Distillation recovery concentration and energy consumption
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Rubber Vulcanization Accelerant on 2015-8-26 at 17:43. Currently, a distillation tower is being designed so that the extracted material can be reused, with a concentration of 80% being sufficient. The recovery concentration of the continuous distillation column designed by consultant A from a certain company is 98%, while that of the continuous distillation column designed by consultant B is 80%. Consultant A said that the higher the recovery concentration, the lower the operating costs. I wonder from what perspectives Consultant A considered and said that the higher the recovery concentration, the lower the operating costs? 70% of its content is sufficient for use.
I need to ask him about that. Does he think that the cooling load will decrease? That’s what I’m wondering. The investment in equipment is high.
I think his argument is exactly the opposite: as the yield increases, energy consumption must also increase. What those two companies say isn’t very reliable, haha. 80% certainty of achievement, but I’ll give you the lowest figure you mentioned.
Mm-hmm! Thank you for your help. It’s mainly because I haven’t studied * enough! Can’t explain it
We’re not saying it has to be 80%; around 76% is sufficient for use, and water still needs to be added. Advisor B simply said that since 80% of it can be used and it is also energy-efficient, then go with 80%! The main point is energy savings! I don’t know whether it’s 98% or 80% energy savings!
It is more economical to have an extraction concentration of 80% in a continuous distillation column.
The concentration of the overhead distillate is determined based on the process, with a distillation scheme formulated in accordance with the process requirements. If the number of theoretical plates is already determined, to increase the purity of the distillate at the top of the tower, it is possible to achieve a higher purity by increasing the reflux ratio; however, more energy will be required in this case. It is still recommended to opt for the optimal design under the process conditions. Additionally, from an energy-saving perspective, this can be achieved by changing the thermal condition of the feed.
Our process requirements specify that a concentration of over 70% is sufficient; that’s why two consultants came up with different concentrations for the design, each claiming their approach to be more energy-efficient!
Are there any experts here? Help analyze it!