Process Variable Effects in the Conversion of Methanol to Gasoline in a Fluid Bed Reactor

Liederman, David; Jacob, S. M.; Voltz, Sterling E.; Wise, J.J.

doi:10.1021/i260067a022

Cited by 61 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of incorporating thermal changes in the coolant side of the reactor was acknowledged by Soria ), de Lasa (1983, Hosten and Froment (1986) and Henning and Perez (1986) for the fully co-current operation; by Luss and Medellin (1972), Akella and Lee (1983) for the fully countercurrent operation; and by Degnan and Wei(1980),deLasaetal., (1981), Zamanetal., (1985and McGreavy and Dunbobbin (1984) for the cross-flow coolant circulation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooling exothermic catalytic fixed bed reactors: Co‐current versus countercurrent operation in a methanol conversion reactor

Ravella¹,

Lasa²

1987

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison between two possible designs of exothermic catalytic fixed bed reactors, fully co‐current and fully countercurrent flow, was performed for the process of methanol transformation into hydrocarbons. The fully co‐current operation proved more appropriate, yielding, under low parametric sensitivity, higher productivities and allowing higher inlet methanol partial pressures. The co‐current design showed, in a wide range of operating conditions, the Pseudoadiabatic Regime, a useful mode of operation. The countercurrent design did not allow Pseudoadiabatic Operation and had drawbacks such as multiple steady states and reactor ignition.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooling exothermic catalytic fixed bed reactors: Co‐current versus countercurrent operation in a methanol conversion reactor

Ravella¹,

Lasa²

1987

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If instead of 2-butene, 1-butene is reacted with isobutane, 2-methylheptane is formed. The MTG gasoline compositions given in Schreiner 1978 andin Liederman 1978 do not distinguish between 1-and 2-butene but lump them as "butenes." Thus specific yields of 1-butene and 2-butene are unknown.…”

Section: Methanol and Methanol-to-gasoline (Mtg) Technology Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sources are the following: KO = Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (does not specify reactor type or pressure); PH = Probstein and Hicks (1982); DOE = 1978 DOE report (Schreiner 1978); Fluid Bed from Liederman et al 1978.…”

Section: -02 Methylnaphthalenementioning

confidence: 99%

Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline Technologies

Phillips¹,

Tarud²,

Biddy³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryThis report documents the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) assessment of the feasibility of making gasoline via the methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) route using syngas from a 2,000 dry metric tonne/day (2,205 U.S. ton/day) biomass-fed facility.The thermochemical route of biomass gasification produces a syngas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The syngas is then converted into methanol, and the methanol is converted to gasoline using the methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) process first developed by Exxon Mobil. Using a methodology similar to that used in previous NREL design reports and a feedstock cost of $50.70/dry U.S. ton ($55.89/dry metric tonne), a plant gate price (PGP) was estimated. For the base case the PGP is predicted to be $16.60/MMBtu ($15.73/GJ) (U.S. $2007) for gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from biomass via gasification of wood, methanol synthesis, and the methanol-to-gasoline process (MTG). The corresponding unit prices for gasoline and LPG are $1.95/gallon ($0.52/liter) and $1.53/gallon ($0.40/liter) with yields of 55.1 and 9.3 gallons per U.S. ton of dry biomass (229.9 and 38.8 liters per metric tonne of dry biomass), respectively. For comparison to ethanol, this is $1.39 per gallon ($0.37/liter) ethanol on an energy equivalent basis. In comparison, based on analysis work completed at NREL, the predicted plant gate prices for ethanol produced via the thermochemical and biochemical pathways are $1.57 per gallon ($0.41 per liter) and $1.49 per gallon ($0.39 per liter), respectively (OBP 2009). Note that the PGP is for the base case. A sensitivity analysis is included in the report to demonstrate the impact that modifications in the design and costing assumptions have on the PGP. A range of PGP values is to be expected due to uncertainties in capital costs, yields, and technoeconomic factors.This report is a future look at the potential of the described biomass-to-gasoline process, based on calculations for a mature plant (also called the n th plant) and 2012 technology targets as established in the Multi-Year Technical Plan of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Biomass Program. In order to achieve the $1.95/gallon ($0.52/liter) PGP, there are critical research milestones that must be achieved. First, the 2012 tar reforming targets of 99.9% tar and 80% methane conversion (among others) are essential. Also, utilization of a fluidized bed MTG reactor, instead of the commercially proven fixed bed, is pertinent in keeping capital costs down. Thus, further research on this type of reactor is needed 1) to verify that at the conditions specified the products generated match the model assumptions and 2) to analyze effects of scaleup on product distribution. It should be emphasized that the PGP for a first-of-a-kind plant will be significantly higher than the PGP for an n th plant.To predict the PGP for this study, a new technoeconomic model was developed in Aspen Plus, based on the model developed for NREL's thermochemical ethanol design report )....

show abstract

“…The processes of hydrocarbon production from methanol (MTG) and directly from synthesis gas (TIGAS) have been experimentally examined for various types of reactors including fluidised bed reactor [14], pseudoadiabatic fixed-bed reactor [2,9], monolithic reactor with parallel tubes with catalytic material deposited in the walls [15]. One of the main advantages of catalytic monolithic reactors is a very low pressure drop.…”

Section: Mathematical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesis gas conversion into hydrocarbons (gasoline range) over bifunctional zeolite-containing catalyst: experimental study and mathematical modelling

Mysov¹,

Решетников

Степанов³

et al. 2005

Chemical Engineering Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process Variable Effects in the Conversion of Methanol to Gasoline in a Fluid Bed Reactor

Cited by 61 publications

References 4 publications

Cooling exothermic catalytic fixed bed reactors: Co‐current versus countercurrent operation in a methanol conversion reactor

Cooling exothermic catalytic fixed bed reactors: Co‐current versus countercurrent operation in a methanol conversion reactor

Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline Technologies

Synthesis gas conversion into hydrocarbons (gasoline range) over bifunctional zeolite-containing catalyst: experimental study and mathematical modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About