Process design and downstream optimization of the direct synthesis route for cleaner production of dimethyl ether from biogas

Journal Article (2024)
Author(s)

M. Fedeli (Université de Toulouse, Politecnico di Milano)

F. Negri (Itelyum Regeneration Spa, Lodi, Politecnico di Milano)

A. Bornazzini (TU Delft - ChemE/Product and Process Engineering, Politecnico di Milano)

L. Montastruc (Université de Toulouse)

F. Manenti (Politecnico di Milano)

Anton A. Kiss (TU Delft - ChemE/Product and Process Engineering)

Research Group
ChemE/Product and Process Engineering
Copyright
© 2024 M. Fedeli, F. Negri, A. Bornazzini, L. Montastruc, F. Manenti, A.A. Kiss
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141060
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2024
Language
English
Copyright
© 2024 M. Fedeli, F. Negri, A. Bornazzini, L. Montastruc, F. Manenti, A.A. Kiss
Research Group
ChemE/Product and Process Engineering
Volume number
443
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

This study investigates an innovative method to produce dimethyl ether (DME) by direct synthesis from syngas derived from biogas. The proposed process was rigorously simulated in Aspen Plus, highlighting the main sections: (i) biogas tri-reforming, (ii) dimethyl-ether synthesis, and (iii) DME purification. The tri-reforming section has a CO2 and CH4 conversion of 27.3% and 96.2%, respectively A novel catalyst suitable for CO2-rich feed was chosen for the DME production to allow 60% conversion of CO2. Product separation is achieved via several absorption and distillation columns, ensuring that the operating conditions are kept mild to avoid expensive refrigeration. An optimization analysis was performed to identify the most suitable layout of the downstream process. This was identified through the evaluation of performance indicators such as utility usage and operating expenses. A wide range of purification strategies have been evaluated, and two scenarios are proposed based on the results. Configuration A produces 5.34 ktpy DME and 1.26 ktpy methanol, while Configuration B produces exclusively 6.21 ktpy DME. The process configurations were analysed by means of key techno-economic indicators and sustainability metrics. Both processes have an energy intensity of 14.5 kWh/kg. The reforming unit has a negligible footprint as it is thermally sustained from biogas combustion, but the reboilers are the main contributors for plant CO2 emissions. Configuration B has the best economic value with 11,634 k€ of NPV after 25 years and a payback time of 4 years.