http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3), 172–182 JOHNSON MATTHEY TECHNOLOGY REVIEW www.technology.matthey.com Methanol Production – A Technical History A review of the last 100 years of the industrial history of methanol production and a look into the future of the industry By Daniel Sheldon Peligot. At a similar time, commercial operations using Johnson Matthey, PO Box 1, Belasis Avenue, destructive distillation were beginning to operate (2). Billingham, Cleveland TS23 1LB, UK There are many parallels between the industrial production of methanol and ammonia and it was the Email:
[email protected] early development of the high pressure catalytic process for the production of ammonia that triggered investigations into organic compounds: hydrocarbons, Global methanol production in 2016 was around alcohols and so on. At high pressure and temperature, 85 million metric tonnes (1), enough to fill an Olympic- hydrogen and nitrogen will only form ammonia, however sized swimming pool every twelve minutes. And if all the the story is very different when combining hydrogen global production capacity were in full use, it would only and carbon oxides at high pressure and temperature, take eight minutes. The vast majority of the produced where the list of potential products is lengthy and almost methanol undergoes at least one further chemical all processes result in a mixture of products. Through transformation, more likely two or three before being variations in the process, the catalyst, the conditions, turned into a final product. Methanol is one of the first the equipment or the feedstock, a massive slate of building blocks in a wide variety of synthetic materials industrial ingredients suddenly became available and a that make up many modern products and is also used race to develop commercial processes ensued. as a fuel and a fuel additive. This paper looks at the last 100 years or so of the industrial history of methanol The First Drops production. Early research into methanol production quickly Introduction focused on copper as a prime contender for the basis of a catalytic process to methanol, with Paul Sabatier Methanol has been produced and used for millennia, and Jean-Baptiste Senderens (3) discovering in 1905 with the ancient Egyptians using it in the embalming that copper effectively catalysed the decomposition process – it was part of the mixture of substances of methanol and to a lesser extent its formation. A produced in the destructive distillation (pyrolysis) of lot of the early testing looked at what catalysts could wood. However, it was not until 1661 that Robert Boyle effectively destroy methanol, assuming they would produced pure methanol through further distillation, be equally as effective under alternative conditions at and only in 1834 was the elemental composition forming methanol. Following the start of large scale determined by Jean-Baptiste Dumas and Eugene ammonia production in Germany during 1913, the 172 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) pace of research picked up and in 1921 Georges Patart his work on the first industrial ammonia synthesis patented the basis of a high pressure catalytic process catalyst. The high pressures benefitted conversion that used a variety of materials including copper (along to methanol and to achieve sufficiently quick reaction with nickel, silver or iron) for methanol synthesis (4). rates, high temperatures also had to be used. Further A small experimental plant was later built using this increases in temperature would have drastic effects process in Patart’s native France, near Asnières (5). on the selectivity and equilibrium, so conditions were selected to be a compromise. Methanol production The German Effort began on 26th September 1923 at the Leuna site (7). The wood-based processes were always very limited Early Catalysts in scale and it was 1923 before production could be considered ‘industrial’ with a catalytic process The subsequent research into the catalyst was developed by Mathias Pier at Badische Anilin- & extensive, with the list of possible candidates covering Sodafabrik (BASF), Germany (Figure 1). large swathes of the periodic table, from antimony to The BASF process produced methanol from synthesis zirconium, bismuth to uranium (itself a popular catalyst gas (syngas), which at the time was a mixture of of the time) (5, 8). Given the extensive testing, it is hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The process works by perhaps unsurprising that in the list can be found many the following reactions: of the components that make up the modern catalysts used in methanol plants in the 21st century. CO + 2H2 D CH3OH ΔH = –90.6 kJ (i) Initially, iron was to be used for methanol production (as with ammonia production), but this along with nickel was CO2 + 3H2 D CH3OH + H2O ΔH = –49.5 kJ (ii) phased out in successive patent applications until the CO + H2O D CO2 + H2 ΔH = –41.2 kJ (iii) requirement for the process to be ‘completely excluding iron from the reaction’ was included in the mid 1920s (9). Methanol formation (Equations (i) and (ii)) is favoured During the early years there was a lot of effort looking by low temperatures and high pressures. All three at other combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. equilibrium reactions occur simultaneously, although it One major application was Fischer-Tropsch reactions: is common to only consider two of the three to simplify the creation of straight chain saturated hydrocarbons, any analysis, as it can be seen that Equations (ii) and for example for fuels. This is readily catalysed by (iii) combined are the same as Equation (i). iron at similar conditions to methanol synthesis. With The BASF process operated at above 300 atm and early iron-containing methanol synthesis catalysts, 300–400°C, using a zinc chromite (Cr2O3-ZnO) catalyst it was found that the iron would react with the carbon developed by Alwin Mittasch (6), about a decade after monoxide to form iron carbonyl, which decomposes at high temperatures to iron metal. It was therefore easy to transform the catalyst into one much more efficient at making hydrocarbons than methanol; reactions that are even more exothermic and not equilibrium limited, hence at risk of thermal runaway. The catalyst is not the only source of iron in such processes, with the obvious choice for construction of the early reactor vessels being steel, which itself contains iron. Many of the early plants were therefore either lined or made of non-ferrous metals, such as copper, silver or aluminium (10). Early Processes The equilibrium limitations of the methanol formation Fig. 1. First shipment of synthetic methanol from BASF reactions (Equations (i)–(iii)), especially under the Leuna, 1923 (Courtesy of BASF Corporate Archives, early operating conditions, were such that conversion Ludwigshafen/Rhine, Germany) to methanol in a single pass through a reactor was 173 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) very low. To overcome this, the gas had to be recycled year of methanol in new, catalysed, high-pressure over the catalyst a number of times. Each time, the gas processes (13). is cooled to condense any product methanol and the consumed reactants are replaced with fresh synthesis Catalyst Developments gas. The gas is rarely pure hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and any non-reacting species, such as Early on it was recognised that the most effective methane or nitrogen, introduced through the fresh gas catalysts used a combination of copper and another supply accumulate in such a loop, so a small fraction metal oxide, but the synthesis section and catalyst of the gas must be purged, also losing some reactants. remained very similar for about 25 years. Eugeniusz Figure 2 shows the basic components of a methanol Błasiak filed a patent in 1947 for a new catalyst synthesis loop, which are still used today. containing copper, zinc and aluminium, manufactured The interchanger is a more modern concept, reducing by co-precipitation (14). The patent claimed a method energy consumption by using the hot gas exiting the for producing a “highly active catalyst for methanol converter to heat the inlet gas. Early patents (11) show synthesis” and further laboratory testing over the a lot of the aspects of modern methanol production, following decades proved this. including the recycle loop and the use of a guard The biggest impediment to the use of copper catalyst bed of additional catalyst or absorbent to remove was the rate of poisoning by sulfur compared to the “traces of substances deleterious to the reaction”, zinc chromite catalysts typically used in those plants. early versions tending to be copper based. The loss The syngas generation process had moved on from of reactants through the purge was also considered coal and coke feeds to natural gas reforming, and in early processes, with Forrest Reed filing a patent it was accepted that sulfur in the feed would poison in 1932 (12) for recycling the purged gas through an the reforming catalyst and reduce the activity. The additional reactor in a loop with high concentrations of reformers were therefore run at close to atmospheric non-reacting components, complete with condensation pressure to prevent hydrocarbon cracking over the and separation. This approach is now used to revamp poisoned catalyst, which would cover the surface in a and add capacity to modern methanol plants. layer of carbon and remove all residual activity. Around The general concept spread rapidly and plants could this time, work was underway to create an alkalised be found around the world by the end of the 1920s reforming catalyst which was protected against carbon producing a total of around 42,000 metric tonnes per deposition and could therefore run at elevated pressure (initially 14 atm, but soon after up to 35 atm) (15). A second development at a similar time gave hydro- desulfurisation catalysts, which remove sulfur from the naphtha or natural gas feedstock and preserve the activity of the reforming catalyst. This gave a process Converter for supplying high purity syngas at increased pressure. Synthesis gas The cost of compressing syngas is much greater than the cost of compressing natural gas, so the opportunity to move compression duty upstream also provided an Circulator energy efficiency benefit to plant designs. By the 1960s, methanol was being made almost Purge gas solely from natural gas and naphtha using low pressure reforming and high pressure synthesis, with a broad Interchanger range of process licensors all offering a very similar Catchpot configuration. Substantial gains in process efficiency had been made since the very early plants, partly due to the larger scale of the later plants. One technology Methanol Crude cooler that the largest plants of the time could take advantage of was centrifugal compressors, offering much lower Fig. 2. Basic components of a pressurised methanol costs at high gas flow rates compared to the previous synthesis loop reciprocating machines (16). With these gains 174 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) increasing with equipment size, the drive for bigger and of ICI in August 1965 (18) to a catalyst containing bigger plants continued. the oxides of copper, zinc and another element from Groups II to IV of the periodic table, with aluminium The British Intervention being the preferred candidate. This was the catalyst that ICI installed in its own methanol plant constructed In the 1960s, arguably the biggest change to the at the time and forms the basis of the KATALCOJMTM industry was introduced by Imperial Chemical Industries 51-series of catalysts sold around the world by Johnson (ICI), UK. This began in 1963 when Phineas Davies Matthey today. and Frederick Snowdon filed a patent for a methanol ICI constructed and commissioned the first LPM plant production process operating at 30–120 atm (17). at its site in Billingham, UK, in 1966 (Figure 3) with a Using a copper, zinc and chromium catalyst, they had design capacity of 300 metric tonnes per day (MTPD) created a process capable of producing high quantities and an expected catalyst lifetime of six months. The of methanol without the need for very high pressures. synthesis section operated at only 50 atm (19). Two The lower pressures meant that fast reaction rates years later the catalyst was still operating and the plant could be achieved at lower temperatures of 200–300°C, could consistently produce 400 MTPD. This increased which reduced the formation of byproducts. This meant to 550 MTPD with the second catalyst charge and the catalyst was able to achieve a selectivity of greater some further plant upgrades. The converter had than 99.5%, based on organic impurities in the liquid 71 m3 of catalyst, with three cold shots of gas injected methanol. partway down the bed to cool the reacting gas. The At a similar time, ICI had developed its ‘high pressure’ plant operated until 1985. steam reformer, capable of transforming naphtha At the lower pressure of the new process, the or later, natural gas into syngas. The process was circulating gas volumes were greater and therefore therefore not just a method of synthesising methanol, centrifugal compressors were advantageous at lower but a complete process from natural gas to methanol: plant capacities (16). Much more efficient plants were the Low Pressure Methanol (LPM) process, which then available without needing to construct a large- remains the leading route to methanol to this day. scale facility. The catalyst was soon revised with a patent application ICI by this time had a long history of methanol by John Thomas Gallagher and John Mitchell Kidd production, stretching back to 1929 with its first high Fig. 3. ICI (low pressure) methanol 1 plant at Billingham 175 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) pressure plant operated under licence from IG Farben (then owners of BASF). Following a few years of successful operation of the Billingham plant, ICI licensed the technology and in 1970 a 130 MTPD plant was commissioned for Chang Chun Petrochemical Co Ltd in Taiwan (20). In spite of a challenging two weeks of commissioning, with “torrential rain, a typhoon and an Equilibrium line Methanol, % earthquake”, this plant was to be the first of many and later that year a 1000 MTPD plant was commissioned for Monsanto at Texas City, Texas, USA. Only a single high pressure synthesis plant was built after 1966 (21). Methanol Converters Reaction path The most distinguishing feature of most methanol plants (or licensors) is the type of converter used for Low High methanol synthesis. Broadly the converters can be Temperature divided into two categories based on how they remove Fig. 4. Reaction path in a quench converter the heat of reaction to maximise conversion: i. multiple adiabatic catalyst beds with external cooling of the gas the loop contribute to higher capital costs and series ii. internal cooling within one or more catalyst beds. adiabatic beds never really found favour in the industry. Externally cooled converters come in a variety of Internally cooled reactors began with Lurgi GmbH, configurations: quench converters inject cold, unreacted Germany, shortly after the first LPM plant from ICI. The gas after each adiabatic bed to reduce the temperature, Lurgi reactor was one that had already been used for whereas series adiabatic converters use heat many years in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and consisted exchangers between the catalyst beds. Both externally of catalyst-filled vertical tubes surrounded by a shell of and internally cooled types were used in the early low boiling water, with the reaction heat transferred into the pressure plants, with the quench converters offered by shell to generate steam to be used elsewhere in the ICI benefitting from the simple vessel design minimising process. A steam drum local to the converter provides a cost. The early versions employed a single catalyst constant supply of water at boiling temperature through bed with gas injection points at multiple locations down natural circulation. This design achieved a more even the vessel. These designs were susceptible to large temperature distribution and lower peak temperature. temperature distributions developing and propagating Whilst the converter was more complicated than the down the vessel. A subsequent improvement on the ICI design, and therefore more expensive, the steam it design therefore collected the gas, mixed it with the generated at about 250ºC could be used elsewhere for incoming quench gas and distributed it across the next an efficiency benefit or even exported. The design also bed. This prevented temperature variations propagating required a lower catalyst volume. Figure 5 shows the from bed to bed. Many reactors of this design operate reaction pathway in such a converter, following more around the world today as ARC reactors, a joint ICI and closely the temperature for maximum reaction rate Casale SA, Switzerland, design from the early 1990s. compared to quench converters. Many variations exist Figure 4 shows the reaction pathway of a quench on this theme today, some with the catalyst and boiling converter, with successive additions of cold gas taking water reversed, such as in the Variobar of Linde AG, it back away from the equilibrium line to maximise Germany, which uses helical tubes in an axial catalyst conversion. bed to achieve pseudo-cross flow. Series adiabatic converters are more efficient users Other internally cooled converters use process gas on of catalyst as, without the need for quench gas that the cooling side, including ICI’s subsequent tube cooled bypasses the early beds, all the gas passes over all converter, in which cold gas rises inside empty vertical the catalyst and the temperature control for each bed tubes, absorbing heat from the surrounding catalyst is truly independent. Additional heat exchangers in bed before turning over at the top of the converter and 176 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) point of maximum reaction rate, a balance of the kinetic limitations of low temperature and the thermodynamic (equilibrium) limitations of high temperature. Capacity Expansion Equilibrium line The basic formula was now set and so the plants could Methanol, % grow in size and scale. By the early 1970s the plants had gone from the 150 MTPD of the early low pressure plants to 1500 MTPD. The second plant ICI built at Billingham in 1972 had a design capacity of 1100 MTPD and used 110 m3 of catalyst (22) operating at 100 atm. This second plant operated through to 2001 and struck Reaction path a better balance of operating pressure and equilibrium, with the vast majority of plants since having been Low High designed for 80–100 atm. This heralded the start of the Temperature first golden age of methanol expansion in the early part of the 1970s as people recognised the benefits of the Fig. 5. Reaction path in a water cooled converter new LPM process. Figure 6 shows the approximate capacity added each year using LPM technology, with a notable peak in the 1970s and further peaks in the flowing back down through the catalyst bed. The large 1980s and around 2010 that will be explored in the amount of heat generated by the synthesis reactions second half of this history. requires a high flow rate on the cooling side, which for By the early 1980s all new plants were being gas-based cooling is typically only available within the constructed using low-pressure technology and almost synthesis loop, with different designs utilising gas from all of the high-pressure plants had been converted to different parts of the loop. low pressure (23). Interestingly the pyrolysis of wood Most modern converters use internal cooling, either had not completely ceased as the use of ‘synthetic’ with circulating gas or by raising steam, which broadly methanol had not yet been accepted as an alcohol allows the temperature in the catalyst bed to track the denaturant in some countries. British Law to this day 50 Added capacity, tonnes per day × 103 40 30 20 10 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Fig. 6. Added global methanol capacity by year 177 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) (24) is based on the use of ‘wood naphtha’ to denature methanol was being considered as a way to move pure ethanol, a process whereby it is made unsuitable energy around in the face of global imbalance. To for human consumption and therefore exempt from produce sufficient quantities of methanol to achieve beverage sales taxes. Wood naphtha is the mixture this, production capacity would need to increase of substances derived from pyrolysis, primarily methyl rapidly with plants of up to 5000 MTPD, which would alcohol (methanol). have required 2000 tube steam reformers. The largest The 1980s saw the impact of the second oil crisis constructed at that time had only 600 (27). that followed the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the The gap was ultimately filled with autothermal Iran-Iraq war that started soon after. The increased oil reforming; the controlled introduction of oxygen price meant that oil producing nations had significantly into (partially) reformed gas to combust some of the increased revenues and this allowed them to increase hydrogen, providing the heat for further reforming petrochemical production, including methanol. Thus reactions across another bed of catalyst. As the heat is began the second golden age of methanol expansion. produced and retained within the process, a lot of the But the oil crisis also prompted countries to start looking equipment associated with reformers is not needed, at how they could become less reliant on imported oil although a supply of oxygen is required, typically from and to start looking at production of synthetic fuels. an air separation unit. The technology is deployed in various configurations: Synthetic Fuels • parallel reforming – a steam reformer and autothermal reformer (ATR) are used in parallel The expansion of methanol is driven by demand for • combined reforming – the steam reformer is derivatives and a recurring theme throughout the partially bypassed and the bypass and reformed history is its potential use as an intermediate in the gas are combined and fed to the ATR to complete production of synthetic automobile fuel. Whilst interest the reforming process. has peaked on a number of occasions, typically when A further development by ICI in the 1980s was to a nation struggles with domestic supply, there have completely remove the traditional steam reformer in the been few plants actually constructed. One example Leading Concept Methanol (LCM) process. Rather than is the two methanol plants in Motunui, New Zealand, burning fuel gas to provide the heat for the reforming which were constructed for synthetic fuel production in reactions, the hot, autothermally reformed gas was 1985, using the Mobil licensed methanol to gasoline used to heat the catalyst tubes in a gas heated reformer (MTG) process (25). Both plants now solely produce (GHR). The feed gas first passes through the catalyst methanol and the MTG equipment has been removed. in the GHR, then the ATR and finally the heating side Whilst the production of a direct petrol replacement of the GHR to provide the heat for the initial reaction. has never found lasting favour, many plants today are It is possible to take these concepts even further and being constructed to feed methanol to olefins (MTO) some plants have only an ATR. Autothermal Reforming processes to produce olefins from coal instead of is susceptible to soot formation if significant quantities from naphtha or ethane, and an increasing amount of of higher hydrocarbons are present and so a simple methanol is blended into gasoline supplies around the adiabatic pre-reformer is required to de-rich the natural world to meet legislative requirements. gas. This arrangement produces a gas very rich in carbon oxides and is therefore most effective where a Autothermal Reforming and Alternative source of additional hydrogen is present to balance the Reforming stoichiometry of the gas. Typically, combined reforming gives a plant with a For a typical natural gas to methanol plant using steam reasonably sized steam reformer, a low level of methane reforming technology, roughly a half of the capital cost in the syngas and a stoichiometrically balanced syngas is in the steam reformer and it also accounts for a large for methanol formation. part of the footprint. Available technology limited the maximum economic size of a single reformer and a Modern Catalysts new technology was therefore required to allow plant capacities to expand beyond about 2500 MTPD (26). The speed of catalyst development had greatly This limit was first identified in the early 1970s when increased since the mid 1970s when testing equipment 178 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) began to be automated, greatly increasing the amount added back into the process before the reformer, to be of test work that could be conducted. This led to reformed and reused. a number of step changes in the performance of In 2004, the long destined capacity of 5000 MTPD methanol synthesis catalysts, although the base recipe was achieved when the Atlas plant was commissioned of copper with a combination of zinc and aluminium or in Trinidad, only for it to be overtaken the following chromium oxides remained very similar. One such step year by M5000, also in Trinidad, producing up to change was in the early 1990s, with a new generation 5400 MTPD. This latter plant achieved its capacity with of catalysts being introduced, just as capacities were only a steam reformer containing less than 1000 tubes, ramping up and plant operators were looking to uprate showing the simultaneous improvements in reforming their original low pressure plants (28). ICI introduced catalyst and technology. Figure 8 shows the twin a new, more active catalyst using a four-component synthesis converters on M5000. system, adding magnesium to the existing copper, zinc and aluminium (Figure 7). China – The Coal Story Modern catalysts are expected to last at least three years and typically between four and six years is A lot of the growth in the methanol industry through the achieved, although six to eight years is not uncommon. early 21st century (the third golden age of methanol The catalysts are highly selective towards methanol expansion) came from China and its booming economy. synthesis and the effects of some of the early catalyst China’s petrochemical industry had been heavily candidates (iron and nickel) are better appreciated, dependent on imported crude oil, although China especially their role in the formation of paraffinic had plentiful supplies of cheap coal. China began to hydrocarbons, and these are now seen as catalyst embrace new technologies for converting their coal poisons. Despite the selectivity of modern catalysts into other chemicals and one key building block in that being in excess of 99.5%, there is still a need to process was methanol. Rapidly increasing demand remove various impurities from the condensed product for a wide range of methanol derivatives, particularly methanol to achieve either chemical or fuel sales olefins via the MTO process, has required a continuous grades. Generally, this is achieved at low pressure supply of new methanol plants using coal gasification with one, two or three distillation columns in series. to provide the syngas for methanol synthesis. Dissolved gases are removed first, along with low To take advantage of the economies of scale, and boiling point byproducts and then the difficult methanol- in some cases to fit in with the economic size of a ethanol separation must be conducted, along with downstream MTO plant, the demand for higher and water removal. The water can be reused in the steam higher capacity synthesis loops has grown. With the system, the light ends as fuel and the ethanol (actually methanol plants typically near to the coal in remote a mixture of many heavier organic compounds) can be locations, the main process equipment must be Fig. 7. An example of the latest generation of methanol Fig. 8. 5000 MTPD of methanol synthesis capacity at synthesis catalysts; Johnson Matthey KATALCOJMTM 51-9S M5000, Trinidad 179 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) transported to the sites by rail, where bridges in particular syngas. Modern purification systems now allow the limit the maximum diameter and the infrastructure can syngas to be substantially cleaned of sulfur and other limit the maximum weight. Whilst vessels can be made impurities and a very pure gas is fed to the synthesis taller and taller, for catalyst beds this will soon result in loop, unlike the systems from the 1920s and 1930s. very high pressure drops. For synthesis loops above Typically, coal-fed plants give a much more carbon about 3000 MTPD the catalyst requirement is too great monoxide-rich syngas compared to steam reforming of to use a single vessel and multiple converters in a single natural gas, the more exothermic route to methanol and loop are required. Initially and at modest capacities, so the ability to remove heat is even more important. two identical parallel converters were sufficient. As capacities continued to increase, so did the complexity, Energy and Environmental Efficiency with multiple converters of different types used within single loops to reduce the capital cost of the loop Since the introduction of the low pressure process, equipment, as shown in Figure 9 with the Johnson the focus turned to energy efficiency, especially during Matthey Combi Loop. Other loops were designed using increasing energy prices in the 1970s and 1980s. the Johnson Matthey Series Loop where product is Table I shows the progression of efficiency over these recovered between converters to reset the equilibrium years by ICI through successive improvements to the and increase production. The largest plants in operation integration of the whole plant. by 2010 would typically have two or more converters With the ever increasing focus on environmental to make up to 5500 MTPD of methanol. To minimise performance, there are a number of designs and new pressure drop and therefore compression duty in large plants in recent years which aim to set new standards synthesis loops, larger water cooled reactors are now for efficiency or emissions. One particular plant is available in radial flow configurations. Carbon Recycling International’s (CRI) George Olah The second aspect of the growth in China is the coal Plant in Iceland, fully commissioned in 2012. Using to methanol story, which uses gasification technologies electricity from the fully renewable Icelandic grid, to convert coal and steam at very high temperature to it electrolyses water to provide hydrogen, which is Axial steam- Steam raising converter Boiler feed water Tube cooled converter Steam drum Circulator Purge Interchanger Feed Condenser Separator Crude methanol Fig. 9. Modern synthesis loop – Johnson Matthey Combi Loop 180 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) Table I Improvements in Feed and Fuel Consumption (29) Consumption, Flow sheet Year GJ MT–1 HP Pre-1966 42 LP – 50 atm 1966 36 LP – 100 atm 1972 36 BFW heating 1973 32.6 Optimisation 1975 32.2 Quench pre-heating 1977 31.4 Saturator 1978 30.1 Tube cooled converter 1983 29.3 LCM 1989 28.6 combined with carbon dioxide recovered from a local References geothermal power station (30). 1. M. Berggren, ‘Global Methanol: Demand Grows Other new plants are considering the emissions as Margins Atrophy’, 19th IMPCA Asian Methanol benefits of avoiding a steam reformer and using Conference, Singapore, 1st–3rd November, 2016 the GHR technology to set new standards for low 2. “Methanol Production and Use”, eds. W.-H. Cheng emission natural gas-based plants. The plans for and H. H. Kung, Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, USA, Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW), USA, use the 1994, p. 2 technology and will be among the largest plants in the 3. P. Sabatier and J.-B. Senderens, Ann. Chim. Phys., world (31). 1905, 4, (8), 319 4. G. Patart, ‘Procédé de Production d’Alcools, The Future d’Aldéhydes et d’Acides à Partir de Mélanges Gazeux Maintenus sous Pression et Soumis à l’Action d’Agents With the imminent start-up of the 7000 MTPD plant of Catalytiques ou de l’Électricité’, French Patent Appl. Kaveh in Iran (32), the scale of plants continues to grow. 1922/540,543 Methanol demand has grown steadily for many years 5. J. B. C. Kershaw, ‘The World’s Future Supplies of fuelled by economic growth in major countries around Liquid Fuels’, The Engineer, 25th March, 1927, 316 the world, a trend which is likely to continue. Many of 6. A. Mittasch, M. Pier and K. Winkler, BASF AG, the current plant licensors and designers have flow ‘Ausführung Organischer Katalysen’, German Patent sheets capable of scaling up to 10,000 MTPD, but after 415,686; 1925 a number of purported projects, it remains to be seen if 7. ‘1902–1924: The Haber-Bosch Process and the the economy of scale is ready to be stretched that far Era of Fertilizers’, BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany: or if the security of multiple trains once again wins out. https://www.basf.com/en/company/about-us/ At least for now, the production of methanol via the history/1902-1924.html (Accessed on 16th May 2017) LPM process remains dominant, despite research 8. A. Mittasch, M. Pier and C. Müller, IG Farbenindustrie interest into other themodynamically attractive routes. AG, ‘Manufacture of Oxygenated Organic Recent examples based on the partial oxidation of Compounds’, US Patent Appl. 1931/1,791,568 methane to methanol include the work of Zhijun Zuo 9. A. Mittasch and M. Pier, BASF AG, ‘Synthetic et al. (33) and Patrick Tomkins et al. (34). Whilst work Manufacture of Methanol’, US Patent Appl. such as this could open up a new, low temperature 1926/1,569,775 route to methanol, no such new routes have so far left 10. BASF AG, ‘Improvements in the Manufacture of Methyl the laboratory. Alcohol and Other Oxygenated Organic Compounds’, KATALCOTM is a trademark of the Johnson Matthey British Patent Appl. 1925/231,285 group of companies. 11. A. Mittasch and C. Schneider, BASF AG, ‘Producing 181 © 2017 Johnson Matthey http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651317X695622 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2017, 61, (3) Compounds Containing Carbon and Hydrogen’, US Institute, California, USA, 1968, 146 pp Patent Appl. 1916/1,201,850 24. ‘The Denatured Alcohol Regulations 2005’, 2005 No. 12. F. C. Reed, ‘Process of Producing Compounds 1524, The Stationery Office Limited, London, UK, 8th Containing Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen’, US June, 2005 Patent Appl. 1934/1,959,219 25. J. Ross, “Heterogeneous Catalysis: Fundamentals 13. “The Methanol Industry Past, Present and Working and Applications”, 1st Edn., Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, Towards a Sustainable Future”, Johnson Matthey The Netherlands, 2012, p. 188 Process Technologies, online video clip, YouTubeGB, 26. K. Aasberg-Petersen, C. S. Nielsen, I. Dybkjær and J. 29th November, 2016 Perregaard, “Large Scale Methanol Production from 14. E. Błasiak, ‘Sposób Wytwarzania Wysokoaktywnego Natural Gas”, Haldor Topsøe, Lyngby, Denmark, 2008 Katalizatora do Syntezy Metanolu’, Polish Patent 27. B. M. Blythe and R. W. Sampson, Am. Chem. Soc., 34,000; 1947 Div. Fuel Chem., Prepr., 1973, 18, (3), 84 15. C. Murkin and J. Brightling, Johnson Matthey Technol. 28. T. J. Fitzpatrick, ‘New Developments in Methanol Rev., 2016, 60, (4), 263 Synthesis Catalysts and Technology’, International 16. G. E. Haddeland, “Synthetic Methanol”, Report No. Methanol Technology Operators Forum (IMTOF), 43, Process Economics Program, Stanford Research London, UK, 15th–16th June, 1993 Institute, California, USA, 1968, p. 4 29. K. Mansfield, ‘ICI Katalco and Methanol, Past, Present 17. P. Davies, F. F. Snowdon, G. W. Bridger, D. O. Hughes and Future’, International Methanol Technology and P. W. Young, ICI Ltd, ‘Water-Gas Conversion Operators Forum (IMTOF), San Francisco, USA, and Catalysts Therefor’, British Patent Appl. 19th–22nd June, 1995 1965/1,010,871 30. ‘World’s Largest CO2 Methanol Plant’, Carbon 18. J. T. Gallagher and J. M. Kidd, ICI Ltd, ‘Methanol Recycling International, Kopavogur, Iceland, 14th Synthesis’, British Patent Appl. 1969/1,159,035 February, 2016 19. M. Appl, ‘Methanol-Born in 1923 and Still Going 31. ‘NWIW Adopts Pioneering Technology to Substantially Strong’, World Methanol Conference, Frankfurt, Reduce Facility Emissions’, Johnson Matthey Process Germany, 15th December, 1998 Technologies, Royston, UK, 6th August, 2015 20. ‘Stormy Start Up’, Process & Catalyst News, Number 32. ‘World’s Largest Methanol Plant to be Commissioned 1, ICI, Agricultural Division, 1st January, 1971 in Iran’, Chemicals Technology, News, London, UK, 21. K. Mansfield, Nitrogen, 1996, 221, 27 27th February, 2015 22. J. Brownless and E. Scott, ‘Experience of the No. 2 33. Z. Zuo, P. J. Ramírez, S. D. Senanayake, P. Liu and Methanol Plant Synthesis Converter at Billingham’, J. A. Rodriguez, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2016, 138, (42), International Methanol Technology Operators Forum 13810 (IMTOF), London, UK, September, 1991 34. P. Tomkins, A. Mansouri, S. E. Bozbag, F. Krumeich, M. 23. G. E. Haddeland, “Synthetic Methanol”, Report No. B. Park, E. M. C. Alayon, M. Ranocchiari and J. A. van 43B, Process Economics Program, Stanford Research Bokhoven, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2016, 55, (18), 5467 The Author Daniel Sheldon is a Senior Process Engineer at Johnson Matthey, Chilton, UK. He obtained his MEng (Hons) in chemical engineering from the University of Manchester, UK. He joined Johnson Matthey on the graduate training scheme in 2011 and has spent time in catalyst manufacturing and technology development for the ammonia and methanol industries. Currently he provides technical support to Key Methanol Customers. He is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). 182 © 2017 Johnson Matthey