Impact of Kinetic Models on Methanol Synthesis Reactor Predictions: In Silico Assessment and Comparison with Industrial Data

Filippo Bisotti,Kristiano Prifti,Andrea Galeazzi,Flavio Manenti,Anna Dell’Angelo,Matteo Fedeli

doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.1c04476

Filippo Bisotti, Kristiano Prifti + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c04476

Copy DOI

Abstract

The reactor is one of the most important equipment to be designed for optimal process operations. An appropriate reactor modeling leads to an efficient and optimal process conceptual design, simulation, and eventually construction. The key for success in this step is mainly related to kinetics. The present work is centered toward process simulation and aims at comparing three different kinetic models for methanol synthesis. The comparison shows how the refitted Graaf model, presented in a previous study, effectively predicts the performance of modern methanol synthesis loops. To pursue this objective, we simulated in Aspen HYSYS three methanol synthesis technologies (the most popular technologies in modern plants) and compared the results with industrial data. The proposed case study demonstrates that the refitted Graaf model is more accurate in output prediction than the well-established original Graaf and Vanden Bussche–Froment models, which are currently considered the industrial benchmark, thus showing how the refitted Graaf model is a potential candidate for future industrial applications.

Highlights

INTRODUCTION A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON THEMETHANOL SYNTHESIS KINETICS AND REACTOR TECHNOLOGIESI t is well known that an appropriate thermodynamic toolbox selection benefits the accuracy and reliability of the process design.[1−3] This step positively influences the process optimization and control.[4−6] an accurate kinetic model enables us to properly configure and define the downstream for the product purification
It is important to remark that CO2 capture and storage (CCS) through compression and storage is a costly alternative, which is unavoidable for production sites that are very isolated or not well integrated in a production network.[17,18]
The boiling water (Boiling Water) continuously evaporates, generating saturated steam (Steam out) while reaction heat (Heat) release occurs within the tubes filled with catalyst powders (LURGI)

Summary

BWR BWR

Catalyst location tube side shell side shell side double pipe (annular) shell side fixed bed shell side (GCR) and tube side (BWR). This is possible thanks to the liquid (slurry)−liquid (boiling water) heat exchanger, which exhibits a higher heat transfer coefficient with respect to the conventional fixed-bed heat exchangers.[69,80] On the other hand, it incurs higher investment costs due to larger volume since the slurry solution maximum catalyst loading is 50% w/ w It presents some difficulties in the product recovery.[66] as Beenackers highlights,[70] the two main disadvantages related to the slurry technology are the downstream separation and the pressure management. AActivation energy are expressed in J/mol, P in bar, and T in K. bFugacity estimated using the SRK equation of state

■ METHODS

Cold Shot Flows

ICI design

■ CONCLUSIONS

■ REFERENCES