4.7 Article

New Trends in Olefin Production

期刊

ENGINEERING
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 171-178

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/J.ENG.2017.02.006

关键词

Olefin production; Steam cracking; Methane conversion; Shale gas; CO2 emissions

资金

  1. Long-Term Structural Methusalem [BOF09/01M00409]
  2. Flemish Government
  3. European Union's Horizon H2020 Programme [H2020SPIRE-04-2016, 723706]
  4. SABIC Geleen
  5. Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (FWO)
  6. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [723706] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most olefins (e.g., ethylene and propylene) will continue to be produced through steam cracking (SC) of hydrocarbons in the coming decade. In an uncertain commodity market, the chemical industry is investing very little in alternative technologies and feedstocks because of their current lack of economic viability, despite decreasing crude oil reserves and the recognition of global warming. In this perspective, some of the most promising alternatives are compared with the conventional SC process, and the major bottlenecks of each of the competing processes are highlighted. These technologies emerge especially from the abundance of cheap propane, ethane, and methane from shale gas and stranded gas. From an economic point of view, methane is an interesting starting material, if chemicals can be produced from it. The huge availability of crude oil and the expected substantial decline in the demand for fuels imply that the future for proven technologies such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) or methanol to gasoline is not bright. The abundance of cheap ethane and the large availability of crude oil, on the other hand, have caused the SC industry to shift to these two extremes, making room for the on-purpose production of light olefins, such as by the catalytic dehydrogenation of propane. (C) 2017 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier LTD on behalf of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Higher Education Press Limited Company.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据