Transcript MV Modeling - metallurgicalviability.com

MV Modeling
If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process
make money?
How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw
material and energy impact operating costs?
MV Modeling
If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process
make money?
How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw
material and energy impact operating costs?
CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY IMPORTANT
MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg
Model is Applied to Magnesium Technology Limited (MTL)
version of Carbothermal Magnesium Production
Introduction to That Technology
MV Modeling Methodology
Preliminary Results
MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg
Work financed in part by Safe Hydrogen, Inc
the practical route to the Hydrogen Economy
www.safehydrogen.com.
This research was supported, in part, by the U.S.
Department of Energy.
(Award Number DE-FC36-04GO14011).
This support does not constitute and endorsement
by DOE of the views expressed in the report
MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg
Safe Hydrogen has demonstrated vehicles powered
by oil-slurry metal hydrides, see www.safehydrogen.com
MgH2 + H2O  MgO + 2H2
For an oil slurry of MgH2 to be the fuel of the future,
lower cost magnesium from a Western Source is
needed.
Safe Hydrogen wanted MV’s opinion on what would
be the lowest cost method of making magnesium in
the Western World … answer carbothermal
magnesium.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Endothermic reaction ….
MgO + C  Mg + CO
Carried out in electric arc furnace, or similar, at 1850oC
… known technology.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Achilles heal …. Reverse reaction upon cooling gases from
furnace …
Mg + CO  MgO + C
Many schemes to cool Mg and CO rapidly, most famous
was the Permanente Plant that mixed gases with large
quantities of natural gas.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Slight positive
pressure
Mg (g) + CO 
Hot
Vacuum
Mg(l) or
Mg(s) and
CO
Cooler
Adiabatic Expansion through a lavalle nozzle …
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Slight positive
pressure
Mg (g) + CO 
Vacuum
Mg(l) or
Mg(s) and
CO
Supersonic velocities, cooling in a fraction of a second ….
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Slight positive
pressure
Mg (g) + CO 
Vacuum
Mg(l) or
Mg(s) and
CO
Delta pressure determines the amount of cooling that occurs.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Slight positive
pressure
Mg (g) + CO 
Vacuum
Mg(l) or
Mg(s) and
CO
Mathematically well defined, used in many industrial applications.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Slight positive
pressure
Mg (g) + CO 
Vacuum
Mg(l) or
Mg(s) and
CO
SiC or Graphite or Ceramic Material of Choice for High Temperatures
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
Solid magnesium produced on lab scale, very high efficiency
approaching 100%.
MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium
The lab scale reactor without the SiO condenser produced
magnesium metal containing about 700 ppm silicon and 50 ppm
iron. The bench scale reactor with the condenser produced
magnesium metal with the following average impurities (ppm):
Al 110
Ca
21
Zn 35
P
15
Mn 77
Na 150
Si
80*
Fe 15
K
240
Ni < 5 ppm
* Results for Si was only shown for one run.
Meets 9980A ASTM B92M-83 but not 9990A or higher.
MV Model
 Uses Excel Interface
Visual Basic for Applications (open source code*)
Subroutine for each unit Operation
Download from www.metallurgicalviability.com
*Some confidential information removed from Model
PFD’s for Process
 Calcining Process Flow Diagram
Furnace PFD
Utilities PFD
Calcining PFD
Furnace PFD
Utilities PFD
Program
Flowsheet
Flowsheet
Part II
Design
Criteria
Design
Criteria
Raw
Material
Analysis
Raw
Material
Analysis
Costs
Prices
Example
Code
Example
subroutine
MB Check
Stream
Name
Mass (mtpy)
%solids
Temp C
Pressure (atm-abs)
Elements
Code
Al
B
C
Ca
Cl
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
H
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
Ni
O
P
Pb
S
Si
Sn
Ti
Zn
Other
TOTAL
SOLIDS
71
72
MgO
Product
101,316
100
600
1
Recycle
Dust
wt.%
ELEMENTS
10
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
31
0
0
60,696
32
0
0
1
40,522
3
6
0
7
1
0
10
101,325
SOLIDS
73
912
100
600
1
Dust to
Disposal
wt.%
ELEMENTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
546
0
0
0
365
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
912
SOLIDS
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
101
100
600
1
ELEMENT
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
SOLIDS
75
Feed to
Blender
wt.%
152,512
97
28
1
CO after
HX
wt.%
ELEMENTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
10
0
2,533
1
0
0
4
0
0
5,746
0
61,309
33
0
1
82,814
3
7
0
7
1
0
10
152,480
SOLIDS
76
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
40
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Steam to
Ejctrs
72,761
0
90
0
970,027
167
9
ELEMENT
S
0
0
30,236
60
418
0
0
4
0
741
0
155
0
408
147
0
40,424
0
0
37
252
0
0
0
72,882
SOLIDS
ELEMEN
TS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
108,537
0
0
0
0
0
0
861,490
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
970,027
SOLIDS
0
0
41
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Elemental MB
Stream
51
52
53
54
TTL O2
Supply
56,387
O2 to
Coke Prhtr
4,988
Coke
Supply
36,412
CO from
Coke Htr
8,730
25
1
GASES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,988
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
1
GASES
610
3
GASES
0
8,730
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Name
Mass (mtpy)
%solids
Temp C
25
Pressure (atm-abs)
1
GASES
GASES
CH4 (methane)
0
CO
0
CO2
0
H2O(gas)
0
Mg (g)
0
Mn(g)
0
N2
514
O2
55,873
P(g)
0
Pb (g)
0
SiO (g)
0
Sn (g)
0
SO2(g)
0
Zn (g)
0
wt. %
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
99.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
wt. %
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
wt. %
100
MB
wt. %
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Heat
Balance
$
Income
Statement
Impact of Costs - Example Energy
Impact of Energy Costs
Operating Cost $/lb of Mg
0.7
0.6
$20/tonne coke
$80/tonne coke
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Cost of Power $/kwh
0.07
0.08
Example -Design Criteria impact
Vacuum Pressure
Operating Cost $/lb of Mg
$1.10
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
0.09 atm
$0.70
0.05 atm
$0.60
0.03 atm
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Power Cost $/kwh
0.06
0.07
0.08
Preliminary Lessons Learned
from MV Model
•Cool gases (CO) before pulling the vacuum.
•Process very competitive if magnesium can be condensed and
collected in the liquid phase from the nozzle.
•Two stage steam ejectors are cost effective for collecting
magnesium in the liquid phase.
•Two stage steam ejectors are not cost effective for collecting
magnesium in the solid phase.
•Costs for producing adequate vacuum to collect magnesium in
the liquid phase not yet determined (will probably involved
mechanical pumps and/or condensers between stages).
Preliminary Lessons Learned
from MV Model
•Process sensitive to power costs, less so to coke, methane, and
oxygen.
• With oxygen at $0.06 per NCM, burning coke to make CO to
make steam to drive the ejectors is not cost effective.
•More work needed on impurity distribution.
MV Modeling
If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process
make money?
How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw
material and energy impact operating costs?