Emissions Process Flowsheets & Simulations
Explore 3 validated, solved Emissions simulation flowsheets in MaximaLabs — real components: methane, ethane, co2, h2s, benzene, ammonia. Open any one directly in your browser.
Solved via: PENG-ROBINSON.
Sour-gas sweetening — six-category footprint
A fuel-fired feed-gas heater, acid-gas removal, and a VOC purge — vented to atmosphere — so the Sustainability panel shows all six impact categories at once: carbon, water, acidification (vented H₂S/NH₃ + combustion NOx), eutrophication (NH₃ + NOx), photochemical ozone (vented benzene) and cumulative energy demand. Illustrative screening vent compositions — a real plant Claus/incinerates the H₂S and controls the VOC rather than venting; the point is to exercise the multi-category footprint on a process that genuinely carries these species. Spec-based separators, so it converges fast and conserves mass.
10 unit ops • PENG-ROBINSON
209 0
View & openFlue-gas desulfurization: venturi wet scrubber
A coal/oil-fired power-plant stack gas (SO₂ in a hot N₂/CO₂/O₂/water flue) is cleaned in a high-energy venturi wet scrubber before the stack — the classic flue-gas-desulfurization (FGD) front end. The new venturi_scrubber unit op accelerates the gas through a throat where injected scrubbing water is atomized, and a stated fraction of the soluble SO₂ is absorbed into the drops and carried out as a slurry while the cleaned gas goes up the stack. Two cited pieces are computed: the momentum-exchange pressure drop ΔP = ρ_L·(Q_L/Q_G)·v_gt² (Calvert 1968; de Nevers — the L/G here is ~1.4 L/m³ and the throat runs 90 m/s, giving ~11 kPa, a real high-energy venturi), and the SO₂ removal (92% at this water rate) that drops the stack SO₂ to a fraction of the inlet.
5 unit ops • PENG-ROBINSON
135 0
View & openDust collector selection: cyclone vs ESP vs baghouse
The same kiln offgas — 500 mol/s at 420 K carrying 8 mol/s of 20 micron dust (sphericity 0.7, GSD 2.2) — offered to the three gas-cleaning devices side by side, because choosing between them is a real design decision and the three models answer different questions. The cyclone catches 85.6%. That number is not specified anywhere: it is computed from the particle size distribution against the device's own cut size, and its d50 lands at 10 microns — half the dust's mean size, so everything finer escapes. It is the honest ceiling of a device with no consumables and no electricity, and it costs the most fan power of the three here at 1555 Pa. The ESP reaches 99.81% by Deutsch-Anderson on the migration velocity and plate area — also predicted, not specified — at essentially no pressure drop. The baghouse reports 99.8%, and this one you should read differently: its capture is the penetration you gave it, an INPUT. The baghouse model predicts pressure drop (37.7 Pa here, from the Cooper & Alley filter-drag law) and cloth area (1149 m2 at a 0.015 m/s air-to-cloth ratio) — not efficiency. Two of these three efficiencies are predictions and one is a specification, and a comparison that hides which is which is worse than no comparison. Why three parallel trains and not one series train. A cyclone roughing into a baghouse polishing is the standard industrial arrangement, and it cannot be drawn here: the cyclone folds its escaped dust back into the gas stream without a solids payload, so a second collector downstream sees no solids to catch. That is a modelling limitation, not a physical one, and it is stated rather than designed around. Bounded: the ESP's zero pressure drop is a model simplification (a real precipitator runs a few hundred Pa), and the pressure drops here are screening values from published correlations, not vendor guarantees.
15 unit ops • PENG-ROBINSON
66 0
View & open