Multi-aspect evaluation of integrated ethane liquefaction processes: economic, energy, and thermodynamic analysis for transport applications
-
Nguyen Van Nguyen
Abstract
Ethane liquefaction processes vary widely in energy consumption, capital investment, and technical complexity, especially in low-capacity production. The refrigeration cycles, equipment arrangement, and liquefaction facilities are important factors influencing the efficiency and performance of the technology. In this study, a case study is performed to evaluate several ethane liquefaction processes and to control the related energy consumption levels while reducing capital investment. To this end, six methods and technologies are proposed to produce liquefied ethane as case studies. Evaluation of the technical conditions, thermodynamic analysis, and cost estimation was done using Aspen HYSYS, Refprop, and Aspen Capital Cost Estimator software, respectively. Based on the results of the case studies, it can be concluded that Cases 4 and 6 are more desirable than the others due to lower capital costs and reduced energy and operating costs. In Case 4, it should be noted that cooling and liquefaction down to −34 °C are achieved at pressures above 9.5 bar. The results indicate that the estimated Total Annualized Cost (TAC) for Cases 1 to 6 are 4,375,639; 4,403,845; 4,738,296; 4,629,148; 3,467,939; and 4,124,547 USD, respectively. Consequently, among the available cases, Case 6 is the best option for the liquefaction process due to its lower cost (126 USD/T). This case operates with a propane refrigeration cycle and three main cold boxes to execute the liquefaction process.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support provided by Tra Vinh University.
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: Nguyen Van Nguyen: Data curation, Visualization, Revising, Reviewing. Vahid Pirouzfar: Writing- Original draft preparation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Gramper and language Editing.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: No.
-
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
-
Data availability: All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.
Nomenclature
- Refprop
-
Refrigerant properties software
- HYSYS
-
Process simulator
- LNG
-
Liquified Natural Gas
- GTL
-
Gas to Liquid
- GTP or GTW
-
Gas to Power
- CNG
-
Compress Natural Gas
- ANG
-
Adsorbed Natural Gas
- GTS
-
Gas to Solid
- LEG
-
Liquefied Ethane Gas
- MR
-
Mixed Refrigerant
- PFD
-
Process Flow Diagram
- TAC
-
Total Annualized Cost
- OPEX
-
Operating expenses
- CAPEX
-
Capital expenditures
- FGR
-
Flare Gas Recovery
- R-134a
-
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
- Icarus
-
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer
- PRSV
-
Peng-Robinson Stryjek and vera
- NIST 23
-
Database REFPROP software
- NNF
-
Normally No Flow
References
1. Karimi, S, Ghobadian, B, Najafi, G, Nikian, A, Mamat, R. Effect of operating parameters on ethanol–water vacuum separation in an ethanol dehydration apparatus and process modeling with ANN. Chem Prod Process Model 2014;9:179–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2014-0016.Search in Google Scholar
2. Ghasemzadeh, K, Jafari, M, Sari, A, Babalou, AA. Performance investigation of membrane process in natural gas sweeting by membrane process: modeling study. Chem Prod Process Model 2016;11:23–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2015-0054.Search in Google Scholar
3. Kumar, S, Tondwal, N, Kumar, S, Kumar, S. Thermodynamic modeling of propane reforming processes to quantify hydrogen and syngas production with and without product removal. Chem Prod Process Model 2016;11:125–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2015-0025.Search in Google Scholar
4. Tumilar, A, Sharma, M, Milani, D, Abbas, A. Modeling and simulation environments for sustainable low-carbon energy production–a review. Chem Prod Process Model 2016;11:97–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2015-0035.Search in Google Scholar
5. Alford, M, Udugama, I, Yu, W, Young, B. Flexible digital twins from commercial off-the-shelf software solutions: a driver for energy efficiency and decarbonisation in process industries? Chem Prod Process Model 2022;17:395–407. https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2021-0045.Search in Google Scholar
6. Rezaie, F, Pirouzfar, V, Alihosseini, A. Technical and economic analysis of acrylonitrile production from polypropylene. Therm Sci Eng Prog 2020;16:100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2019.100463.Search in Google Scholar
7. Bian, J, Cao, X, Yang, W, Song, X, Xiang, C, Gao, S. Condensation characteristics of natural gas in the supersonic liquefaction process. Energy 2019;168:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.102.Search in Google Scholar
8. Barza, A, Mehri, B, Pirouzfar, V. Mathematical modeling of ethane cracking furnace of olefin plant with coke formation approach. Int J Chem React Eng 2018;16:20170243. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2017-0243.Search in Google Scholar
9. He, T, Lin, W. Design and analysis of dual mixed refrigerant processes for high-ethane content natural gas liquefaction. Chin J Chem Eng 2021;29:354–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2020.09.019.Search in Google Scholar
10. Saeedi Dehaghani, AH, Pirouzfar, V, Alihosseini, A. Novel nanocomposite membranes-derived poly (4-methyl-1-pentene)/functionalized titanium dioxide to improve the gases transport properties and separation performance. Polym Bull 2020;77:6467–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-019-03086-2.Search in Google Scholar
11. Bian, J, Cao, X, Yang, W, Edem, MA, Yin, P, Jiang, W. Supersonic liquefaction properties of natural gas in the laval nozzle. Energy 2018;159:706–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.196.Search in Google Scholar
12. Cao, Y, Mohammadian, M, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH, Khan, A. Break Even Point analysis of liquefied natural gas process and optimization of its refrigeration cycles with technical and economic considerations. Energy 2021;237:121643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121643.Search in Google Scholar
13. Al-Ghamdi, AH, Al-Faifi, YH. Innovative ethane liquefaction process through cryogenics. In: SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Manama: SPE; 2013:SPE-164395 p.10.2118/164395-MSSearch in Google Scholar
14. Qyyum, MA, Qadeer, K, Ahmad, A, Ahmed, F, Lee, M. Two-phase expander refrigeration cycles with ethane–nitrogen: a cost-efficient alternative LNG processes for offshore applications. J Clean Prod 2020;248:119189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119189.Search in Google Scholar
15. Williams, PT, Slaney, E. Analysis of products from the pyrolysis and liquefaction of single plastics and waste plastic mixtures. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;51:754–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.12.002.Search in Google Scholar
16. Moein, P, Sarmad, M, Ebrahimi, H, Zare, M, Pakseresht, S, Vakili, SZ. APCI-LNG single mixed refrigerant process for natural gas liquefaction cycle: analysis and optimization. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015;26:470–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.06.040.Search in Google Scholar
17. Kumar, R, Linga, P, Moudrakovski, I, Ripmeester, JA, Englezos, P. Structure and kinetics of gas hydrates from methane/ethane/propane mixtures relevant to the design of natural gas hydrate storage and transport facilities. AIChE J 2008;54:2132–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11527.Search in Google Scholar
18. Atakan, B. Compression–expansion processes for chemical energy storage: thermodynamic optimization for methane, ethane and hydrogen. Energies 2019;12:3332. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173332.Search in Google Scholar
19. Shirazi, L, Sarmad, M, Rostami, RM, Moein, P, Zare, M, Mohammadbeigy, K. Feasibility study of the small scale LNG plant infrastructure for gas supply in north of Iran (Case study). Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2019;35:220–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.07.010.Search in Google Scholar
20. Nemati-Kande, E, Maghari, A. Transport properties of methane, ethane, propane, iso-butane and neo-pentane from ab initio potential energy surfaces. J Iran Chem Soc 2016;13:1225–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13738-016-0837-7.Search in Google Scholar
21. Chen, S, Niu, L, Zeng, Q, Li, X, Lou, F, Chen, L, et al.. Thermodynamic analysis on of skid-mounted coal-bed methane liquefaction device using cryogenic turbo-expander. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2017;278:012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/278/1/012027.Search in Google Scholar
22. Ebrahimzadeh, E, Matagi, J, Fazlollahi, F, Baxter, LL. Alternative extractive distillation system for CO2–ethane azeotrope separation in enhanced oil recovery processes. Appl Therm Eng 2016;96:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.082.Search in Google Scholar
23. Hwang, JH, Roh, MI, Lee, KY. Determination of the optimal operating conditions of the dual mixed refrigerant cycle for the LNG FPSO topside liquefaction process. Comput Chem Eng 2013;49:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.09.008.Search in Google Scholar
24. Qyyum, MA, Yasin, M, Nawaz, A, He, T, Ali, W, Haider, J, et al.. Single-solution-based vortex search strategy for optimal design of offshore and onshore natural gas liquefaction processes. Energies 2020;13:1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071732.Search in Google Scholar
25. Qyyum, MA, He, T, Qadeer, K, Mao, N, Lee, S, Lee, M. Dual-effect single-mixed refrigeration cycle: an innovative alternative process for energy-efficient and cost-effective natural gas liquefaction. Appl Energy 2020;268:115022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115022.Search in Google Scholar
26. Rehman, A, Qyyum, MA, Qadeer, K, Zakir, F, Ding, Y, Lee, M, et al.. Integrated biomethane liquefaction using exergy from the discharging end of a liquid air energy storage system. Appl Energy 2020;260:114260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114260.Search in Google Scholar
27. He, T, Lin, W. Design and optimization of nitrogen expansion liquefaction processes integrated with ethane separation for high ethane-content natural gas. Appl Therm Eng 2020;173:115272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115272.Search in Google Scholar
28. Cao, L, Zhang, C, Chen, H, Tsang, DC, Luo, G, Zhang, S, et al.. Hydrothermal liquefaction of agricultural and forestry wastes: state-of-the-art review and future prospects. Bioresour Technol 2017;245:1184–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.196.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Haider, J, Qyyum, MA, Kazmi, B, Ali, I, Nizami, AS, Lee, M. Simulation study of deep eutectic solvent-based biogas upgrading process integrated with single mixed refrigerant biomethane liquefaction. Biofuel Res J 2020;7:1245–55. https://doi.org/10.18331/brj2020.7.4.3.Search in Google Scholar
30. He, TB, Ju, YL. Design and optimization of natural gas liquefaction process by utilizing gas pipeline pressure energy. Appl Therm Eng 2013;57:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.03.044.Search in Google Scholar
31. Ding, H, Sun, H, He, M. Optimisation of expansion liquefaction processes using mixed refrigerant N2–CH4. Appl Therm Eng 2016;93:1053–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.10.004.Search in Google Scholar
32. He, T, Lin, W, Du, Z. Design and analysis of cascade liquefaction processes for coproducing liquid ethane and LNG. Int J Energy Res 2022;46:9794–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7852.Search in Google Scholar
33. Amin, S, Ghalebani, M. Optimization of small-scale natural gas liquefaction plants: energy and economic analysis. Energy 2020;209:118437.Search in Google Scholar
34. Kumar, P, Sahu, JN. Recent advancements in natural gas liquefaction technology: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;112:106–25.Search in Google Scholar
35. Smith, R, Chen, Y. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of mixed refrigerant liquefaction cycles for ethane recovery. Chem Eng Res Des 2018;133:459–73.Search in Google Scholar
36. Smith, R. Chemical process: design and integration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2016.Search in Google Scholar
37. Liu, H, Wang, J. Process simulation and optimization of ethane liquefaction plant. Energy 2018;159:522–33.Search in Google Scholar
38. Esmaili, S, Vaziri, M. Modeling phase transitions and hydrate formation in cryogenic liquefaction systems. Cryogenics 2019;98:25–35.Search in Google Scholar
39. Zhou, Y, Wang, X. Safety assessment of refrigerants in ethane liquefaction plants considering flammability and toxicity. Process Saf Environ Prot 2018;116:412–20.Search in Google Scholar
40. Seider, WD, Seader, JD, Lewin, DR, Widagdo, S. Product and process design principles: synthesis, analysis, and evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2017.Search in Google Scholar
41. Zhang, H, Wang, S. Scale-up methodology for cryogenic liquefaction plants based on process simulation. Chem Eng Res Des 2018;134:258–69.Search in Google Scholar
42. Shayan, M, Pirouzfar, V, Sakhaeinia, H. Technological and economical analysis of flare recovery methods, and comparison of different steam and power generation systems. J Therm Anal Calorim 2020;139:2399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08429-9.Search in Google Scholar
43. Barza, A, Shourije, SR, Pirouzfar, V. Industrial optimization of multi-effect desalination equipment for olefin complex. J Therm Anal Calorim 2020;139:237–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08279-5.Search in Google Scholar
44. Barza, A, Nguyen, DD, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH. Better efficiency for the olefin plant demethanizer tower by replacing trays with packing. Int J Chem React Eng 2021;19:115–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2020-0183.Search in Google Scholar
45. Nguyen, DD, Rahimi, M, Pirouzfar, V, Sakhaeinia, H, Su, CH. A comparative technical and economic analysis of different processes for shale gas conversion to high value products. C R Chim 2020;23:299–314. https://doi.org/10.5802/crchim.30.Search in Google Scholar
46. Nguyen, DD, Pirouzfar, V, Hosseini, FS, Su, CH. The technical and economic evaluation of biodiesel production processes from different vegetable oils. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2020;39:e13497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13497.Search in Google Scholar
47. Nguyen, DD, Habibi, A, Ghadami, A, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH. Technical and economic analysis of conventional and supercritical transesterification for biofuel production. Chem Eng Technol 2020;43:1922–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.202000058.Search in Google Scholar
48. Aregawi, BH, Atiku, FA, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH, Wang, FM. Evaluating the optimal capacity for the implementation of fluidized catalytic cracking in the refinery by the technical and economic analysis. Petrol Chem 2021;61:729–38. https://doi.org/10.1134/s096554412107001x.Search in Google Scholar
49. Atiku, FA, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH, Wei, SY. The technical and economic comparison of ethylene production from natural gas and ethane. Int J Chem React Eng 2021;19:415–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2021-0001.Search in Google Scholar
50. Nguyen, DD, Atiku, FA, Pirouzfar, V, Su, CH. Technical, economic and thermodynamic analysis for loading, storing, unloading and transporting of ethane fluid. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2021;120:218–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2021.03.035.Search in Google Scholar
51. Pirouzfar, V, Mohamadkhani, F, Van Nguyen, N, Su, CH. The technical and economic analysis of processing and conversion of heavy oil cuts to valuable refinery products. Int J Chem React Eng 2023;21:965–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2022-0127.Search in Google Scholar
52. Douglas, JM. Conceptual design of chemical processes. England: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. 624; 1988.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
