ANALYSIS OF OFF GAS POWER PLANT UTILIZATION FOR PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURE
Petrochemical manufacture is one of the industrial sectors with great potential for waste heat recovery because some of its industrial processes produce off gas with a composition that is good for fuel. Instead of being directly thrown away, the gas can be utilized by converting it into other for...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Final Project |
Language: | Indonesia |
Online Access: | https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/82049 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Institut Teknologi Bandung |
Language: | Indonesia |
Summary: | Petrochemical manufacture is one of the industrial sectors with great
potential for waste heat recovery because some of its industrial processes produce
off gas with a composition that is good for fuel. Instead of being directly thrown
away, the gas can be utilized by converting it into other forms of energy, such as
electricity. In this research, the author tries to create three alternative designs for
the implementation of off gas power plant in one of the petrochemical
manufacturers in Indonesia, Chandra Asri Pacific. The off gas that is being
converted is a side product of the Naptha Cracker Plant with a mass flow of 1.72
kg/s with a dominant composition of methane of 99.16%. The first alternative is a
steam Rankine cycle with a capacity of 29 MW with a thermal efficiency of 37.52%.
The second alternative is an organic Rankine cycle with a capacity of 14 MW with
a thermal efficiency of 17.83% using R245fa working fluid. The third alternative is
a 17 MW Kalina cycle with a thermal efficiency of 22.28% using a dual working
fluid of ammonia (7.91%) and water (92.09%). To decide on the best alternative,
an assessment matrix was formulated that included technical, economic, and
environmental impact aspects. The first alternative has the highest efficiency and
provides the lowest carbon emissions but provides the most expensive capital cost
and LCOE. The second alternative provides the lowest capital cost and LCOE but
is the least efficient and provides the highest carbon emissions. In terms of
economics, the three alternatives are feasible to implement because they provide
LCOE that is cheaper than the price of PLN electricity for class I-4. In terms of
environmental impact, the second and third alternative are not feasible to
implement because it provides the same or even higher carbon emissions than
typical SPP and JAMALI system emission factors. |
---|