The production of propylene from propane is becoming increasingly important. Catalytic propane dehydrogenation (PDH) is the major on-purpose propylene production process today. The conventional PDH process has a relatively high energy consumption (6.1–9.4 kWh/kg C3H6) which results in high direct CO2 emissions and modest propylene yield (0.8–0.9 kg C3H6/kg C3H8). A bromine-mediated propane oxidative dehydrogenation process (Br-ODH) is evaluated in this techno-economic study which can potentially improve both the process energy efficiency and product yield. To investigate the Br-ODH process feasibility, a heat integrated process model was designed using Aspen Plus® V12 for a 450 kta propylene facility using reaction data from the literature. The partial oxidation of propane under bromine limited conditions selectively produces a propylbromide intermediate which can be readily separated from propane. Propylbromide undergoes dehydrobromination under relatively mild conditions to produce the propylene product in a second step. Bromine is regenerated by conversion of the hydrogen bromide byproduct either thermochemically or electrochemically. Due to the current interest in use of renewable electricity in chemical processes, the electrochemical regeneration process was evaluated in this study. Based on the model, the Br-ODH process can achieve approximately 10% higher propylene yield with 37% lower utilities than conventional PDH. However, the use of high-cost electrolyzers resulted in the capital investment increasing by approximately 11%. Capital cost was also increased due to the requirements of high alloy materials of construction for the potentially corrosive halogen containing equipment. The sensitivity analysis showed that the production cost was most sensitive to the propane price. For the electrolyzer-based regeneration process the capital cost was found to be key parameter that might limit competition with conventional PDH; however, the development of a commercial thermochemical HBr oxidation process analogous to the Deacon process for chlorine would likely bring significant cost savings.
Read full abstract