Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PERGAMON
Abstract
Pressure swing adsorption\ membranes and countercurrent gas!liquid contacting were evaluated for the puri_cation
of hydrocracker and hydrotreater purge and o}!gases[ Industrial cases relevant to upgrading and re_ning were examined\
and the most economic and technically suitable options were determined[
For pressure swing adsorption "PSA#\ surprisingly\ the best economics were at lower recoveries\ when tail gas met
fuel gas pressure requirements[ This eliminated tail gas compression which is relatively expensive[ Membranes were
marginally better than PSA at higher feed pressures "6[9 MPa#\ and there was no advantage in combining these
processes due to loss of economies of scale[ Countercurrent gas!liquid contacting\ which recovers hydrogen near feed
pressure\ has an advantage over both PSA and membrane when the feed pressure is high[
A sensitivity analysis indicated that high feed gas capacity\ high purity\ and a low fuel gas price favor hydrogen
recovery processes[ The impact of increased recovery and purity on the economics of hydrogen recovery was negligible
compared to the e}ect of unit sizes "economy of scale#[ 0888 International Association for Hydrogen Energy[
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[
Abbreviations] CC!ABS\ Countercurrent packed column absorber unit^ MEMB\ Membrane unit^ MIX!SEP\ Mixer!
separator unit^ NO!HRU\ No hydrogen recovery unit^ PSA!HP\ Pressure swing adsorption unit with high pressure tail
gas^ PSA!LP\ Pressure swing adsorption unit with low pressure tail gas[
0[ Introduction
The need for hydrogen in re_ning is expected to grow
due to more stringent environmental regulations\ pri!
marily in the decrease in aromatics in automotive fuels[
Hydrocracking processes will come on stream and be
expanded to upgrade more low quality heavier feed
stocks\ and hydrotreating processes are needed to
improve the quality of gasoline\ diesel and furnace fuels[
As the demand for hydrogen grows\ its management and
conservation as a basic raw material is becoming increas!
ingly more important to ensure optimum economics[
Additionally\ recent studies by the Other Six Leasing
Operations "OSLO# group and by the Alberta Chamber
of Resources "ACR# identi_ed high pressure hydro!
cracking as the most economic options for future upgra!
9259!2088:88:,19[99 0888 International Association for Hydrogen Energy[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
PII] S 9 2 5 9 ! 2 0 8 8 " 8 7 # 9 9 0 9 4 ! 9
395
396
for high ~ow rates and when high purity is required[ The
adsorbents are very durable and normally last the life of
the project[
PSA systems are insensitive to changes in feed com!
position giving constant product purity and recovery[
They also have a good turndown ratio\ and are very
reliable despite their complex valve system[ Expansion
will likely require a complete new unit\ and bed diameters
are limited\ as plug ~ow operation is desirable[
1[1[ Membrane separation
1[ Separation processes
The separation processes\ namely pressure swing
adsorption\ polymeric membranes\ cryogenic separation
and gas!liquid contacting are based on di}erent sep!
aration principles\ and therefore the process charac!
teristics di}er signi_cantly[ New separation technologies
are also emerging that could improve recoveries or pro!
duce hydrogen at higher product pressures[
1[0[ Pressure swin` adsorption "PSA#
PSA is a hydrogen recovery process in which the
impurities "CH3\ CO1\ CO\ H1O etc[# in a gas stream are
removed in adsorbent beds[ The adsorbents are normally
made of molecular sieve\ activated carbon\ activated alu!
mina or silica gel depending on speci_c application[ The
impurities adsorbed at higher partial pressure are
desorbed at lower partial pressure[ Since very little hydro!
gen is adsorbed relative to methane and other light hydro!
carbons\ high pressure hydrogen is recovered[ The
adsorber beds are regenerated by reducing the pressure
from feed to tail gas pressure and then purging with a
portion of the product hydrogen[ The operation is on a
cyclic basis where each bed is controlled at a di}erent
step in its sequence[ Since there is a low pressure drop
"9[96 MPa# through the PSA unit\ product hydrogen is
available near feed pressure[ The process features very
high product purity "88)# and moderate hydrogen
recovery "5489)# depending on the tail gas pressure[
The recoveries are moderate because a part of the product
hydrogen is normally utilized for regenerating the beds[
A correlation by UOP 5 indicated that recovery is fairly
insensitive to feed pressure with 02[6816[47 MPa being
about the optimum[ It was also found that tail gas pres!
sure has the greatest e}ect on recovery\ with low pressure
"9[923 MPa# tail gas having 0419) better recovery than
9[30 MPa tail gas[ However the cost to compress low
pressure tail gas to enter the 9[30 MPa fuel gas system
can be signi_cant and the operating pressure of a PSA
system must be optimized[
PSA systems require an elaborate interconnecting pip!
ing system with process control to continually cycle the
valves through their pressurization and depressurization
sequence[ Up to 01 adsorbers can be operated in concert
397
3[ Study basis
Four case studies were analysed to evaluate the econ!
omics of di}erent recovery process options]
"0# CANMET Hydrocracker "High pressure o}!gas#[
"1# Petro!Canada Hydrocracker "High pressure purge
gas#[
"2# Imperial Oil Upgrader "Moderate pressure o}!gas#[
"3# Syncrude Hydrotreater "Low pressure purge gas#[
In order to make a fair comparison each case study
and its recovery option were evaluated in the same
manner[ The material balance for each recovery option
was simulated using the HYSIM process simulator sof!
tware to develop the feed basis\ calculate the product and
398
309
4[ CANMET hydrocracker
The CANMET|s hydrocracking process was used as a
basis for the _rst case study[ The hydrocracker plant was
assumed to process 2079 m2:d of Cold Lake vacuum
bottoms[ The hydrocracker o}!gas has a purity of 63)
hydrogen at 02[23 MPa[ A simpli_ed process ~ow diag!
ram is shown in Fig[ 0 where the dotted lines represent
optional streams or units depending on the HRU used[
The product hydrogen is mixed with makeup hydrogen
from a high purity steam methane reforming unit to
adjust the recycle stream to 74) hydrogen and 4[986
std Mm2:d[ These constraints together with a makeup
hydrogen purity of 88[8) limit the recovery of hydrogen
by the HRU for a given purity[
Recovery options were PSA with 9[0 MPa tail gas
and 76) recovery\ PSA with 9[3 MPa tail gas and 56)
recovery\ membrane with 89) recovery\ mixer!separator
with toluene solvent and 89) recovery\ countercurrent
absorber with iso!octane solvent and 85) recovery\ and
the option of {no HRU|[ In the PSA and membrane
options\ a small purge stream is processed to remove gas
make impurities\ whereas the whole o}!gas stream is
treated using gas!liquid contacting[
Table 0 gives the material balance for each option and
Table 1 gives the cost sheet[ Figure 1 gives the combined
capital\ operating and lost fuel gas costs on an annual
cost basis[ The gas!liquid contacting processes gave better
economics than the membrane and PSA options due to
5[ Petro!Canada hydrocracker
A Petro!Canada hydrocracker was used as the basis
for the second case study[ The simpli_ed diagram in Fig[
2 also shows the hydrogen recovery from low pressure
o}!gas[ This is considered in the sensitivity analysis[ Cur!
rently 9[005 std Mm2:d of high pressure o}!gas is purged
from a total o}!gas of 4[893 std Mm2:d to remove 9[9954
std Mm2:d of impurities not removed elsewhere as low
pressure solution o}!gas in the process[ The recycle gas
returned to the reactor is adjusted to 5[628 std Mm2:d
and 84) purity by adding 9[840 std Mm2:d of 88[7)
makeup hydrogen[ The o}!gas stream from the hydro!
cracker has a purity of 83[3) hydrogen and a pressure
of 06[47 MPa[ Currently this hydrocracker purge gas
stream\ containing 9[009 std Mm2:d of makeup hydro!
gen\ is used as part of the makeup hydrogen to a distillate
hydrotreater[
In the analysis the rate of purge gas feed to the HRU is
300
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
MIX!SEP
CC!ABS
NO!HRU
Feed basis
Volumetric rate
Temperature
Pressure
H1 purity
std Mm2:d
>C
MPa
)
0[194
26[85
02[23
62[5
0[194
26[85
02[23
62[5
0[238
26[85
02[23
62[5
3[365
26[67
02[23
62[5
3[365
26[67
02[23
62[5
0[191
27[99
00[66
62[5
HRU
H1 recovery
Product rate
Product pressure
Product H1 purity
Tail gas rate
Tail gas pressure
Tail gas H1 purity
Liquid circulation rate
Pump power
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
m2:h
kW
75[86
9[685
1[65
88[7
9[398
9[03
11[6
9[9
9[9
55[43
9[598
1[65
88[7
9[485
9[44
35[7
9[9
9[9
78[87
9[845
1[65
85[1
9[282
6[33
07[6
9[9
9[9
78[82
2[615
02[96
68[4
9[609
0[27
35[6
441
203[65
84[58
2[805
02[96
79[4
9410
0[27
16[1
397
121[54
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
0[191
00[66
62[5
9[9
9[9
Amine scrubber
Feed rate
Feed pressure
Product rate
Amine rate
Pump power
std Mm2:d
MPa
std Mm2:d
m2:h
kW
3[355
02[37
042[45
69
28[81
3[355
02[37
042[45
69
28[81
3[355
02[37
042[45
69
28[81
9[609
0[27
11[36
69
28[81
9\410
0[27
04[68
69
28[81
9[336
02[37
042[45
69
28[81
H1 recycle
Recovered H1 rate
SMR H1 rate
Bypass H1
Total recycle H1 rate
Recycle H1 purity
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
)
9[683
0[046
1[270
3[221
74[99
9[597
0[233
1[270
3[221
74[99
9[808
0[039
1[162
3[221
73[88
1[852
0[258
9[9
3[221
73[88
20[42
00[79
9[9
3[221
74[99
9[9
0[838
1[272
3[221
74[99
Electric power
HRU
HRU tail gas compressor
H1compressor stage 0
H1compressor stage 1
H1compressor stage 2
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
0[5
0106
1524
1323
2642
0[5
9[9
1823
1600
2646
9[6
9[9
1714
1509
2644
9[9
9[9
0664
0696
2685
9[9
9[9
0429
0361
2685
9[9
9[9
1415
1329
2648
Cooling water
Product cooler
Intercooler stage 01
Intercooler stage 12
m2:h
m2:h\
m2:h
0[0
57
51
9[8
57
51
05[4
62
56
9[9
35
30
9[9
28
25
9[9
54
51
Steam
HRU
kg:h
0269
301
Table 1
CANMET hydrocracker o}!gas cost sheet
Basis
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
MIX!SEP
CC!ABS
NO!HRU
59[91
01[47
02[46
55[04
09[77
02[46
48[34
6[19
02[46
55[85
8[12
00[94
59[79
8[94
09[69
73[13
9[9
02[46
6[721
40[24
026[41
9[9
32[41
023[01
9[9
34[23
014[45
9[9
24[89
012[03
9[9
22[42
003[97
9[9
32[99
039[70
,1[9:GJ
,9[93:kWh
,9[355M:y
,9[585M:y
00[55
9[14
9[41
9[66
02[43
9[18
9[59
9[78
00[38
9[14
9[40
9[65
02[79
9[29
9[50
9[80
00[78
9[14
9[42
9[67
08[53
9[31
9[76
0[29
,3[28:t
,9[92:m2
,9[93:kWh
09) of cap
9[9
9[9
9[990
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[990
9[9
9[9490
9[993
9[9
9[619
9[9
9[9
9[094
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[966
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
,9[93:kWh
,1[9:GJ
9[902
9[249
9[902
9[249
9[902
9[249
9[902
9[249
9[902
9[249
9[902
9[249
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
9[394
1[825
9[922
05[82
9[9
1[825
9[922
07[55
9[9
2[959
9[928
06[13
9[9
1[312
9[911
07[42
9[9
1[152
9[908
05[07
9[9
1[890
9[921
14[42
,1[9:GJ
09[14
5[40
00[68
3[86
09[17
5[37
02[36
2[18
00[81
3[73
05[65
9[9
24[56
05[82
5[40
48[00
23[68
07[55
3[86
47[31
21[46
06[13
5[37
45[18
20[83
07[42
2[18
42[65
18[48
05[07
3[73
49[50
25[41
14[42
9[9
51[94
sure gases for feed to the HRU[ For a feed of 5259 m2:d\
a combined purge of 0[234 std Mm2:d at 7[85 MPa is fed
to the HRU[
Recovery options were PSA with 9[0 MPa tail gas
and 76) recovery\ PSA with 9[3 MPa tail gas and 56)
recovery\ membrane with 89) recovery and {no HRU|[
The gas!liquid contacting processes were not evaluated
for this case because these processes are not economical
for feed pressures less than 09[23 MPa[ All purge gases
have been presweetened in their own amine scrubber
units to remove H1S[ High purity makeup hydrogen from
two steam methane reforming plants is added to the
recovered hydrogen to return 5[062 std Mm2:d of hydro!
gen to the hydroprocessors[ This makeup is compressed
302
Fig[ 2[ Petro!Canada hydrocracker high and low pressure hydrogen recovery schemes[
7[ Syncrude hydrotreater
303
8[ Sensitivity analysis
and 74) recovery\ PSA with 9[3 MPa tail gas and 64)
recovery\ membrane with 89) recovery and the option
of {no HRU|[ Again\ since the o}!gas pressure was quite
low the gas!liquid contacting processes were not
considered[ The recovery systems were modeled to deter!
mine product compression requirements\ utilities and the
capital cost basis[
The material balance for each recovery option is given
in Table 6 and the cost sheet is given in Table 7[ The
membrane option requires an additional product com!
304
gen for 9[172\ 9[455\ 9[749 and 0[022 std Mm2:d of low
pressure o}!gas containing 79) hydrogen and 74)
hydrogen in the feed[ The price of new hydrogen was
assumed to be Cdn ,699:t and therefore the economic
cut!o} "hurdle cost# is Cdn ,699 per ton of recovered
hydrogen[ It can be seen that project sizes more than
9[455 std Mm2:d are required to make the 74) feed
economic[ At 79) hydrogen purity\ the hurdle cost can
be met by a ~ow rate of at least 9[697 std Mm2:d\ thereby
allowing an extra 9[031 std Mm2:d of lower purity feed
to be added[ In summary\ the larger the hydrogen recov!
305
Table 2
Petro!Canada hydrocracker purge gas material balance
Units
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
CC!ABS
NO!HRU
Feed basis
Volumetric rate
Temperature
Pressure
H1 purity
Std Mm2:d
>C
MPa
)
9[011
26[67
5[30
83[3
9[022
26[67
5[30
83[3
9[011
26[67
6[58
83\3
9[206
26[67
06[47
83[3
9[005
26[67
06[47
83[3
HRU
H1 recovery
Product rate
Product pressure
Product H1 purity
Tail gas rate
Tail gas pressure
Tail gas H1 purity
Liquid circulation rate
Pump power
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
m2:h
kW
77[40
9[091
5[16
88[7
9[919
9[03
55[5
9[9
9[9
65[36
9[985
5[16
88[7
9[926
9[41
79[2
9[9
9[9
78[89
9[094
1[03
88[6
9[907
5[78
46[8
9[9
9[9
78[78
9[179
06[06
85[9
9[926
0[27
71[10
31
13[12
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[005
06[47
83[3
9[9
9[9
H1 recycle
Recovered H1 rate
SMR H1 rate
Bypass H1
Total recycle H1 rate
Recycle H1 stream purity
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
)
9[091
9[742
4[347
5[303
84[06
9[985
9[769
4[337
5[303
84[07
9[092
9[741
4[347
5[303
84[06
9[158
9[769
4[163
5[303
84[06
9[9
9[838
4[353
5[303
84[05
Electric power
HRU
HRU tail gas compressor
H1 compressor stage 0
H1 compressor stage 1
H1 compressor stage 2
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
4[9
56
0774
1092
628
4[9
9[9
0812
1017
628
1[9
9[9
1974
1015
628
9[9
9[9
0787
0833
628
9[9
9[9
1987
1980
628
Cooling water
Product aftercooler
Intercooler stage 01
Intercooler stage 12
m2:h
m2:h
m2:h
0[6
38
43
0[5
49
43
0[7
43
43
9[9
38
49
9[9
43
42
Steam
HRU
kg:h
0269
ery unit\ the better the economics will be\ due to economy
of scale[
8[1[ Fuel `as price
The study cases assumed that fuel gas would have the
same energy value as natural gas at Cdn ,1[9:GJ[ The
lost fuel gas from feed is a signi_cant component of the
annual cost[ The higher the fuel gas price\ the higher the
loss[ It may be optimistic to assume that fuel gas has the
same value as natural gas[ If there is a high percentage
of hydrogen in the fuel gas\ the ~ow rates per GJ will be
higher than natural gas[ Also\ if there are signi_cant
volumes of heavier hydrocarbons\ the fuel gas may not
burn as clean unless modi_cations are made to the
burners[
306
the unit[ For PSA with low pressure tail gas\ improving
recovery from 7484) reduces the capital cost of recov!
ery by only about 4)[ The cost to develop these necessary
improvements to the conventional PSA process may not
be justi_ed[ Again for the membrane\ improvements in
recovery result in only a small reduction in recovery costs[
Unlike a PSA unit\ a polymeric membrane will have
a _nite maximum possible recovery[ When the partial
pressure on both sides of the membrane are equal the
membrane has reached its maximum recovery[ Therefore\
for a low pressure o}!gas feed at 1[96 MPa and a tail gas
of 9[923 MPa\ the maximum recovery is 82)\ compared
with the base case of 89) recovery[
8[3[ Ideal recovery
307
Table 3
Petro!Canada hydrocracker purge gas cost sheet
Basis
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
CC!ABS
NO!HRU
38[17
3[68
38[80
3[53
38[11
1[40
38[80
0[65
41[71
9[9
9[83
14[02
79[03
9[9
14[41
79[96
9[9
15[42
67[14
9[9
13[10
64[77
9[9
15[28
68[19
,1[9:GJ
,9[93:kWh
,9[355M:y
,9[585M:y
7[509
9[073
9[271
9[457
7[670
9[077
9[289
9[468
7[481
9[073
9[270
9[456
7[670
9[077
9[289
9[468
8[468
9[194
9[314
9[521
,3[28:t
,9[93:kWh
09) of Cap
9[9
9[991
9[9
9[9
9[991
9[9
9[94
9[990
9[140
9[9
9[997
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
9[911
0[463
9[915
00[24
9[9
0[483
9[915
00[45
9[9
0[537
9[916
00[69
9[9
0[414
9[914
00[38
9[9
0[539
9[916
01[40
,1[9:GJ
9[15
9[67
9[39
9[53
9[13
9[79
9[21
9[61
0[93
9[9
19[68
00[24
9[67
21[81
19[66
00[45
9[53
21[86
19[29
00[69
9[79
21[79
08[57
00[38
9[61
20[78
19[43
01[40
9[9
22[91
09[ Conclusions
It was found that CANMET|s hydrocracker would
save Cdn ,00M:y with implementation of a counter!
Fig[ 01[ Sensitivity analysis of ideal recovery for small size project[
Fig[ 02[ Sensitivity analysis of ideal recovery for large size project[
308
319
Table 4
Imperial Oil upgrader o}!gas material balance
Units
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
NO!HRU
Feed basis
Volumetric rate
Temperature
Pressure
H1Purity
std Mm2:d
>C
MPa
)
0[234
25[67
1[85
56[9
0[234
25[67
1[85
56[9
0[234
25[67
8[06
56[9
0[234
25[67
1[85
56[9
HRU
H1Recovery
Product rate
Product pressure
Product H1 purity
Tail gas rate
Tail gas pressure
Tail gas H1 purity
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
74[9
9[663
1[72
88[9
9[460
9[03
12[6
55[9
9[590
1[72
88[9
9[633
9[41
30[1
89[9
9[751
1[72
83[9
9[372
7[85
07[7
9[9
9[9
1[72
88[9
0[234
1[85
56[9
H1 recycle
Recovered H1 rate
SMR H1 rate
Total recycle H1rate
Recycle H1 purity
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
)
9[655
4[283
5[062
88[68
9[483
4[456
5[062
88[70
9[709
4[294
5[062
88[97
9[9
5[056
5[062
88[89
Electric power
HRU feed compressor
HRU tail gas compressor
H1 compressor stage 0
H1 compressor stage 1
H1 compressor stage 2
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
9[9
0544
8414
8202
3985
9[9
9[9
8414
8202
3985
0443
9[9
8405
8294
3983
9[9
9[9
8414
8202
3985
Cooling water
Feed compressor cooler
Product cooler
Intercooler stage 01
Intercooler stage 12
m2:h
m2:h
m2:h
m2:h
9[9
02
579
237
9[9
09
579
237
32
04
573
249
9[9
9[9
579
237
Steam
Feed preheater
kg:h
0489
0489
0489
9[9
310
Table 5
Imperial Oil upgrader o}!gas cost sheet
Basis
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
NO!HRU
084[93
8[99
087[65
6[63
082[00
4[03
100[24
9[9
9[9
7[87
55[19
9[1
168[32
9[9
9[9
55[19
9[1
161[89
6[07
9[9
55[04
9[1
160[66
9[9
9[9
55[19
9[9
166[44
,1[9:GJ
,9[93:kWh
,9[355M:y
,9[585M:y
45[70
0[10
1[41
2[64
47[52
0[14
1[59
2[76
44[77
0[08
1[37
2[58
53[84
0[28
1[77
3[17
,3[28:t
,9[92:m2
,9[93:kWh
4) of cap
9[947
9[992
9[991
9[349
9[947
9[992
9[991
9[276
9[947
9[993
9[990
9[146
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
9[9
9[440
6[523
9[146
62[13
9[9
9[9
6[523
9[146
63[58
9[406
9[9
6[517
9[158
60[85
9[9
9[9
6[523
9[146
70[28
,1[9:GJ
05[18
5[29
06[69
3[78
03[04
7[33
11[48
9[9
61[37
62[13
5[29
041[91
69[67
63[58
3[78
049[25
69[38
60[85
7[33
049[78
60[88
70[28
9[9
042[27
311
Table 6
Syncrude hydrotreater purge gas material balance
Units
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
NO!HRU
Feed basis
Volumetric rate
Temperature
Pressure
H1 purity
std Mm2:d
>C
MPa
)
0[313
26[67
1[47
72[0
0[329
26[67
1[47
72[0
0[588
26[67
1[47
72[0
0[305
26[67
1[47
72[0
HRU
H1 recovery
Product rate
Product pressure
Product H1 purity
Tail gas rate
Tail gas pressure
Tail gas H1 purity
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
std Mm2:d
MPa
)
73[49
0[991
1[92
88[8
9[312
9[03
32[3
64[90
9[782
1[92
88[8
9[426
9[41
44[2
78[58
0[219
9[41
85[9
9[268
9[41
27[3
9[9
9[9
1[92
88[4
0[305
9[41
72[0
H1 recycle
Recovered H1 rate
SMR H1 rate
Total recycle H1 rate
Recycle H1 stream purity
std Mm2:d
std Mm2:d
std Mm2
)
0[999
9[9
0[999
88[8
9[781
9[9
9[781
88[8
0[156
9[9
0[156
85[9
9[9
0[066
0[066
88[8
Electric power
HRU
HRU product compressor
HRU tail gas compressor
H1 compressor stage 0
H1 compressor stage 1
H1 compressor stage 2
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
4[9
9[9
0274
0773
0784
2845
4[9
9[9
9[9
0568
0578
2414
1[9
3932
9[9
3932
4803
4050
9[9
9[9
9[9
1105
1117
3543
Cooling water
Product aftercooler
Intercooler stage 01
Intercooler stage 12
m2:h
m2:h
m2:h
06
38
38
04
32
32
12
093
041
9[9
46
46
Steam
HRU
kg:h
9[9
9[9
0269
9[9
312
PSA!LP
PSA!HP
MEMB
NO!HRU
9[9
02[13
9[9
01[25
9[9
6[28
59[69
9[9
9[9
7[51
12[79
34[55
9[9
9[9
10[10
22[46
05[88
9[9
14[02
38[40
9[9
9[9
16[88
77[58
,1[9:GJ
,9[93:kWh
,9[355M:y
,9[585MM:y
9\9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
00[75
9[14
9[42
9[67
,3[28:t
,9[92:m2
,9[93:kWh
09) of Cap
9[9
9[993
9[991
9[9
9[9
9[993
9[991
9[9
9[94
9[995
9[990
9[628
9[9
9[9
9[9
9[9
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
,9[93:kWh
9[9
9[350
0[142
9[993
0[62
9[9
9[9
0[010
9[993
0[02
0[235
9[9
2[203
9[995
4[35
9[9
9[9
0[368
9[9
03[80
,1[9:GJ
7[22
7[01
8[18
6[05
6[52
7[71
05[34
9[9
00[73
0[62
7[01
10[58
7[60
0[02
6[05
06[99
01[73
4[35
7[71
16[01
12[99
03[80
9[9
26[80
References
0 Schendel RL\ Mariz CL\ Mak JY[ Is Permeation Com!
petitive<[ Hydrocarbon Processing 0882^August]47[
1 Wang SI\ Nicholas DM\ DiMartino SP[ Analysis Dictates
H1 Puri_cation Process[ Oil and Gas J[ 0873^February]000[
2 Tomlinson TR\ Finn AJ[ H1 Recovery Processes
Compared[ Oil and Gas J[ 0889^January]24[
3 Bollinger WA\ Long SP\ Metzger TR[ Optimizing Hyd!
rocracker Hydrogen[ Chem[ Eng[ Prog[ 0873^May]40[
4 Spillman RW[ Economics of Gas Separation Membranes[
Chem[ Eng[ Prog[ 0878^January]30[
5 Miller GQ\ Stoecker J[ Selection of a Hydrogen Separation
Process\ NPRA Annual Meeting\ San Francisco\ Cali!
fornia\ 0810 March\ 0878[
6 Haun EC\ Anderson RF\ Kau} DA\ Miller GQ\ Stoecker J[
The E.cient Re_nery*Hydrogen Management in 0889|s[
Spring Technology Conferences\ 0889[
313