.
Thanks,
Bernard
S
Re: aspen process
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
8:53 PM
Thanks, we should be fine with the water (or so I think) at those conditions, since those
percentages are also in mol%, and we'll be working with weight percent. I believe it was around 50-150
ppm (by weight) of water, which isn't too bad.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:32 PM, moody shehadeh <cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> me and yacoub and ayesha sat this morning and we spent time on the
> whole process understanding. i think we are at a good point where we
> understand now what is going on in the process, we went through each
> stream and reactor (or separator) and we saw what components each them
> have and how the temperature and pressure were changing and how you
> got rid of most the byproducts to get want we want which is majority the pentane C5.
>
> the last stream that had on our final gasoline , it showed that it has
> about 0.11 flow rate of water, so we were trying to get that water
> flow rate to go a little bit down. so me and ayesha tried different
> stuff. we added a flash at the end and connected it to the product
> stream, although it reduced the H2O but that took out a lot of our C5
> product which is not good. then we tried a different separator then a
199
> decanter and it gave the same thing also we tried to take out the
> mixer that you had at the end (the one that is connected to the
> pentane stream and product) and we put an extractor to have water
> coming out alone on an outlet stream but that also took a lot of our
> C5 too. so we just kept it the same way as it is.
>
> yacoub researched some stuff that he put on the wiki about removing
> water, we looked at those and they said :
>
> 1) try add a cooler then a separator. = fails because it reduce the C5
> production in the final stream. but we kept the cooler because it
> cools our product and reduce our temperature which i think was around 427K .
>
> 2) the other way was to add a separator to the final stream, then to
> let that pass on through a GLYCOL ABSORBER COLUMN, WHERE MORE WATER IS
> REMOVED FROM THE GAS BY BEING ABSOBED INTO TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL. BUT WE
> DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO That.
>
> my opinion is to keep everything the same because i think you need a
> little bit water in the final stream, and when yacoub researched his
> part , he told me that he read that as long our final stream have a
> percentage of .05% of water or less in it that would be fine. and we
> calculated our water percentage in the final gasoline stream and it
> was lower, around .04% (comparing 196.96 of C5 flow rate to .11 of
> water flow rate) which sound reasonable. but at the end its up to you.
>
> good luck on your interview.
> Mohammad.
>
>
>
>
>
S
excel sheet on Wiki
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
10:34 PM
hey Jeff,
200
this is a complete spreadsheet for the whole process ,with all the data included like
numbers...etc ,i hope that will be good enough.
see you all tomorrow ..
Yacoub Awwad
3/3/2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
5:18 PM
Face to Face Meeting with Dan
Attending:
Bernard Hsu
Jeff Tyska
Ayesha Rizvi
Yacoub Awwad
Group Bravo
Discussed group dynamics
Subj
ect
Fatty Lama? HAHAHAHA. Also, New Aspen Simulation (use this one
now)
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:48 PM
Atta
<<withfluidizedbed.apw>>
m
chments
This is the new ASPEN simulation, it has a pump and slightly different operating conditions. The
decanter and the flash block are also adiabatic. I will send out the custom stream summary later.
Subj
ect
pictures for the flow sheet for
presentation 3
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:45 PM
Atta
<<all blocks.JPG>>
<<pic1.JPG>>
m
chments
201
<<pic2.JPG>>
<<with pump.JPG>>
Subj
ect
FW: Design Report
Rough
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
Sent
Thursday, March 03, 2011
7:29 AM
Atta
chments
<<image001.jpg>>
FYI.................................Dan
From: Rusinak, Dan
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:27 AM
To: 'Prof. J Perl'
Subject: RE: Design Report Rough
Dr. Perl, give Teams Alpha and Bravo a seat. Both teams have a lot of work to do, but they are
working hard and should take their mid-term examination.
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBD974.67A87C80]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
From: Prof. J Perl [mailto:perl@uic.edu]
202
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:15 PM
To: Eleftherios Avtzis; Rusinak, Dan; Dan Rusinak
Cc: Alena Nguyen; Bryan Isles; Dave Garcia; Zack Labaschin
Subject: RE: Design Report Rough
Fine. I will await dan rusinak's approval.
-Prof Perl________________________________
From: Eleftherios Avtzis <eleftherios88@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:19 PM
To: Dan Rusinak <rusinad@middough.com>; Dan Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com>; Perl Prof
<PERL@uic.edu>
Cc: Alena Nguyen <helloalena@gmail.com>; Bryan Isles <bryanisles@gmail.com>; Dave Garcia
<dgarcia057@hotmailcom>; Zack Labaschin <zlabas2@uic.edu>
Subject: Design Report Rough
[The entire original message is not included]
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
3/4/2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
10:51 PM
Subj
ect
Re: flowsheet in
presentation
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011 9:22
AM
Atta
chments
<<pres 3.pptx>>
Just as an example, here's what I was thinking of for the PFD, I only did one slide here though
(note that most of our presentation will probably be just going through our process, since all we have to
discuss otherwise is the sizing/how we did it (probably 2 or 3 slides), economics (2 or 3 slides), and
intro/summary (2 or 3 slides)).
203
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks ok, the flows are pretty obvious in these which is good. the
> only things I would note is that these pictures will have to be
> smaller, since we need to fit tables of data underneath them. We
> should also try to get all of the turns to 90 degree angles, since
> that is what is generally done on PFD's. I don't think we really need
> the RSTOIC block from the purge streams right now since I can just say
> that they will go to a boiler and that we will produce stream. Just as
> a note, the light gas that comes out of the distillate cools the MeOH,
> it doesn't heat it up, so it's the cold stream (remember to put it's outlet in there too).
>
> I have an updated block flow diagram that goes into a little more
> depth than what you had there that we can use, it's slide 12 in the
> attached presentation.
>
> -Jeff Tyska
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>> This is the flowsheet as it is in the powerpoint for now. I know I
>> am missing some things such as certain names on the icons. I am also
>> aware that not all the noncontinuous streams (streams that go from
>> one slide to
>> another) are mentioned. Also, I have not included the rstoic block
>> from the purge stream and missing the 1hp pump for now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yacoub, Jeff had told you to make sure that you can get the
>> Temperature and pressure as Dan had asked for. You can start on this
>> as a template, however I will be changing stuff. I don't forsee any
>> BIG changes being made to this one though. Slide 2 was pulled from
>> pres 2 and Slide 3 was redone in accordance to our flowsheet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bernard
>>
>>
>
Subj
Re: Custom Stream
204
ect
Summary
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011 10:49
AM
Atta
chments
<<Custom Stream
Summary.xls>>
<<withfluidizedbed.a
pw>>
Ok there's still two errors, but they're really small, basically we still have a tiny bit of heat
transfer with our decanter and flash, but its extremely small so no worries.
The new .apw and .xlsx files are attached, the excel file has all of our stream information.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm an idiot, ignore that one, I hadn't changed the light gas
> distillate flow rate so that we could cool it with water.
> Unfortunately it does change some of the other data, and ASPEN stopped
> liking me. The results still sort of work, if I can't fix it by 1:00
> I'll just leave it and go straight to the economics (and send out the
> revised summary). Note that no actual blocks have been added / removed.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yacoub pointed out that the old one I had sent had some numbers
>> wrong, this is the newest one and the one we will be using for the
>> next presentation. The distillate rates, etc. will have change but
>> our reactor feeds will have not, so don't worry about resizing.
>>
>> -Jeff Tyska
>>
>
>
Subj
ect
FW: Example P&ID and Lead
Sheet
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
m
205
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011 1:32 PM
Atta
<<image001.png>>
chments
FYI.................................Dan
From: Chu, Janet L
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:18 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Subject: Example P&ID and Lead Sheet
http://chenected.aiche.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ChEnected-Example-PIDs-and-LeadSheets.pdf
Janet Chu
Process Engineer
[cid:image001.png@01CBDA6E.A47945E0]
Middough Inc.
Oak Brook Pointe
700 Commerce Drive, Suite 200
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630.756.7072 direct
630.756.7001 fax
chujl@middough.com<mailto:sampleja@middough.com>
www.middough.com<http://www.middough.com/>
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subj
Excel sheet for PFD
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011
12:21 PM
Atta
<<stream summary
206
chments
for PFD.xls>>
Ok, some of the data changed, so I went back and recreated the tables for the PFD. Note that on
the bottom of this sheet are all of the relevant streams for our process (took a few out that we don't
need to mention), with the T,P, etc. They are not in any nice order, just the one that ASPEN sent out. For
all of the PFD slides we have, I want the data like this on the slide (note - if there is a 0 flow component
in all of the streams in the slide, that component (MeOH, etc.) should not be included).
Subj
Example PFD's
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011
1:40 PM
Atta
chments
<<image001.jpg>>
<<example
PFDs.pdf>>
Teams: PFD's from real projects. Somewhat more than What I would expect from you the first
time around.
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBDA71.AD07A4B0]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
207
Subj
PIP P&ID standards
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011
1:59 PM
Atta
chments
<<image001.jpg>>
<<PIC001.pdf>>
Teams: Enjoy! This for a P&ID, NOT a PFD. This is the next family of drawings that you do after a
PFD.
Dan Rusinak PE
Chief Process Engineer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBDA74.1D680950]
Middough Inc.
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
www.middough.com
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
S
ubject
Re: Weekend
Assignments
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
208
S
ent
Friday, March 04, 2011
11:42 PM
Thanks. Yacoub and Mohammed, note how she didn't put irrelevant data on the slide like LPG's,
that what I was trying to tell you before, I'm not sure if I was 100% clear. We will need to fit our whole
table for each slide onto the actual slide, but that basically just means that we will leave less space in
each box (it will be a tighter fit around the numbers). If it gets undreadable or you have questions just
call me. I expect this to be done by Sunday at 1 PM.
-Jeff Tyska
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I attached the catalyst pricing.
>
> -Ayesha
>
>
> On Fri, March 4, 2011 4:52 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> > Bernard - Finish up making all of the pictures for our process and
> putting
> > them on the slides
> > Ayesha - Send out the example PFD sheet, make the catalyst price
> > sheet stuff and send me the prices (for ECON). I may assign
> > something smaller if
> we're
> > having trouble with any of these sections.
> > Jeff - Organize the ECON, calculate our prices, put all of that
> > stuff on slides, and put the heat duty stuff on slides Mohammed > > Put on the tables (onto the slides in the PFD) like you will see in
> > Ayesha's slide, for all of the streams/etc after the MTG reactors
> > Yacoub - Put on the tables (onto the slides in the PFD) like you
> > will see in Ayesha's slide, for all of the streams/etc. through the
> > MTG reactors
>>
>>
> > Note that we will use 4 MTG reactors, since that keeps them to a
> > reasonable size, however we don't really need to change anything for
> > ASPEN. All of our data works right now, and we priced everything.
> > Our process seems way too cheap right now, but we'll deal with it
> > later.
>>
>>
>
209
Subj
ect
Re: flow sheet in
pres 3
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, March 04, 2011
11:43 PM
Atta
chments
<<pres 3 revised
PFD.pptx>>
Ok, the attached file is the edited one, ONLY USE THIS ONE. I had to change quite a bit since we
were missing a couple of streams, did a bit of work trying to clean it up too.
- Jeff Tyska
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to have to make a few edits, don't use this one, I'll send
> one in later today or tomorrow morning
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1. Old slides are on hide.
>>
>> 2. I made the cold light gas change Jeff mentioned.
>>
>> 3. Numbered all streams.
>>
>> 4. Made pictures smaller so that tables can be fit on bottom
>>
>> 5. Divided everything into more slides.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will add heat exchanger info in the report. Please let me know
>> what else you would need.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bernard
210
3/5/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:18 PM
S
Economics Question
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC
.EDU
S
ent
Saturday, March 05, 2011
11:04 AM
Does anyone have their econ. sheets or book? Unfortunately both of those are back at my
sisters place. I have our total installed cost, and some other factors (contingency, etc.), but I believe that
there was a little more to it than just that. If someone could check and tell me I'd appreciate it.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
Subj
ect
mohammad and
yacoub part
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
Sent
Saturday, March 05, 2011
12:36 PM
Atta
chments
<<pres 3 revised
PFD.pptx>>
here you go guys, thats what me and yacoub had to do. bernard you had some numbering
problems, and you will find that where we put some A's and B's by the number of streams, and jeff said
thats fine. so just add (the table that ayesha did) to ours and it will be complete.
see you monday.
mohammad
Subj
presentation 3 slides
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
211
Sent
Saturday, March 05, 2011
5:16 PM
Atta
chments
<<pres 3 revised
PFD (2).pptx>>
here are my slides. Let me know if there needs to be any changes.
-Ayesha
3/6/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:18 PM
S
Re: Presentation
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Sunday, March 06, 2011
2:06 PM
The presentation looks really good.
On Sun, March 6, 2011 12:44 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> This is our new presentation, I made a few changes of other people's
> slides, most at Dan's request, so look at your slides again too. We
> have quite a few slides, but I think we'll go quickly through the PFD,
> and some of the graphs for the economics. I still need to add a few
> sizing things, and to add some basic data on our gasoline, however we
> may need to trim this down, since we're almost at 30 slides already.
>
> I'm going to send this in to Dan at 3, look this over and tell me if
> you find an error or something that should be changed.
>
Subj
ect
Re: New Assignments for
tomorrow
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, March 06, 2011 7:06 PM
Atta
<<PFD slides.pptx>>
m
chments
212
More information Yacoub and Mohammed I just did the stream stuff I assigned to you, so I'm going to have you
help me take down the sizes in ASPEN tomorrow (won't take much time), and put them on the slides. I
will have you update the PFD tomorrow too, once we know what streams are on the shell side and
which are on the tube side.
Use the powerpoint I'm sending out now, I've made a few changes from last time.
I am planning on meeting informally when possible to discuss the presentation tomorrow, and
meeting at 5:30 like we normally do before a presentation
As of right now, here's what I'm looking at for the slides for the presentation (who is presenting
what)
1. Start - slide 6 - Mohammed - it's a few slides, but most is just basic inform\ation, summary,
answering questions, etc. and already on the slides.
2. Slides 7 - 9 - Yacoub - It's the start of our process (making methanol, HX, and separation).
Note that there will be changes, we need a compressor on our syngas recycle, and we may need to
switch the order of the heat exchanger and the heater in for the separated methanol.
3. Bernard - Slides 10 - 15. The separation parts, and the heat streams.
4. Ayesha - Slides 16 - 18. The slides on the sizing, I'll add the sizes of our other components in
there. Note that I ended up putting the catalyst pricing slide later, so that won't be in there. We will
have to update the sizing, since Dan said that fluidized beds are much bigger than packed beds.
5. Jeff - Slides 18 - 29. Economics and Summary.
If anyone feels like they have too much or would prefer something else just tell me, I'm open to
suggestions at this point.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just got off the phone with Dan, and there's quite a bit he wants us
> to change (who would've guessed?). What I'm assigning here needs to be
> done ASAP.
>
> Jeff - Size equipment, add compressor in ASPEN, switch around heater
> and HX and then add the utility to the heater. Possibly add more
> streams to the PFD where he wanted (utilities) and rename the ones he
> wanted. Look up natural gas price per ton.
> Bernard - Look up info on a FCC unit, he says our MTG reactors
> (fluidized bed, constant catalyst regeneration) will be like them, and
> hopefully you can figure out some way of guessing how much catalyst we need to regenerate.
> Ayesha - Look to see if there's any quoted sizes or MTG reactor data
> (we used LHSV of 1 hr-1 before). He says that our reactors will be
> larger than the fixed bed ones.
> Yacoub/Mohammed - Take out the splitters and mixers, where there was a
> mixer just have to arrows going together, where there was a splitter
213
> you can just have the other streams coming off. Read over and know the
> PFD slides well, while I will have to change some stuff you will be
> presenting some of them tomorow.
>
>
>
3/7/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:22 PM
Subj
Fwd: Heat duty / Economics
questions
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011 9:07 AM
Atta
<<image001.jpg>>
ect
m
chments
Forgot to cc it to everyone, new response and reply from Dan
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: Heat duty / Economics questions
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>, Daniel Rusinak <drus45@gmail.com>
Jeff: Then you have to change you reactor sizing calculations. Are you air to regenerate your
catalyst? It is a separate reactor, combustor, recycling catalyst back and forth.
Ok you have taken the splitters and mixers out. Need to have the arrows going to the correct
places on the equipment.
400 psig steam is normally reduced in pressure to supply the heat to balance the energy
requirements.
8 X the equipment bare costs. Uninstalled, no piping, electrical, no installation labor.
214
I think that I am confusing your reactors, but still. Call when convenient………….Dan
*Dan Rusinak** PE***
Chief Process Engineer
*[image: PerformanceYouTrustGraywMiddough.jpg]*
**
*Middough Inc.*
700 Commerce Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523
630-756-7010 Direct
630-756-7000 General
630-756-7001 Fax
630-697-8111 Cell
*rusinad@middough.com***
*www.middough.com*
*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 07, 2011 8:15 AM
*To:* Rusinak, Dan; Daniel Rusinak
215
*Subject:* Re: Heat duty / Economics questions
Dan,
Unfortunately it is not that simple. We had been using the fluidized bed reactor for awhile now,
and without it we need a huge recycle, and generally a reactor that turns methanol into DME
(essentially an intermediate step).
The catalyst life without the regeneration is only about 2-3 weeks, it is 1 year with regeneration.
We could say that we had one reactor off line, but the two problems mentioned above would be a huge
change.
What symbols would you want on our PFD? It's a bit late to change things, and up to this point I
hadn't seen a problem with this. I took out the mixers and splitters, and once we finally get to finishing
this presentation I'll send it back out to you again.
As for the excess energy, I can show the heat from the MeOH reactor boiling
400 psia steam, which I believe is what we plan on having it do. As for the light gas, we were
planning on making steam, but right now I don't know if we need that much. If possible I think we may
need it to heat up the methanol stream that is going to our methanol to gasoline reactors, since I'm not
100% that we can do that with just heat exchange and 400 psia steam right now (unless using a higher
steam pressure is normal). I realize that the heat removal from the MTG reactor may be complicated,
but fro those heat duties it doesn't seem like there is that much heat coming out (compared to the
methanol reactor), unless the catalyst regeneration adds that much heat.
I will show the compressor and put it in once I get to our building today.
When you mention the plant TIC being 6 to 8 times the ISBL equipment costs, is that 6 to 8 times
the material cost or 6 to 8 times the installed cost (what we were using).
-Jeff Tyska
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
Jeff: per our dinner time conversation last night. Do not show Aspen type symbols on your
“PFD”. These are not real items. I think your Circulating fluidized bed MTG reactor requires much
development and should be considered “future” work/development at this time. If your catalyst life is
one year, dump it and replace with new. Have it regenerated off site. I have no idea how you are
removing heat from the MTG reactor. A BIG issue in actual design. Stick with the packed bed reactors for
now. You do not have enough time to develop. Remember if you want to finish this project in time to
graduate the time for process development and optimization was over several weeks ago.
Over all plant TIC is roughly 6 to 8 times ISBL equipment costs.
216
Show compressor. These are big ticket items.
What are you doing with all of your excess energy? This is very important.
This closes the loop. More important than fancy reactor design now. Even though I personally
like fancy reactor design myself.
Dan
*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, March 05, 2011 3:02 PM
*To:* Daniel Rusinak; Rusinak, Dan
*Subject:* Heat duty / Economics questions
We have all of our data calculated, and we're currently in the process of putting together our
presentation, which we should hopefully be able to get to you sunday by 4 pm or earlier. After looking at
all of our data though, I've noticed a few worrying problems.
1. While the heat duties of our MTG reactors are actually not that big (-40
MMbtu/hr) compared to other units, our Methanol reactor actually has a huge exotherm,
around -475 MMbtu/hr. I know we can use a methanol reactor with the oil on the shell side to take
away the heat, but I was wondering if this would still be possible with this big of an exotherm.
2. Our side of the plant seems almost unrealistically cheap after having costed it in ASPEN. The
quoted TIC was only 19 million for our plant, despite the fact that we're producing 16,000 bpd of
gasoline and around
4,000 bpd of LPG. We don't have much in the way of pumps or compressors since our pressure
profile goes from high to low, and our reactors were a normal size (modeled as packed bed towers), so
this might be right, but I don't really have the background to be able to check. The overall cost to install
the plant is slightly higher because of contingency, etc., but it's still only around 25 million. This is
actually less than our maintenance cost, which is about 29 million a year (mainly our process needs a lot
of higher pressure steam and cooling water, and the catalysts cost around 5 million per year). Does this
information sound like it could be reasonable?
217
It's still being worked on, but I attached the currently powerpoint presentation which has the
PFD essentially complete, and most of the heat duty and economics slides on it, in case you wanted to
be able to see where we're at.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subj
ect
Compressor and
ASPEN file
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011
10:02 AM
Atta
chments
<<withfluidizedbed.a
pw>>
<<compressor.xls>>
Subj
ect
Re: Mohammad/yacoub Revised
Presentation
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011 1:24 PM
Atta
<<moody[1]gggg.ppt>>
m
218
chments
Sorry this the right attachment.
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:11:47 +0000
> From: cool_moody007@hotmail.com
> Subject: Mohammad/yacoub Revised Presentation
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
>
> Group,
>
> me and yacoub did the changes that Dan wanted us to do. we added a compressor in the the
first process flow slide and specified it's streams. also we changed the heat exchangers to make them
the same design as in the second slide and applied the streams where they are suppose to be on the
heat exhanger ( tube and shell side streams ) . i think it looks beeter this way.
>
> see you guys later.
>
> Moahmmad.
Subj
ect
Newest Presentation 3
Slides
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.
EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011
7:24 PM
Atta
<<Newest
Presentation (march
7th).pptx>>
Subj
Aspen generated
data files
chments
ect
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011
7:49 PM
219
Atta
<<FINALLY.xls>>
<<IPEWB1.xls>>
chments
Bernard is going to paste in the new graphs, I'll get the rest of the data plugged in and done.
Subj
Final Presentation
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
Sent
Monday, March 07, 2011
10:42 PM
Atta
chments
<<final
presentation.pptx>>
Updated the econ, took out our steam cost in the upkeep $, added the overall process at the
end of the PFDs. Arg.
-Jeff Tyska
3/8/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:22 PM
S
ubject
Fwd: Final
Presentation
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
S
ent
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
9:30 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:45 AM
Subject: RE: Final Presentation
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Jeff, Thanks for the update.
Keep those Wiki’s populated!
220
Good Work…………………………Dan
*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 07, 2011 10:40 PM
*To:* Rusinak, Dan; Daniel Rusinak
*Subject:* Final Presentation
Dan,
Unless something major occurs in the next 12 hours, this is our final presentation for tomorrow.
Per your suggestions, we made it more obvious what was on the shell and tube slide in the PFD, we took
out the MTG reactor sizing slide (in the extra slides now, no data could be found for the sizing, we'll look
for at FCC crackers, which seem very similar, after this presentaiton), we resized the methanol reactor
and added the compressor (economics and PFD). We've been discussing what we're going to do with the
extra steam and light gas with our gasifier group, so we will mention that in the next presentation, and
work on it more afterwards.
-Jeff Tyska
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
Subj
ect
final final
presentation
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
12:31 PM
Atta
chments
<<final
presentation.pptx>>
221
3/9/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:22 PM
S
Percentages
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
10:58 AM
We had a lot of good work from everyone there at the end, but we need everyone to be working
during the week a bit earlier. I know most of you don't know ASPEN very well, but there's other stuff
that we can work on.
Everyone to my knowledge worked somewhat evenly for the weekend assignments.
The reason that I have a higher percentage is basically because I spent quite a few days at CEB
working on the ASPEN file until 8. Bernard got slightly more because he wrote the whole report, Ayesha
slightly more because she had been here with me working on ASPEN for some of the days I was here
late at CEB. Mohammed updated the website, which wasn't a huge task but something extra thats why
he got what he did. I know this isn't perfect, but it's my best guess.
With that in mind, the percentages are.
Ayesha - 20%
Bernard - 20%
Jeff - 27.5%
Mohammed - 17.5%
Yacoub - 15%
Don't forget to put the scribe notes on the wiki and the presentation up on the wiki.
-Jeff Tyska
S
ubject
Re: Face to face meeting this
Week?
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:35 PM
rom
o
222
ent
Dan,
I still have to check in with everyone, but my guess it that saturday around
4 on skype or Monday at 5:15 would be the best times (historically they have been).
-Jeff Tyska
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dan Rusinak PE
> Chief Process Engineer
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01CBDF0F.BEF175F0]
>
> Middough Inc.
> 700 Commerce Dr.
> Oak Brook, IL 60523
> 630-756-7010 Direct
> 630-756-7000 General
> 630-756-7001 Fax
> 630-697-8111 Cell
> rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
> www.middough.com
>
>
> ________________________________
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
>
3/10/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:23 PM
S
ubject
Re: Face to face meeting this
Week?
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
223
rom
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:35 PM
o
ent
Dan,
I still have to check in with everyone, but my guess it that saturday around
4 on skype or Monday at 5:15 would be the best times (historically they have been).
-Jeff Tyska
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dan Rusinak PE
> Chief Process Engineer
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01CBDF0F.BEF175F0]
>
> Middough Inc.
> 700 Commerce Dr.
> Oak Brook, IL 60523
> 630-756-7010 Direct
> 630-756-7000 General
> 630-756-7001 Fax
> 630-697-8111 Cell
> rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
> www.middough.com
>
>
> ________________________________
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
>
S
Assignments
224
ubject
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Thursday, March 10, 2011
4:49 PM
We didn't get the highest grade on the presentation, but we were above average, and for all the
trouble Dan sometimes gives us about the project he gave us the highest grade out of the class. If
everyone can make it on skype on Saturday at 4 I'll tell him that we'll meet him then.
For the next presentation we need 1. Revised PFD
2. Initial Control Scheme (P&ID?)
3. Plant layout (general arrangement)
4. Calculations
5. Refined Economics
6. Report
I'll have to talk to Perl to see if he really expects the whole report by the next meeting, and to
clear up what should be in the calculations section.
Assignments for Friday/the weekendJeff - Try to get the final distillation modeled better, contact another mentor about our reactor,
look up a bit on the catalyst regeneration stuff, maybe look up a little more on the FCC since it's so much
like our process
Bernard - Keep writing the report, we will need it soon.
Ayesha - I will send out a copy of my economics worksheet with an explanation, or tell you how
to use it tomorrow. Do some sensitivity analysis for our profit with changing gasoline, LPG and syngas
prices, plus different plant costs. If you do this in excel it should be extremely easy to modify, update
and copy/pate stuff (we will have to once we get in new data). Send it to the group and we'll have
Mohammed put it on the wiki when you're done.
Mohammed - Update the website with our new data. More to follow, I just don't know what
else right now (I'll need to talk to Dan).
Yacoub - I'll send an updated custom stream summary. In excel, for each stream (column), make
2 rows - Temperature, heat capacity*flow (keeps the units consistent so that joules/degrees comes out
as the units). This should be easy in excel.
S
ubject
Skype on Saturday
225
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Friday, March 11, 2011
2:12 PM
I didn't have a chance to talk to most of you in person, but we will be meeting with Dan on
Skype at 4 on saturday.
-Jeff Tyska
S
skype meeting
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Friday, March 11, 2011
5:45 PM
thats fine, but i am going to be a little bit late.
Yacoub
3/12/2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
5:07 PM
Skype Meeting
4:00-4:33 PM
Attending:
Dan Rusinak
Ayesha Rizvi
Jeff Tyska
Bernard Hsu
Mohammed Shehadeh
Late: Yacoub
Bernard and Jeff were unable to talk due to hardware difficulties
3/13/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
226
S
ubject
Re: Mohammed - Extra part of the
assignment
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:21 PM
rom
o
ent
http://pubs.acs.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/doi/full/10.1021/ie9709291
here is the the link for the article that has good information on the kinetic modeling of the MTG
process..if you want to read it, just log in and it will work.
Mohammad Shehadeh.
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:27:26 -0600
> From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Mohammed - Extra part of the assignment
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> As I said there would be in the last email, there's a small addition
> to your assignment. I have found 2 articles that may have kinetic data
> on our MTG reactor (which we really need). Look on UIC's databases
> (sci-finder scholar and conexis or whatever the engineering one was
> called) and try to find them. If they don't have the full article, try
> to request it and have it sent here (we really need this data).
>
> The details of the articles can be found at
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie9709291
>
> and
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFK-404H2MG
> -H&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&
> _origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1675883986&_re
> runOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&
> md5=f71511f02bb0a85762523c2b181626f8&searchtype=a
S
ubject
F
Group meeting
tomorrow
ChE 397 Design Group 1
227
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Sunday, March 13, 2011
9:35 PM
I will not be there at 10 for our usual meeting due to an interview, I will meet up with the rest of
you to hear the updates on wednesday.
3/14/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
3/15/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
Meeting tomorrow
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
S
ent
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
8:02 PM
We will be meeting with Dan, along with the other group, at 5:15 or so tomorrow (he might be
slightly late since he's coming from the conference)
-Jeff Tyska
3/20/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
ubject
Spring Break
Assignments
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
228
S
ent
Sunday, March 20, 2011
11:38 AM
I know there's a lot of catching up to do for other classes, but unfortunately there's still a lot we
need to get done over this spring break. Mohammad won't be here, so I haven't assigned him anything,
but I will expect more once he gets back.
Jeff - Get the PFD looking nice in visio, and update it (at least for the pictures). Get the inital
control scheme stuff going, email the other two nrel people, correspond with Dan, edit our report, get
the poster design started.
Bernard- Get the report almost done, if there's something that's not turning out well I'll assign it
to you and we'll leave part of the report for later.
Ayesha - I'll send you a separate email on what to do with the economics, besides getting that
sensitivity analysis done from before, you'll have to stop in and get data from ASPEN's economics. Take
into account the page that Perl put up on blackboard, which changes some of our econ completely.
Again, I'll send more detailed information on this in a separate email. I apologize for making you go to
CEB, but you had said that you could make it before.
Yacoub - Unfortunately your parts will somewhat depend on mine and Ayesha's, so I'd suggest
trying to catch up with the other stuff earlier in the break rather than later. I will have you work on the
plant layout (we will need to have things to scale, wso we'll need the sizes of some of the stuff from
ASPEN, which Ayesha will be getting us). I will also have you put in the numbers, etc. into the PFD like
before, hopefully that will be done by Wednesday evening, but I have to see how quickly I can learn how
to use visio.
If you have any questions about this just call me or send me an email.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
3/21/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
Meeting with Dan
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
S
ent
Monday, March 21, 2011
7:53 PM
I will be meeting with Dan at his office tomorrow (the address is on his
229
emails) at 3 pm to go over our process control for our project (putting on the control loops,
etc.). He would like others to show up, but it's not required, so just email me back if you can make it.
I should have the flowsheet in visio done by wednesday afternoon, hopefully tuesday night, with
the control loops (if not I'll just send it since you don't need those to put in the tables). I'm currently in
the process of editing our paper, so I'll resend that out once I'm done with the whole thing.
Remember to send out your parts once you are done with them.
-Jeff Tyska
Subj
Report edit
Fro
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
ect
m
Sent
Monday, March 21, 2011
8:10 PM
Atta
chments
Make sure you look at it, since some of the stuff reflected our old process or was incorrect. I also
left a fair amount of notes to you in there when stuff needs to be changed in the future, etc. Overall it's
coming out well, the gasoline price stuff was well done.
-Jeff Tyska
3/22/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
Subj
ect
ASPEN economic evaluation and
sizing
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:55 PM
m
Atta
chments
Hi,
230
So just now I was able to get an updated capital cost report. I will attach that to this email. I also
was able to run another report, with design data, and I will attach that as well.
For the cost of the boiling water reactor, I was not able to remap this as a heat exchanger. So
what I did was that I used another heat exchanger. I used MEOHH2OX, and I evaluated it using the heat
exhanger area that you gave.
The design data given for this is:
Heat Transfer Area: 51275 ft squared
Area per shell: 5697.222 ft squared
Number of shells: 9
Shell diameter: 46 inches
Shell length: 23 ft\
Shell gauge press: 760.450 psig
Shell Temp: 568 F
Shell operating Temp: 518 F
Shell wall thickness: 1.625 inches
# of tubes per shell: 1090
Tube outside diameter: 1 inch
Tube length: 20 ft
Tube gauge press: 502.068 psig
Tube temp: 568 F
Tube operating temp: 305.45 F
Tube wall thickness: 0.125 inches
Summary of Costing:
Subtotal of Material: $1672528
Subtotal of Manpower: $100245
Subtotal of Manhours: 3820
I printed out the report, so if you need to see it let me know.
Now for the sizing of everything, I printed each thing out from the aspen economic evaluator
because I was not able to save and export it to excel.
So I will make a quick excel sheet for yacoub. I just attached the excel sheet. I hope this is what
you want.
Take care,
Ayesha
3/23/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
ubject
F
Recap/ quick new assignment for
Bernard
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
231
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:42 AM
o
ent
I met with Dan for 3 hours yesterday, and basically found out what we need to be getting
done/changing
1. He doesn't care that much about the heat integration, but apparently we need to model our
MTG reactors a bit better. This includes making some of the carbon go to coke, which we can estimate
(2% or so). Unfortunately this does change some of our simulation afterwards, but honestly, I'd still go
with the sizes that Ayesha took down, I don't think they'll really change. I will have to add some of the
other parts (cyclone, etc.) to the stuff, and figure out exactly how much air/ heat exchange we need
unfortunately.
2. I have a really good control scheme for the methanol reactor now, which I can sort of use for
another part of the MTG reactors, so hopefully we can start to get this going. Our PFD is going to be
huge, so I'm going to have to split it into a few pages. Hopefully we can get the data on the bottom of
the 11x17 pages this way though.
3. He doesn't like our process water being boiled since there's still HCs and everything in there,
so we may just take it out and add a boiler really quick to get the same amount of heat transfer (won't
really change anything in our simulation).
Note that these changes will have to be made in the report too. I'll try to send out the PFD slides
with the controls as I get them so everyone can see what is going on, and so Yacoub can start that.
Bernard - If you are at CEB, figure out how much 2% of our MTG product is, then, in another
simulation, send that with 15% excess air into a RSTOIC reactor, and specify combustion reaction. Tell
me what temperature comes out, how much air was needed, and how much coke was formed. From
there I'll figure out how much heat transfer we need.
I'll try to do the exact sizing of the MTG reactors myself, our reactors are apparently the size of
the catalyst we need since the gases are inside the catalyst pores, however we need to account for the
fluidizing velocity, which we're estimating at 10 m/s.
-Jeff Tyska
S
Re: Revised assignments
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
232
ent
12:48 PM
Ok good, I'll send out assignments by tonight for you.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> hey jeff, i will be in chicago tonight. so i can start helping you
> guys because it seems like too much is going on.
>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:05:55 -0500
> > From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> > Subject: Revised assignments
> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
> > I apologize for the revisions/additions, but there's a lot to get
> > done,
> and
> > with the ASPEN test, FE exam and Process quiz next week I'm guessing
> > that
> we
> > don't want to spend all of our time on this next week.
>>
> > Yacoub - I'll send you a copy of a page of the equipment list from
> > the
> last
> > group, set one up with the equipment in the sheet that Ayesha will
> > be sending you. Unfortunately we have to change some small things in
> > ASPEN
> and
> > add more streams to our PFD, so we'll have to update those values
> > next
> week.
> > For the plant layout, don't place the reactors or the 1st heat
> > exchanger yet.
>>
> > Ayesha - We need to have a velocity of 10 m/s in our MTG reactors,
> however
> > we can change the H:D ratio to whatever we want (H will be much
> > larger
> than
> > D). I'm sending out the custom stream summary, note the diameter and
> height
> > of the reactors that we would need to get the 10 m/s. Note that Q =
233
> > A * velcocity = (pi*D^2 / 4) * velocity --> D = sqrt(Flowrate from
> > sheet *
> > 4 / (10 (the velocity) * pi)), with all of the units in meters. Once
> > you find D you will have to find the height needed to get the correct volume.
> > The volume of the reactors is now the volume of our catalyst, I'll
> forward
> > you and everyone else the emails from the NREL people describing
> > this and giving the density. So basically (wt catalyst per reactor)
> > / (density) =
> > H*.25*pi*D^2 --> H = (wt catalyst) *4 / (density of catalyst * pi *
> > D^2), with all of the units in meters, and D from the previous
> > problem. You can convert the D and H to feet afterwards. Hopefully
> > I've simplified this enough to make things easy.
>>
> > Bernard - Start on the poster.
>>
> > In case anyone is curious about our PFD or why it's taking so long,
> > I've attached a copy of the beginning of it.
>>
> > -Jeff Tyska
>
>
S
Re: Plant layout
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
1:34 PM
Yacoub:
Here it is. You asked for it! An excellent presentation. Go for It and apply all the
principals.......................Dan
http://www.aiche-chicago.org/Events/AIChEChicagoNovember2009Meeting.pdf
From: yacoub awwad [mailto:el_mr.y@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:04 PM
To: Rusinak, Dan
Subject: Plant layout
234
Dear Dan,
I am Yacoub from group Alpha, now we are doing a plant layout. so far, we got some data about
equipment sizes, diameters, etc. In this email, I am asking for your advice about this part or any
suggestions you want us to do about this part, since I am not hundred percent clear about it.
thank you very much.
thank you,
Yacoub Awwad
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and
protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Middough.
S
Re: Poster template
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.E
DU
S
ent
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
9:44 PM
another thing about the poster, Bernard i think it would be nice also if we include our specialty
in this project, meaning that this process have already been done in other places, we should have a list
or a paragraph saying what makes our particular project special than others and what are the
advantages that a company or an organization will find in our project?
at the end its up to you guys.
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:01:49 -0500
> From: bbhsu2@UIC.EDU
> Subject: Poster template
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> So far the two options that I have discussed with Jeff for the poster
> is that we can do a 3 fold board, which has 2 side flaps with a large
> center or a giant canvas poster.
>
>
>
> 3 Fold board:
>
235
> . Cheap
>
> . Most efficient at delivering information
>
> . Most time consuming
>
> . Must back all headers, tables and graphs with construction paper
>
>
>
> Canvas Poster:
>
> . Easiest
>
> . Quickest
>
> . Most expensive (must print out professionally)
>
> . Looks like the academic research posters in SEL and CEB
>
>
>
> There may be other options available to us, however I do not know of
> them yet.
>
>
>
> Regardless of which one we pick, I have created a preliminary template
> for our poster in Microsoft publisher. Since I am not sure who has
> publisher and who does not, I have only posted a screenshot of what
> the poster will appear to be like. This would be the layout as of now.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bernard
>
3/24/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
ubject
F
Re: Group meeting to discuss our project
tomorrow
ChE 397 Design Group 1
236
rom
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:23 PM
o
ent
I can meet tomorrow and discuss the changes that have been made.
Ayesha
On Thu, March 24, 2011 5:16 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> I had to make a lot of changes for our project, which unfortunately
> will affect most of the other parts for this process. I will meet with
> Mohammad at noon tomorrow at CEB, and I would like everyone else to
> make it if possible, since it will take awhile to explain everything
> and I don't want to have to do it more than once.
>
> In case you are wondering about what changes have been made, take a
> look at the flowsheet portions of the PFD that I have attached. This
> will be changing (especially the control schemes 3rd and 4th one), but
> the unit operations will generally stay the same.
>
> Please email me back or text me so I know who will be there tomorrow.
>
> -Jeff Tyska
>
3/25/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:25 PM
S
ubject
Fwd: Senior Design (UIC) Biomass to Gasification question Catalyst stuff
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Friday, March 25, 2011 2:21 PM
rom
o
ent
This is how we're sizing our reactor, etc. and the data for it (correspondance from the people
who wrote the nrel report).
-Jeff Tyska
237
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Tarud, Joan <Joan.Tarud@nrel.gov>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Senior Design (UIC) Biomass to Gasification question
To: Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com>
Hello Jeff,
Below is the information on reactor sizing. The calculations are basic because reactor sizing
utilized solely to price the unit.
The reactor was sized based primarily on the amount of catalyst it contains. This is because the
volumetric requirements for the methanol/gasoline stream in this process are very small in comparison
to the catalyst requirements.
From the volume of catalyst required, in our case 46565lb of catalyst. With an estimated density
of 93lb/cuft (estimated from ZSM-5 zeolythes, ( http://www.nipne.ro/rjp/2006_51_1-2/0293_0298.pdf),
the volume is 500cuft.
From the SRI MTG report, the MTG fluidized bed reactor height is approximately 3 times the
diameter. In our case a diameter height of 6ft and height of 18ft would be sufficient.
The purpose of our design reports is an overall process and economic analysis. We do not build
the plants, and thus specific reactor design is out of the scope.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Best of luck with your senior design project!
Sincerely,
Joan Tarud
Engineer – NREL National Bioenergy Center
303-384-6471
*From:* Jeff Tyska [mailto:jtyska1@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 6:57 PM
*To:* Tarud, Joan
*Subject:* Senior Design (UIC) Biomass to Gasification question
Joan,
238
I am currently the leader of a senior design project (University of Illinois at Chicago) where we
are making gasoline from syngas by using the Mobil process. I was wondering if you had any information
about how the fluidized bed methanol to gasoline (ZSM-5 catalyst) reactor was sized in the report you
coauthored called "Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-toGasoline Technologies"
(NREL/TP-5100-47594). I saw that there was information on how much catalyst should be used
and that the reactor was priced, however the report doesn't seem to mention how the reactor was
sized. Unfortunately I have only been able to find information about the residence time, and thus the
sizing of the reactor, for the fixed bed methanol to gasoline reactor from other sources.
Thank you
-Jeff Tyska
3/26/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:26 PM
Subj
Aspen stuff
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC
.EDU
Sent
Saturday, March 26, 2011
11:23 AM
Atta
chments
I'm an idiot, I got the utilities, etc. summary before I left, but I forgot to print out a custom
stream summary. I can't make it back to school with work this weekend, so if anyone is there all they
have to do is open up the bkp file and put the custom stream summary into excel. Sorry about that.
Just a couple notes - I couldn't really simulate the coke in ASPEN, so I backed off of doing that
and simply split a stream about 2% away from the other columns. That gives us the correct stuff for the
distillation columns, but the streams going into the MTG reactor will be what we had in our old one, the
streams coming out and everything afterwards will be what we have in this one.
Also, I don't know when it happened but we have tons of heat coming out of our MTG columns,
I'm not really sure what to do with this since it's so late in the project, so if anyone has any ideas or
suggestions I'd be glad to hear them.
-Jeff Tyska
3/27/2011
239
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:26 PM
Subj
Re: Weekly Meeting
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, March 27, 2011
2:03 PM
Atta
chments
These are the updated flowsheet pictures, I may still need to change them at some point,
especially since I didn't include data at the top for the condensate pumps (we don't really have that data
to my knowledge though, it's just simulated in ASPEN).
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:52 PM, moody shehadeh
<cool_moody007@hotmail.com>wrote:
> yea i will be finishing up the tables tomoro, but are you sending me
> any revised visio pics, or should i just use the last ones you sent me?
>
> > Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:25:22 -0500
> > From: jtyska1@GMAIL.COM
> > Subject: Weekly Meeting
> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>>
> > Just a reminder that we will be meeting around 10:15 on Monday to
> > discuss progress on the project. I haven't heard back from most of
> > you, so I'm assuming that everything is going well on the
> > assignments. Mohammad, I
> know
> > that you probably haven't gone back to UIC to get the stream data
> > and
> that's
> > fine, but I expect all of the tables, etc. to be set-up, and you
> > should
> also
> > be able to plug in some data (information on the methanol reactor,
> > the
240
> first
> > flash drum, temperatures and pressures on the flash drums, syngas in
> > and products out of the coolers, etc.).
>>
> > -Jeff Tyska
>
>
3/29/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:27 PM
Subj
ect
Corrected/updated
PFDs
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
7:03 PM
Atta
chments
<<Start of
PFD.jpg>>
<<third sheet.jpg>>
<<edited part
2.jpg>>
<<final part of
PFD.jpg>>
I went back and corrected the tables with the stuff that Mohammad pointed out in our PFD. I
also added the to flare stuff for the condensers on the distillation columns that Dan marked up before,
initially I wasn't sure if it was important but Adam kept mentioning that we really need to have them, so
they're in there now. Mohammad I'll give you the editable visio files (for the text at top) tomorrow from
my USB drive.
I'll have in the price for the MTG reactors and the heat exchanger at the bottom of our column
tonight. I'm happy with the work that people have been putting in for the last day, and I thank you all for
that. I have a test Wednesday evening, but after that I'll try to help out on the other portions more and
edit our rough draft again after that.
Thanks
-Jeff Tyska
S
Calculations
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
241
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.U
IC.EDU
S
ent
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
9:42 PM
I calculated the cost of the methanol reactors from the 6/10 factor rule for reactors and from
the nrel's stuff (plus I changed it to the 2009 basis like the rest of our ASPEN). It's much higher than what
ASPEN quoted (14 million or so), so I also did it quickly for the methanol reactor. Ours will probably be a
little more, but that's closer than what aspen was giving us, so I'd probably go with it. I uploaded it as
the revised MTG sizing excel file (replaced the one Ayesha put up since i did my calculations on that
sheet, underneath her sizing).
Our heat exchangers underneath it are huge, I calculated it out and it's about 28000 feet with a
inlet temperature of 700 degrees C. The 6/10 factor for heat exchangers is actually 6/10, so we can
probably price ours from our other data, which I will do tomorrow. After this, we should have everything
that we need for our economics (we are selling our extra steam/extra light gas to Larry for 40 million
dollars a year). I will be reviewing the report and trying to help out a bit with the layout and econ
starting wednesday night.
-Jeff Tyska
Subj
ect
mohmmad and yacoub
parts
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC
.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
10:57 PM
Atta
chments
we have just completed and attached the equipment list for the whole project, also the tables of
the PFD's are attached. when you see two tables on one page that means they gota be connected under
their PFD pic, and the measurements of the tables should be set to go.
242
by tomorrow we should be able to finish finding the numbers for the stuff above the PFD pics,
and getting the first draft of the plant layout. we wanted to pull out the nighter to get it these also done
but that would be too much for today so we will just do tomorrow.
Mohammad, Yacoub
From: el_mr.y@hotmail.com
To: msheha4@uic.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:44:07 +0000
Subj
ect
excel economics
analysis
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
Sent
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
11:12 PM
Atta
chments
Attached is the spread sheet that I have been working on. I did an analysis of gasoline, LPG,
syngas prices and they are all in tabs on the bottom of the sheet. In the Gasoline and syngas sections I
included where the the goalseek was not able to find a function for the IRR when setting NVP to zero.
When this would happen the NVP was given as -218448000.
I need help calculating the (IRR%). I don't think that I am doing that right. I checked online. but
not getting anything.
Also, under the syngas tab, I also calculated the IRR when I subtracted the Steam and Light
Hydrocarbons from the syngas ($40 million).
-Ayesha
3/31/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
243
10:28 PM
Subj
ect
Re: sensitivity analysis excel
sheet
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:36 PM
m
Atta
chments
I put some graphs on here, we'll probably need to label the axes though.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
> I'm sorry. I did the goal seek on each sheet. I can send this to
> Bernard, and help him with the report tomorrow.
>
> -Ayesha
>
>
>
> On Wed, March 30, 2011 9:39 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> > Unfortunately none of this was correct, since you hadn't added the
> reactor
> > prices (only added the methanol reactor price), and you had added it
> > into the wrong column. I have fixed it so that all you have to do is
> > goal seek to get the IRR on each sheet. This needs to be done fairly
> > early tomorrow so Benard can work on the economics for the report.
>>
>>
>>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
>>
> >> Can you please check the excel sheet. Also, the IRR% in the syngas
> >> and plant cost.
> >>
> >>
> >> thank you,
> >> Ayesha
>>
>
S
ubject
Presentation, etc.
notes
244
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UI
C.EDU
S
ent
Thursday, March 31, 2011
9:38 PM
Yacoub - If you could take a screenshot or whatever else so we can see where the plant layout is
tomorrow, we will put whatever we have done at that point in the report. It would be good to be able to
see how it's going too.
For the presentations, I'll start getting out a few slides tomorrow, and Ayesha will be starting on
them tomorrow. Yacoub and Mohammad, I'll probably lessen your duties for making the slides since you
may still need to do some more work on the plant layout, which will need to be finished ASAP.
Unfortunately we were the group that was asked about the period stuff for the economics,
which we didn't do, so I'm not really sure what to do with that (Perl said it was okay if we didn't to my
knowledge). I plan on leaving it out of that slide, and if they ask, say that we know it may affect us
negatively but we had other factors that we thought were more important to focus on.
-Jeff Tyska
4/1/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:28 PM
Subj
revised pfds
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, April 01, 2011
11:02 AM
Atta
chments
Jeff,
PFDs done.
Mohammad
Subj
ect
Fwd: plant layout
245
Fro
Jeff Tyska
To
Bernard Hsu
m
Sent
Friday, April 01, 2011
12:21 PM
Atta
chments
This is a really rough plant layout, basically just showing some of the major stuff and noting that
our flare and fired heaters are away from our process. Put it in the report with the note that we're
continuing on it. I'll have the constraints review in within an hour or so, put it all together and try to get
me the stuff by 7 tonight. The plant layout is due sunday morning, but it will only be 2 slides with no
words or animations, so that shouldn't be a huge factor in our presentation. We can send the rest to
Dan and have him correct it (not sure if he will, I think he's on vacation).
-Jeff Tyska
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Awwad, Yacoub M. <yawwad2@uic.edu>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM
Subject: plant layout
To: CHE397GRP1@listserv.uic.edu
4/3/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:28 PM
Subj
plant layout
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, April 03, 2011
5:59 PM
Atta
chments
<<Plant
Layout.pptx>>
whats up guys,
just done with my part after a long day of working in this part,since
9:00 am
man what a part. hopefully thats good enough.see you all tomorrow
Yacoub Awwad
246
Subj
ect
Re: Presentation assignments (parts not
slides)
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Sunday, April 03, 2011 10:17 PM
m
Atta
chments
Can we add the MTG reactor sizing and the pricing of the reactors in the calculations part? For
example, like what I attached?
On Sun, April 3, 2011 7:11 pm, Bernard Hsu wrote:
> Any suggestions on what we can do for the "calculations" section?
>
> Thanks,
> Bernard
>
> -----Original Message----> From: ChE 397 Design Group 1 [mailto:CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Tyska
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 7:09 PM
> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject: Re: Presentation assignments (parts not slides)
>
> Bernard is working on the presentation for tomorrow. We will be
> printing out the slides (minus the PFD), the PFD pages and the
> equipment lists for the mentors. As of right now theres not much to do
> to my knowledge besides compilation and knowing your parts. Edits will
> be made, which Bernard will send out tonight. My advice would probably
> be to work on other stuff that is due soon (lab, etc.) and then to
> work on this stuff when it's sent out.
>
> -Jeff Tyska
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>> What else needs to be added or needs to be done for the next
>> presentation.
>>
>> What about the handout? Instead of handing out the slides, can we
>> give the mentors full page PFD's, plant layout, controls and what not?
>>
247
>>
>>
>> On Sat, April 2, 2011 9:45 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
>> > Here's how I'm thinking it's going
>> > Mohammad, you start off the presentation, with the intro/design
>> > basis/questions from last time, etc.
>> > I will split the PFD/intial control slides with Bernard (I'll do
>> > initial control, bernard will do the PFD) Yacoub will then present
>> > the plant layout Ayesha will then present the economics
>> >
>> > Mohammad and Yacoub - The reason that your numbers were wrong was
>> > because you selected the wrong groupings for the hydrocarbons. I'm
>> > not sure what you did for the gasoline or LPG, but you forgot to
>> > include ethylene in your light gases. I tried to see if it was some
>> > simple mixup there, but unfortunately I wasn't able to figure it
>> > out. I'm going to try to go back and fix all of these, I work
>> > tomorrow morning so I have to go to bed soon but I'll have it done
>> > by 3 pm tomorrow.
>> >
>> > -Jeff Tyska
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
4/4/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
Subj
p
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, April 04, 2011
7:49 PM
Atta
chments
p
Subj
ect
Fro
New plant layout picture (increased
contrast)
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
248
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, April 04, 2011 9:45 PM
Atta
chments
I attached the new picture, I just got back to my computer so I'll be sending out the PFD stuff
soon.
-Jeff Tyska
Subj
Re: New PFDS
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ect
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Monday, April 04, 2011
11:10 PM
Atta
chments
just realized that part 2 is just a line in the last one, use this version of it
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had to edit some of the stuff (add info, change the flue gas stream,
> etc.), but overall it's pretty much the same stuff as before. Thanks
> for printing these out Mohammad (we need 7, one for each mentor and
> one for Perl).
>
> -Jeff Tyska
>
4/5/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
Registration
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
1:01 PM
249
Just as a reminder, everyone has to register individually for the AICHE meeting on tuesday, the
link is in the course documents. I already sent out our abstract.
-Jeff Tyska
S
Group percentages
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
8:41 PM
We all put in quite a bit of work this presentation, even more than we had for any previous
presentation, and I think out presentation went really well because of it. Mohammad and Yacoub I
appreciate you guys really working hard for this presentation, it was really good to see. These
percentages are really hard to do, since I think everyone in our group put a lot of effort into getting our
data ready for this presentation.
Yacoub- 23%
Mohammad - 22%
Jeff - 22%
Bernard - 17%
Ayesha - 16%
If you have any questions just email me back
-Jeff Tyska
4/7/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
ubject
Re: Great
presentation!
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Thursday, April 07, 2011
2:51 PM
250
I'll have to check exactly where the 150 was from, I believe we got it awhile ago. I can double
check if necessary to make sure it is realistic.
We're currently working on the poster for Tuesday, which we have to print by Sunday. The FE,
which most of us are taking, is on Saturday, so all of our work is going towards that right now. I'm hoping
to have a good poster, but it will be rougher than our EXPO one, since we have less time to prepare, and
there will probably be refinements of our process between now and EXPO.
-Jeff Tyska
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Rusinak, Dan <Rusinad@middough.com> wrote:
> Team: Very Good work, presentation and Q&A.
>
> One comment. We used ¾" tube size to calculate the catalyst area of a
> boiling water S&T reactor. You will never be able to pack ¾" tubes
> with catalyst.
>
> The "Rule of Five" an opening has to be at least 5 X the larges
> particle size for material to flow through it. Otherwise it will bridge.
>
> Most units I have seen have 3" or 4" tubes. This make heat transfer
> much more difficult as you have less heat transfer area for the same
> catalyst volume and a much greater path for the heat to travel from
> the center of the tube to the wall.
>
> Where did you get your U=150 from? I am curious.
>
> Dan Rusinak PE
> Chief Process Engineer
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01CBF4FD.0E2107A0]
>
> Middough Inc.
> 700 Commerce Dr.
> Oak Brook, IL 60523
> 630-756-7010 Direct
> 630-756-7000 General
> 630-756-7001 Fax
> 630-697-8111 Cell
> rusinad@middough.com<mailto:rusinad@middough.com>
> www.middough.com
>
>
> ________________________________
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> ----- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains
> information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any
251
> review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by
> persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is
> strictly prohibited.
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Middough.
>
S
Re: Poster
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Thursday, April 07, 2011
6:36 PM
K, if you want to get that I'll start doing the other econ stuff, unfortunately there's some
confusing data (we didn't multiply our maintenance by 8, like we did with our plant cost, so it's much,
much smaller than our plant cost).
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
> What files are you exactly talking about for the econ? I will start
> working on that sheet that Jerry posted up that I was supposed to do.
>
> -Ayesha
>
>
> On Thu, April 7, 2011 2:14 pm, Jeff Tyska wrote:
> > We will have to have the poster pretty much done by Saturday, since
> > most of us will be taking the FE all day saturday, and I will need
> > to print out the poster Sunday morning. This poster probably won't
> > be our final EXPO one, but I'd still like it to look good. We have
> > the set-up, but we need to start getting data/pictures on there.
>>
>>
> > Bernard - background, objective, conclusion, etc.
>>
> > Jeff - Editing, help with econ, printing, PFD portion
>>
> > Yacoub - If you could send me the highest quality version of the
> > plant layout that you can (either a jpeg, or a .svg (scalable vector
> > graphic)
> if
> > possible). Get this to me by Saturday, the earlier the better
252
>>
> > Ayesha - Econ (I know you're not taking the FE so just make sure the
> files
> > are in by saturday at 3, though earlier is better)
>>
> > Mohammad - I'll be sending you a few files to update the wiki with,
> > you might want to look through the wiki and update things, since
> > there are probably a fair amount of files that aren't necessarily
> > relevant to our project anymore. This isn't critical to be done by
> > Friday or anything so you'll have a little more time.
>>
> > There may be things that come up that I haven't planned for and
> > we'll
> have
> > to add, but as for right now this is what I'm thinking needs to be
> > done
>>
> > -Jeff Tyska
4/8/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
ubject
Fwd: AIChE poster session - register for event by Friday,
April 7th!
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Friday, April 08, 2011 7:54 AM
rom
o
ent
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: peter herena <pgherena@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Subject: AIChE poster session - register for event by Friday, April 7th!
To: Linda Quan <quan2@uic.edu>, Fang Li <fli2@iit.edu>, Jeff Tyska < jtyska1@gmail.com>,
Ryan Kosak <rkosak2@uic.edu>, Kevin Sean Thompson < kthomp21@uic.edu>, Chris Starrick
<chris.starrick@gmail.com>, Zachary Labaschin <zlabas2@uic.edu>, Andrew Haight
<f.andrew.haight@gmail.com>, dmendoz1@iit.edu, ahmesye5@iit.edu, Daniyal Qamar
<daniyal_qamar@hotmail.com
>
Hi all,
Thanks for your poster session submissions! Be sure to follow the link below and register
yourself and any team members that will be at the meetings - students MUST register so we'll know how
253
much food to order. Cost is only 5 bucks for the buffet dinner and is much faster than registering the day
of the event. Also the speaker talk after the poster session is a great networking opportunity.
http://guest.cvent.com/d/bdq696/4W
If there's any special equipment or resources you need for your poster let me know - especially
if you need power for a laptop or other device.
You'll have from 4:45 to 5:15 to set up your posters. IIT/AIChE will supply cork boards and push
pins with which you can tack up your posters. Max size 48" wide.
Location IIT Campus - McCormick Tribune Campus Center, MTCC Pritzker Club
3201 South State Street
Chicago
Attendees can take either the Red or Green Line to get to the IIT Main Campus. The Red Line
stop is Sox-35th and the Green Line stop is 35th-Bronzeville-IIT. If driving, there is a Visitor's Lot (A4)
right next to the MTCC.
Regards,
Peter
4/12/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
ubject
Re: New Assignments,
meeting, etc.
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
T
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
S
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:21 AM
rom
o
ent
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jeff Tyska <jtyska1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes it is, its the jpeg since I don't know if everyone has publisher
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu> wrote:
>
254
>> Nothing's attached
>>
>> -----Original Message---->> From: ChE 397 Design Group 1 [mailto:CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On
>> Behalf Of Jeff Tyska
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:49 PM
>> To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>> Subject: Re: New Assignments, meeting, etc.
>>
>> No problem. I've attached a copy of our poster so everyone can see
>> what we have. I tried to darken the second part of the plant layout
>> as much as possible, any more darkening increases the artifacts on
>> there which will take down the image quality.
>>
>> -Jeff Tyska
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Bernard Hsu <bbhsu2@uic.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > This is no problem, but I have a drug test for a job at 12:30, so I
>> > will need to leave around 12:10
>> >
>> > -----Original Message---->> > From: ChE 397 Design Group 1 [mailto:CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU]
>> > On Behalf Of Jeff Tyska
>> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:27 PM
>> > To: CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>> > Subject: New Assignments, meeting, etc.
>> >
>> > We will meet at 11 am tomorrow to discuss our presentation for the
>> > poster competition (going over our process, etc.). Mohammad if you
>> > are driving I will probably need a ride with you to the place,
>> > since I'm not sure our poster can fit in Bernard's car. Yacoub I
>> > know you can't make the poster session, but if you can make this
>> > meeting it would be good to show up, since this will also help for
>> > the EXPO presentation in a couple weeks.
>> >
>> > There's a few things that will be changing after this presentation,
>> > mainly the MeOH reactor sizing and the economics. I'll brief
>> > everyone on this tomorrow.
>> >
>> > I don't have a copy of presentation on me, but I'll send it in by 5
>> > pm tonight (try to look at it before tomorrow so you know what's on
>> > the poster).
>> >
>> > General assignments for what we'll be working on this week are
>> > below Bernard
>> > - the report Ayesha - We will be updating some of the econ, so we
>> > may have to redo some of the stuff Myself - editing the
255
>> > econ/reactor sizing, reviewing the report Mohammad and Yacoub - I'm
>> > still trying to figure out exactly what we need for the next
>> > report, so I'll send you an updated assignment later. If you have
>> > the chance, the more you can learn about our process, the better it is for expo/etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mohammad- I know I didn't send you the things to update, I'll send
>> > you those in another email tonight.
>> >
>> > -Jeff Tyska
>> >
>>
>
>
4/14/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
Wiki
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
ubject
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
ent
Thursday, April 14, 2011
4:17 PM
All the new stuff are added on the wiki, made 2 new pages for the equipment list and the plant
layout. edited the other pages that needed to be edited. if you guys see something wrong tell me so i
can fix it.
take care guysMohmmmad
4/15/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
Subj
ect
Weekend
Assignments
Fro
ChE 397 Design Group 1
m
To
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
Sent
Friday, April 15, 2011 3:40
PM
256
Atta
chments
We're getting near the end of the road here, thank god, so most of the work from now on is
tying up loose ends / refining our report data. I've edited our economics in the sensitivity analysis to
current values (fixed the maintenance cost, sized up the methanol reactor, etc.). I also resized our
methanol reactor in the last week.
We will be meeting with Dan on skype at 3:30 on Saturday. Note that he will not be in town next
week.
Jeff- Check if higher alcohols would be a problem in the reactors, see if we should have a new
template, resize stuff on the poster, send Bernard data on the pricing and methanol reactor sizing, check
on the decoupling of steam in the distillation column with Dan (mentor question), help out with other
parts. Check to make sure 1$ a gallon for LPG is realistic.
Mohammad - This next presentation sounds like it is supposed to be pretty vague, though I'll
double check with Dan. Once Bernard sends you the template, I'm going to have you start to put
together the general slides, along with a block flow diagram that includes the mass flows. I'd probably
put the general one first, then break it down into a couple parts per slide, with just the operating
conditions / mass flow rates. I may send you some of the reactor sizing to put on there too.
Yacoub - Work on the plant layout like mentioned in the 3 other emails I just send you
Ayesha - I'm attaching our updating economics, I'll have to talk to you at some point to explain
exactly what I changed, but we'll need to redo the sensitivity analysis, along with having the y axis be the
NPV in millions of dollars, not the percentages like before. Similarly, plug these numbers into the sheet
you had made after that last presentation, similar to the one we got in the earlier mentor presentation.
Note that the gasoline price is now 2.75, but it shouldn't matter too much since we don't need the
relative NPV/IRR anymore.
Bernard - Send out the ppt template to Mohammad ASAP, tie together most of the loose ends
and refine the report, there will still be a little bit you don't have the end information on but not much.
-Jeff Tyska
4/18/2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
10:29 PM
S
ubject
Re: updated
economics
F
ChE 397 Design Group 1
rom
T
o
CHE397GRP1@LISTSERV.
UIC.EDU
S
Monday, April 18, 2011
257
ent
6:10 PM
I think you can just model it off of the sheet from blackboard. For the plant life, use 20 years
after startup, since that's what the gasifier is doing.
-Jeff Tyska
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Rizvi, Ayesha <arizvi6@uic.edu> wrote:
> I have attached the updated economics sheet. And I have added graphs
> of the NPV in millions.
>
> I need to finish the investment timeline. If you can get back to me as
> to what I should have in there and what exactly is our plant life.
>
> thanks,
> Ayesha
258