Search

Catalyzed chemical reactions inside tubular reactors play a key role in steam methane reforming process, as they define the temperature and composition profiles of the reformer and, consequently, its efficiency. Although the kinetic modeling of reforming reactions has already been widely discussed, studies that carry out the comparison between kinetic reform models are still scarce. In this context, this work aims to evaluate the influence of different kinetics on the stationary behavior of industrial reformer. The kinetic models of Singh and Saraf (1979), Numaguchi and Kikuchi (1988), Xu and Froment (1989a), and Hou and Hughes (2001) were analyzed and compared with each other. All models describe the reformer satisfactorily with relative deviations around 3.5% compared to experimental and literature data. The results show that the simplest kinetic models present advantages compared to traditional models, such as Xu and Froment (1989a), which is widely used without any prior analysis.

The techno-economic feasibility of three biogas utilization processes was assessed through computer simulations on commercial process simulator Aspen HYSYS: HPC (biogas to methanol), BioCH4 (biogas to biomethane) and CHP (biogas to heat & electricity). The last two processes are already used commercially with the aid of subsidy policies. The economic analysis indicates that, without these policies, none of these attain economic self-sustainability due to high overall manufacturing costs. The estimated minimum support cost (MSCs) were 108, 62 and 109 €/MWh for the HPC, BioCH4 and CHP processes, respectively. The model could explain currently practised government subsidies in Italy and Germany. It was seen that the newly proposed HPC process is economically comparable to the traditional CHP process. Therefore, the HPC process is a possible alternative to biogas usage. A support policy was proposed: 50, 66, 158 and 148 €/MWh for available heat, methane, electricity and methanol (respectively); the proposed energy policy results in a 10% OpEx rate of return for any of the processes, thus avoiding a disparity in the production of different products.