| Literature DB >> 30513586 |
Abstract
Natural gas sweetening is required to remove the acid gas CO₂ to meet gas grid specifications. Membrane technology has a great potential in this application compared to the state-of-the-art amine absorption technology. Carbon membranes are of particular interest due to their high CO₂/CH₄ selectivity of over 100. In order to document the advantages of carbon membranes for natural gas (NG) sweetening, HYSYS simulation and cost evaluation were conducted in this work. A two-stage carbon membrane process with recycling in the second stage was found to be technically feasible to achieve >98% CH₄ with <2% CH₄ loss. The specific natural gas processing cost of 1.122 × 10-2 $/m³ sweet NG was estimated at a feed pressure of 90 bar, which was significantly dependent on the capital-related cost. Future work on improving carbon membrane performance is required to increase the competitiveness of carbon membranes for natural gas sweetening.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 removal; carbon membranes; cost estimation; methane loss; natural gas; process simulation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30513586 PMCID: PMC6316760 DOI: 10.3390/membranes8040118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Membrane processes for natural gas (NG) sweetening, (A) 10% CO2 feed; (B) 50% CO2 feed.
The simulation basis for natural gas sweetening using carbon membrane system.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Feed flow, m3(STP)/h | 50,000 |
| Feed gas composition |
|
| Feed/permeate pressure, bar |
|
| Feed temperature, °C | 30 |
| CO2 permeance, m3(STP)/(m2·h·bar) * |
|
| CO2/CH4 selectivity * |
|
| CH4 purity, vol.% | >98 |
| CH4 loss, % | <2 |
| Membrane area, m2 | Adjusted |
* tested at feed pressure below 20 bar [17].
List of different simulation scenarios.
| Scenario | Feed Gas Composition, vol.% | Feed Pressure (pF), bar | Permeate Pressure (pP), bar | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | Methane | First Stage | Second Stage | ||
| Case 1 | 10 | 90 | 50–90 | 1 | 1 |
| Case 2 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 1 | 1–5 |
Figure 2Illustration of simulation workflow of membrane systems for CO2 removal from natural gas.
The simulation and cost estimation results of Scenario 1.
| Feed Pressure, Bar | Membrane Area, m2 | Power Demand, kW | CRC, $ | OPEX, $ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 1.19 × 105 | 1109 | 4.00 × 106 | 3.55 × 105 | 1.278 × 10−2 |
| 60 | 1.06 × 105 | 1154 | 3.78 × 106 | 3.69 × 105 | 1.219 × 10−2 |
| 70 | 9.46 × 104 | 1180 | 3.58 × 106 | 3.78 × 105 | 1.162 × 10−2 |
| 80 | 8.94 × 104 | 1238 | 3.54 × 106 | 3.96 × 105 | 1.156 × 10−2 |
| 90 | 8.27 × 104 | 1256 | 3.42 × 106 | 4.02 × 105 | 1.122 × 10−2 |
Figure 3Dependence of required membrane area and power demand on the second-stage permeate pressure.
Figure 4The influence of the second-stage permeate pressure on the NG processing cost.
Comparisons between carbon membranes and fixed-site-carrier (FSC) membranes for CO2 removal from natural gas.
| Parameters | Carbon Membrane in this Work | FSC Membranes [ |
|---|---|---|
| Feed pressure, bar | 50 | 20 |
| Second-stage permeate pressure, bar | 1–5 | 1 |
| CH4 purity in sweet NG, vol.% | 98 | 96.08 |
| CH4 loss, % | 2 | 0.35 |
| Specific power consumption, kWh/Nm3 sweet NG | 0.1 | 2.43 × 10−2 |
| Specific membrane area, m2/Nm3 sweet NG | 9.90 | 0.56 |
| 4.33 × 10−2 * | 4.22 × 10−3 |
* based on a carbon membrane cost of 100 $/m2.
Figure 5The influence of membrane separation performance on NG processing cost.