Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Heat exchange reforming as intergrated part of a new plant and as revamp option

Henrik Olsson

Agenda
Introduction to heat exchange reforming Flue gas heated reformers - HTCR
HTCR Revamp options

Process gas heated reformers - HTER


HTER Revamp options New plants with HTER

Conclusions, Q&A

Introduction
Heat exchange reforming
Compact Highly efficient Reduction of fuel consumption Export steam reduction Operating cost savings 30% capacity revamp option

Idea of heat exchange reforming


Utilise heat from process gas heat d/s reforming section for reforming instead of steam production The main challenge in heat exchange reformer has been to overcome metal dusting
Metal temperature vs. attack
60 Attack, % 40 20 0 500

700 600 Temperature, C

800

Flue gas heated reformers - HTCR


(Haldor Topse Convection Reformer)

Flue gas heated reformers - HTCR


Flue gas outlet (600 C) Process gas outlet (600 C) Process gas inlet (450 C) Flue gas tube Flue gas annulus Reformer tube Catalyst bed Center tube

Flue gas entering the flue gas annulus

Flue gas inlet (1200 C)

Revamp options - HTCR

Revamp options - HTCR


The HTCR revamp option
Optimal reuse of existing unit Minimum down time and interference with existing unit Improved plant efficiency Flexible and trouble free capacity adjustment Compact

Process gas heated reformers - HTER


(Haldor Topse Exchange Reformer)
Feed gas

Product gas

SMR effluent

Process gas heated reformers - HTER


Feed gas Catalyst bed 1 inside tubes

Catalyst bed 2 outside tubes Outer tube Inner tube Heating/cooling gas

Revamp options - HTER


Prereformer Tubular reformer HTER

Process steam

Feed

Fuel

Revamp options - HTER


Before revamp H2 production, Nm3/h NG consumption, Nm3/h Steam export, kg/h SMR duty, Gcal/h After revamp Relative change

50,000 21,000 38,000 44

62,500 25300 30,000 44

25% 21% -21% 0%

Revamp options - HTER


The HTER revamp option
30% capacity increase Improved plant efficiency Reduction of steam export Compact plot area Easy to operate

New plants with HTER


SMR + HTER
Complete integration of technologies Easy to operate and maintain Decreased fuel and power consumption Reduction of steam export Competitive capital investment Operating cost reduction

New plants with HTER


Case Feed, Gcal/ 1,000 Nm3 H2 Fuel, Gcal/ 1,000Nm3 H2 Steam export, Gcal/1,000 Nm3 Power consumption kW/1,000 Nm3 H2 CO2 emissions kg/ 1,000 Nm3 Cost of feed, M USD/yr Cost of fuel, M USD/yr Electric power, M USD/yr Steam credit, M USD/yr Total annual operating cost, M USD/yr* Capital investment, index
*Based

Traditional SMR 3.33 0.34 0.66

HTER + SMR 3.35 0.14 0.40

16 900 211.42 21.59 2.56 -20.95 214.62 100

14 860 212.68 8.89 2.24 -12.70 211.11 100

on a NG prize of 10 USD/MBtu, a steam price of 16 USD/tonn and an electric power price of 0.1 USD/kWh

Heat exchange reforming references


>40 references for heat exchange reformers On-going projects with HTER: 7 HTERs for synthesis gas to synfuel plants, South Africa 2 HTERs for hydrogen plants of 206,000 Nm3/h, KNPC Kuwait 3 HTERs for hydrogen plants of 130,000 Nm3/h, Essar Oil Vadinar HTER for 25% capacity revamp of 50,000 Nm3/h, Numaligarh Refinery

Conclusions
HTER as revamp option
30% capacity increase Compact and easy to operate Optimal reuse of existing unit Improved plant efficiency, lower feed + fuel consumption

HTER in new hydrogen unit


Easy to operate and maintain Reduced fuel and power consumption Reduction/elimination of export steam Competitive capital investment Operating cost reduction

>40 Heat exchange reforming references