UOP to Offer Vaperma Siftek Technology for Improved Ethanol Dehydration
12 March 2009
UOP LLC, a Honeywell company, and Vaperma, Inc. will jointly offer Vaperma’s Siftek polymer membrane technology, which is designed to lower energy consumption for reduce operational costs and emissions in the energy-intensive ethanol production process.
 |
| Siftek technology. Source: Vaperma. Click to enlarge. |
Vaperma Siftek membranes are polymeric hollow fibers that enable high permeance and selectivity. The high flux from the hollow fibers is due to the patented hydrophilic formulation and a thin separation layer. The permeation of water across the membrane occurs by adsorption of water onto the interior surface of the membrane. Then, diffusion across the membrane and desorption occur at the outer surface of the membrane.
As fuel demand and concern over climate change continue to rise, biofuels production must be profitable and sustainable, with a reduced energy footprint to make a true impact. The Vaperma solution helps to maintain the viability of ethanol and butanol from first-generation as well as second-generation cellulosic sources, such as corn stalks, switchgrass or other plant wastes that do not compete with the food supply.
—Amar Anumakonda, manager of business development for UOP Renewable Energy and Chemicals
Vaperma’s patented polymer membrane technology allows the separation of water vapor from other vapor compounds in a gas mixture. The Siftek technology, commercially launched in June 2008, can be used in ethanol production to “de-water” ethanol streams to get a higher than 99% pure fuel-grade ethanol product. Energy savings are realized because the technology replaces multiple units traditionally used in the production process to achieve the same outcome.
UOP develops technology, products and equipment to support fuel production worldwide and has been developing biofuel technology, with specific focus on second-generation feedstock technologies, since 2006. In addition to the agreement with Vaperma, UOP is continuing to explore novel process technology and equipment for dehydration and dewatering for oxygenated biofuels like ethanol and butanol. UOP also manufactures molecular sieve adsorbents for use in ethanol dehydration, including the new UOP MOLSIV 3A-AGS bead adsorbent.
This will help as we go to E10 nation wide with cellulose ethanol. Of course, if you use thermochemical and synthesis, you do not need to dehydrate.
Posted by: SJC | 13 March 2009 at 11:38 AM
The only reason this is required is that ethanol forms an azeotrope with water; this is not true of methanol, which can be distilled to purity.
Methanol is not only a superior motor fuel (higher octane, and more energy per mole of oxygen burned), it can be thermally cracked to the higher-energy products H2+CO. This allows the recycling of exhaust heat energy back to the engine as fuel.
As methanol is easier to make via thermochemical processes than ethanol, it makes no sense to squeeze everything into the Procrustean bed made by the corn lobby.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 14 March 2009 at 10:12 AM
I liked methanol as well, but then you run into people saying that skin contact would require gloves for fueling and vapors are bad and then the methanol people tell you it is better than gasoline if it leaks from the station underground tanks.
To me, it is still delivery. Methane can be piped in with no need for underground storage tanks at the stations, no need for tanker trucks on the road. No need to big tanker ships, refineries nor tank farms. The best of all, no need for imported oil.
It may come down to practicality over technology. Several ways may be technically superior, but the one that is adopted is the easiest route with the best results for the dollar. Expedience and the path of least resistance should not be underestimated.
Posted by: SJC | 15 March 2009 at 11:42 AM
Aren't there plenty of compounds in gasoline which are bad for skin contact?
Methane may not be superior to methanol. As a co-fuel, methanol can boost octane better than ethanol and allow extreme turbocharging and down-sizing just as well; this allows a small fraction of ethanol to save a much larger volume of petroleum. Methane doesn't allow the heat-recovery trick, the required tankage is much larger, and it isn't compatible with the existing fleet of tankers; this makes it somewhat problematic in areas not served by NG.
If we are looking for easy conversions and flex systems, methanol is better than methane. If we are looking to the far future, electric is the way to go. Methane has advantages for transport of bio-fuels cross-country for non-transport purposes (e.g. chemical feedstocks), but the energy lost in methanation may be a problem.
If you've got numbers which shed light on these things, let's have 'em. Otherwise this is too much opinion pinned down by too little fact.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 15 March 2009 at 08:20 PM