Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (3) : 305-316     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-019-1860-x
REVIEW ARTICLE
Pilot plants of membrane technology in industry: Challenges and key learnings
Colin A. Scholes()
Peter Cook Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
Download: PDF(1008 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Membrane technology holds great potential in gas separation applications, especially carbon dioxide capture from industrial processes. To achieve this potential, the outputs from global research endeavours into membrane technologies must be trialled in industrial processes, which requires membrane-based pilot plants. These pilot plants are critical to the commercialization of membrane technology, be it as gas separation membranes or membrane gas-solvent contactors, as failure at the pilot plant level may delay the development of the technology for decades. Here, the author reports on his experience of operating membrane-based pilot plants for gas separation and contactor configurations as part of three industrial carbon capture initiatives: the Mulgrave project, H3 project and Vales Point project. Specifically, the challenges of developing and operating membrane pilot plants are presented, as well as the key learnings on how to successfully manage membrane pilot plants to achieve desired performance outcomes. The purpose is to assist membrane technologists in the carbon capture field to achieve successful outcomes for their technology innovations.

Keywords membrane gas separation      membrane contactors      carbon capture      pilot plants      key learnings     
Corresponding Author(s): Colin A. Scholes   
Just Accepted Date: 18 September 2019   Online First Date: 08 November 2019    Issue Date: 28 April 2020
 Cite this article:   
Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology in industry: Challenges and key learnings[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 305-316.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-019-1860-x
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2020/V14/I3/305
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Colin A. Scholes
Fig.1  Schematic of the membrane gas-solvent contactor process for CO2 separation from flue gas (post-combustion capture).
Mulgrave H3 Vales Point
Feed/(kg CO2·d–1) 6 50 120
Pressure/(kPa·g) 698.7 50 50
Gas Composition/mol-%
CO2 16.2 12.0 10.9
N2 63.2 80.5 78.7
O2 7.5 8.6
H2 9.8
CO 6.7 246 ppm
CH4 2.8
Minor components H2S, C2+ SOx, NOx SOx, NOx, HF
Tab.1  Average feed gas conditions and composition (dry basis) of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects
Pilot plant Membrane type Membrane material Module configuration
Mulgrave Gas separation Polydimethylsiloxane Asymmetric flat sheet
Polyethylene glycol Asymmetric flat sheet
PEBAX Asymmetric flat sheet
Carbon Porous composite flat sheet
Matrimid Asymmetric hollow fibre
Polysulfone Asymmetric hollow fibre
Contactor Polypropylene Porous hollow fibre
Polydimethylsiloxane Non-porous hollow fibre
H3 Gas separation Polysulfone Hollow fibre
Polypiperazine amide Spiral wound
Contactor Polypropylene Porous hollow fibre
Polydimethylsiloxane Non-porous hollow fibre
Vales Point Contactor Polyethylene Non-porous Spiral wound
Polydimethylsiloxane Composite non-porous hollow fibre
Tab.2  Membrane type, materials and module configuration trialled as part of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects
Fig.2  Photographs of membrane pilot plants of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects.
Fig.3  (a) Rotameter fouling in downstream lines and (b) oversized commercial heat exchanger sized for Vales Point project operation.
Fig.4  Scale of the membranes tested at the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point pilot plants.
Fig.5  Membrane contactor module housing failures due to solvent degradation.
Fig.6  Fluctuations in the feed gas pressure (kPa) at the (a) Mulgrave, (b) H3 and (c) Vales Point projects over different time scales. The dashed lines in (a) correspond to periodic breaks in operation.
Fig.7  Differential pressure across the membrane contactor over time at the H3 project for solvent inlet (black) and solvent outlet (grey) (reproduced with permission from [31]).
Fig.8  Ash build-up on membrane modules at the H3 project for (a) the membrane contactor and (b) gas separation membrane.
1 R W Baker. Advanced Membrane Technology and Applications. Li N N, Fane A G, Ho W S W, Boylewoo T M, eds. New Jersy: John Wiley & Sons, 2008, 559–580
2 B Van der Bruggen, C Vandecasteele, T Van Gestel, W Doyen, R Leysen. A review of pressure-driven membrane processes in wastewater treatment and drinking water production. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2004, 22(1): 46–56
3 T Matsuura. Progress in membrane science and technology for seawater desalination—a review. Desalination, 2001, 134(1-3): 47–54
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00114-X
4 N Hilal, H Al-Zoubi, N A Darwish, A W Mohammad, M Abu Arabi. A comprehensive review of nanofiltration membranes: Treatment, pretreatment, modelling, and atomic force microscopy. Desalination, 2004, 170(3): 281–308
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.01.007
5 A W Mohammad, Y H Teow, W L Ang, Y T Chung, D L Oatley-Radcliffe, N Hilal. Nanofiltration membranes review: Recent advances and future prospects. Desalination, 2015, 356: 226–254
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.043
6 N Porcelli, S Judd. Chemical cleaning of potable water membranes: A review. Separation and Purification Technology, 2010, 71(2): 137–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.12.007
7 M Padaki, R Surya Murali, M S Abdullah, N Misdan, A Moslehyani, M A Kassim, N Hilal, A F Ismail. Membrane technology enhancement in oil-water separation. A review. Desalination, 2015, 357: 197–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.11.023
8 S Sridhar, B Smitha, T M Aminabhavi. Separation of carbon dioxide from natural gas mixtures through polymeric membranes—a review. Separation and Purification Reviews, 2007, 36(2): 113–174
https://doi.org/10.1080/15422110601165967
9 R W Baker, K Lokhandwala. Natural gas processing with membranes: An overview. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008, 47(7): 2109–2121
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie071083w
10 C A Scholes, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Membrane gas separation applications in natural gas processing. Fuel, 2012, 96(1): 15–28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.12.074
11 P Bernardo, E Drioli, G Golemme. Membrane gas separation: A review/state of the art. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2009, 48(10): 4638–4663
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie8019032
12 R Klaassen, A E Jansen. The membrane contactor: Environmental applications and possibilities. Environmental Progress, 2001, 20(1): 37–43
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200114
13 C A Scholes, K H Smith, S E Kentish, G W Stevens. CO2 capture from pre-combustion processes—strategies for membrane gas separation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010, 4(5): 739–755
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.04.001
14 C A Scholes, M T Ho, D E Wiley, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Cost competitive membrane—cryogenic post-combustion carbon capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 17: 341–348
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.017
15 T C Merkel, X Lin, X Wei, R W Baker. Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: An opportunity for membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 359(1-2): 126–139
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.10.041
16 R Klaassen, P H M Feron, A E Jansen. Membrane contactors in industrial applications. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2005, 83(3): 234–246
https://doi.org/10.1205/cherd.04196
17 O Falk-Pedersen, M S Gronvold, P Nokleby, Y Bjerve, H F Svendsen. CO2 capture with membrane contactors. International Journal of Green Energy, 2005, 2(2): 157–165
https://doi.org/10.1081/GE-200058965
18 C E Powell, G G Qiao. Polymeric CO2/N2 gas separation membranes for the capture of carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 279(1-2): 1–49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.12.062
19 M Rezakazemi, A E Amooghin, M M Montazer-Rahmati, A F Ismail, T Matsuura. State-of-the-art membrane based CO2 separation using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): An overview on current status and future directions. Progress in Polymer Science, 2014, 39(5): 817–861
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.01.003
20 M B Hägg, A Lindbrathen, X He, S G Nodeland, T Cantero. Pilot demonstration reporting on CO2 capture from a cement plant using hollow fiber process. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 6150–6165
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1752
21 M Sandru, T J Kim, W Capala, M Huijbers, M B Hagg. Pilot scale testing of polymeric membranes for CO2 capture from coal fired power plants. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 6473–6480
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.577
22 J Pohlmann, M Bram, K Wilkner, T Brinkmann. Pilot scale separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases by membrane technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 53: 56–64
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.033
23 A Qader. Carbon capture and storage demonstration by CO2CRC. In: Carbon Management. Houston, TX: AIChE Academy, 2017, 3.15–3.45
24 L S White, X Wei, S Pande, T Wu, T C Merkel. Extended flue gas trials with a membrane-based pilot plant at a one-ton-per-day carbon capture rate. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 496(1): 48–57
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.08.003
25 O Falk-Pedersen, Y Bjerve, G Glittum, S Ronning. Separation of carbon dioxide from offshore gas turbine exhaust. Energy Conversion and Management, 1995, 36(6-9): 393–396
https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(95)00028-C
26 O Falk-Pedersen, H Dannstrom. Separation of carbon dioxide from offshore gas turbine exhaust. Energy Conversion and Management, 1997, 38: S81–S86
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(96)00250-6
27 A Comite, C Costa, M Demartini, R Di Felice, M Oliva. Exploring CO2 capture from pressurized industrial gaseous effluents in membrane contactor-based pilot plant. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 67: 60–70
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.10.014
28 S Li, D J Rocha, S J Zhou, H S Meyer, B Bikson, Y Ding. Post-combustion CO2 capture using super-hydrophobic, polyether ether ketone, hollow fiber membrane contactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 2013, 430: 79–86
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.12.001
29 C A Scholes, J Bacus, G Q Chen, W X Tao, G Li, A Qader, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Pilot plant performance of rubbery polymeric membranes for carbon dioxide separation from syngas. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 470–477
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.11.011
30 C A Scholes, M Simioni, A Qader, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Membrane gas-solvent contactor trials of CO2 absorption from syngas. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2012, 195-196: 188–197
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.04.034
31 C A Scholes, A Qader, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Membrane gas-solvent contactor trials of CO2 absorption from flue gas. Separation Science and Technology, 2014, 49(16): 2449–2458
https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2014.937499
32 C A Scholes, A Qader, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Membrane pilot plant trials of CO2 separation from flue gas. Greenhouse Gases. Science and Technology, 2015, 5(3): 1–10
33 A Qader, B Hooper, G Stevens. Demonstrating carbon capture. Chemical Engineering (Albany, N.Y.), 2009, 11: 30–31 (TCE)
34 C A Scholes, S E Kentish, G W Stevens. Effects of minor components in carbon dioxide capture using polymeric gas separation membranes. Separation and Purification Reviews, 2009, 38(1): 1–44
https://doi.org/10.1080/15422110802411442
35 C A Scholes, J Motuzas, S Smart, S E Kentish. Membrane adhesives. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2014, 53(23): 9523–9533
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie501036p
36 D deMontigny, P Tontiwachwuthikul, A Chakma. Comparing the absorption performance of packed columns and membrane contactors. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2005, 44(15): 5726–5732
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie040264k
37 K Alharthi, Y Christianto, A Aguiar, A D Stickland, G W Stevens, S E Kentish. Impact of fly ash on the membrane performance in postcombustion carbon capture applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2016, 55(16): 4711–4719
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b00312
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Simon Roussanaly, Monika Vitvarova, Rahul Anantharaman, David Berstad, Brede Hagen, Jana Jakobsen, Vaclav Novotny, Geir Skaugen. Techno-economic comparison of three technologies for pre-combustion CO2 capture from a lignite-fired IGCC[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 436-452.
[2] Mahboube Ghahramaninezhad, Fatemeh Mohajer, Mahdi Niknam Shahrak. Improved CO2 capture performances of ZIF-90 through sequential reduction and lithiation reactions to form a hard/hard structure[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 425-435.
[3] Dawid P. Hanak, Vasilije Manovic. Linking renewables and fossil fuels with carbon capture via energy storage for a sustainable energy future[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 453-459.
[4] Sidra Rama, Yan Zhang, Fideline Tchuenbou-Magaia, Yulong Ding, Yongliang Li. Encapsulation of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol with tetraethyl orthosilicate for CO2 capture[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 672-683.
[5] Kathryn A. MUMFORD,Yue WU,Kathryn H. SMITH,Geoffrey W. STEVENS. Review of solvent based carbon-dioxide capture technologies[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 125-141.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed