AIChE National Design Competition

Coal Gasification Study

Process Design Report
By: Kaitlyn D. Kelly

March 7, 2008

Summary
Rising oil prices and increased demand for chemical feedstock have added to the push to find
alternative sources of energy. The gasification of coal to produce methanol has been proposed as a
means for meeting the demand for energy and chemical feedstock. The 2008 AIChE National Student
Design Contest poses the problem to determine if a company can capitalize on this opportunity through
the design, construction, and operation of a world-scale methanol production facility. A technical and
economic evaluation of the proposed project has been completed to help answer this question. The
facility must be able to produce 5000 metric tons of methanol per day. The methanol must meet AA
grade purity requirements.
The key elements of the base case design can be summarized with the following block flow
diagram.

A material and energy balance was created to provide for quick analysis of the flows in the
process. This also allowed the major equipment in the process to be simulated separately without the
need to combine the overall process in one simulation. The software used for simulation of the majority
of the process was Chemcad. The gasifier was simulated using the software Gasify. The composition of
the methanol product may be seen in the following table.
Methanol Product (lb/hr)
Water
2149
Nitrogen
0
Oxygen
0
Hydrogen
0
Carbon monoxide
0
Carbon dioxide
495
Argon
0
hydrogen sulfide
0
COS
0
Methane
0
Ammonia
0
MDEA
0
Carbon
0
Methanol
454173
Ethanol
0
Coal
0
Ash
0
Total
456817
Table 1: Methanol product component flow rates.

A control scheme was developed for the process to help prevent excursions during operation. A
limited safety analysis was conducted on the project. Hazard and operability studies were completed
for one hazard for each of the major process units. For each of those identified hazards, one initiating
event was considered for a layer of protection analysis. This brief analysis served to highlight major
areas of concern in the process. A primary concern is that the process has very large flow rates and thus
very large inventories of material. Additionally, there are areas of the process that operate at elevated
temperatures. These present an inherent safety problem. The inventories of both material and energy
need to be decreased as much as possible to increase the safety of the system.
The major process equipment was sized and priced. This was done to determine the capital
investment that would be required for the project. The pumps, drums, and control systems were not
priced but were estimated. The pumps and drums were assumed to be 10% of the calculated capital
costs. The control systems were estimated to cost an additional 10% of the total capital costs. These
are summarized in the following table.

Capital Investment
Costed Equipment
$ 440,593,371
Estimates for
pumps/ drums
Control Systems
Total

$
$
$

44,059,337
48,465,271
533,117,979

Table 2: Summary of the required capital investment for the project.

The base case design is not economically feasible. The estimated costs of liquid nitrogen and
waste processing drive up the cost of annual operation. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the
economics to determine the impact of errors in the estimates of the variables used in the analysis. It
was found that it would take a combination of deviations in the values to substantially alter the
economics and make the project profitable. A summary of the annual expenditures, revenues, and
discounted cash flow may be seen below.

Consumption
Coal (lb)
Oxygen (lb)
Process Water (lb)
LP Steam (lb)
MP Steam (lb)
HP Steam (lb)
HHP Steam (lb)
Electricity (KW)
Cooling Water Makeup (lb)
Waste Water Treatment (lb)
Bulk Liquid Waste Proc. (lb)
Vents/Vapors Processing (lb)
MDEA (lb)
N2

Annual Expenditures
Hour
Day
Year
542591.807 13022203.36 4753104226
276803.21 6643277.043 2424796121
286000
6864000 2505360000
90528.9728 2172695.348
793033802
0
0
0
0
0
0
157706.4
3784953.6 1381508064
48299.7347 1159193.633
423105676
10000
240000
87600000
1331705.53 31960932.71
1.1666E+10
110202.689 2644864.539
965375557
446203.307 10708879.36 3908740968
11282.0691 270769.6579 98830925.1
5634512.5
135228300
4.9358E+10
Total Expenditures

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Yearly Value
144,494,368
75,774,879
300,804
5,310,494
16,035,361
29,617,397
11,569
1,400,638
176,698,205
575,841,303
74,123,194
1,628,824,874
2,728,433,087

Table 3: Annual expenditures and operating costs.

Income/Credits
Methanol (lb)

Hour
456817

Annual Revenues
Day
Year
10963601.85
4001714674

Yearly Value
$ 571,673,524.91

Table 4: Annual income from the methanol production.

Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Expenses
$533,117,979
$2,826,279,619
$2,910,588,201
$2,997,426,041
$3,086,869,016
$3,178,995,280
$3,273,885,332
$3,371,622,086
$3,472,290,943
$3,575,979,865
$3,682,779,455
$3,792,783,032
$3,906,086,717
$4,022,789,512
$4,142,993,391
$4,266,803,387
$4,394,327,682
$4,525,677,707
$4,660,968,232
$4,800,317,472
$4,943,847,190

Discounted Cash Flow

Revenues
Depreciation
$0
$0
$588,823,731 $35,541,199
$606,488,443 $35,541,199
$624,683,096 $35,541,199
$643,423,589 $35,541,199
$662,726,296 $35,541,199
$682,608,085 $35,541,199
$703,086,328 $35,541,199
$724,178,918 $35,541,199
$745,904,285 $35,541,199
$768,281,414 $35,541,199
$791,329,856 $35,541,199
$815,069,752 $35,541,199
$839,521,844 $35,541,199
$864,707,500 $35,541,199
$890,648,725 $35,541,199
$917,368,186
$0
$944,889,232
$0
$973,235,909
$0
$1,002,432,986
$0
$1,032,505,976
$0

Taxes
($213,247,192)
($909,198,835)
($935,856,383)
($963,313,657)
($991,594,650)
($1,020,724,073)
($1,050,727,378)
($1,081,630,783)
($1,113,461,289)
($1,146,246,711)
($1,180,015,696)
($1,214,797,750)
($1,250,623,265)
($1,287,523,547)
($1,325,530,836)
($1,364,678,344)
($1,390,783,798)
($1,432,315,390)
($1,475,092,929)
($1,519,153,794)
($1,564,536,486)

Profit
($319,870,788)
($1,328,257,053)
($1,368,243,376)
($1,409,429,288)
($1,451,850,777)
($1,495,544,911)
($1,540,549,869)
($1,586,904,976)
($1,634,650,736)
($1,683,828,868)
($1,734,482,345)
($1,786,655,426)
($1,840,393,699)
($1,895,744,121)
($1,952,755,055)
($2,011,476,318)
($2,086,175,697)
($2,148,473,085)
($2,212,639,393)
($2,278,730,692)
($2,346,804,729)

Table 5: Annual discounted cash flow analysis.

There is the potential to decrease some of the expenses through optimization of the design.
The majority of the vapor waste that requires processing comes from the methanol refining process and
primarily consists of carbon dioxide. Since carbon dioxide is a reactant in methanol synthesis, this can
be used rather than treated as waste. The vapor may be sent to an additional reactor where hydrogen
is added. The methanol produced from the reaction can be recycled to the purification step. Not only
would this decrease the expense of vapor waste processing, but the increased methanol yield would
decrease the feeds required to the process. The smaller feeds would result in smaller flow rates
throughout the process, decreasing inventory and increasing the inherent safety. Also, the equipment
could be smaller, reducing capital costs. Additionally, the lower feeds may result in lower utility usage,
particularly of the liquid nitrogen which is by far the highest expense. In addition to this change in the
process, I recommend integrating the heat exchange in section 400. There is currently a condenser
which uses liquid nitrogen. If the recycled gas, which is at -28F, were used to first cool the reactor
effluent before it is sent to the condenser, this would decrease the nitrogen required. Additionally,
since the recycled gas must be re-heated before entering the reactor, this would decrease the required
amount of steam for the process. These two changes have the potential to make the process profitable.

It is my recommendation that the optimization schemes be further evaluated before the design
proceeds. Additionally, before the design is complete, a more thorough safety analysis needs to be
completed on the project including a full risk assessment. Inherent safety needs to be explored in detail.
Finally, the prices of liquid nitrogen, MDEA, and waste processing need to be researched further to
ensure that correct values are used in the economic analysis.

Introduction
The AIChE National Design Competition for 2008 poses the challenge of converting coal to
methanol with a gasification process. The gasification of coal to produce methanol is proposed as a
method for storing energy as well as an intermediate for the chemicals industry.
A business opportunity exists due to the rapid rise in the price of crude oil in combination with
the increased demand for chemical feedstock. Crude oil is the primary source of feedstock for the
chemicals industry. These factors have further fueled the drive to find alternative sources of energy and
chemical feedstock. Coal gasification presents an opportunity in the United States because of the vast
supply of coal. According to the source, Beyond Oil & Gas: The Methanol Economy, the utilization of
methanol may provide a means for meeting the worlds future energy needs.
The goal of this study is to determine if a company can capitalize on this opportunity. The
company would design, construct, and operate a world-scale methanol production facility. To evaluate
the potential project, a complete technical and economic evaluation needed to be conducted. If the
project is found to be viable, the plant will be built in the Texas Gulf Coast. A flat thirty day time limit
has been imposed on the evaluation of the project. The evaluation includes a preliminary design of the
project as well as a study of the economic feasibility. On a more detailed level, the analysis considers
the objectives and limitations of the project. A strategy of approaching the problem was developed.
The scope also includes the identification of important commercial sourcing options. A primary part of
the analysis was to determine if the targeted performance is attainable. This was done through process
simulation. A base case of the design was simulated using Chemcad software. From the base case, the
major equipment was sized and the capital costs were estimated. These were used, along with the
annual expenses and revenues, to assess the economics of the project. Since most of the economic
variables are estimates, the sensitivity of the project on these variables was evaluated.
Safety is a primary consideration in any design. The safety was very briefly evaluated. Hazards
and operability studies were done on one hazard for each major unit operation. Layer of Protection
Analyses were done for one initiating event for each identified hazard. This was by no means an
adequate analysis of the safety of the entire process. But, it did provide some insight into the hazards
that are inherent in the process as well as the additional layers of protection that need to be added to
the design. Areas of concern have been identified for further analysis.
This report serves to make recommendations regarding the continuation of the project. Aspects
of the design that require further consideration are presented in this report. Safety aspects of the
proposed design are also outlined. In addition to providing findings from the study, the report also
serves to highlight what is still unknown about the process.
Design Basis
The coal feed for the gasification was to be chosen from three provided sources. They are
summarized in the following table with composition in weight percent:

Figure 2: Compositions of coal feeds available.

The other feeds to the process are oxygen from an off-site source and steam and water. The
following prices were given for the feeds:
Feed Prices
Coal
TX Lignite
WY Sub-Bituminous
IL Bituminous
Pre-Processing
Oxygen

Cost $/short
ton
$
15.20
$
10.60
$
32.00
$
40.00
$
70.00

Transportation
$/short ton
$
3.90
$
10.20
$
6.90
/short ton
/metric ton

Table 6: Prices of feeds to the process.

The synthesis gas from the gasifier will have sulfur compounds present. These need to be
removed before further processing of the gas because sulfur is a known catalyst poison. The sulfur must
be removed to 0.1ppmv or less. The technology chosen for removing the acid gas needs to have high
selectivity for hydrogen sulfide to carbon dioxide. This is because carbon dioxide can be used as a
reactant in methanol synthesis.
The final methanol product must meet AA methanol grade purity. It must be greater than
99.85wt% methanol on a dry basis. Also, there must be less than 0.1wt% water. Additionally, the
ethanol needs to be removed to 50ppmw or less. The selling price of the methanol is $320/metric ton.
The plant must be able to produce methanol on a world scale. The production capacity must be 5000
metric tons per day.
The plant will be built on a brown field site in the Texas Gulf Coast. Land purchase has been
neglected in the economic analysis. Utilities are available for the plant, raw water is available from
neighborhood resources, and electricity is available on the power grid. Off-site waste treatment is also
available and is assumed to be in compliance with environmental regulations. Utility costs have been
provided for most of the utilities that are needed. The following is a summary of the provided utility
costs.

Utilities
HHP Steam
HP Steam (400psig)
MP Steam (100psig)
LP Steam (50psig)
Electricity
Condensate
Cooling Water makeup
Process Water
Demin Water
Potable Water
Waste Water Treatment
TOC in Waste Water
Instrument Air
Bulk Liquids Waste Processing
Bulk Solids Waste Processing
Vents/Vapors Processing
Inert Gas

$26.00
$22.00
$19.00
$15.00
$0.07
$0.75
$1.10
$1.00
$3.00
$2.50
$1.00
$0.70
$0.45
$410.00
$325.00
$330.00
$0.35

/metric ton
/metric ton
/metric ton
/metric ton
/KWH
/metric ton
/Mgals
/Mgals
/Mgals
/Mgals
/Mgals
/lb TOC
/MCF
/metric ton
/metric ton
/metric ton
/MCF

Table 7: Summary of utility costs

Calculation Basis:
Reaction data was provided for the water-gas shift reaction as well as the methanol synthesis
reaction using carbon monoxide. The equilibrium data is the following:
CO + H2O CO2 + H2
CO +2H2 CH3OH

lnKp = -4.33 + 4577.8/T(K)

lnKp = -42.918 + 11284/T(K)

Additionally, I know that carbon dioxide can also be used to produce methanol. Supporting
evidence of this may found in the articles by Graaf et al. on the kinetics of methanol synthesis (see
references). These articles also provide equilibrium data for the three reactions that take place in the
methanol synthesis reactor. To determine that the data provided in the problem statement was
consistent with that in the article, I converted the units for the values of the equilibrium constant in the
article and took the natural log of these values. I then compared these with the given values of the
equilibrium constants for the water-gas shift reaction and the reaction of carbon monoxide to methanol
from the problem statement. These were found to be generally consistent. So, the equilibrium
constant for the reaction of carbon dioxide to methanol was taken from the article. This equilibrium
data is the following:
CO2 + 3H2 CH3OH + H2O

lnKp = -15.7 + 4095.9/T(K)

Ethanol is also created in the methanol synthesis reaction. It is made at a rate of one part
ethanol per one hundred parts methanol. From this, the kinetics of the reaction could be estimated.
However, since the effluent composition of ethanol is known, I just added that much to the feed of the
tower separating water from methanol. This was to ensure that enough of the ethanol could be
removed to meet the specifications. This was confirmed, so I decided that it wasnt necessary to
calculate the ethanol synthesis kinetics since the overall goal was to ensure that it was removed from
the product.
For simulations, the NRTL (Non-Random Two Liquid) model was used to determine K-values.
The problem statement says that this is to be used for the liquid phase equilibria. Since most of the
separations occur in the liquid phase, NRTL was used as the K-value model for the entire process. NRTL
calculates activity coefficients to account for non-ideality.
To determine which coal was the best value, I used the shipping, coal, and pre-processing costs
that were given on a per ton of coal (as received) basis. Using the coal compositions, I determined what
the costs of the coal were on a per ton dry basis as well as a per ton of carbon basis.
Simulation of the gasifier was done using the program Gasify which may be found on the
companion website for the book Gasification by Higman and Burgt, http://www.gasification.higman.de/.
The program uses a basis of one hundred kilograms of coal. This was scaled up to the desired quantity
of coal to determine the amount of the other feeds that were required and the amount of products. To
simplify the calculations, I assumed that all the ash is separated. I know that some ash will be carried
with the syngas. However most should be removed in the particulate filter following the gasifier so this
assumption should be okay.
It was recommended in the problem statement that an equilibrium reactor be used to simulate
the water-gas shift reaction. However, I was having difficulty obtaining a converged solution. So,
ultimately, I used a Gibbs reactor for this simulation. It found the conversion of the products by
minimizing Gibbs fee energy. The ratio of the products of this reaction was two to one hydrogen to
carbon monoxide on a molar basis based on the amount of hydrogen that is required for the carbon
monoxide reaction. However, it was later seen that due to the additional reaction of carbon dioxide
with hydrogen to produce methanol, it would have been advantageous to produce much more
hydrogen.
Chemcad was used for sizing the towers and heat exchangers since it has a convenient utility
that can size those pieces of equipment. The reactors were sized by hand. The gasifier was sized as a
vertical, cylindrical furnace due to the combustion reaction and the high temperatures involved. The
methanol synthesis and water-gas shift reactors were sized as vertical pressure vessels. The parameters
determined from the hand calculations were the design temperature, design pressure, height of vessel,
diameter of vessel, thickness, and allowable stress.
To cost the equipment, chemical engineering price indices were used. Construction of the plant
was slated to begin in 2009, so the price indices were projected to January 2009 based on trends from
February 2003 to June 2007. The costing utility in Chemcad was used to price the same equipment that

was sized with the software along with the flash vessel, compressor, and expander. The reactors were
priced by hand using design heuristics. These prices are all estimates and are only assumed to be
accurate within thirty percent.
Though there will be pressure drops in the lines, through the valves and equipment, and due to
height changes, these were not accounted for as they would just be estimates. There are pumps in the
process flow diagram, but it is likely these will either not be necessary or will need to be replaced with
compressors since the material is mostly gas. So, to account for the uncertainty, 10% of the capital cost
was added as stated above. This should be enough to add extra pumps or compressors as required.
Technology Selection & Criteria
There are a variety of different technologies available for gasification. The resource,
Gasification, provides a summary of those which are used in industry. The criteria I used in selecting the
technology was oxygen consumption, synthesis gas purity, carbon conversion, and the types of coal the
process could handle. I chose entrained flow as the general gasification process. It provides the highest
quality of synthesis gas and works with a variety of different coals. This is important so that if the coal
source must change, the process will still operate. Of the various technologies available for an entrained
flow process, I found the Noell/GSP gasifier to be the best suited for this project. The GSP process is
owned by Future Energy GmbH. Its unique characteristics are that it is top-fired with a single mounted
burner. So, all the reactants enter at the same place. This makes the equipment simpler and thus,
inherently safer than the alternative technologies. The cylindrical design allows for lower equipment
costs compared to the other available technologies. The slag (ash and particulates) leaves through the
same outlet as the synthesis gas. This decreases the potential for blockages to occur in the slag outlet.
A water quench is also incorporated into the design to quickly cool the gas to 900C while minimizing
contact with the walls of the reactor.
The effluent gas from the reactor will be sour, containing sulfur compounds. Therefore, the gas
must be treated in an acid gas removal process. Absorption is the most widely used process to remove
acid gas when succeeding coal gasification. To choose the best method of absorption, gas purity, raw
gas composition, and selectivity were considered. Chemical absorption onto a liquid solvent was chosen
because it has a higher loading capacity than physical absorption. N-methyl-diethanolamine, or MDEA,
was the solvent of choice because not only is it the most widely used in industry, but it is highly selective
to remove more hydrogen sulfide than carbon dioxide. Again, this is important considering carbon
dioxide is a reactant in the synthesis of methanol.
As was previously stated, the prices of the three different types of coal were compared on a per
carbon basis. The results may be seen in the following table.
Coal Source
As Received
Dry Basis
Carbon Basis

Martin Lake TX Lignite

$59.10/ton
$90.68/ton
$140.28/ton C

PRB Sub-Bituminous
$60.80/ton
$67.94/ton
$101.64/ton C

Illinois Bituminous
$78.90/ton
$90.69/ton
$115.18/ton C

Table 8: Summary of coal prices on a basis on a short ton of Carbon

In addition to price, the coal sources were compared considering energy densities and composition. The
PRB sub-bituminous coal was selected because it had the lowest sulfur content. Since the sulfur
ultimately must be removed to 0.1ppmv, this was an important factor. Additionally the PRB was the
best price for the quality of coal when compared on a per ton of carbon basis as well as on a dry basis.
Either a two or three-phase reactor system could be used for the methanol synthesis. Due to
the high concentration of carbon dioxide entering the reactor, I chose the three-phase model. The
three-phase model consumes more carbon dioxide in the reaction than does the two-phase model.
Following the concept of minimization for inherent safety, five reactors in series were actually used
rather than one very large reactor. The flowsheet shows only one, but it can be viewed as the overall
reaction system. Information comparing the two and three-phase models was found in the article
Comparison of two-phase and three-phase methanol synthesis processes by Graaf and Beenackers.
Process Analysis and Discussion
The block flow diagram on the following page provides a simplified view of the overall process.

The coal is fed along with steam and oxygen to the gasifier. Inside the gasifier, the coal is
combusted to produce synthesis gas. The gas is produced at 1500C but is also quenched with water
inside the gasifier. The outlet gas is at 900C. Any particulates that are in the gas are removed in a filter
following the gasifier. The hot gas is cooled in a synthesis gas cooler that simultaneously raises low
pressure steam from the cooling water. The cooled synthesis gas is sent to the acid gas removal system.
Absorption is used with MDEA as the solvent to remove the acid gas from the system. The sulfur
compounds are targeted for removal. The rich MDEA is then regenerated in a second tower using steam
as the stripping gas. A rich/lean heat exchanger is used to cool the lean MDEA that is recycled to the
absorber and to heat the rich MDEA that is fed to the stripper. Along with water, the sweetened gas is
then fed to the water-gas shift reactor. This reacts carbon monoxide and water to form carbon dioxide
and hydrogen. Enough hydrogen should be created to provide a minimum ratio of two to one hydrogen
to carbon monoxide. Three-phase methanol synthesis is used in the next step. The gas from the watergas shift reactor is combined with recycled un-reacted gas from the methanol synthesis. It is then
heated to 530K and fed to the synthesis reactor. As mentioned previously, this is actually a system of
five reactors in series. The reactor effluent is cooled and compressed to lower the vapor fraction.
Following, it is sent to a flash vessel where the methanol and water are removed along with some
carbon dioxide. A fraction of the remaining material is purged to prevent buildup and the rest is
recycled back to the feed of the reactor. The methanol stream is sent to the refining and purification
system. This consists of two distillation towers. In the first tower, water is removed from the methanol
out the bottoms as waste. The distillate from this tower is primarily methanol and carbon dioxide. This
stream is sent to the second tower where carbon dioxide is removed in the distillate as waste. The
bottoms of this tower is the methanol product. This process can be seen in more detail in the process
flow diagram on the following pages. A control scheme has been developed for the process to act as a
safeguard against excursions. The controls may also be seen in the process flow diagram.

The compositions and properties of all the streams in the flowsheet may be seen in the
following material balance. The streams shaded brown are removed from the process and the streams
shaded blue are fed. Not all stream properties are known because the process wasnt tied together in
the simulator and pumps were not simulated. The specifications made for the material balance were
found through simulation and may also be seen on the following pages. Temperatures are in degrees
Fahrenheit and pressures are in psia.

The energy balance summarizes the heat exchanger duties and the gasifier duty. It may be seen
below.

Equipment #
Equipment Name
Utility Used
Duty (MMBtu/hr)

D-101
Gasifier
Gas
6083

Energy Balance
E-101
E-201
Syngas cooler
Rich/lean exchanger
Cooling Water
N/A
-125.2
1042

Equipment #
Equipment Name
Utility Used
Duty (MMBtu/hr)

E-402
N2 Cooler
N2
-583

E-501
T501 Condenser
Cooling Water
-33.5

E-502
T501 Reboiler
Steam
20.1

E-301
D301 Preheat
Steam
21.5

E-401
D401 Preheat
Steam
146.3

E-503
T502 Condenser
Cooling Water
-21.9

E-504
T502 Reboiler
Steam
45.7

Table 10: Summary of heat provided to or removed from the process.

The major equipment has been sized and priced. The pumps and drums were neglected at this
point and just assumed to be ten percent of the calculated capital cost. Additionally, control systems
were just assumed to be ten percent of the total capital costs. Equipment summaries and equipment
costs may be seen below.

Name

trays

T-201 (2)
T-202
T-501
T-502

AGR Absorber
Stripper
W Removal
CO2 Removal

40
35
44
10

Towers
spacing
Passes
(ft)

diameter
op. pressure
height (ft)
(ft)
(psia)

3
2
2.5 / 2
2

19
32.5
22
14

3
3
1
1

136
86
114.5
36

120
30
30
30

Table 11: Equipment summaries, towers.

Reactors
#

Name

D-101
D-301
D-401

Gasifier
Water-Gas Shift
MeOH Synthesis

volume length
diameter
design
design T Allowable
(ft3)
(ft)
(ft)
P (psia) (psia)
Stress (psia)
10000
110
11
508
3000
26750
37.8
30
95
710
21600
5900
32
16
80
600
16920
Table 12: Equipment summaries, reactors.

Heat Exchangers
#

Name

E-101
E-201
E-301
E-401
E-402
E-501
E-502
E-503
E-504

Syngas cooler (2)

Rich/Lean Exch.
D301 Preheat
D401 Preheat (2)
N2 Cooler
T-501 Cond
T-501 Reboil
T-502 Cond
T-502 Reboil

req'd
area (ft2)
12018
18635
748.9
22223
45386
1952
899
1440
780

Utility
CW
Process
Steam
Steam
N2
CW
Steam
N2
Steam

Duty
(MMBtu/hr) T (F)
-125.2
350
1042
71
21.5
75
146.3
214
-583
900
-33.5
4
20.1
0.5
-21.9
80
45.7
0

Table 13: Equipment summaries, heat exchangers.

#
J-102
J-203 (2)
C-401

Pump/Compressor/Expander
Name
hp
P (psi)
Expander
Lean MDEA Pump
Compressor

-35216
1086
96900

-315
90
120

Table 14: Equipment summaries, pressure exchangers.

Equipment Costs
Equipment
#
D-101
J-102
T-201a
T-201b
E-101
E-201
T-202
J-203 (2)
E-301
D-301
E-401
D-401 (5)
C-401
E-402
F-401
T-501
E-501
E-502
T-502
E-503
E-504

Equipment Name
Gasifier
Expander
AGR Absorber
AGR Absorber
Syngas cooler (2)
Rich/Lean Exch.
Stripper
Lean MDEA Pump
D301 Preheat
H2O-Gas Shift
D401 Preheat (2)
MeOH Syn React.
Compressor
N2 Cooler
Separator
Refining
T-501 Cond
T-501 Reboil
CO2 Removal
T-502 Cond
T-502 Reboil

Cost
Module
Contingency
Working
Index Factor
Base Cost
Fee
Capital
Total Cost
754.4
4.34
$5,816,961
$1,047,053
$686,401
$7,550,415
941
3.21 $184,359,904
$33,184,783 $21,754,469 $239,299,155
754.4
4.34
$4,919,996
$885,599
$580,560
$6,386,155
754.4
4.34
$4,919,996
$885,599
$580,560
$6,386,155
806.7
3.39
$649,216
$116,859
$76,607
$842,682
806.7
3.39
$1,877,210
$337,898
$221,511
$2,436,619
754.4
4.34
$32,078,802
$5,774,184
$3,785,299 $41,638,285
941
3.48
$585,534
$105,396
$69,093
$760,023
806.7
3.39
$90,228
$16,241
$10,647
$117,116
754.4
4.34
$4,476,713
$805,808
$528,252
$5,810,773
806.7
3.39
$2,866,160
$515,909
$338,207
$3,720,276
754.4
4.34
$11,361,544
$2,045,078
$1,340,662 $14,747,284
941
3.21
$67,835,016
$12,210,303
$8,004,532 $88,049,851
806.7
3.39
$4,434,939
$798,289
$523,323
$5,756,551
754.4
2.39
$3,464,757
$623,656
$408,841
$4,497,255
754.4
4.34
$7,901,236
$1,422,222
$932,346 $10,255,804
806.7
3.39
$192,804
$34,705
$22,751
$250,260
806.7
3.39
$60,938
$10,969
$7,191
$79,098
754.5
2.39
$1,305,816
$235,047
$154,086
$1,694,949
806.7
3.39
$149,481
$26,907
$17,639
$194,026
806.7
3.39
$92,943
$16,730
$10,967
$120,640
Total Investment: $440,593,371
Table 15: Summary of equipment costs.

The utilities used in the process were steam, liquid nitrogen, and cooling water. Low pressure
steam was created from the synthesis gas cooler so this was subtracted from the low pressure steam
used in the process. A summary of utility usage and costs may be found in the economic analysis of
annual expenditures on the following pages.
The economic analysis shows that the base case design is not profitable. Many of the costs used
were estimates or are likely to change over the life of the plant. Some of the economic variables were
studied to determine the impact that changes would have on the economics. Alone, none of the
variables have the weight to substantially alter the economic analysis. However, together if a group of
prices or values of consumption is actually lower than predicted, this could possibly make the project
economical. The nitrogen usage or price must substantially decrease. This will be discussed further with
optimization schemes. A summary of the annual expenditures, revenues, and discounted cash flow
analysis may be seen below.

Consumption
Coal (lb)
Oxygen (lb)

Annual Expenditures
Hour
Day
Year
542591.807 13022203.36 4753104226
276803.21 6643277.043 2424796121

Process Water (lb)

LP Steam (lb)
MP Steam (lb)
HP Steam (lb)
HHP Steam (lb)
Electricity (KW)
Cooling Water Makeup (lb)
Waste Water Treatment (lb)
Bulk Liquid Waste Proc. (lb)
Vents/Vapors Processing (lb)
MDEA (lb)
N2

286000
90528.9728
0
0
157706.4
48299.7347
10000
1331705.53
110202.689
446203.307
11282.0691
5634512.5

6864000 2505360000
2172695.348 793033802
0
0
0
0
3784953.6 1381508064
1159193.633 423105676
240000
87600000
31960932.71 1.1666E+10
2644864.539 965375557
10708879.36 3908740968
270769.6579 98830925.1
135228300 4.9358E+10
Sum

Yearly Value
144,494,368
75,774,879

$
$
$
300,804
$
5,310,494
$
$
$
16,035,361
$
29,617,397
$
11,569
$
1,400,638
$
176,698,205
$
575,841,303
$
74,123,194
$
1,628,824,874
$
2,728,433,087

Table 16: Annual expenditures and operating costs.

Income/Credits
Methanol (lb)

Hour
456817

Annual Revenues
Day
Year
10963601.85
4001714674

Yearly Value
$ 571,673,524.91

Table 17: Annual income from methanol production.

Capital Investment
Costed Equipment
$ 440,593,371
Estimates for
pumps/ drums
Control Systems
Total

$
$
$

44,059,337
48,465,271
533,117,979

Table 18: Estimated capital expenditure required for project.

Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Expenses
$533,117,979
$2,826,279,619
$2,910,588,201
$2,997,426,041
$3,086,869,016
$3,178,995,280
$3,273,885,332
$3,371,622,086
$3,472,290,943
$3,575,979,865
$3,682,779,455
$3,792,783,032
$3,906,086,717
$4,022,789,512
$4,142,993,391
$4,266,803,387
$4,394,327,682
$4,525,677,707
$4,660,968,232
$4,800,317,472
$4,943,847,190

Discounted Cash Flow

Revenues
Depreciation
$0
$0
$588,823,731 $35,541,199
$606,488,443 $35,541,199
$624,683,096 $35,541,199
$643,423,589 $35,541,199
$662,726,296 $35,541,199
$682,608,085 $35,541,199
$703,086,328 $35,541,199
$724,178,918 $35,541,199
$745,904,285 $35,541,199
$768,281,414 $35,541,199
$791,329,856 $35,541,199
$815,069,752 $35,541,199
$839,521,844 $35,541,199
$864,707,500 $35,541,199
$890,648,725 $35,541,199
$917,368,186
$0
$944,889,232
$0
$973,235,909
$0
$1,002,432,986
$0
$1,032,505,976
$0

Taxes
($213,247,192)
($909,198,835)
($935,856,383)
($963,313,657)
($991,594,650)
($1,020,724,073)
($1,050,727,378)
($1,081,630,783)
($1,113,461,289)
($1,146,246,711)
($1,180,015,696)
($1,214,797,750)
($1,250,623,265)
($1,287,523,547)
($1,325,530,836)
($1,364,678,344)
($1,390,783,798)
($1,432,315,390)
($1,475,092,929)
($1,519,153,794)
($1,564,536,486)

Profit
($319,870,788)
($1,328,257,053)
($1,368,243,376)
($1,409,429,288)
($1,451,850,777)
($1,495,544,911)
($1,540,549,869)
($1,586,904,976)
($1,634,650,736)
($1,683,828,868)
($1,734,482,345)
($1,786,655,426)
($1,840,393,699)
($1,895,744,121)
($1,952,755,055)
($2,011,476,318)
($2,086,175,697)
($2,148,473,085)
($2,212,639,393)
($2,278,730,692)
($2,346,804,729)

Table 19: Annual discounted cash flow analysis.

As can be seen from the annual expenditures, one large cost is bulk vapor waste processing.
This primarily comes from the waste of T-502 where methanol is separated from carbon dioxide. To
substantially decrease this cost, I recommend using the waste carbon dioxide in production of methanol.
Since little carbon monoxide is present, it would be difficult to generate hydrogen using the water-gas
shift reaction. So, hydrogen will need to be purchased for this reaction. Using this carbon dioxide to
produce methanol would decrease the amount of feed that is required for the process because more
methanol could be made from the same amount of coal fed. The produced methanol can be recycled to
towers 501 and 502 for refining and purification. The rest of the process, however, would see decreased
flow rates due to the decreased feed. This would help to lower both capital and operating costs.
Particularly, it might lower the amount of liquid nitrogen that is required to cool the methanol synthesis
effluent. This change would decrease costs in multiple ways. Additionally, it would minimize the
amount of material and energy that is contained within the process because of the smaller flow rates.
This would make the process inherently safer because a smaller amount of hazardous material would be
in the inventory.

It is unclear whether this change would be enough to make the project economical. An
additional way to improve the process would be to integrate the heat in section 400 of the process flow
diagram. Since the recycled gas is cold, about -28F, and will eventually be heated, it makes sense to use
it as a first step in cooling the reactor effluent. This would decrease the amount of liquid nitrogen that is
required to cool the effluent as well as the amount of steam required to pre-heat the feed to the
reactor.
A brief and limited process safety analysis was conducted. The analysis was limited to one
hazard for each major unit operation and one initiating event per hazard identified. Many additional
safety systems will need to be added when a more detailed design is constructed. All of the major unit
operations have the threat of over-pressure and vessel rupture. This is of particular concern with the
reactors where runaway is a possibility. Therefore, rupture disks or relief valves need to be
incorporated into the design. Since the reactions have the potential to runaway, high temperature and
pressure alarms should be added. These should be on a separate system from the basic process control
system so that they may serve as an independent layer of protection. Control valves have already been
incorporated into the design so these can also act as a layer of protection in most cases. It is likely when
a more thorough analysis is conducted, more control valves will be added to the process. Though it will
not serve as an independent layer of protection because it is tied to the basic process control system,
external cooling to the reactors should be added as an additional safeguard against runaway. Due to the
large quantities of material in the process, any release could potentially be a category five. For this
reason, I recommend invoking inherent safety measures wherever possible. This is why recovering and
reusing the carbon dioxide waste is of particular interest. Reducing inventories in the process should be
a top concern when further evaluating the project. As was stated, this was a very limited safety analysis.
Further analysis should not only be conducted on the remaining equipment, but also on the hazards and
initiating events that werent studied for the major process equipment.
Conclusions & Recommendations
The base case design for the project is not profitable. However, the optimization schemes show
potential for the project to become economically sound. These need to be explored further and in
greater detail before a decision is made regarding the continuation of the project. The safety of the
project should also be explored more thoroughly. A full risk assessment needs to be completed. The
risk analysis that has been conducted shows that the unmitigated risks are high. This is primarily due to
the quantity of both material and energy contained in the process. The inventory of hazardous material
and energy needs to be minimized as much as possible to increase the inherent safety of the process.
Some of the larger reactors and towers should be split, if possible, to reduce the consequence of an
incident, should one occur.
A study of the sensitivity of the economics shows that some values need to be determined more
accurately. The MDEA and liquid nitrogen prices were estimated from online resources. These, in
particular need to be determined more accurately through contact with a provider of these materials.
Before a final decision is made on whether or not a company can capitalize on the opportunity, more
analysis needs to be completed.

References
1. C. Higman and M. van der Burgt, Gasification, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003.
2. G.H. Graaf and A.A.C.M. Beenackers, Comparison of two-phase and three-phase methanol
synthesis processes, Chemical Engineering and Processing 35 (1996) pages 413-427.
3. G.H. Graaf, E.J. Stamhuis, and A.A.C.M. Beenackers, Kinetics of low-pressure methanol
synthesis, Chemical Engineering Science 43 (1988) pages 3185-3195.
4. G.M. Graaf, J.G.M. Winkelmand, E.J. Stamhuis, and A.A.C.M. Beenackers, Kinetics of the threephase methanol synthesis, Chemical Engineering Science 43 (1988) pages 2161-2168.
5. Green, Don W. and Robert H. Perry. 2007. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 8th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.

Appendices
1. Problem Statement
2. Simulation Run Logs
3. Calculations