www.che.

com
December
2007
G
reen engineering, as explained
by chemists and bio-scientists,
includes production of energy
and materials from green feed-
stocks, such as biomass and microorgan-
isms, with the intent of reducing energy,
waste, greenhouse gases (GHGs) and
water consumption. By extension, other
contributions that reduce GHG emis-
sions also support green engineering.
The obvious solution to creeping global
GHG inventories is to cut back extraction
of fossil carbon from below the ground. It
is unlikely we will stop using fossil fuels,
but it is reasonable to expect we will
curb GHG emissions to rates sustain-
able by the earths natural sequestration
systems. Efficient use of fossil fuels and
wide spread use of renewable energy are
required to meet this goal.
Everyone can make their personal
contribution to reduce GHG emissions
by driving fuel-efficient vehicles and
judiciously adjusting the thermostat
at home. For engineers, however, the
responsibility is greater since the de-
cisions we make can have orders-of-
magnitude higher impact.
GHG mitigation presents opportuni-
ties for chemical engineers to devise,
quantify, and implement innovative
green solutions. By identifying and
evaluating options and resources use-
ful to support green engineering, sig-
nificant and invaluable improvements
can be gained.
Top sources of GHG emissions
Power. Today hundreds of aged power
plants release large volumes of GHGs
while supplying electricity for the U.S.
These seldom top 38% thermal effi-
ciency even though technologies exist
that can better 50%. A 1% efficiency
improvement out of 26 quadrillion Btu
conversion losses from U.S. power pro-
duction (see Figure 1) would result in
savings of 260 trillion Btu, an equiva-
lent of GHG emissions from 3.5-million
passenger automobiles.*
Engineering
*Note. Equivalent emissions from passenger au-
tomobiles provides an idea of the impact in terms
most of us can relate to. The basis is 7.50x10
7

Btu/yr per automobile, 12,000 mi/yr and 20 mi/
gal mileage.
What we can do
to support
its goals
Miguel (Mike) Mendez, P.E.,
Aspen Technology
Integrated gasification, combined-
cycle (IGCC) leads the list of solutions
to this problem. IGCC combines two
thermodynamic cycles: a gas combus-
tion cycle and a steam cycle, each with
its own turbine and generator. Natural
gas or coal gasification provides energy
for the first cycle. Heat from the flue
of the first cycle is used to generate su-
perheated steam to drive the second set
of turbines. Larger temperature differ-
ences between the hot and cold ends of
the combined cycle allow higher ther-
mal efficiency relative to single cycles,
netting benefits of 20% less GHG and
2040% lower water usage.
IGCC capacity planned for 2014
is 14.8 GW with 27 projects in 16
states. Worldwide, nearly 4 GW of
IGCC currently operate and 50 new
projects totaling 27 GW have been
announced [1].
Ocean and terrestrial (vegetation
and soils) CO
2
sequestration are being
investigated. The environmental im-
pact of these methods is unknown at
this time. CO
2
storage in soils as mag-
nesium carbonates or as CO
2
clathrate
are promising as safe, solid materials
offering compact storage with potential
commercial value [2].
Transportation fuels. Transporta-
tion fossil fuels release the second larg-
est volume of GHGs. Renewable fuels
(bioethanol and biodiesel) are leading
solutions reducing GHGs from 7 to
90% per gallon, compared to gasoline,
depending on feedstock and process
type, according to Argonne National
Laboratory [3]. Applying the low end
of this range to the 160-billion gal/yr
of gasoline consumed in the U.S., 133-
million tons of CO
2
emissions would be
prevented. For companies interested in
biofuels production, an excellent repos-
itory of reports and models is accessi-
ble at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratorys (NREL) website [4].
Industry, including chemicals. En-
ergy consumption per unit of chemical
output decreased 40% between 1974
and 1990. Since 1990 however, improve-
ment slowed to a relatively flat rate [5].
In 2005, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory reported possible energy savings
for the twelve largest energy users in
chemicals totaling 252 trillion Btu/yr.
Paper, ethylene, oxygen, ammonia and
styrene lead the list (in that order) with
219 trillion Btu [6].
Chemical Industry Vision2020 and
the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) estimate
inefficiencies of 2.7 quadrillion Btu in
the chemical industry, and estimate
that innovations could cost-effectively
achieve 30% improvement by 2020 or
750 trillion Btu/yr [7], an equivalent
to emissions from 9-million passenger
cars enough to account for most cars
in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,
and Houston combined.
Many companies responded early to
the challenge: Boise Cascade generates
54% of its energy needs from renewable
resources; Dow Chemical built seven
new cogeneration power facilities since
1994 that reduced usage by approxi-
mately 23 trillion Btu/yr, eliminating
approximately 1.2-million metric tons
of CO
2
emissions [8].
Another development is significant
investment in biorefining. Archer
Daniels Midland recently launched
commercialization of biochemical re-
placements for petroleum-derived
chemicals and stated its intentions to
develop new chemicals with increased
functionality and lesser environmen-
tal impact [9]. More information on
biorefining can be found on DOEs
Integrated Biorefinery Program web-
page (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bio-
mass/integrated_biorefineries.html).
2 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM DECEMBER 2007
EIectricity fIow, 2006
(QuadriIIion Btu)
CoaI
20.66
NaturaI gas 7.07
NucIear eIectric power
8.21
RenewabIe energy 4.28
PetroIeum 0.69
Other gases
1
0.18
Other
2
0.18
1. BIast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured
and waste gases derived from fossiI fueIs.
2. Batteries, chemicaIs, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, suIfur,
misceIIaneous technoIogies, and non-renewabIe waste (municipaI
soIid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire derived fueIs).
3. Estimated as net generation divided by 0.95.
4. Data coIIection frame differences and nonsampIing error.
5. EIectric energy used in the operation of power pIants, estimated
as 5 percent of gross generation.
6. Transmission and distribution Iosses (eIectricity Iosses that occur
between the point of generation and deIivery to the customer) are
estimated as 9 percent of gross generation.
7. Use of eIectricity that is 1) seIf-generated, 2) produced by either the
same entity that consumes the power or an affiIiate, and 3) used in direct
support of a service or industriaI process Iocated within the same faciIity
or group of faciIities that house the generating equipment.
Direct use is excIusive of station use.
Notes: Data are preIiminary. See note, "EIectricaI system energy Iosses,"
at the end of section 2. VaIues are derived from source data prior to
rounding for pubIication. TotaIs may not equaI sum of components due to
independant rounding. Sources: TabIes 8.1, 8.4a, and AB (coIumn 4).
Source: Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0384 June 2007
Unaccounted for
4
0.45
PIant use
5
0.73
T & D Iosses
6
1.31
Direct use
7
0.53
ResidentiaI 4.62
Transportation
0.03
CommerciaI 4.44
IndustriaI 3.42
Net imports
of eIectricity
0.06
FossiI fueIs
28.60
FueI-to-eIectricity
conversion Iosses nearIy
equaI aII energy input from
fossiI fueIs
Conversion
Iosses
26.71
Energy
consumed
to generate
eIectricity
41.27
Gross
generation
3
of eIectricity
14.56
Net
generation
of eIectricity
13.83
End
use
13.03
RetaiI
saIes
12.51
FIGURE 1. The national (U.S.) energy-to-electricity balance for 2006 (Source: Energy Information Admin., DOE/EIA-0384, June 2007
Feature Report
Ethylene from ethanol is also being
considered in China [10]. SRI Consult-
ing reported in 1980 on the economics
of this concept [11]. With crude oil ap-
proaching $100/bbl, the argument for
persuing this technology is strong.
Green-engineering checklist
The following items are useful in as-
sessing your situation to evaluate op-
tions that support green-engineering
goals. Analysis technologies that can
help complete checklist items quickly
are outlined in Table 1.
New plant considerations.
Consider the conceptual design. The
best opportunity to design an energy
efficient plant exists during the con-
ceptual stage. Figure 2 illustrates
this point: typically 98% of operat-
ing costs and 80% of capital costs are
committed during front end engineer-
ing design (FEED). Simulations, con-
ceptual design software, and pinch
analysis tools are of great help dur-
ing this stage
Look for opportunities to apply low-
energy separation technologies, such
as adsorption, membrane separators
and pervaporation [12]
Consider materials of construction
for higher process temperatures and
applicable, ancillary energy-recovery
equipment (see Know your options
section below). Begin by proving the
process on a small (pilot) scale, then
scale up
Identify the best location for a new
plant. Use supply chain technologies
and services to identify locations
that reduce transportation costs and
inventories
Safety and health are more impor-
tant than profitability. Consider
designs that are safer for workers
and environmentally benign even if
slightly less profitable. Safety and
environmental responsibility are jus-
tifications for longer pay-back peri-
ods; you will save on insurance and
avoid fines
Balance the trade-off between capi-
tal and energy costs. Capital is spent
once, but you will pay for energy over
and over again with near zero chance
its cost will decrease in the future
Assess your existing facilities.
Know where you stand first. Assess the
energy efficiency of your plants and
compare it to your industry average
and to state-of-the-art technologies. If
your plant is at the top of its class you
will feel assured youre doing all you
can; if you are at the bottom there is
much more you can do. EEREs Indus-
trial Technologies Program and AIChE
provide free software for assessment
of energy-efficiency-improvement op-
portunities. The software called Plant
Energy Profiler (PEP Chemical Indus-
try) can be downloaded from EEREs
website (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
industry)
Training: Learn all aspects of your
process. If you cant run or model
your process yourself you probably
dont understand it, in which case you
should rely on others who can advise
on energy improvements. Train your
operators to know the variables that
influence energy efficiency. Process
training and training simulators are
good tools for this
Clean heat exchangers. To make your
facilities more efficient, institute
heat-exchanger-cleaning programs
for your plants
Consider revamping or retiring old
plants. Estimate recoverable energy
waste to identify current and future
costs
Know your options.
Consider green feeds. Find out if your
products or energy can be made from
green materials
Seek knowledge from other indus-
tries. Partners from other industries
can often help you identify efficiency
solutions applicable to your process
Improve thermal efficiency through
well-selected materials of construc-
tion. An illustration of this point is an
innovation patented by MECS (for-
merly Monsanto EnviroChem Inc.)
known as the Heat Recovery System
(HRS). It uses alloys that harness
waste heat from sulfuric-acid-ab-
sorber coolers for the production of
medium- and low-pressure steam. For
decades this heat has been rejected to
cooling water in plants. The gain is ap-
proximately 0.5 lb of steam per pound
of acid produced, which for a typical
1000-ton/d plant translates to 337-bil-
lion Btu/yr; this is in addition to the
0.9 to 1.3 lb steam per pound of prod-
uct already recovered
Dry ice can be used for direct spot
chilling instead of expensive indirect
refrigeration
Wet product can save energy. If your
customer is near, they may not re-
quire dry product, as might be the
case with cattle feed from corn-to-
ethanol plants
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM DECEMBER 2007 3
80% of the costs are
committed by design
decisions when onIy
a few percent of
engineering is compIete
100
80
0
Process
design
EarIy
Decision points
TraditionaI
DetaiIed
engineering
98% of the operating costs are committed
FEED Impact on Project Cost
Equipment
manufacturing
Money spent
Construction
T
o
t
a
I

c
o
s
t

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
,

%
FIGURE 2. The best opportunity for designing an energy-efficient plant exists dur-
ing the conceptual design stage
Posted with permission from Chemical Engineering. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
#1-23205909 Managed by The YGS Group, 717.399.1900. For more information visit www.theYGSgroup.com/reprints.
Consider using waste heat from your
neighbors, such as power plants
Combined heat and power (CHP) is
applicable if you burn fuels for indi-
rect heating. CHP delivers steam and
electricity for essentially the same
fuel cost as steam alone. Although
additional capital is required, CHP
projects typically pay-back quickly
Advanced controls and online optimi-
zation are proven technologies that
can help save large quantities of en-
ergy and raw materials
Reexamine ideas that might have
been too costly or impractical in the
past
Perform complex-wide optimization.
Optimization of individual systems
seldom equals a more broadly based
analysis
Closing remarks
Many opportunities exist for chemi-
cal engineers to support the goals of
green engineering. Our profession has
made great strides in this effort, but
there is still much more to be done.
Each year of inaction to curb GHGs re-
duces our chances of acting in time to
avert a worldwide crisis. Expediency
is essential as is the need for greater
corporate participation, making it our
social responsibility to encourage our
organizations to get involved.
Edited by Gerald Ondrey
Feature Report
TABLE 1. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR SUPPORTING GREEN ENGINEERING
Technology
Primary function
Role in supporting green engineering
Steady-state simulation
Heat and material balances, energy optimiza-
tion offline and online
Compare competing process configurations. Rate operations to spot
energy waste, for example, excessive reboiling or refluxing. Find ways
to recycle waste streams. Cogeneration, CHP and IGCC are accu-
rately analyzed with steady-state simulators.
Dynamic-process simulation
Dynamic response of systems (equipment
and controls)
Configure process control schemes that yield more stable systems
and get you closer to optimal energy operation
Advanced controls Multivariable controllers and on-line optimizers help run plants in a
stable manner and at optimal conditions 24 h/d, seven days a week.
Stable plants are more energy efficient
Pinch analysis
Minimization of utility usage; exchanger net-
work design
Methodology for optimal matching heating and cooling loads to
reduce utilities usage (steam, cooling water, and so on), fossil fuel
usage and GHG
Separations design
Separation synthesis design
Useful for devising new separation schemes or improving existing
ones. Might help reduce the number of columns in complex sepa-
rations trains
Detailed heat-exchanger-design tools
Size, rate and simulate heat exchangers
Optimization of heat-exchanger design minimizes capital cost.
Detailed exchanger performance analysis combined with simula-
tion can help estimate the effect of heat-exchanger fouling on
energy efficiency
Cost-estimation software
Estimate costs as early in the project as possible
Energy efficiency features often cost less than anticipated and quick
and accurate estimates improve the chances that innovations will
be implemented. These days it is easier for chemical engineers to do
cost estimation of process alternatives in parallel with process design
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Analysis of flow patterns inside vessels.
Better mixing and flow distribution can allow hotter process designs
with integral cooling systems; important for designing high tempera-
ture vessels such as gasifiers
Author
Miguel (Mike) Mendez,
P.E., is a business consultant
at Aspen Technology, Inc.
(2500 City West, Blvd., Hous-
ton, TX 77042; Phone: 281-
584-1000; Email: mike.men-
dez@aspentech.com), where
he has been employed for the
past 13 years. Prior to this,
he spent the first 14 years of
his carrier designing chemi-
cal plants as a process-design
engineer with Jacobs Engineering, Fluor Engi-
neers and Monsanto Enviro-Chem. He earned
B.S. degrees in chemistry from Florida Atlantic
University and in chemical engineering from
University of South Florida. Mendez is a profes-
sional engineer registered in the State of Texas.
References
1. News briefing released by Emerging Energy
Research (EER); senior analyst Alex Kleinj.
2. DOE CO
2
Sequestration Program; http://
www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/
index.html
3. Argonne National Laboratory, GREET Model
Runs, October 2006.
4. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) Biorefinery Analysis Process Models.
http://devafdc.nrel.gov/biogeneral/Aspen_
Models
5. EERE Industrial Technologies Program
Chemical Bandwidth Study; Exergy Analy-
sis: A Powerful Tool for Identifying Process
Inefficiencies in the U.S. Chemical Industry,
Summary Report, Dec. 2004
6. Materials for Separation Technologies: En-
ergy and Emission Reduction Opportunities,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), UT-
Battelle, LLC for the Department of Energy
(DOE) under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725,
May 2005.
7. DOE news release, Nov. 8, 2005; and Vi-
sion2020, http://www.chemicalvision2020.org
8. Industrial Technologies Program, U.S. De-
partment of Energy (DOE), Energy Effi-
ciency and Renewable Energy (EERE) for
Partnering Success. Report Number(s), DOE/
GO-102004-1705.
9. DECATUR, Ill., Oct. 29 /PRNewswire-First-
Call/ -- Archer Daniels Midland Company
(NYSE: ADM - News).
10. Liu, Dehua; Department of Chemical Engi-
neering Tsinghua University, Beijing, China;
Bioetanol and Biodiesel presentation at
the Fuel Ethanol Workshop conference, June
2005, Kansas City, Kansas.
11. SRI Consulting, Menlo Park, Calif., PEP
Review Report 79-3-4, http://www.sriconsult-
ing.com/PEP/Reports/Phase_79/RW79-3-4/
RW79-3-4.html
12. Separation Technologies for the Industries
of the Future; Publication NMAB-487-
3, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1998.