ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MIXED-

REFRIGERANT CYCLE AND

NITROGEN EXPANDER CYCLE
IN SMALL SCALE NATURAL GAS
LIQUEFIER
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 985, 1159 (2008); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.2908467
Published Online: 27 March 2008

Q. S. Yin, H. Y. Li, Q. H. Fan, and L. X. Jia

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Nitrogen expander cycles for large capacity liquefaction of natural gas

AIP Conference Proceedings 1573, 1652 (2014); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4860905

Beauty of Simplicity: Phillips Optimized Cascade LNG Liquefaction Process

AIP Conference Proceedings 710, 91 (2004); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.1774671

Combined Brayton-JT cycles with refrigerants for natural gas liquefaction

AIP Conference Proceedings 1434, 1779 (2012); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4707114
AIP Conference Proceedings 985, 1159 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2908467 985, 1159

© 2008 American Institute of Physics.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MIXED-REFRIGERANT CYCLE AND NITROGEN
EXPANDER CYCLE IN SMALL SCALE NATURAL GAS LIQUEFIER

Q. S. Yin, H. Y. Li, Q. H. Fan, L. X. Jia

Institute of Cryogenics and Superconductivity Technology,

Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150080, China

ABSTRACT

Two types of natural gas liquefaction processes, mixed-refrigerant cycle and nitrogen
expander cycle were simulated. Their process parameters were optimized and compared.
Their economic characteristics were analyzed. Although the mixed-refrigerant liquefaction
process is more complicated than nitrogen expander cycle, its energy consumption is only
46% of the nitrogen expander cycle. The operation costs of mixed-refrigerant process are
lower than those of nitrogen expander cycle, so the process is more competitive. The
energy consumption of the optimized mixed-refrigerant cycle reaches the level of propane
pre-cooled mixed-refrigerant process, which is usually used in base-load natural gas
liquefaction systems and is the lowest of the mixed-refrigerant process. The process is
comparatively simple, consumes less energy and has economic benefits, so the
mixed-refrigerant process is the preferred choice for small-scale natural gas liquefaction
device.

KEYWORDS: Natural gas liquefaction, Mixed-refrigerant cycle, Nitrogen expander

cycle, Economic analysis, Process optimization

INTRODUCTION

Industrial scale natural gas liquefaction developed quickly after the first industrial
device was built in 1964. The first industrial device in China started to produce LNG in
2001 and now there are five plants operating. The natural gas liquefaction system has two
development directions: one being that base-load liquefaction devices get larger and larger,
where train capacity has reached 3.4Mt/a [1]˷the other being that small scale liquefaction
devices get smaller and may be skid-mounted packages. The increased use of natural gas in
ATTACHMENT
automobiles and the exploitation of small I fields have provided the favorable
natural gas
CREDIT LINE (BELOW) TO BE INSERTED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF EACH
demands for the development of small scale natural gas liquefaction devices. Now America,
PAPER EXCEPT FOR ARTICLES ON pp. 152 - 159, 225 - 234, 277 - 283, 284 -
Canada, Russia and Finland have started research on small scale liquefaction devices [2-4].
290, 685 - 692, 1083 - 1090, 1359 -1366, 1375 - 1382, 1383 - 1391, 1467 - 1474,
Small scale liquefaction devices
1491 - 1498, 1499 need
- 1506,less investment
1507 - 1514, andand construction
1629 - 1639 time, have

CP985, Advances in Cryogenic Engineering: Transactions of the

Cryogenic Engineering Conference—CEC, Vol. 53, edited by J. G. Weisend II
© 2008 American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0504-2/08/$23.00

1159
economic benefits and are easily skid-mounted.

CHOICE OF THE LIQUEFACTION PROCESS

There are three main liquefaction processes used in natural gas liquefaction: cascade
liquefaction cycle, mixed refrigerant cycle and expander cycle. Every cycle has its own
characteristics. The cascade liquefaction cycle has the most equipment and pipework˨the
control systems are complex, and the investment is the highest. So it is not fit for small
scale liquefaction devices. The mixed refrigerant cycle is simpler and lower capital cost
than the cascade one. It consumes less energy than the expander cycle, too. So now more
than 80% of systems are using the mixed refrigerant process. The expander cycle starts up
quickly and is the simplest, but its efficiency is the lowest. Two types of natural gas
liquefaction processes, mixed-refrigerant cycle and nitrogen expander cycle are simulated
in this paper. Their processes parameters are optimized and compared and their economic
characteristics are analyzed.
TABLE 1. The Liquefaction Process Used in the Chinese LNG Plants.

Plant Process Capacity˄N m3/day˅

Henan LNG plant Cascade process 150000
Shanghai LNG peak-shaving plant Mixed-refrigerant process 100000
Xinjiang LNG plant Mixed-refrigerant process 1500000
Hainan LNG plant Nitrogen expander process 250000
Guangxi LNG plant Nitrogen and methane expander process 150000
Neimeng LNG plant(under construction) Mixed-refrigerant process 1000000
Sichuan LNG plant(under construction) Mixed-refrigerant process 1000000

LIQUEFACTION PROCESS DESIGN

Based on the character of small scale natural gas liquefaction process, two types of
processes are designed in order to compare the mixed-refrigerant cycle and the expander
cycle. Cycleĉadopts mixed-refrigerant process which are not propane pre-cooled. The
flow diagram is given in the FIGURE 1.CycleĊadopts a double turbo-expanders process
which are also not propane pre-cooled. Because the expansion rate is large, double
turbo-expanders are used in the process. The flow diagram is given in the FIGURE 2.

Parameter Initialization

Before calculation and optimization, some parameters must be fixed in order to

compare the two cycles. Liquefaction capacity is 20000 Nm3/day. The feed natural gas’
pressure is 5.0MPa and temperature is 32ć The composition of gas is given in the TABLE
2. LNG production rates in the two cycles are the same. The cycle parameters are listed in
TABLES 3ȫ5.

TABLE 2. The Feed Gas’ Mole Fraction.

N2 CH4 C2H6 C3H8 iC4H10 nC4H10

0.7 82.0 11.2 4.0 1.2 0.9

1160
FIGURE 1. Mixed-refrigerant Liquefaction Cycle.

FIGURE 2. Nitrogen Expander Liquefaction Cycle.

TABLE 3. Pressure and Temperature of Cycleĉ.

Item High Pressure of Low Pressure of Pressure of Feed LNG Storage

Refrigerant Refrigerant Gas Condition
Pressure (MPa) 2.1 0.3 5.0 0.3
Temperature (ć) 40 37 32 -146.1

TABLE 4. Pressure and Temperature of CycleĊ.

Item High Pressure of Low Pressure of Pressure of Feed LNG Storage

Refrigerant Refrigerant Gas Condition
Pressure (MPa) 4.3 0.3 5.0 0.3
Temperature (ć) 40 37 32 -146.1

TABLE 5. Efficiency of the Equipments Used in the Cycles.

Mixed-refrigerant Nitrogen Compressor Nitrogen Expander Expander’s Increasing

Compressor Compressor
0.70 0.70 0.80 0.70

Cycle Optimization

There are many parameters in the mixed-refrigerant cycle. Components and

1161
compositions of the mixed-refrigerant need to be optimized, once the high and low
pressures are set. The more high-boiling point refrigerants are used, the less energy is
consumed [6]. But the high-boiling point refrigerants freeze easily when the temperature is
very low, which block the pipeline and prevent the liquefaction system from operating.
This paper chooses methane, ethene, propane, isopentane and nitrogen gas as refrigerants
and optimizes their composition. Assuming the composition step length for every
refrigerant mole fraction is 0.5% and taking the least energy consumed in the system as the
objective function, an optimized result is then calculated. The refrigerant used in expander
cycle is nitrogen only. The parameters which need to be optimized are the inlet temperature
of the two expanders. Assuming a step size for temperature is 1ć and taking the least
energy consumed in the system as objective function, the optimized inlet temperature of
the two expanders is -4ć and -102ć.

Result and Analysis

The Peng-Rob equation is used to predict fluid properties in the simulation. Assuming
the smallest differential temperature is 2ć, the optimization result is given in TABLE 6,
for the same feed gas. There is large difference in energy consumption rate. Power
consumption of the mixed-refrigerant cycle is only 46% of that of the expander cycle. The
optimized energy consumption for the mixed-refrigerant cycle has reached the level of a
propane pre-cooled mixed-refrigerant cycle [1,2,3]. Isopentane in the mixed-refrigerant,
whose boiling point temperature is high and latent heat is large, is liquefied by water at
high pressure. Boiling off it offers more cooling power at low pressure. Although it is not a
propane pre-cooled cycle, it can reach the same results. Comparing with the 3 liquefaction
cycles optimized in the reference 2 and 4, energy consumption for liquefaction this cycle is
less, which suggests that mixed-refrigerant cycle is better choice.

TABLE 6. Optimization Result of Two Liquefaction Cycles.

Liquefaction Natural Gas Refrigerant Thermal Energy Energy Specific

Cycle Quantity Quantity Load of Consumption Production of Energy
Flow Flow Water of Expanders Consumption
(kmol/hr) (kmol/hr) (kW) Compressors (kW) (kW-h/ m3)
(kW)
Cycle ĉ 37.5 99 370 212 - 0.252
Cycle Ċ 37.5 178 644 468 148 0.557

The energy consumption rate of the nitrogen expander cycle is more than
mixed-refrigerant cycle. In the refrigerant system, the nitrogen is a gas for the entire
process and provides cooling power by the difference of enthalpy between high and low
pressure. This requires more nitrogen flow and the power consumption of the compressors
is high. FIGURE 3 and 4 show the temperature differential in the heat exchangers in the
mixed-refrigerant cycle and the nitrogen expander cycle. The temperature differential in
the mixed-refrigerant cycle is small, and the irreversible loss due to heat transfer is small
too. The larger temperature differential in the nitrogen expander cycle, especially at the
cold end at which the difference has reached 30ć, makes the irreversible loss in the
exchangers larger and the energy consumption is high.

1162
 


+RWIORZ

7HPSHUDWXUH
 &ROGIORZ






    
FIGURE 3. Temperature Differential in the Mixed-refrigerant Liquefaction Cycle.



 +RWIORZ
Temperature

&ROGIORZ







    
FIGURE 4. Temperature Differential in the Nitrogen Expander Liquefaction Cycle.

.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Economic analysis includes capital investment and operation expenses [7, 8]. Capital
investment includes expenses of liquefaction equipment and construction. These expenses
are a lump sum investment. The operation expenses include electricity consumption, water
and steam, employee pay, refrigerant consumption and equipment maintenance.
The capital investment of pretreatment system, compressor system, instrument and
control system, assistant equipment and construction engineering in the two cycles is
almost same. The main difference is that the mixed-refrigerant cycle increases the expenses
in refrigerant compression. The nitrogen expander cycle increases the expense in
turbo-expanders. Overall the investment for the nitrogen expander cycle is still higher a
little.
The main difference between the two cycles is electricity consumption. The nitrogen
expander cycle consumes 2.4 million RMB per year, and is more than double the
mixed-refrigerant cycle. If the liquefaction devices depreciate in 10 years, the depreciation
expense of mixed-refrigerant cycle is 0.86 million RMB per year, and that of nitrogen
expander cycle is 0.91 million RMB per year. The whole expense of MRC is 3.16 million
RMB per year, while expander cycle is 4.36 million RMB per year. So the MRC is more
advantageous than nitrogen expander.

1163
TABLE 7. Capital Investment Evaluation of Main Equipment (Million RMB)

Item Mixed-refrigerant cycle Nitrogen expander cycle

Pretreatment system 2.00 2.00
Compressor system 1.50 1.20
Expander system 0 1.40
Cold box(including pipeline, heat 2.30 1.80
exchangers)
Instrument and control system 1.40 1.40
Assistant equipment (include cycle 0.70 0.80
water, boiler, fire protection
system )
Construction engineering 0.50 0.50
Mixed-refrigerant confection 0.20 0
system
Sum 8.60 9.10

TABLE 8. Operation Expanses Evaluation Per Year (Million RMB)

Item Mixed-refrigerant cycle Nitrogen expander cycle

Electricity consumption expense 1.10 2.40
Equipment maintenance expenses 0.50 0.50
Cycle water and steam 0.20 0.30
Employee pay 0.20 0.20
Refrigerant consumption 0.30 0.05
Sum 2.30 3.45

CONCLUSION

This paper analyzes a mixed-refrigerant cycle and nitrogen expander cycle. The two
cycles are simulated to liquefy the same natural gas stream. Nitrogen expander cycles are
used in air separation plants, but its efficiency is the lowest in all natural gas liquefaction
cycles and results in high operating cost.
In the mixed-refrigerant cycle, some high boiling point refrigerants are selected. The
power consumption is lower and near the level of a propane pre-cooled liquefaction cycle.
The cycle is simpler and the investment is less, so the economy is better. The simple
mixed-refrigerant cycle has advantages for the development of small scale liquefaction
systems.

REFERENCE
1. Gu Anzhong, Shi Yumei, Wang Rongshun, “Natural Gas Liquefaction Process and Device”, in Cryogenic
Technology, No.1, 2003, PP1-6.
2. Cao Wensheng, Lu Xuesheng, Gu Anzhong, “Design of Small-scale Natural Gas Liquefaction Processes
in Skid-mounted Package”. Vacuum & CryogenicsˈVol.12, No.1, 2006ˈPP23-27.
3. Dubar C, Forcey T, Humphreys V, Schmidt H. “A competive offshore LNG scheme utilizing a gravity
base structure and improved nitrogen cycles”, in Institute of Gas Technology, 1998.
4. Cao Wensheng, Lu Xuesheng, Lin Wensheng, Gu Anzhong. “Parameter comparison of two small-scale
natural gas liquefaction processes in skid-mounted packages”, in Applied Thermal Engineering. Vol.26,
2006, pp898-904
5. C.W. Remeljeja, A.F.A. Hoadley. “An exergy analysis of small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG)
liquefaction processes”, in Energy, Vol.31, 2006, pp2005-2019
6. Gong Maoqiong. “Thermodynamic analysis and experimental investigation on multicomponent mixture
recuperative throttle refrigerators operating in 80-230K temperature ranges”. [Doctor’s degree paper]ˈ

1164
 in Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry, Beijing, China
7. Fu Yongxing, Li Huazhi, Guo Guibin, Yu Long, “The economic analysis of the coalbed methane
liquefaction equipments”, in Low temperature and specialty gasesˈVol.22, No.4, 2004, pp10-13.
8. Zheng Dazhen. “A complex criterion for evaluating economy of LNG unit schemes”. in Cryogenicsˈ
1996ˈVol.93, No.5, pp31-34.

1165