Olefins from conventional and heavy feedstocks: Energy use in steam cracking and alternative processes

Steam cracking for the production of light olefins, such as ethylene and propylene, is the single most energy-consuming process in the chemical industry. This paper reviews conventional steam cracking and innovative olefin technologies in terms of energy efficiency. It is found that the pyrolysis section of a naphtha steam cracker alone consumes approximately 65% of the total process energy and approximately 75% of the total exergy loss. A family portrait of olefin technologies by feedstocks is drawn to search for alternatives. An overview of state-of-the-art naphtha cracking technologies shows that approximately 20% savings on the current average process energy use are possible. Advanced naphtha cracking technologies in the pyrolysis section, such as advanced coil and furnace materials, could together lead to up to approximately 20% savings on the process energy use by state-of-the-art technologies. Improvements in the compression and separation sections could together lead to up to approximately 15% savings. Alternative processes, i.e. catalytic olefin technologies, can save up to approximately 20%.

[1]  B. L. Crynes,et al.  Novel production methods for ethylene, light hydrocarbons, and aromatics , 1992 .

[2]  Carl Knowlen,et al.  Petrochemical pyrolysis with shock waves , 1995 .

[3]  Ernst Worrell,et al.  Potential energy savings in the production route for plastics , 1994 .

[4]  F. Dautzenberg,et al.  Process intensification using multifunctional reactors , 2001 .

[5]  Don W. Green,et al.  Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook , 2007 .

[6]  Fujio Mizukami,et al.  Catalytic Cracking of Naphtha to Light Olefins , 2001 .

[7]  Sang Hwa Lee,et al.  Catalytic pyrolysis of naphtha on the KVO3-based catalyst , 2002 .

[8]  Zhixiong Guo,et al.  COMMERCIAL TRIAL OF CATALYTIC PYROLYSIS PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING ETHYLENE AND PROPYLENE , 2002 .

[9]  Enrico Drioli,et al.  Applications of membrane unit operations in ethylene process , 2004 .

[10]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Downer Catalytic Pyrolysis (DCP): A Novel Process for Light Olefins Production , 2002 .

[11]  G. Margaret Wells.  Handbook of Petrochemicals and Processes , 1991 .

[12]  J. V. Albano,et al.  Gas turbine integration reduces ethylene plant's energy needs , 1992 .

[13]  L. Schmidt,et al.  Ethylene formation by oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane over monoliths at very short contact times , 1993 .

[14]  David N. Nakamura.  Ethylene capacity rising, margins continue to suffer , 2002 .

[15]  Harry L. Brown,et al.  Energy analysis of 108 industrial processes , 1985 .

[16]  Jan Szargut,et al.  Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical Processes , 1988 .

[17]  K. Weissermel,et al.  Industrial Organic Chemistry , 1978 .

[18]  Zong-ci Zhao,et al.  Climate change 2001, the scientific basis, chap. 8: model evaluation. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , 2001 .

[19]  R. Janssen,et al.  Waterstofinjectie; gevolgen voor de gaskwaliteit en injectielocaties , 2003 .

[20]  William J. Koros,et al.  Olefin/paraffin gas separations with 6FDA-based polyimide membranes , 2000 .

[21]  Kathy G. Spletter,et al.  Gulf Coast ethylene margins begin in this issue , 2002 .

[22]  Hsuan Chang.  Exergy Analysis and Exergoeconomic Analysis of An Ethylene Process , 2001 .

[23]  M Picciotti.  NOVEL ETHYLENE TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPING, BUT STEAM CRACKING REMAINS KING , 1997 .