4.6 Article

Techno-economic evaluation of different CO2-based processes for dimethyl carbonate production

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 496-510

出版社

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2014.07.013

关键词

Dimethyl carbonate; CO2-based synthesis; Process evaluation; Energy consumption; Net CO2 emission; Sustainability analysis

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund
  2. Dussadeepipat Scholarship, Chulalongkorn University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, several chemical processes for production of dimethyl carbonate (DMC) based on CO2 utilization are evaluated. Four CO2-based processes for production of DMC are considered: (1) direct synthesis from CO2 and methanol; (2) synthesis from urea; (3) synthesis from propylene carbonate; and (4) synthesis from ethylene carbonate. The processes avoid the use of toxic chemicals such as phosgene, CO and NO that are required in conventional DMC production processes. From preliminaxy thermodynamic analysis, the yields of DMC are found to have the following order (higher to lower): ethylene carbonate route > urea route > propylene carbonate route > direct synthesis from CO2. Therefore, only the urea and ethylene carbonate routes are further investigated by comparing their performances with the commercial BAYER process on the basis of kg of DMC produced at a specific purity. The ethylene carbonate route is found to give the best performance in terms of energy consumption (11.4% improvement), net CO2 emission (13.4% improvement), in global warming potential (58.6% improvement) and in human toxicity-carcinogenic (99.9% improvement) compared to the BAYER process. Also, the ethylene carbonate option produces ethylene glycol as a valuable by-product. Based on the above and other performance criteria, the ethylene carbonate route is found to be a highly promising green process for DMC production. (C) 2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据