Advertisement

Adsorption

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Evaluation of simplified pressure swing adsorption cycles for bio-methane production

  • Rafael L. S. Canevesi
  • Kari A. Andreassen
  • Edson A. Silva
  • Carlos E. Borba
  • Carlos A. GrandeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) is a mature technique for biogas upgrading. However, it constitutes the most expensive step to obtain fuel-quality bio-methane, particularly in small-scale units. To reduce the cost of upgrading in small-scale plants, we have evaluated different PSA cycles with two and three columns (less than commercial units). An equalization tank was used to perform one asynchronous pressure equalization step and keep the process fed continuous even in the case of using two columns. The effect of the purge step was also evaluated. Carbon molecular sieve was used as adsorbent. The feed composition was 40% CO2/60% CH4 and pressure swinging between 5 and 0.1 bar in the adsorption and blowdown steps, respectively. Four performance indicators (methane purity and recovery, productivity and energy consumption) were used to evaluate the PSA cycles. The mathematical model could predict the experimental PSA performance. Bio-methane with purity higher than 97.5% (specification) and recovery higher than 90% was obtained experimentally using a PSA with two columns and an equalization tank. When a third column is used (implementing an additional pressure equalization), the recovery increases in approx. 4% showing the importance of pressure equalization to reduce the methane slip.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide Pressure swing adsorption Modelling Biogas upgrading Bio-methane 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partly funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) under File No. 5157-00008B, HiGradeGas (http://www.higradegas.eu). R. L. S. C. thank to CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) for the financial support.

Supplementary material

10450_2019_49_MOESM1_ESM.docx (974 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 974 KB)

References

  1. Augelletti, R., Conti, M., Annesini, M.C.: Pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading. A new process configuration for the separation of biomethane and carbon dioxide. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1390–1398 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhadra, S.J., Farooq, S.: Separation of methane-nitrogen mixture by pressure swing adsorption for natural gas upgrading. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 14030–14045 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie201237x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatt, T.S., Storti, G., Denayer, J.F.M., Rota, R.: Optimal design of dual-reflux pressure swing adsorption units via equilibrium theory: process configurations employing heavy gas for pressure swing. Chem. Eng. J. 311, 385–406 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canevesi, R.L.S., Andreassen, K.A., Da Silva, E.A., Borba, C.E., Grande, C.A.: Pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading with carbon molecular sieve. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57, 8057–8067 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b00996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavenati, S., Grande, C.A., Rodrigues, A.E.: Removal of carbon dioxide from natural gas by vacuum pressure swing adsorption. Energy Fuels 20, 2648–2659 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef060119e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chahbani, M.H., Talmoudi, R., Abdel Jaoued, A., Tondeur, D.: Modeling and simulation of pressure equalization step between a packed bed and an empty tank in pressure swing adsorption cycles. Open Chem. Eng. J. 11, 33–52 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874123101711010033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Da Silva, F.A., Silva, J.A., Rodrigues, A.E.: General package for the simulation of cyclic adsorption processes. Adsorption 5, 229–244 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008974908427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delgado, J.A., Rodrigues, A.E.: Analysis of the boundary conditions for the simulation of the pressure equalization step in PSA cycles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 4452–4463 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Effendy, S., Xu, C., Farooq, S.: Optimization of a pressure swing adsorption process for nitrogen rejection from natural gas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56, 5417–5431 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b00513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Florides, G.A., Christodoulides, P.: Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences. Environ. Int. 35, 390–401 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grande, C.A., Blom, R.: Utilization of dual-PSA technology for natural gas upgrading and integrated CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 26, 2–14 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grande, C.A., Roussanaly, S., Anantharaman, R., Lindqvist, K., Singh, P., Kemper, J.: CO2 capture in natural gas production by adsorption processes. Energy Procedia 114, 2259–2264 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guérin de Montgareuil, P., Domine, D.: Process for separating a binary gaseous mixture by adsorption. US Patent 3,155,468, 3 Nov 1964Google Scholar
  14. IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang. Work. Gr. I Contrib. to IPCC Fifth Assess. Rep. (AR5)(Cambridge Univ Press. New York). 1535 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000115
  15. Jiang, Y., Ling, J., Xiao, P., He, Y., Zhao, Q., Chu, Z., Liu, Y., Li, Z., Webley, P.A.: Simultaneous biogas purification and CO2 capture by vacuum swing adsorption using zeolite NaUSY. Chem. Eng. J. 334, 2593–2602 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.11.090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khurana, M., Farooq, S.: Simulation and optimization of a 6-step dual-reflux VSA cycle for post-combustion CO2 capture. Chem. Eng. Sci. 152, 507–515 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2016.06.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnamurthy, R., Lerner, S.L., MacLean, D.L.: PSA Multicomponent separation utilizing tank equalization. US Patent 4,816,039, 28 Mar 1989Google Scholar
  18. Labus, K., Machnikowski, J.: Separation of carbon dioxide from coal gasification-derived gas by vacuum pressure swing adsorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 2022–2029 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lashof, D., Ahuja, D.R.: Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature 344, 529–531 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1038/344529a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ling, J., Ntiamoah, A., Xiao, P., Webley, P.A., Zhai, Y.: Effects of feed gas concentration, temperature and process parameters on vacuum swing adsorption performance for CO2 capture. Chem. Eng. J. 265, 47–57 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.11.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marx, D., Joss, L., Hefti, M., Gazzani, M., Mazzotti, M.: CO2 capture from a binary CO2/N2 and a ternary CO2/N2/H2 mixture by PSA: experiments and predictions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 6035–6045 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paolini, V., Petracchini, F., Segreto, M., Tomassetti, L., Naja, N., Cecinato, A.: Environmental impact of biogas: a short review of current knowledge. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A. 53, 899–906 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.1459076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pellegrini, L.A., De Guido, G., Langé, S.: Biogas to liquefied biomethane via cryogenic upgrading technologies. Renew. Energy 124, 75–83 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P.: Environmental impacts of biogas deployment–Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to air. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 168–183 (2012a).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P.: Environmental impacts of biogas deployment–Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 184–201 (2012b).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pöschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P.: Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways. Appl. Energy 87, 3305–3321 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ribeiro, A.M., Grande, C.A., Lopes, F.V.S., Loureiro, J.M., Rodrigues, A.E.: A parametric study of layered bed PSA for hydrogen purification. Chem. Eng. Sc. 63, 5258–5273 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.07.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rocha, L.A.M., Andreassen, K.A., Grande, C.A.: Separation of CO2/CH4 using carbon molecular sieve (CMS) at low and high pressure. Chem. Eng. Sci. 164, 148–157 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2017.01.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutherford, S.W., Nguyen, C., Coons, J.E., Do, D.D.: Characterization of carbon molecular sieves using methane and carbon dioxide as adsorptive probes. Langmuir 19, 8335–8342 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1021/la034472d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santos, M.P.S., Grande, C.A., Rodrigues, A.E.: Pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading. Effect of recycling streams in pressure swing adsorption design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 974–985 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie100757u CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schell, J., Casas, N., Marx, D., Mazzotti, M.: Precombustion CO2 capture by pressure swing adsorption (PSA): comparison of laboratory PSA experiments and simulations. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 8311–8322 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siqueira, R.M., Freitas, G.R., Peixoto, H.R., Do Nascimento, J.F., Musse, A.P.S., Torres, A.E.B., Azevedo, D.C.S., Bastos-Neto, M.: Carbon dioxide capture by pressure swing adsorption. Energy Procedia 114, 2182–2192 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skarstrom, C.: Method and apparatus for fractionating gaseous mixtures by adsorption. US Patent 2,944,627, 12 Jul 1960Google Scholar
  34. Stark, T.M.: Gas separation by adsorption process. US Patent 3,252,268, 24 May 1966Google Scholar
  35. Webley, P.A., Qader, A., Ntiamoah, A., Ling, J., Xiao, P., Zhai, Y.: A new multi-bed vacuum swing adsorption cycle for CO2 capture from flue gas streams. Energy Procedia 114, 2467–2480 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu, B., Zhang, X., Xu, Y., Bao, D., Zhang, S.: Assessment of the energy consumption of the biogas upgrading process with pressure swing adsorption using novel adsorbents. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 251–261 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xuan, J., Leung, M.K.H., Leung, D.Y.C., Ni, M.: A review of biomass-derived fuel processors for fuel cell systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1301–1313 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yavary, M., Ebrahim, H.A., Falamaki, C.: The effect of number of pressure equalization steps on the performance of pressure swing adsorption process. Chem. Eng. Process. 87, 35–44 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2014.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, J., Webley, P.A., Xiao, P.: Effect of process parameters on power requirements of vacuum swing adsorption technology for CO2 capture from flue gas. Energy Convers. Manag. 49, 346–356 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang, Y., Sunarso, J., Liu, S., Wang, R.: Current status and development of membranes for CO2/CH4 separation: a review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 12, 84–107 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SINTEF IndustryOsloNorway
  2. 2.Chemical EngineeringWestern Paraná State UniversityToledoBrazil

Personalised recommendations