NAMS Presentation 20b NAMS 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania May 14, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NAMS Presentation 20b

NAMS 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania May 14, 2019

NAMS 2019 Paper 20b

Hybrid Distillation and Facilitated Transport Membrane Processes for C3 Splitter Debottlenecking

Kenneth Pennisi, Christine Parrish, Sudip Majumdar Compact Membrane Systems

2

Today’s Agenda

3

• Overview of OptipermTM Technology
• Basis of the economic analysis and process

background

• Simulation and Economic Analysis Results

Overview of OptipermTM Technology

4

Latest technology focuses on olefin-paraffin separation

OLEFINS PARAFFINS

Petrochemical raw material Fuels

CRUDE OIL NGL’s

5

6

Distillation is incumbent technology and current workhorse

LARGE CAPEX ENERGY INTENSIVE FIXED, INFLEXIBLE

Optiperm™ membrane is a disruptive technology for O-P separations

Custom fluoropoly mer and Ag+ Adapted from Cussler E.L.: Facilitated Transport. In: Membrane Separation Systems, vol. 2, US DOE Report, DOE/ER/30133-H1 (1990)

Olefin Paraffin Silver (Ag+) carrier

7

Implications of facilitated transport membrane

• Humidity is required
• Permeance and selectivity are not constant
• Permeance decreases with increasing pressure
• CMS membranes are fluoropolymer based so they

can withstand harsh chemical environment

8

Basis of Analysis and Process Background

9

Goals

10

• Unload the column by introducing membranes
• The olefin rich product held fixed at polymer grade

propylene

• The bottoms product held fixed at HD-5 propane
• Simulate membrane behavior to determine the
• ptimum place for membrane installation
• Understand how much increased capacity could

be gained by using a hybrid system

Basis of Analysis

11

• Debottleneck base case distillation processing

388,000 tons per year of feed

• Feed stream contains 70% propylene and is

saturated with water

• The process was modeled using Symmetry

integrated with CMS proprietary membrane models

• Internal rates of return calculated from incremental

costs and incremental production rates

Typical high pressure distillation

12

• 150 trays
• Reported corresponding reflux ratio is 20
• Symmetry distillation model agrees within 10%
• Top product at 240 psia, 103° F
• Bottom product 250 psia, 122° F

Distillation/Membrane Hybrid Processes Evaluated

Configuration 1: Membrane at top

Enriched

• lefin product

Paraffin rich recycle Membrane feed from distillate Mixed O/P Feed Permeate Retentate

• Permeate is the product (Polymer-grade propylene)
• Unload the column by decreasing the olefin concentration

at the top and using the membrane to take the product to polymer grade propylene

• Still making HD-5 propane at the bottom

13

Configuration 2: Membrane at bottom

Enriched paraffin product Olefin rich recycle Membrane feed from bottom Mixed O/P Feed Permeate Retentate

• Retentate is the product (HD5 propane)
• Unload the column by decreasing the paraffin

concentration at the bottom and using the membrane to take the product to HD-5 propane

• Still making polymer grade propylene at the distillate (top)

14

Simulation and Economic Analysis Results

15

Configuration 1 Membrane at the top (Distillate)

16

(Distillate propylene mole fraction)

Below a certain distillate composition, cost and recycle rate increase dramatically for membrane at column top

17 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 Total Annual Cost (MM$) Ratio of Molar Recycle Flow to Baseline Molar Feed Flow Membrane Feed Propylene Mole Fraction

Base Case Column Distillate

Flow 20 alpha TAC 20 alpha Flow 10 alpha TAC 10 alpha Total annual cost (TAC) = Opex + amortized capex

IRR has maximum point for membrane at column top depending on membrane selectivity

18 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 IRR and Capacity Gain Membrane Feed Propylene Mole Fraction IRR Alpha 10 IRR Alpha 20 Capacity Gain Alpha 20 Capacity Gain Alpha 10

Configuration 2 Membrane at the bottom

19

20

Cost and recycle rate increase as bottoms propylene composition increases for membrane at column bottom

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Total Annual Cost (MM$) Ratio of Molar Recycle Flow to Molar Baseline Feed Flow Membrane Feed Propylene Mole Fraction TAC 10 alpha Flow 10 alpha TAC 20 alpha Flow 20 alpha Base Case Column Bottom Product Total annual cost (TAC) = Opex + amortized capex (Bottoms propylene mole fraction)

21

IRR decreases for membrane at column bottom as propylene in bottom product increases

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 IRR and Capacity Gain Membrane Feed Propylene Mole Fraction IRR Alpha 20 IRR Alpha 10 Capacity Gain Alpha 10 Capacity Gain Alpha 20

Comparison of the configurations

22

Comparison of achievable capacity gains and IRRs for two distillation/membrane hybrid configurations

23 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99

Capacity Gain IRR Propylene Mole Fraction in Membrane Feed

Column Bottoms Feed to Membrane Configuration 2 Column Distillate Feed to Membrane Configuration 1 Expected membrane selectivity is 20 Expected membrane selectivity is 10

Membrane retrofit requires less capital investment than column replacement and provides superior returns

Regime 1: Low investment, put membrane at bottom for up to 13% capacity gain Regime 2: Moderate investment, put membrane at top for up to 28% capacity gain Regime 3: Large investment, new column, membranes are not yet practical 10 20 30 40 50 0% 30% 60% 90% 120% 150% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Installed Capital Cost (MM$)

Internal Rate of Return Capacity Gain

New Column IRR Membrane at Top IRR Membrane at Bottom IRR New Column CAPEX Membrane at Top CAPEX Membrane at Bottom CAPEX 24

Concluding remarks

• OptipermTM membranes are a cost effective means of

increasing C3 splitter capacity up to about 28%.

• For capacity increases in the range of 13% to 28%, the

membranes should be installed at the column top.

• For capacity increases up to 13%, the membranes should

be installed at the bottom of the column. Possible future work:

• Membrane expansion at both top and bottom of column

25

Thank you for Attending! Questions?

Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the US Department of Energy through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Awards

26