MV Modeling

If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money?

How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs?

MV Modeling

If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money?

How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs?

CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY IMPORTANT

MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg

Model is Applied to Magnesium Technology Limited (MTL) version of Carbothermal Magnesium Production

Introduction to That Technology

MV Modeling Methodology

Preliminary Results

MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg

Work financed in part by Safe Hydrogen, Inc the practical route to the Hydrogen Economy www.safehydrogen.com.

This research was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy. (Award Number DE-FC36-04GO14011). This support does not constitute and endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in the report

MV Modeling of Carbothermal MgSafe Hydrogen has demonstrated vehicles powered by oil-slurry metal hydrides, see www.safehydrogen.com

MgH2 + H2O MgO + 2H2

For an oil slurry of MgH2 to be the fuel of the future, lower cost magnesium from a Western Source is needed.

Safe Hydrogen wanted MV’s opinion on what would be the lowest cost method of making magnesium in the Western World … answer carbothermal magnesium.

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Endothermic reaction ….

MgO + C Mg + CO

Carried out in electric arc furnace, or similar, at 1850oC … known technology.

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Achilles heal …. Reverse reaction upon cooling gases from furnace …

Mg + CO MgO + C

Many schemes to cool Mg and CO rapidly, most famous was the Permanente Plant that mixed gases with large quantities of natural gas.

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Adiabatic Expansion through a lavalle nozzle …

Mg (g) + CO Mg(l) or Mg(s) and

CO

VacuumSlight positive pressure

Hot

Cooler

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Supersonic velocities, cooling in a fraction of a second ….

Mg (g) + CO Mg(l) or Mg(s) and

CO

VacuumSlight positive pressure

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Delta pressure determines the amount of cooling that occurs.

Mg (g) + CO Mg(l) or Mg(s) and

CO

VacuumSlight positive pressure

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Mathematically well defined, used in many industrial applications.

Mg (g) + CO Mg(l) or Mg(s) and

CO

VacuumSlight positive pressure

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

SiC or Graphite or Ceramic Material of Choice for High Temperatures

Mg (g) + CO Mg(l) or Mg(s) and

CO

VacuumSlight positive pressure

MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium

Solid magnesium produced on lab scale, very high efficiency approaching 100%.

MTL’s Carbothermal MagnesiumThe lab scale reactor without the SiO condenser produced magnesium metal containing about 700 ppm silicon and 50 ppm iron. The bench scale reactor with the condenser produced magnesium metal with the following average impurities (ppm):

Al 110 Ca 21 Zn 35

P 15 Mn 77 Na 150

Si 80* Fe 15 K 240

Ni < 5 ppm

 * Results for Si was only shown for one run.

Meets 9980A ASTM B92M-83 but not 9990A or higher.

MV Model

Uses Excel Interface

Visual Basic for Applications (open source code*)

Subroutine for each unit Operation

Download from www.metallurgicalviability.com

*Some confidential information removed from Model

PFD’s for Process

Calcining Process Flow Diagram

Furnace PFD

Utilities PFD

Calcining PFD

Furnace PFD

Utilities PFD

Program Flowsheet

Flowsheet Part II

Design Criteria

Design Criteria

RawMaterialAnalysis

RawMaterialAnalysis

Costs

Prices

Example Code

Example subroutine

MB Check

Stream 71 72 73 74 75 76

Name MgO

Product Recycle

Dust Dust to Disposal

Feed to Blender

CO after HX

Steam to Ejctrs

Mass (mtpy) 101,316 912 101 152,512 72,761 970,027 %solids 100 100 100 97 0 - Temp C 600 600 600 28 90 167

Pressure (atm-abs) 1 wt.% 1 wt.% 1 wt.% 1 wt.% 0 9

Elements

ELEMENTS

ELEMENTS

ELEMENT

S

ELEMENTS

ELEMENT

S

ELEMEN

TS Code - - - - - -

Al 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,533 2 30,236 41 0 Ca 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 60 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418 1 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cu 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Fe 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,746 4 741 1 108,537 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mg 60,696 60 546 60 61 60 61,309 40 155 0 0 Mn 32 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 - - - - - - 408 1 0 Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 Ni 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 O 40,522 40 365 40 41 40 82,814 54 40,424 55 861,490 P 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Pb 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 Si 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 252 0 0 Sn 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

Other - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL 101,325 912 101 152,480 72,882 970,027 SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS

Elemental MB

Stream 51 52 53 54

Name TTL O2 Supply

O2 to Coke Prhtr

Coke Supply

CO from Coke Htr

Mass (mtpy) 56,387 4,988 36,412 8,730%solids Temp C 25 25 25 610Pressure (atm-abs) 1 wt. % 1 wt. % 1 wt. % 3 wt. %GASES GASES 0.0 GASES GASES 100 GASES 100.0CH4 (methane) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0CO 0 0.0 0 0.0 8,730 100.0CO2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0H2O(gas) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Mg (g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Mn(g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0N2 514 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0O2 55,873 99.1 4,988 100.0 0 0.0P(g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Pb (g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0SiO (g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Sn (g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0SO2(g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Zn (g) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

MB

Heat Balance

$

Income Statement

Impact of Energy Costs

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Cost of Power $/kwh

Op

erat

ing

Co

st $

/lb

of

Mg

$20/tonne coke

$80/tonne coke

Impact of Costs - Example Energy

Vacuum Pressure

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

$1.10

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Power Cost $/kwh

Op

erat

ing

Co

st $

/lb

of

Mg

0.09 atm

0.05 atm

0.03 atm

Example -Design Criteria impact

Preliminary Lessons Learned from MV Model•Cool gases (CO) before pulling the vacuum.

•Process very competitive if magnesium can be condensed and collected in the liquid phase from the nozzle.

•Two stage steam ejectors are cost effective for collecting magnesium in the liquid phase.

•Two stage steam ejectors are not cost effective for collecting magnesium in the solid phase.

•Costs for producing adequate vacuum to collect magnesium in the liquid phase not yet determined (will probably involved mechanical pumps and/or condensers between stages).

Preliminary Lessons Learned from MV Model

•Process sensitive to power costs, less so to coke, methane, and oxygen.

• With oxygen at $0.06 per NCM, burning coke to make CO to make steam to drive the ejectors is not cost effective.

•More work needed on impurity distribution.

MV Modeling

If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money?

How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs?