6 replies to this topic

[Kameswara Rao]

I am surprised to note the co2 is not enough for the production of urea. you will have excess of co2 even with natural gas.
What process you are useing for the manufacture of urea.
Do you other wuse use this co2 for mfg of methonol?
You can use vetrocoke process for recoveryof co2 form flue gas.

kkrao22@hotmail.com

Attached Files

•  05.Syn_gas_purification_CO2_removal.doc   94.5KB   134 downloads

[mbeychok]

Nitin:

I strongly advise you not to use the Vetrocoke process. It is very old technology and the absorption solution contains arsenic which inevitably causes serious environmental problems because arsenic is highly toxic.

If you want to recover CO2 from your flue gases (and I am not sure that it is economically viable to do so), then I would suggest that you consider any of the various processes using amine solutions. I would also suggest that you have one of the major engineering-construction firms do a design and economics viability study for you. Don't try to do it yourself.

[Art Montemayor]

Nitin:

What Milton is advising you is very correct and exactly what I also believe you should heed. Vetrocoke is not a bad process because it is old; it is a bad process because of the arsenic hazard it introduces. The Amine process is much older, but much more reliable and safer to use. I have recovered CO2 from flue gases using MEA for many years. I have designed and operated my own units sucessfully producing 99.5% CO2 (vol) as minimum purity. This is not a complicated nor arcane process. However, as Milton infers, the best solution for a serious study and identification of a credible alternative to obtaining excess CO2 is to comission a feasibility study to a recognized and acknowledged engineering firm. The economical viability depends on your existing, local conditions and market prices. You certainly will need a dependable and cheap source of low pressure steam (minimum 30 psig) in order to regenerate the Amine solution. This is the tradeoff of the amine process: the high steam demand for regeneration - and the outstanding cost item in the study. However, if you are presently running steam turbines under backpressure and having to condense your excess steam generation, you could have a very attractive situation where the idea may have merit and potential profit. Additionally, you will need incremental compressor capacity to bring the CO2 up to process pressure. Existing compressor capacity may also determine economic viability of the idea. It all depends on your situation and existing conditions. This is why Milton's suggestion makes all the sense and should be heeded in order to identify if there is an option that is worth an investment.

I hope this helps to point you in the right direction at the conceptual stage.

Art Montemayor
Spring, TX

[Art Montemayor]

I've not heard of any magnesium Hydroxide process.

If you have, please state the source, licensor, and characteristics - as well as regeneration requirements in Btu/lb CO removed.

Additionally, if you are still at the stage of contemplating a feasibility study, you would be wise in leaving the selection of the "correct" CO2 removal process to the engineering group doing the study. You stand to waste a lot of money and time dictating likes and preferences to a feasibility study prior to the actual, implemented, and published results. This is like putting on the shoe before the sock. The correct, or recommended process and its conditions must be left up to the study group doing the economic feasibility study. Just because a process exists, doesn't mean that it is the "right", correct, or recommended processs for you. It must dove-tail into your existing project scope of work in the study. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and money to try to force a specific process into a situation that may or may not apply - much like the pre-selection of the Vetrocoke process without knowledge of having to handle a hazardous material (that may not be practically allowed by local regulations).