Technoeconomic and Emissions Analysis of the Hybrid Redox Process for the Production of Acetic Acid with CO2 Utilization
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The production of oxygenated hydrocarbons, such as acetic acid, using captured CO2 is a promising pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the chemical industry. The use of a chemical looping‐based hybrid redox process (HRP) is proposed to convert CO2 and natural gas into separate CO and syngas streams that can be used to produce various commodity oxygenates, while allowing the beneficial utilization of captured CO2. Here, a detailed technoeconomic analysis of HRP applied to the production of acetic acid is presented. Emissions and energy analyses show the ability of HRP to lower the CO2 emissions for acetic acid synthesis by 74% compared to a conventional steam and autothermal reforming route. HRP also offers a potential 34% reduction in capital costs. Compared to a dry reforming based acetic acid production route, HRP has the potential for significantly lower costs. If integrated with a low carbon energy source, HRP has the potential to achieve a negative emission of greenhouse gas (‐0.50 kg CO2 per kg acetic acid).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Chemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes · Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies · Catalysis and Oxidation Reactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Susteon Inc. 5001 Weston Pkwy # 105 Cary NC 27513 USA
NC State University 911 Partners Way Raleigh NC 27695 USA
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.14320310.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143203 ↗
2. 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-110.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-1 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13393210.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133932 ↗
4. 10.1002/adsu.20180008010.1002/adsu.201800080 ↗
5. 10.1073/pnas.220239712010.1073/pnas.2202397120 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.10596810.1016/j.biombioe.2021.105968 ↗
7. 10.1039/D0CS00025F10.1039/D0CS00025F ↗
8. 10.2113/gsrocky.45.2.8310.2113/gsrocky.45.2.83 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.61810.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.618 ↗
10. 10.3390/en1510359710.3390/en15103597 ↗
11. 10.1002/cey2.26410.1002/cey2.264 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.12113510.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121135 ↗
13. 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b0351410.1021/acs.iecr.7b03514 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.cej.2022.13941610.1016/j.cej.2022.139416 ↗
15. 10.1126/sciadv.170118410.1126/sciadv.1701184 ↗
16. 10.1002/aenm.20190196310.1002/aenm.201901963 ↗
17. 10.1039/D0TA03232H10.1039/D0TA03232H ↗
18. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c0225810.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c02258 ↗
19. 10.1002/ceat.20110064910.1002/ceat.201100649 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.12.01710.1016/j.cherd.2010.12.017 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.04.04810.1016/j.apcatb.2017.04.048 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.08310.1016/j.energy.2019.05.083 ↗
23. 10.1016/S1872-5813(22)60032-X10.1016/S1872-5813(22)60032-X ↗
24. 10.1016/j.pecs.2011.09.00110.1016/j.pecs.2011.09.001 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.01710.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.017 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.cej.2008.06.00410.1016/j.cej.2008.06.004 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.cej.2012.01.12410.1016/j.cej.2012.01.124 ↗
28. 10.1039/b904370e10.1039/b904370e ↗
29. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.10.01410.1016/j.fuproc.2016.10.014 ↗
30. 10.1021/ie100554210.1021/ie1005542 ↗
31. 10.1002/cctc.20130110410.1002/cctc.201301104 ↗
32. Olsvik O. · 1998 · 875
33. 10.1595/003214000X4439410510.1595/003214000X44394105 ↗
34. 10.1007/s10562-012-0905-210.1007/s10562-012-0905-2 ↗
35. Berre C. L. · 2014 · 1
36. 10.1002/cctc.20190214210.1002/cctc.201902142 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jcou.2016.11.00810.1016/j.jcou.2016.11.008 ↗
38. Z.Nawaz presented at MEPEC Bahrain December2015.
39. CATOFIN® Propane/Butane Dehydrogenation | Lummus Technology https://www.lummustechnology.com/process‐technologies/petrochemicals/propylene‐production/propane‐butane‐dehydrogenation(accessed:Nov 2023).
40. Air Liquide Engineering & Construction2017.
41. 10.1142/p71710.1142/p717 ↗
42. Buy steel price per kg Products Now From Chinese Wholesalers – Alibaba.com https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/steel‐price‐per‐kg.html(accessed:Nov 2023).
43. 10.1021/acs.oprd.8b0024510.1021/acs.oprd.8b00245 ↗
44. Carbon Dioxide Price Impacts https://www.nrel.gov/bioenergy/co2‐utilization‐economics/price‐impacts.html(accessed:Nov 2023).
45. U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis https://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/(accessed:Nov 2023).
46. Natural Gas Citygate Price https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PG1_DMcf_m.htm(accessed:Nov2023).
47. Green Hydrogen to Undercut Gray Sibling by End of Decade 2023.
48. Seider W. D. · 2016
49. Green D. · 2019
50. Mike https://businessanalytiq.com/procurementanalytics/index/acetic‐acid‐price‐index/(accessed:Nov 2023).
51. U.S. natural gas prices spiked in February 2021 then generally increased through October https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50778(accessed:Nov 2013).
52. Medrano‐García J. D. · 2019 · 145
53. J.Theis Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance NETL‐PUB‐22580 2021.10.2172/1567736 ↗
54. 10.1111/jiec.1208410.1111/jiec.12084 ↗
55. T.Skone J.Littlefield J.Marriott M.Jamieson J.Hakian G.Schivley Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation DOE/NETL‐2014/1646.2014.10.2172/1526721 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.05310.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.053 ↗
57. L. C.Stages Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Photovoltaics National Renewable Energy Laboratory‐564872012.
58. 10.1039/D1EE01288F10.1039/D1EE01288F ↗