TY - THES

T1 - Simulation and evaluation of different methanol synthesis routes

AU - Laimer, David

N1 - no embargo

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - This master thesis examines different methods for the production of methanol and compares those based on their efficiencies and investment costs. Herein theoretical backgrounds are being thoroughly explained, before presenting the carried-out simulations for the different methanol synthesis routes. Operating conditions for the different sections of the synthesis processes had to be researched or calculated using the software program HSC 7.1, in order to ensure the highest possible efficiency for the individual production methods. Besides a significantly higher value for the Power-to-Liquid efficiency of the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC, all other efficiencies showed no noteworthy differences. The total investment costs of every methanol synthesis route were calculated using the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) and investment cost values of certain apparatuses from previous research papers. From this the CO2 tolerant methanol synthesis was found to be the least expensive process method, followed by the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC. The process including a rWGS reactor was the most expensive with investment costs 16 % higher than those of the CO2 tolerant methanol synthesis. These procedural and financial values were used as a profound basis to determine and compare the respective future potential of each examined production pathway, with the result that the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC has the greatest future potential to be widely applied in the commercial methanol production.

AB - This master thesis examines different methods for the production of methanol and compares those based on their efficiencies and investment costs. Herein theoretical backgrounds are being thoroughly explained, before presenting the carried-out simulations for the different methanol synthesis routes. Operating conditions for the different sections of the synthesis processes had to be researched or calculated using the software program HSC 7.1, in order to ensure the highest possible efficiency for the individual production methods. Besides a significantly higher value for the Power-to-Liquid efficiency of the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC, all other efficiencies showed no noteworthy differences. The total investment costs of every methanol synthesis route were calculated using the Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) and investment cost values of certain apparatuses from previous research papers. From this the CO2 tolerant methanol synthesis was found to be the least expensive process method, followed by the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC. The process including a rWGS reactor was the most expensive with investment costs 16 % higher than those of the CO2 tolerant methanol synthesis. These procedural and financial values were used as a profound basis to determine and compare the respective future potential of each examined production pathway, with the result that the methanol synthesis using a Co-SOEC has the greatest future potential to be widely applied in the commercial methanol production.

KW - Methanolsynthese

KW - Co-SOEC

KW - Aspen Plus V12

KW - Methanol synthesis

KW - Co-SOEC

KW - Aspen Plus V12

M3 - Master's Thesis

ER -