4.7 Article

New insights into the evaluation of kinetic hydrate inhibitors and energy consumption in rocking and stirred cells

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119507

Keywords

Hydrate; Energy; Kinetic inhibitors; Synergists; Rocking cell; Stirred cell

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the performance of rocking and stirred cells in KHIs tests and found that KHIs and synergists performed better in rocking cells. Energy consumption analysis revealed that rocking cells are more suitable for experimental development of KHIs.
The present paper aims at identifying suitable apparatus to perform KHIs test. Therefore, for the first time, the comparison of rocking and stirred cells was performed based on KHIs performance and energy consumption during hydrate formation experiments. Growth rate of hydrate, induction time measurements, and calculation of the kinetic parameter of aK* were applied for evaluation of KHIs and synergists in the rocking and stirred cells. The rate of hydrate formation showed that the performance of the KHIs and the synergists was more potent in the rocking cell compared to the stirred cell. Induction time measurements also indicate that hydrate nucleation is more retarded in the rocking cell compared to the stirred cell. However, new insights were revealed when energy measurements during hydrate formation experiments were applied. In the process of hydrate formation with weak inhibitors such as polyethylene glycols the consumed energy was up to 30 times greater than that in the rocking cell, although it was 3-8 times higher in the presences of Luvicap EG and synergists. In addition, analysis of energy consumption based on growth rate of hydrate determined that the rocking cell is preferred compared to the stirred cell for experimental development of KHIs. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available