DOCSLIB.ORG

Lng Liquefaction Process Selection: Alternative Refrigerants to Reduce Footprint and Cost

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lng Liquefaction Process Selection: Alternative Refrigerants to Reduce Footprint and Cost LNG LIQUEFACTION PROCESS SELECTION: ALTERNATIVE REFRIGERANTS TO REDUCE FOOTPRINT AND COST Russell H. Oelfke Robert D. Denton Michael R. Miller ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company 1 ABSTRACT This paper describes recent work at ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company to identify novel refrigerants and processes for production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in large-scale floating and onshore LNG facilities. The goal of the research was to reduce the footprint and cost of baseload LNG plants through the use of non-flammable or reduced flammability refrigerants. Process results are presented and discussed for two novel liquefaction cycles: a mixed refrigerant process and a cascade process. The performance aspects of each process are discussed, and tradeoffs in process complexity and equipment flexibility are considered. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Incentives The design of an efficient refrigeration system is of paramount importance for effective and economic LNG production. Several commercially available refrigeration cycles are currently in use at baseload LNG plants. Most of these cycles share a common feature: the use of flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as methane, ethane or ethylene, propane, isobutane, isopentane, and their mixtures (often with nitrogen as well). Facility space is significantly more costly for floating LNG (FLNG) plants than for onshore plants. The use of flammable refrigerants and the requirement for appropriate spacing and other measures to prevent adverse consequences in the event of refrigerant release increases the capital costs of FLNG projects. Requirements for safe refrigerant makeup, handling, storage, and import on to floating vessels also increase FLNG costs relative to onshore plants. Replacing hydrocarbon refrigerants with non-flammable, or reduced flammability, refrigerants offers the potential for reducing the capital costs of FLNG projects. There are also potential cost reductions for onshore LNG plants, as requirements for “buffer zone” land surrounding and within plant sites may be reduced. These economic benefits can only be realized if the liquefaction cycles using the alternate refrigerants have comparable thermal efficiency and equipment requirements relative to the conventional liquefaction processes. 2.2 Alternative Refrigerants In considering alternative refrigerants for baseload LNG projects, we evaluated several classes of refrigerants, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), noble gases, and fluorocarbon refrigerants with reduced greenhouse warming potential. A list of selected conventional and alternative refrigerant candidates appears in Table 1. The table uses the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) “R-code” numbering system, which numerically identifies refrigerants based on their chemical structure.1 The R-codes will be used to refer to specific refrigerants in the balance of this paper. Table 1 also lists the chemical name, chemical formula, molecular weight, normal boiling point, melting point, critical temperature, safety group, and greenhouse warming potential for each of the refrigerants. 1 Table 1. Selected conventional and alternative refrigerants for use in LNG refrigeration cycles ASHRAE NBP MP Crit. T Safety Number Chemical Name Formula MW (°F) (°F) (°F) Group GWP100 R-14 Tetrafluoromethane CF4 88 −198 −298 −50 A1 7,390 R-23 Trifluoromethane CHF3 70 −116 −247 79 A1 14,800 R-41 Fluoromethane CH3F 34 −109 −223 112 A3 92 R-116 Hexafluoroethane C2F6 138 −109 −149 68 A1 12,200 R-32 Difluoromethane CH2F2 52 −62 −213 173 A2L 675 R-410A R-32 / 125 (50 / 50 wt%) — 74 −61 — 160 A1 2088 R-125 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane C2HF5 120 −56 −153 151 A1 3,500 R-143a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane CH3CF3 84 −54 −168 163 A2L 4,470 R-218 Octafluoropropane C3F8 188 −35 −234 161 A1 8,830 R-1234yf 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene C3H2F4 114 −21 −242 202 A2L 4 R-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane CH2FCF3 102 −15 −154 214 A1 1,430 R-152a 1,1-difluoroethane CH2CHF2 66 −13 −179 236 A2 124 R-1234ze 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene C3H2F4 114 −2 — — A2L 6 R-227ea 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane CF3CFHCF3 170 3 −204 215 A1 3,220 R-C318 Octafluorocyclobutane (-CF2-)4 200 21 −40 239 A1 10,300 R-236fa 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane CF3CH2CF3 152 29 −140 257 A1 9,810 R-245fa 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane CF3CH2CHF2 134 59 −152 309 B1 1,030 R-245ca 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane CHF2CF2CH2F 134 77 −116 346 B1 693 R-347mcc 1-methoxyheptafluoropropane C3F7OCH3 200 93 −189 328 — 450 R-728 Nitrogen N2 28 −320 −346 −232 A1 0 R-740 Argon Ar 40 −303 −309 −188 A1 0 R-784 Krypton Kr 84 −244 −251 −83 A1 0 — Xenon Xe 131 −163 −169 62 A1 0 R-744 Carbon dioxide CO2 44 −70(s) −109 88 A1 1 R-50 Methane CH4 16 −259 −296 −117 A3 25 R-1150 Ethylene C2H4 28 −155 −273 48 A3 < 25 R-170 Ethane C2H6 30 −127 −297 90 A3 < 25 R-290 Propane C3H8 44 −44 −306 206 A3 < 25 R-600a Isobutane CH3CHCH3 58 11 −255 274 A3 < 25 (CH ) CHCH CH R-601a Isopentane 3 2 2 3 72 82 −256 369 A3 < 25 Notes : 1. The Ozone Depletion Potentials (ODPs) for all components in this Table are 0. All comply with the Montréal Protocol. 2. The GWP100 is the relative 100 year Greenhouse Warming Potential, with CO2 as “1”. 3. The Safety Group is an ASHRAE designation, “A” meaning Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) above 400 ppm allowed, “B” meaning the OEL is below 400 ppm. A number of “1” indicates non- flammable, “2” means slightly flammable, and “3” means highly flammable. An “L” suffix indicates very low flame propagation speed. Safety and environmental considerations helped define the list of candidate refrigerants. The primary safety criteria were flammability and toxicity. ASHRAE maintains a safety classification scheme that designates both the flammability and toxicity of refrigerants.1 Initial alternative refrigerant candidates were mostly within toxicity class ‘A’ (essentially non-toxic) and completely nonflammable (class ‘1’). Environmental regulations also influenced the selection of refrigerants. Laws governing the Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) of refrigerants were enacted by many governments following the Montréal Protocol.2 It was discovered in the 1970s that chlorinated and brominated halocarbons deplete the ozone layer via free radical chain reactions.3 Nevertheless, halocarbons that contain fluorine as the only halogen were found not to react 2 with ozone. Therefore, compounds containing chlorine and bromine were excluded from the set of candidate refrigerants. 2.2.1 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a class of refrigerants that first came into widespread use in the 1990s for small-scale applications (relative to baseload LNG) in response to regulations phasing out the previous generation of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants.2 Many HFCs are non-flammable, non-toxic, and non- reactive. Moreover, the HFC family has a wide range of normal boiling points (NBPs) that are similar to the NBPs of the hydrocarbon refrigerants used in most natural gas liquefaction processes. The Kyoto Protocol specifically identifies HFCs and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as greenhouse gases.4 One measure of the greenhouse warming effect of a compound is its global warming potential over 100 years, or GWP100. The GWP100 is defined as the equivalent mass of CO2 needed to have the same greenhouse effect as releasing a unit mass of refrigerant over a 100-year period.4 Most HFCs have relatively high global warming potentials. The chemical stability of many HFCs is the main cause for their greenhouse potential. Some countries, in conjunction with carbon taxation schemes, have begun to tax refrigerants on the basis of 5 GWP100. 2.2.2 Noble Gases Most of the noble gases—in particular argon, krypton, and xenon—are candidates for alternative LNG refrigerants. These noble gases are non-toxic, non-flammable, non-ozone-depleting and have no greenhouse potential. Xenon and krypton are of particular interest, as their NBPs are in the appropriate range to cover the colder portion of the LNG cooling curve. 2.2.3 Refrigerants with Lower Greenhouse Impact Adding hydrogen atoms to HFC molecules increases their rates of atmospheric degradation, but also tends to increase their flammability and reactivity. Of the refrigerants identified in Table 1, the heavily fluorinated methane derivatives R-14 and R-23 have high GWP100 values (7,390 and 14,800, respectively) and no flammability. R-32, which has two hydrogen atoms, has a significantly lower GWP100 of 675, but is classified as 2L (weakly flammable). R-41, with only one fluorine and three hydrogen atoms, has an even lower GWP100 of 97, but greater flammability (class 3 — flammable). HFCs can include unsaturated bonds, in which case they are designated hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs).6 HFOs tend to be more reactive and flammable due to the presence of unsaturated bonds, but they also degrade more rapidly in the environment. HFOs were developed in anticipation of EU regulations limiting the GWP100 6 of automotive air-conditioning refrigerants to values less than 150. For example, R-1234yf (GWP100 = 4) was designed as a replacement for R-134a (GWP100 = 1,430). Despite its ASHRAE classification as slightly flammable (2L), R-1234yf has been approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers for use in vehicle air conditioners.6 Oxygen atoms can also hasten degradation of HFCs. Hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and fluorinated ketones 7 have been developed as low-GWP100 cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and fire suppressants. In particular, R- 347mcc (C3F7OCH3) may be a promising warm end component for an LNG mixed refrigerant due to its desirable combination of properties, including complete non-flammability, low MP and GWP100, and high NBP.7 3 METHODS 3.1 Refrigerant Selection When selecting a refrigerant for a particular service, the NBP and the melting point (MP) are important. It is desirable for the refrigerant vapor pressure to be greater than atmospheric pressure throughout the entire 3 cycle to avoid vacuum conditions in the chillers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cylinder Valve Selection Quick Reference for Valve Abbreviations
    SHERWOOD VALVE COMPRESSED GAS PRODUCTS Appendix Cylinder Valve Selection Quick Reference for Valve Abbreviations Use the Sherwood Cylinder Valve Series Abbreviation Chart on this page with the Sherwood Cylinder Valve Selection Charts found on pages 73–80. The Sherwood Cylinder Valve Selection Chart are for reference only and list: • The most commonly used gases • The Compressed Gas Association primary outlet to be used with each gas • The Sherwood valves designated for use with this gas • The Pressure Relief Device styles that are authorized by the DOT for use with these gases PLEASE NOTE: The Sherwood Cylinder Valve Selection Charts are partial lists extracted from the CGA V-1 and S-1.1 pamphlets. They can change without notice as the CGA V-1 and S-1.1 pamphlets are amended. Sherwood will issue periodic changes to the catalog. If there is any discrepancy or question between these lists and the CGA V-1 and S-1.1 pamphlets, the CGA V-1 and S-1.1 pamphlets take precedence. Sherwood Cylinder Valve Series Abbreviation Chart Abbreviation Sherwood Valve Series AVB Small Cylinder Acetylene Wrench-Operated Valves AVBHW Small Cylinder Acetylene Handwheel-Operated Valves AVMC Small Cylinder Acetylene Wrench-Operated Valves AVMCHW Small Cylinder Acetylene Handwheel-Operated Valves AVWB Small Cylinder Acetylene Wrench-Operated Valves — WB Style BV Hi/Lo Valves with Built-in Regulator DF* Alternative Energy Valves GRPV Residual Pressure Valves GV Large Cylinder Acetylene Valves GVT** Vertical Outlet Acetylene Valves KVAB Post Medical Valves KVMB Post Medical Valves NGV Industrial and Chrome-Plated Valves YVB† Vertical Outlet Oxygen Valves 1 * DF Valves can be used with all gases; however, the outlet will always be ⁄4"–18 NPT female.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Refrigerants Mark O
    This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes. pubs.acs.org/jced Review (R)Evolution of Refrigerants Mark O. McLinden* and Marcia L. Huber Cite This: J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65, 4176−4193 Read Online ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *sı Supporting Information ABSTRACT: As we enter the “fourth generation” of refrigerants, we consider the evolution of refrigerant molecules, the ever- changing constraints and regulations that have driven the need to consider new molecules, and the advancements in the tools and property models used to identify new molecules and design equipment using them. These separate aspects are intimately intertwined and have been in more-or-less continuous development since the earliest days of mechanical refrigeration, even if sometimes out-of-sight of the mainstream refrigeration industry. We highlight three separate, comprehensive searches for new refrigerantsin the 1920s, the 1980s, and the 2010sthat sometimes identified new molecules, but more often, validated alternatives already under consideration. A recurrent theme is that there is little that is truly new. Most of the “new” refrigerants, from R-12 in the 1930s to R- 1234yf in the early 2000s, were reported in the chemical literature decades before they were considered as refrigerants. The search for new refrigerants continued through the 1990s even as the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were becoming the dominant refrigerants in commercial use. This included a return to several long-known natural refrigerants. Finally, we review the evolution of the NIST REFPROP database for the calculation of refrigerant properties.
    [Show full text]
  • "Fluorine Compounds, Organic," In: Ullmann's Encyclopedia Of
    Article No : a11_349 Fluorine Compounds, Organic GU¨ NTER SIEGEMUND, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt, Federal Republic of Germany WERNER SCHWERTFEGER, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt, Federal Republic of Germany ANDREW FEIRING, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Delaware, United States BRUCE SMART, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Delaware, United States FRED BEHR, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States HERWARD VOGEL, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States BLAINE MCKUSICK, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Delaware, United States 1. Introduction....................... 444 8. Fluorinated Carboxylic Acids and 2. Production Processes ................ 445 Fluorinated Alkanesulfonic Acids ...... 470 2.1. Substitution of Hydrogen............. 445 8.1. Fluorinated Carboxylic Acids ......... 470 2.2. Halogen – Fluorine Exchange ......... 446 8.1.1. Fluorinated Acetic Acids .............. 470 2.3. Synthesis from Fluorinated Synthons ... 447 8.1.2. Long-Chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids .... 470 2.4. Addition of Hydrogen Fluoride to 8.1.3. Fluorinated Dicarboxylic Acids ......... 472 Unsaturated Bonds ................. 447 8.1.4. Tetrafluoroethylene – Perfluorovinyl Ether 2.5. Miscellaneous Methods .............. 447 Copolymers with Carboxylic Acid Groups . 472 2.6. Purification and Analysis ............. 447 8.2. Fluorinated Alkanesulfonic Acids ...... 472 3. Fluorinated Alkanes................. 448 8.2.1. Perfluoroalkanesulfonic Acids
    [Show full text]
  • THOMAS MIDGLEY, JR., and the INVENTION of CHLOROFLUOROCARBON REFRIGERANTS: IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO Carmen J
    66 Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 31, Number 2 (2006) THOMAS MIDGLEY, JR., AND THE INVENTION OF CHLOROFLUOROCARBON REFRIGERANTS: IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO Carmen J. Giunta, Le Moyne College The 75th anniversary of the first public Critical readers are well aware description of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) of the importance of evaluating refrigerants was observed in 2005. A sources of information. For ex- symposium at a national meeting of ample, an article in Nature at the the American Chemical Society (ACS) end of 2005 tested the accuracy on CFCs from invention to phase-out of two encyclopedias’ entries on a (1) and an article on their invention sample of topics about science and and inventor in the Chemical Educa- history of science (3). A thought- tor (2) marked the occasion. The story ful commentary published soon of CFCs—their obscure early days as afterwards raised questions on just laboratory curiosities, their commercial what should count as an error in debut as refrigerants, their expansion into assessing such articles: omissions? other applications, and the much later disagreements among generally re- discovery of their deleterious effects on liable sources (4)? Readers of his- stratospheric ozone—is a fascinating torical narratives who are neither one of science and society well worth practicing historians nor scholarly telling. That is not the purpose of this amateurs (the category to which I article, though. aspire) may find an account of a Thomas Midgley, Jr. historical research process attrac- This paper is about contradictory Courtesy Richard P. Scharchburg tive. As a starting point, consider sources, foggy memories, the propaga- Archives, Kettering University the following thumbnail summary tion of error, and other obstacles to writ- of the invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Fluorocarbons
    Three Bond Technical News Issued Dec. 20, 1989 An Overview of Fluorocarbons Introduction Currently, chlorofluorocarbons are garnering a lot of Three Bond Co,. Ltd. has been working night and day in attention around the world. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in search of alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons. In the future, many of our products and when we look at the future of products that do not contain any chlorofluorocarbons will chlorofluorocarbons in the world, and in Japan, we can replace products that now contain chlorofluorocarbons. To foresee that their use will be strictly limited or eliminated all ensure these products reach our customers as smoothly as together. possible, it is important that they have a good understanding of the issues surrounding chlorofluorocarbons. Whatever the case, Three Bond Co., Ltd. is obligated to provide our customers with products that have the same functionality as chlorofluorocarbons. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1 1. What is a fluorocarbon? .......................................................................................................................................2 2. Properties of fluorocarbons ..................................................................................................................................2 3. Types of fluorocarbons.........................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Halocarbon 41, HFC-41
    SAFETY DATA SHEET Fluoromethane Issue Date: 16.01.2013 Version: 1.1 SDS No.: 000010021722 Last revised date: 19.03.2021 1/26 SECTION 1: Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company/undertaking 1.1 Product identifier Product name : Fluoromethane Other Name : R41, Halocarbon 41, HFC-41 Additional identification Chemical name: Fluoromethane Chemical formula: CH3F INDEX No. - CAS-No. 593-53-3 EC No. 209-796-6 REACH Registration No. 01-2120746661-53 1.2 Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised against Identified uses : Industrial and professional. Perform risk assessment prior to use. Aerosol propellant. Use as an Intermediate (transported, on-site isolated). Use for electronic component manufacture. Using gas alone or in mixtures for the calibration of analysis equipment. Uses advised against Consumer use. 1.3 Details of the supplier of the safety data sheet Supplier BOC Telephone : 0800 111 333 Priestley Road, Worsley M28 2UT Manchester E-mail: [email protected] 1.4 Emergency telephone number: 0800 111 333 SECTION 2: Hazards identification 2.1 Classification of the substance or mixture Classification according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as amended. Physical Hazards Gases under pressure Liquefied gas H280: Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated. Flammable gas Category 1 H220: Extremely flammable gas. SDS_GB - 000010021722 SAFETY DATA SHEET Fluoromethane Issue Date: 16.01.2013 Version: 1.1 SDS No.: 000010021722 Last revised date: 19.03.2021 2/26 2.2 Label Elements Signal Word : Danger Hazard Statement(s) : H220: Extremely flammable gas. H280: Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated.
    [Show full text]
  • Refrigerants
    Related Commercial Resources CHAPTER 29 REFRIGERANTS Refrigerant Properties .................................................................................................................. 29.1 Refrigerant Performance .............................................................................................................. 29.6 Safety ............................................................................................................................................. 29.6 Leak Detection .............................................................................................................................. 29.6 Effect on Construction Materials .................................................................................................. 29.9 EFRIGERANTS are the working fluids in refrigeration, air- cataracts, and impaired immune systems. It also can damage sensi- R conditioning, and heat-pumping systems. They absorb heat tive crops, reduce crop yields, and stress marine phytoplankton (and from one area, such as an air-conditioned space, and reject it into thus human food supplies from the oceans). In addition, exposure to another, such as outdoors, usually through evaporation and conden- UV radiation degrades plastics and wood. sation, respectively. These phase changes occur both in absorption Stratospheric ozone depletion has been linked to the presence of and mechanical vapor compression systems, but not in systems oper- chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. Chemicals with long ating on a gas cycle using a
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Liquefaction Technology for Floating Lng Facilities
    NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TECHNOLOGY FOR FLOATING LNG FACILITIES Dr. Justin D. Bukowski Lead Process Engineer Dr. Yu Nan Liu Technical Director, LNG Dr. Mark R. Pillarella Senior Process Manager, LNG Stephen J. Boccella Lead Mechanical Design Engineer William A Kennington LNG Major Account Manager Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Allentown, PA, USA 18195-1501 [email protected] KEYWORDS: FLNG, refrigeration cycles, DMR, nitrogen recycle ABSTRACT Forecasts for the LNG industry indicate that a large segment of growth will occur through floating LNG (FLNG) development. FLNG facilities present special challenges over those facilities on land. Among these challenges are the response of equipment and processes to wave induced motion of the vessel, weight and space limits for the process equipment on the vessel topsides, difficulty of equipment maintenance and repair or replacement, handling of flammable component inventories, and corrosion. Meeting these challenges requires a mix of analysis, testing, and innovation. To qualify coil wound heat exchangers (CWHE) for FLNG applications, Air Products performed an extensive design verification program. The program included rigorous mechanical analysis of the exchanger, as well as experimental testing of components which were not amenable to analysis. The program also addressed the effects of motion on mixed refrigerant liquefaction process performance through an integrated analytical and experimental investigation of two-phase flow within a CWHE. The results of the mechanical and process verification programs have been applied to CWHE designs for FLNG, including the Shell Prelude FLNG and Petronas FLNG 1 projects. Several process cycles suitable for floating LNG applications are presented. Mixed Refrigerant (MR) processes combine high production and high efficiency for FLNG applications.
    [Show full text]
  • DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS of FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS
    criteria for a recommended standard . occupational exposure to DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS of FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE criteria for a recommended standard... OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS of FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health September 1977 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-193 PREFACE The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 emphasizes the need for standards to protect the health and safety of workers exposed to an ever-increasing number of potential hazards at their workplace. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has projected a formal system of research, with priorities determined on the basis of specified indices, to provide relevant data from which valid criteria for effective standards can be derived. Recommended standards for occupational exposure, which are the result of this work, are based on the health effects of exposure. The Secretary of Labor will weigh these recommendations along with other considerations such as feasibility and means of implementation in developing regulatory standards. It is intended to present successive reports as research and epidemiologic studies are completed and as sampling and analytical methods are developed. Criteria and standards will be reviewed periodically to ensure continuing protection of the worker. I am pleased to acknowledge the contributions to this report on the decomposition products of fluorocarbon polymers by members of the NIOSH staff and the valuable constructive comments by the Review Consultants on the Decomposition Products of Fluorocarbon Polymers and by Robert B.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Liquefaction and Desulfurization
    COAL LIQUEFACTION AND DESULFURIZATION J. A. GUIN, Y. A. LIU, C. W. CURTIS, A. R. TARRER AND D. C. WILLIAMS The program is presently the Auburn University largest university-based coal research Auburn, AL 36849 program in the Southeastern region, and current support is . .. about $450,000 annually. ALABAMA IS A SIGNIFICANT producer of coal in the United States, particularly in the Gulf province. There are large reserves of coal in Ala­ aspects of the Auburn coal liquefaction research bama; 35 billion tons lie in the northern and program. It has made available its resources and central counties, enough for hundreds of years at facilities at the 6 tons/day solvent-refined-coal our present rate of production. Lignite deposits (SRC) pilot plant located at Wilsonville, Alabama in southern Alabama counties await the technology (90 miles from Auburn) for support of the super­ to properly realize their value. Thus, a strong vised internship and hands-on research training of recommendation of a statewide conference on the Auburn program. The largest utility coal user "Energy and the Future of Alabama" sponsored in the Northeast, the New England Electric by Auburn University in 1972 was for "research, System, has also actively participated in the Au­ development and technical liaison in the areas of burn coal desulfurization research since 1978. coal production, coal processing and coal usage." Auburn University acted upon this recommenda­ COAL RESEARCH FACULTY AND FACILITIES tion, and with major support from the National The Auburn coal liquefaction research program Science Foundation (NSF), established the Au­ is presently being directed by a number of burn Coal Conversion Research Laboratory in chemical engineering faculty, including Drs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fluoromethane (R41) 059
    Page : 1 / 9 SAFETY DATA SHEET Revised edition no : 3 - 00 BC in accordance with REACH Date : 31 / 1 / 2014 regulation 1907/2006/EC Supersedes : 2 / 10 / 2012 Fluoromethane (R41) 059 SECTION 1. Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company/undertaking 1.1. Product identifier Trade name : Fluoromethane (R41) SDS Nr : 059 Chemical description : Fluoromethane (R41) CAS No :593-53-3 EC No :209-796-6 Index No :--- Registration-No. : Registration deadline not expired. Chemical formula : CH3F 1.2. Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised against Relevant identified uses : Test gas / Calibration gas. Industrial and professional. Perform risk assessment prior to use. Laboratory use. Contact supplier for more uses information. Use as refrigerant. Chemical reaction / Synthesis. 1.3. Details of the supplier of the safety data sheet Company identification : AIR LIQUIDE Deutschland GmbH Hans-Günther-Sohl-Straße 5 D-40235 Düsseldorf GERMANY Telefon: +49 (0)211 6699-0 - Fax: +49 (0)211 6699-222 E-Mail address (competent person) : [email protected] 1.4. Emergency telephone number Emergency telephone number : +49 (0)2151 398668 SECTION 2. Hazards identification 2.1. Classification of the substance or mixture Hazard Class and Category Code(s), Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) • Physical hazards : Flammable gases - Category 1 - Danger - (CLP : Flam. Gas 1) - H220 Gases under pressure - Liquefied gas - Warning - (CLP : Press. Gas) - H280 Classification EC 67/548 or EC 1999/45 Classification : F+; R12 Not included in Annex VI. 2.2. Label elements Labelling Regulation EC 1272/2008 (CLP) • Hazard pictograms M— M« • Hazard pictograms code : GHS02 - GHS04 • Signal words : Danger • Hazard statements : H220 - Extremely flammable gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquefaction, Solidification Or Separation of Gases Or Gaseous
    CPC - F25J - 2019.08 F25J LIQUEFACTION, SOLIDIFICATION OR SEPARATION OF GASES OR GASEOUS {OR LIQUEFIED GASEOUS} MIXTURES BY PRESSURE AND COLD TREATMENT {OR BY BRINGING THEM INTO THE SUPERCRITICAL STATE (cryogenic pumps F04B 37/08; gas storage vessels, gas holders F17; filing vessels with, or discharging from vessels, compressed, liquefied or solidified gases F17C; refrigeration machines, plants, or systems F25B)} Definition statement This place covers: Processes or systems for liquefying or solidifying gases or gaseous mixtures and for separating the constituents of gaseous or liquid mixtures involving the use of liquefaction or solidification by rectification or partial condensation, the processes or systems use internal and/or external refrigeration to reach very low temperatures, i.e. so-called cryogenic temperatures, in general well below -50°C; Arrangements of cold exchangers or cold accumulators in cryogenic separation or liquefaction plants. Relationships with other classification places If the principal aspect of the application concerns the liquefaction or solidification of a gaseous feed stream but comprises also purification aspects of the feed or product stream in general then the main group concerned is F25J 1/00. Similarly, if the principal aspect of the application concerns the separation of a feed stream but comprises also the withdrawal of a liquid or solid product stream then the main group concerned is F25J 3/00. If the application, however, concerns details both about liquefaction or solidification techniques as well
    [Show full text]