Cryogenic vs. absorption biogas upgrading in liquefied biomethane production – An energy efficiency analysis

•Modeling and simulation of two different concepts for liquefied biomethane production.•Comparative energy assessment of cryogenic and absorption-based biogas upgrading.•Higher overall energy efficiency observed for cryogenic biogas upgrading.•The major part of the energy input is used in the liquef...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Fuel (Guildford) 2019-06, Vol.245, p.294-304
Main Authors: Hashemi, Sayed Ebrahim, Sarker, Shiplu, Lien, Kristian M., Schnell, Sondre K., Austbø, Bjørn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Absorption
Biogas
Chemical absorption upgrading
Cryogenic upgrading
Energy conservation
Energy consumption
Energy efficiency
Industrial applications
Liquefaction
Liquefied biomethane
Methane
Methane utilization
Power efficiency
Refrigeration
Regeneration
Upgrading
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Modeling and simulation of two different concepts for liquefied biomethane production.•Comparative energy assessment of cryogenic and absorption-based biogas upgrading.•Higher overall energy efficiency observed for cryogenic biogas upgrading.•The major part of the energy input is used in the liquefaction process. Production of liquefied biomethane (LBM) from biogas comprises two major energy intensive processes; upgrading to increase the methane concentration and refrigeration to liquefy the upgraded biogas. Amine-based absorption has been considered an attractive option for biogas upgrading in industrial applications. The temperature increase associated with amine regeneration is, however, in conflict with the cooling requirement of the subsequent liquefaction process. Hence, cryogenic biogas upgrading, integrated with liquefaction, has emerged as an interesting alternative. In this paper, a rigorous energy analysis was performed for comprehensive models of the two aforementioned LBM production alternatives. Both processes were modeled using Aspen HYSYS® and optimized to minimize the energy use. The results indicate that the integrated cryogenic upgrading process is favorable in terms of both overall energy efficiency and methane utilization. Moreover, the energy analysis implies that the liquefaction process accounts for the major part of the energy input to an LBM plant, demonstrating the significance of improving the energy efficiency of the liquefaction process in order to improve the overall performance of the LBM process.
ISSN:0016-2361
1873-7153
DOI:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.01.172