Page 79 - demo

PROBLEMS & ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

11. Indian urea production is also short of the demand which is met by import. Moreover,
typically the urea plants produce hydrogen rather than syngas, although syngas is
available as intermediate. It may not be feasible to divert syngas for methanol production
[89].
The economic feasibility and technical viability is the prime issue. An attempt has been made
in the subsequent sections to consolidate the available information.

5.1 Economic Feasibility & Technical Viability for Production or Demo Plant

5.1.1

COMMERCIAL PLANT FOR POWER, METHANOL / DME FROM INDIAN COAL

For large scale plants, technical viability, even utilizing Indian coal, is not an issue although we
do not have much experience. There are many proven technologies which can handle high
ash coal, and India also has experience in IGCC plant. In terms of economic viability, this is
feasible if the capacity is large enough. It may be noted that India had been considering IGCC
for power generation for many years but no concrete development had taken place so far. It is
expected that a few plants will soon come up based on coal or petroleum coke. Probably none
of these plants are designed for production of methanol. However, hydrogen production is on
the agenda in some cases, along with power production. The hydrogen is important because
most of the large IGCC plants are under consideration by large refineries, which would desire
to produce hydrogen to reduce the usage of naphtha.
With the intention of producing methanol in large scale from Indian coal, we may consider
large IGCC oxygen based plant for power generation and methanol/DME and /or fertilizer
production. This strategy will have two benefits, namely, the capacity of the plant could be
adequate to be economical, and the concentrated carbon dioxide from the unit could be easily
captured if required, in future.

IGCC with electric power and methanol /urea co-production is an attractive option, although it
is sensitive to the selling price of methanol and urea. The provision for carbon dioxide capture
requires additional investment and the cost of power generated goes up but it is compensated
if the carbon Tax is considered, making it economically viable [3].

A simplified flow sheet for a large complex for production of methanol/DME, ammonia/urea and
power is shown in Fig. 9. It may be noted that barring the slag from the coal ash practically no
other major pollutant is generated from this complex.

FIG: 12

Block Flow Diagram for Coal Based Power, Fertilizer and Methanol Complex [3]
Air N 2
ASU Electric Power
Water
Coal Oxygen Gas PSA, H Ammonia Urea
2
Gasifier Syngas Shift Turbine Separation Plant Plant
Slag/Ash Purification Reactor Steam
Sulfur Sulfur Acid Gas Syn Gas Generator
Steam
Recovery Removal Turbine
POWER BLOCK
Utilities Methanol DME
CO Plant Plant
2
Compression
CO
2

Methanol and DME Production: Survey and Roadmap | 2017 79