ENERGY Design PROJECT
(EGEE 464w)

This course focuses on one or more design projects in Energy and Fuels Engineering. These projects integrate the material covered previously in separate courses of the EFE/ChE curriculum: material and energy balances, thermodynamics, kinetics, transport phenomena, reaction engineering and economic analysis. The integration is necessary to achieve two goals:
(a) design (at least conceptually) or analyze (in some detail) a state-of-the-art process;
(b) define and solve a specific EFE problem.

The emphasis in this collaborative-learning, teamwork-oriented course is on knowledge integration and problem solving.

Spring 2008 syllabus

Teamwork

Too often we are witnesses of the following misguided notion about teamwork: John does Subtask 1.1, Mary does Subtask 1.2 and Carlos does Subtask 1.3; and when time comes to write the report on Task 1, all John, Mary and Carlos have to do is prepare a cover and staple their individual subtask reports.

Effective teamwork, and genuine collaboration, requires the following:

(a) Healthy dose of overlap between what John, Mary and Carlos do: e.g., important calculations need to be double- and triple-checked; the approach taken in each one of the subtasks must be discussed by all group members.

(b) Equitable division of labor into easily “digestible” units (“subtasks”)

Warm-up exercise (in team building, tool development, task and subtask definition, and "conflict resolution"):

Design of reactor for coal conversion to nonpolluting fuel oil. (Makes economic sense at $100/bbl? Familiar with "Tata nano"? How is the one related to the other?)

Note: On p912 Peters et al. (2003) state the following: "The original problems and winning solutions are available from the New York AIChE headquarters". Really?

Exercise in teamwork (see above): "Trust but verify!" (Task 1, see below!)

-Team 1 (mza122, shf5002, jzl150, reo5001, cdv118): Economic prefeasibility study of the process described above.

-Team 2 (drk5000, mwm5001, whm5001, jwp181, jdw286): Analysis of a PFR using both HYSYS and Mathematica

-Team 3 (mka130, raj5001, cjr5005, jtr5005): Analysis of a PMFR (CSTR) using both HYSYS and Mathematica

-Team 4 (grk123, jdl242, msl198, ...): Energy balance analysis

Note: Each team (member) will have to verify the material balances provided by Peters et al. (Problem #13).

Comparison: PFR vs. CSTR (PMFR)

Here is a very preliminary analysis of a coal desulfurization PFR. As part of Task 1, each group should provide a CORRECTED version of this analysis.

For a HYSYS PFR/MFR tutorial, see of course the software manual... But it's not VERY helpful... Is it? Therefore, see also, for example, R. P. Hesketh's example at rowan.edu... Can you find it? Do you agree that under isothermal conditions, in a PFR at 500 ^oC (with all the other parameters at their default values) the conversion of ethylbenzene to styrene is 76.7%, if (and this may be too big an if!?) one is capable of supplying 14.4 MW of heat? If the PFR operates adiabatically with the feed at 500 ^oC, do you agree that EB conversion drops to 26.9%? Here is a tentative comparison between a 'manual' solution and the HYSYS solution; be prepared to discuss the (dis)agreements!

Be prepared to discuss (also) the results of the L-H tutorial available on the following web site: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chbe403/hysys/pfex.htm. This example is important in its own right, for the future of the "hydrogen economy". (Why?) Do its kinetic parameters "make sense"? For example, E_a1=1.849e8 J/mol?! See this spreadsheet, as a first attempt to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in this important template for our Problem #13.)

Evaluation criteria for the written report:

-Organization of material (Table of contents, figures, tables, introduction, objectives, conclusions, etc.)

-Quantity of tables/figures (presentation of results)

-Quality of tables/figures (discussion of results)

-Use and relevance of references

-Sentence clarity, organization, spelling

-Clarity of conclusions (if problem not solved, say so and document effort)

-Agreement between objectives and conclusions

Evaluation criteria for the oral presentation:

-Organization of material (transition from topic to topic, from person to person, etc.)

-Quality of visual aids

-Clarity of objectives

-Agreement between objectives and subtasks

-Explanation of findings

-Clarity of conclusions

-Degree of interaction with the instructor

-Evidence of teamwork

Here are the up-to-date group evaluations.

Excel template for (rudimentary?) economic analysis Comparable to (or how different from) the spreadsheet available on the textbook web site?

Semester Project: Prefeasibility study of coal desulfurization (liquefaction) including CO₂ capture and SO₂ removal.

-Task 1: A more detailed technical analysis and preliminary economic analysis of Problem 13 (Peters et al., 2003).

Subtask 1.1: Energy balance (Group 4)

Subtask 1.1.1: Temperature dependence of relevant C_p values and determination of relevant DH_rxn values (Grant)

Subtask 1.1.2: H/C of reactant(s) and/or products vs. DH_rxn, including comparison with relevant literature (John)

Subtask 1.1.3: Heat exchanger, PFR and recycle analysis using HYSYS (Mark)

Subtask 1.2: Analysis of desulfurization and liquefaction in a PFR (Group 2)

Subtask 1.2.1: Mass balance including catalyst activity and reaction kinetics (John and Wyatt)

Subtask 1.2.2: Reactor optimization including coal characterization (Dylan)

Subtask 1.2.3: Analysis of reactor volume using Mathematica (Joe)

Subtask 1.2.4: Analysis of reactor volume using HYSYS (Matthew)

Subtask 1.3: Analysis of desulfurization and liquefaction in a CSTR (Group 3)

Subtask 1.3.1: Detailed analysis of effect of conversion on the performance of CSTR and PFR (Jason)

Subtask 1.3.2: HYSYS analysis of CSTR (Chris)

Subtask 1.3.3: Effects of recycle on product yield and quality (Ryan)

Subtask 1.3.4: Catalyst effects on kinetics of desulfurization and liquefaction (Mansoor)

Subtask 1.4: Preliminary economic analysis of a coal to pumpable fuel oil process (Group 1)

Subtask 1.4.1: Analysis of reactor configuration (Sheila/Mohammed)

Subtask 1.4.2: Feasibility of hydroprocessing (Ricardo)

Subtask 1.4.3: Reactor economics (Cherie)

Subtask 1.4.4: Overall process economics (Christina)

Pending (?) issues related to the Peters et al. (2003) solution of Problem #13:

-If the reactor were a packed bed, what would be its pressure drop? If it's not a packed bed, is PFR or CSTR a better model for it?

-Is an average molwt of 301 consistent with the C/H ratio of the product?

-On p930 it says that "Total H used = 75.69 lb H". Is this correct? In Table C-17 the sulfur difference is given as 68.87 lb. Is this correct?

-p932: What are the units of 359 and 492 in the expression (359)(520)/492? (The former should be R and the latter P... Right?)

-Any others?

-Task 2: A more detailed economic analysis of Problem 13 (comparison with standard power plant and oil refinery economics, as well as with the Shenhua project).

Subtask 2.1 (Group 1): Analysis of key economic issues and parameters (Peters et al., 2003; etc.)

*Proposed individual assignments:

-Tutorial using a solved example (e.g., from Peters et al., 2003)

-Effect of plant size on capital cost

-Effect of product distribution on capital cost

-Effect of coal, catalyst and H₂ price on operating costs

-Effects of financial constraints on plant profitability

Subtask 2.2 (Group 2): Analysis of a power plant (IAPCS, etc.)

*Proposed individual assignments:

-IAPCS analysis of a power plant (energy-equivalent to 50,000 bbl/day)

-Comparable spreadsheet analysis of a power plant

-Effect of power plant size on capital cost

-Effect of coal price on operating costs

-Effect of financial constraints on plant profitability

Subtask 2.3 (Group 3): Analysis of an oil refinery

*Proposed individual assignments:

-Comparable spreadsheet analysis of an oil refinery

-Effect of plant size on capital cost

-Effect of price of raw materials on operating costs

-Effect of financial constraints on plant profitability

Subtask 2.4 (Group 4): Analysis of an air pollution control device (CUECost, IAPCS, etc.)

*Proposed individual assignments:

-CUECost analysis of FGD

-IAPCS analysis of IGCC

-Simple spreadsheet analysis of FGD

-Task 3: Techno-economic analysis of direct coal liquefaction: written reports due by midnight, 04/07 (group meetings to be held during the day, if necessary); oral presentations to be made 04/08 (groups 3 and 4) and 04/09 (groups 1 and 2).

Group 1

Subtask 3.1: Raw materials and utilities

Subtask 3.2: Optimization of plant location

Subtask 3.3: Refining (hydrotreatment) equipment

Subtask 3.4: Overall economic feasibility

Appendix 1. Critical analysis of a graph from the reports of group 2, 3 or 4.

Group 2

Subtask 3.1: Raw materials and utilities
Subtask 3.2: Hydrogenation (dissolution) equipment
Subtask 3.3: Refining (hydrotreatment) equipment
Subtask 3.4: Optimization of plant location

Appendix 1. Critical analysis of a graph from the reports of group 1, 3 or 4.

Group 3

Subtask 3.1: Raw materials

Subtask 3.2: Hydrogenation (dissolution) equipment

Subtask 3.3: Refining (hydrotreatment) equipment

Appendix 1. Critical analysis of a graph from the reports of group 1, 2 or 4.

Group 4

Subtask 3.1: Raw materials and utilities

Subtask 3.2: Hydrogenation (dissolution) equipment

Subtask 3.3: Refining (hydrotreatment) equipment

Appendix 3.1. Critical analysis of a graph from the reports of group 1, 2 or 3.

Here and here is an example of a reasonably thorough techno-economic analysis -- taken from the Seider et al. process design textbook (2004) -- as a possible ‘template’ for the outcome of our Task 3 activities.

On labor costs, apart from the information provided in Peters et al. (2003), here is a similar and a bit more detailed analysis from another standard textbook.

Pending issues after Task 3 reports:

-Group 3:

-Is the ratio of costs of H₂ generation to liquefaction in agreement with the NETL ICL results and with Group 4 results? (If not, why not?)

-How different from, or similar to, gasoline is 'naphtha'?

-Is the relatively high cost of H₂ production a consequence of an 'unrealistic' estimate of H₂ consumption? Does your reaction stoichiometry agree with that of Group 4?

-Annual revenues of $1.95B seem high... What product selling price(s) are they based on?

-Group 4:

-Is the liquefaction reactor REALLY that expensive? How much more expensive is it than the F.T. reactor? Should it be much more expensive?

-Given the level of uncertainty in estimating the cost of the DCL reactor, is it profitable to work backwards: Given the generally accepted ball-park level of investment in DCL, what is the MAXIMUM reactor cost that will still ensure a reasonable profitability of the project?

-Is the ratio of costs of H₂ generation to liquefaction in agreement with the NETL ICL results and with Group 3 results? (If not, why not?)

-Group 1:

-Which product(s) calls for 297 t H₂/day?

-Is it reasonable that M&R represents the largest contribution to operating costs?

-Is it reasonable to assume that, when it comes to transportation costs, the analogy between ethanol and liquefaction products can be used?

-Do the various feed streams into the hydroprocessing reactors reflect not only the overall amount but also the distribution of products?

-Group 2:

-How sensitive is the conclusion regarding steam reforming vs. coal gasification (for H₂ production) to the assumed prices of natural gas vs. coal?

-Perhaps the assumed product yield of 4.2 bbl/ton coal is overly optimistic... But shouldn't you use any lower yield consistently throughout your report?

-Is coal gasification really an 'immature' technology?

-Task 4: Techno-economic analysis of combustion of liquefaction products, including SO₂ removal and CO₂ capture

(Written reports due 04/21; oral presentations to be lumped into final project presentations.)

Subtask 4.1: Reconciliation of key techno-economic decisions/recommendations (based on Task 3 reports).

Subtask 4.2: Analysis/design of SO₂ removal subsequent to combustion of DCL products.

Subtask 4.3: Analysis/design of CO₂ capture subsequent to combustion of DCL products.

-No 'class' until last week of semester... Group meetings: #1: 4/14-15; #2: 4/17-18; #3: 4/24-25.

-Final oral presentations to be scheduled during week of April 28 (see schedule below); final reports due May 7 (at the latest).

Here you can find hopefully useful items for (a more precise) project definition (continually fine-tuned) and for Tasks 1-4:

-Strategy of information ("literature") search?

-> Have you been able to find the following publications?

Lepinski (Headwaters) presentation (2005) Kreutz paper (2005) Fletcher paper (2004) Sun paper (2005) Kaneko paper (2002)

Comolli paper (1999) Cicero presentation (Any others?)

-Is info on the economics of indirect liquefaction helpful? And more abundant? For example, can you find the article by Williams and Larson (2003)? And that of E. D. Larson and Ren Tingjin (2003)?

-IAPCS (what is it good for?)

-CUECost (what is it good for?)

-Any useful information on the DOE web site? (For example, can you find the DOE/NETL Report #2007/1260?)

-Any relevant articles found through the Web of Knowledge showing the use(fulness) of HYSYS? (For example, Fuel 86, 1270-7, 2007? Or Energy Conv Manag 44, 3073-91, 2003?)

-In the Angel Miscellaneous folder you can find a VERY preliminary analysis of the cost of H₂ (one of the key issues in DCL). It should be sufficient to spark our discussion of this issue on 04/02/08.

Project definition & problem statement: start filling in each one of the sections shown below!

Table of Contents (roughly the same for ALL progress reports)

1. Introduction (here describe project by presenting and discussing a preliminary process flow diagram)

2. Background (introduce liquefaction; clarify difference between direct and indirect; raw materials, main reactions, principal products, role of desulfurization)

2.1 ???

2.2 ???

Etc.

3. Results and Discussion (here briefly introduce and describe the tasks (as you understand them currently)

3.1 Task 1: Preliminary technical analysis: design of reactor for coal conversion to nonpolluting fuel oil

3.1.1 Subtask 1: ???

Etc.

3.2 Task 2: Preliminary economic analysis of energy- and environment-related processes

3.2.1 Subtask 1: ???

Etc.

3.3 Task 3: A more detailed techno-economic analysis of direct coal liquefaction

3.3.1 Subtask 1: ???

Etc.

3.4 Task 4: Analysis of CO₂ and SO₂ emissions and control

3.4.1 Subtask 1: ???

Etc.

4. Summary and Conclusions

5. References

6. Appendix (here be sure to provide ALL the supporting information)

6.1 ??

Etc.

Group 1 pending issues/questions:

-Why does diesel production require more 'devices' (and thus presumably a higher capital cost) than gasoline production?

-What was the basis for selecting the various cases of product distribution?

-Is the cost of H₂ realistic? Will H₂ consumption be reduced by recycling a fraction of the product? (If yes, by how much?)

Group 2 pending issues/questions:

-Can we estimate the CO₂ resale value?

-How is product yield (bbl/ton) affected by coal rank?

-Siting of a liquefaction plant: closer to the coal mine or to the product consumers?

-Is addition of pollution control equipment REALLY that expensive (according to IAPCS or your interpretation of IAPCS) that it generates "negative present worth"?

-Does IAPCS really use a "discount rate" of 7.8%? (Let's be absolutely CLEAR regarding the concepts of "discount rate" and ROR...)

-Which value for (annual?) operating expenses, 17.5% of investment cost or 4%, is more 'reasonable' (or reliable)?

Group 3 pending issues/questions:

-Can distinguish between 'affect' and 'effect'?

-Why use PW12 in the spreadsheet(s)?

-Can clarify when parametric sensitivity analysis gives linear results, and when not? (And why?)

Group 4 pending issues/questions:

-Can explore further the (counterintuitive?) conclusion that the economics of FGD is more favorable for a high-sulfur (and higher CV) bituminous coal than for a low-sulfur (and lower CV) subbituminous coal? At equal efficiencies, the SO₂ emissions will be LOWER in the latter case; are there some economic benefits to that? If the SO₂ removal efficiency is adjusted in the latter case, does that improve the economics?

In Task 2 and beyond, a key equation whose applicability we need to analyze, contains the so-called "six-tenths factor" in the economy-of-scales calculation. Thus, for example, if the capital investment for a plant to produce 1250 t/d of ammonia was $140 million in 1990, in the year 2000 for a 2500 t/d plant the estimated investment, based on the CE plant cost index, would be $234 million. Right?

Bottom-line issues and info from Peters et al. (2003) textbook... (Be sure to read the background material.)

-Table 3-11

-Figure 4-1

-Figure 6-2

-Figure 6-3

-Table 6-3

-p252 table

-Table 6-11

-Table 6-14

-Table 6-17

-Table 7-8

-Figure 9-1

-Recycle reactor issues: see Ch. 13, especially pp602-5 (Reproduce/analyze Example 13-2 using Mathematica! And HYSYS? Comments? Are discrepancies primarily of mathematical or also of conceptual origin? Compare your solution to that found on the Internet by typing "mathematica and recycle reactor" in google.)

Schedule of final oral presentations:

-Groups 1 and 2: Tuesday 4/29

-Groups 3 and 4: Wednesday 4/30

Notes: (1) Consultation regarding feedback on progress reports 1-4 encouraged throughout the week of 4/28, by e-mail or in person. (2) Fate of instructor's comments should be addressed/discussed either as an appendix in the final report (to be uploaded in Angel) or in the annotated progress reports themselves (returned to the instructor, 205 Hosler, by May 7).

LRR3@psu.edu (revised 05/01/2008, 07:30 PM)