Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Design and energy analyses of alternative methanol production processes T

driven by hybrid renewable power at the offshore Thebaud platform
⁎
Anna Crivellaria,b, , Valerio Cozzania, Ibrahim Dincerb
a
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Via Terracini 28, Bologna 40131, Italy
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the present study, novel processes for the offshore production of methanol via alternative routes than re-
Wind energy forming of synthesis gas are investigated. Two process schemes are defined differing in the carbon source in
Solar energy input, i.e. the catalytic hydrogenation of carbon dioxide and the direct oxidation of methane via radical gas
Offshore oil & gas sector reaction. Both the schemes are considered to be installed at the main facility of the Canadian Sable Offshore
Methanol production
Project in the Atlantic Ocean, the gas production Thebaud platform. Both offshore wind farm and solar parabolic
Energy efficiency
Footprint analysis
trough systems are integrated to supply electricity and heat power to each process. The Aspen HYSYS is used to
simulate the chemical processes, while Homer Pro and System Advisor Model are adopted for the design of
feasible renewable energy plants. A thermodynamic modelling through energy analysis is conducted to evaluate
and compare the energy efficiencies of sub-systems and overall schemes. Moreover, a preliminary design analysis
is performed to estimate the footprint required for the components of the two schemes located on the offshore
facility. The present results reveal that the methane-to-methanol process makes more efficient use of the in-
tegrated renewable sources but requires relatively higher space at the installation than the other scheme.

1. Introduction operational experience up to 354 MW, operating temperature up to

According to the BP Energy Outlook 2018 [1], the world energy
demand is projected to increase by around a third by 2040 and re-
newable energy is expected to be the fastest growing energy source,
accounting for 40% of the increase in energy. Wind and solar energies
are recognized as the most promising renewable resources in reaching
the targets towards a lower carbon fuel mix. An important contribution
to such an evolution can be provided by the marine and ocean energy
sector which undoubtedly has a huge potential of abundant esoteric and
untapped resources [2].
Despite the relatively new development compared to the onshore
counterpart, the offshore wind power installations generally demon-
strate higher energy production due to the increase of wind speeds with
the distance from the shore and higher capacity factors [3]. The Danish
energy company Ørsted’s Walney Extension has recently opened in the
Irish Sea becoming the worldwide largest offshore wind farm with a
nominal capacity up to 656 MW and capable of powering almost
600,000 UK homes [4]. On the other hand, concentrating solar power
(CSP) plants have increased in interest in the solar energy sector due to
higher efficiency and lower costs [5]. Among the possible CSP tech-
nologies, the parabolic trough collectors show the most advanced
500 °C, high modularity and the best land-use factor [6]. They are used
to concentrate sunlight into receiver tubes placed in the trough’s focal
line. A thermal transfer fluid as a synthetic thermal oil is delivered in
these tubes. After heated to approximately 400 °C by the solar radiation,
the oil is pumped through heat exchangers to supply heat for vapour
generation or other thermal applications. By installing the solar para-
bolic trough plant at offshore areas, the requirements for the con-
centrator systems can be simplified due to the sun’s tracking along a
vertical axis and the thermodynamic efficiency can increase due to the
availability of huge quantity of cooling sea water (H2O) [7].
In such a transition perspective, the oil & gas industry is striving for
becoming more energy efficient and sustainable [8]. The main con-
sumption is represented by the thermal energy in terms of fuels for high
temperature processes and steam generation; the other part is asso-
ciated to the electricity supplied by gas turbines and diesel generators
for pumping, compressors and control systems [9]. In addition, the
decommissioning of offshore oil & gas assets is an unavoidable phase of
offshore projects which tends to be characterized by complex economic,
legal and environmental challenges [10]. Thus, the lifetime of these
infrastructure can be extended and improved by taking advantage of
offshore wind and solar CSP power plants. Furthermore, transforming

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Via Terracini 28, Bologna 40131, Italy.
E-mail address: anna.crivellari2@unibo.it (A. Crivellari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.03.017
Received 23 December 2018; Accepted 7 March 2019
Available online 18 March 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Nomenclature Subscripts

A area (m2) 0 atmospheric/reference condition

COP coefficient of performance ap aperture area of collector
cp specific heat (kJ/kg-K) in inlet
Cp power coefficient of wind turbine out outlet
DNI direct normal irradiance (W/m2) r receiver
Ė wind kinetic power (kW) rot rotor of wind turbine
FR heat removal factor of solar collector p pump
GHI global horizontal irradiance (W/m2)
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) Acronyms
HHV higher heating value (kJ/kg)
Ibeam beam solar radiation (W/m2) AC alternating current
ṁ mass flowrate (kg/s) CD condenser
nrow number of collector rows CO column
Q̇ heat rate (kW) CSP concentrated solar power
S absorbed solar radiation per unit of collector aperture area D flash drum
(W/m2) DC direct current
T temperature (K) EL electrolyzer
Uoverall overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K) F fan
UL overall heat loss coefficient of the solar collectors (kW/m2- HE cooler
K) HOMER hybrid optimization model for multiple energy resources
vw average wind speed (m/s) HX heater
Ẇ work rate (kW) K compressor
PEM proton exchange membrane
Greek letters PS production separator
PX pressure exchanger
α field orientation angle (degree) R reactor
β tracking angle (degree) RO reverse osmosis
γs surface azimuth angle (degree) SAM system advisor model
δ solar declination angle (degree) TEG triethylene glycol
ρ air density (kg/m3) TRL technology readiness level
η efficiency V throttling valve
ρ air density (kg/m3) VP vaporizer
Φ latitude (degree)
ω hour angle (degree)

part of the renewable power into liquid energy carrier at the offshore
installation consist of an attractive opportunity to transport more effi-
ciently and conveniently energy to shore, to diversify the final appli-
cations, as well as to create more valuable purposes for the offshore oil
and gas facilities [11].
As firstly conceptualized by the Nobel Prize Laureate George A.
Olah [12], among synthetic fuels, methanol (CH3OH) was recognized as
one of the most promising medium for storing, transporting and using
energy because of its high volumetric energy density, easy handling and
logistics, and multiple end-uses from the chemical industry to the
transport sector [13]. The conventional method to produce methanol
industrially is a well-known and simple practice, comprising the pro-
duction of synthesis gas, conversion of the synthesis gas into CH3OH
and distillation of the output from the reactor [14]. Other than con-
ventional route, more efficient and green pathways for the CH3OH
production have been proposed according to the Olah’s concept of the
“Methanol Economy”. The carbon source can be represented by natural
gas from which CH3OH is produced via direct partial oxidation of
methane (CH4) [15] or by carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from in-
dustrial streams [16]. Among such alternative pathways, radical gas
phase reaction was recognized as the direct oxidation method with both
higher conversion of CH4 and CH3OH selectivity [15], while catalytic
hydrogenation of CO2 shows the highest technology status of the CO2-
to-CH3OH conversion processes [17] given the CRI’s George Olah plant
in Svartsengi (Iceland) producing about 5 million litres of renewable
CH3OH [18].
Several studies were performed to assess the performance of the
CH3OH production driven by wind or solar power. Yang et al. in-
vestigated the integration of solar energy [19] and wind energy [20]
into the natural gas-to-CH3OH process using energy efficiency, carbon
efficiency, cost and financial indicators. Bai et al. [21] thermo-
dynamically and economically evaluated a polygeneration system for
the production of CH3OH and power by means of solar CSP-based
biomass gasification solar energy integration. Similarly, Von Storch
et al. [22] assessed the energy performance of a process for CH3OH and
electricity production using solar CSP and natural gas in input. Finally,
Kim et al. [23] performed the energy efficiency, environmental impact
and economic analyses of a new CH3OH process based on H2O and
thermochemical splitting of CO2 powered by solar CSP. In all these
works, the authors focused only on the traditional routes for CH3OH
production via synthesis gas. On the other hand, few articles assessing
the performance of the alternative methods mentioned above were re-
trieved from the existing literature. Matzen et al. [24,25] simulated the
process consisting of wind energy-based electrolytic H2 production and
bioethanol-based CO2 capture for CH3OH synthesis and performed a
techno-economic and sustainability analysis and a life cycle assessment
separately. Almahdi et al. [26] applied energy and exergy approaches
to evaluate CH3OH production integrated with carbon capturing and
photocatalytic H2 production processes.
As per the literature review, knowledge about thermodynamic
performance of the integrated CH3OH production by means of the
conventional process is abundant, while the analysis of alternative
processes is limited to the catalytic hydrogenation of CO2. Moreover,
there is no evidence on studies integrating multiple renewables, as wind

149
A. Crivellari, et al.
and solar power, for the CH3OH synthesis. Also, no published work has
been done related to the offshore context and to the synergy of offshore
fossil and renewable energy sources. Therefore, the present study is
crucial for evaluating a preliminary feasibility of novel integrated
CH3OH process schemes for the valorization of multiple offshore re-
sources.
The aim of this paper is to define and thermodynamically analyzed
novel process schemes for CH3OH production integrated with an off-
shore wind farm and solar parabolic trough collectors at a given off-
shore oil & gas installation. The present study focuses on the assessment
of two alternative methods due to higher technological maturity, i.e.
catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 and partial oxidation of CH4 via radical
gas phase reaction. The first process makes use only of the offshore
infrastructure, while the other one includes also some oil & gas op-
erations. In order to assess their performance, an energy analysis is
carried out by means of simulations in Aspen HYSYS software. Heat
duties are calculated for the relevant components of the schemes. Based
on this data, the wind and solar power plants are properly designed
through HOMER Pro and SAM tools to supply electricity and heat
power, respectively, to the chemical process. Then, energy efficiencies
of the sub-systems and of overall energy efficiency of the integrated
system are calculated for the two schemes and compared each other.
Due to critical issue of the space constraint of offshore platforms, a
preliminary design analysis of the two proposed processes is performed
by using geometric data from the technical literature and applying
specific design approaches for chemical process equipment. The foot-
prints required from the components of the two schemes at the facility
are thus estimated and compared.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the scheme A concerning the integrated system for the catalytic hydrogenation of CO2.
150
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
2. System description
Two of the possible processes for the alternative CH3OH production
are selected for the analysis in the present study due to higher tech-
nological development based on mass and volumetric productivity of
CH3OH than other alternative processes, i.e. the catalytic hydrogena-
tion of CO2 [17] and the partial oxidation of CH4 via radical gas phase
reaction [15].
Both the processes are assumed to be installed at an offshore gas
production platform located in the Thebaud gas field, selected as case
study of the present analysis. Thebaud is one of the six fields of the
Offshore Energy Sable Project [27] in Sable Island Bank area of the
Atlantic Ocean. The field is approximately 225 km offshore Nova Scotia
(Canada), in H2O depths ranging between 20 m and 80 m. The choice
for this project is based on the fact that since 2017 the first activity of
the decommissioning phase of the project assets has begun: the wells
were plugged and abandoned in view of the following steps including
the facilities transition (de-inventorying and removals preparation), the
pipeline abandonment (onshore and offshore), the offshore facilities
removals (topsides and jackets), the dismantlement of offshore facilities
for salvage and disposal/recycle, and the onshore plant dismantlement
for salvage and disposal/recycle. Therefore, the present analysis re-
presents an innovative study to extend the life of the Thebaud platform
by re-using and valorizing its infrastructure through the conversion of
offshore wind and solar power into a valuable synthetic fuel.
The Thebaud facility consists of two main platforms connected by a
walkway; a compression platform with associated equipment is in-
stalled on a standalone structure connected to the main platforms by a
bridge. The main facilities are multi-legs fixed platforms composed of
multi-level topside (lower deck, main deck, weather deck). Given the
dimensions of the topside of the compression platform (40 m length,
A. Crivellari, et al.
25 m width, 26 m height) [28], the size of the plan view of the largest
main platform can be estimated as 130 m length and 80 m width, for a
total area of around 10,000 m2. One of the two main platforms includes
the Thebaud wells, while the other one contains processing and pro-
duction equipment for gas extracted from the Thebaud, as well as gas
brought in from the satellite platforms, and living quarters and a heli-
copter landing pad. Given the dimensions of the topside of the com-
pression platform (40 m length, 25 m width, 26 m height) [28], the size
of the plan view can be estimated as 80 m length and 60 m width for the
wellhead platform, while 130 m length and 80 m width for the pro-
duction platform. Therefore, the total plan view area ranges between
5000 and 10,000 m2.
The main function of the production complex is the triethylene
glycol (TEG) dehydration and separation of the produced gas, that is, to
remove as much H2O from the gas as is technologically possible. The
produced gas is separated by means of two groups of separators into
H2O, condensate, and gas. The combined gas stream is then fed into the
TEG gas dehydration contactor trains whose function is to remove most
of the H2O vapour from gas. The condensate obtained from the se-
paration is then routed to a coalescer and a stripper to remove H2O. The
final product of dry gas and condensate is sent via pipeline to shore.
Vapour is vented into the air and any liquid H2O is discharged into the
sea after a proper treatment.
Offshore wind farm and solar parabolic trough solar collectors are
considered to supply electrical and heat power, respectively, meeting
the energy demand of the processes for CH3OH production. Even
though these resources have several advantages, wind or solar gen-
erators in a stand-alone system cannot supply continuously the load due
to their fluctuating nature. Therefore, diesel generators and battery
storage are integrated with the wind farm, while solar thermal energy
storage are combined with the parabolic trough technology. These re-
newable energy systems need to be designed based on wind and solar
potential at the selected offshore location, as well as on estimated en-
ergy requirements from the processes.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram and state points of the first
integrated system (scheme A) coupling the wind and solar power plants
with the catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 for the CH3OH production. The
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the scheme B concerning the integrated system for the partial oxidation of CH4 via radical gas phase reaction.
151
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
second integrated system (scheme B) combines the wind and solar
power plants with the partial oxidation of CH4 via radical gas reaction
for the CH3OH synthesis and is represented in Fig. 2 with its state
points. The systems are designed to reach the same production of pure
CH3OH equal to 99.96 t/d (i.e. 4150 kg/h), as considered by Matzen
et al. [24]. A detailed description of the two processes is reported se-
parately in the following.
2.1. Description of the scheme A
As shown from Fig. 1, the scheme A requires as main material inputs
CO2 and sea H2O. Sea H2O is first routed to a desalination system
consisting of a high-pressure pump (P1), a reverse osmosis unit (RO1) a
pressure exchanger (PX1) for the energy recovery from the brine and a
booster pump (P2). A part of the produced desalinated H2O is then
heated (in HX1) and fed into 5 pressurized proton exchanger membrane
electrolyzers (EL1-EL5) where H2 and O2 are produced, according to the
following overall reaction:
H2 O→ H2 + 0.5O2 ΔH∘ (298 K) = 285.8 kJ/mol (1)
The electrolyzers operate at a pressure of 30 bar and temperature of
80 °C according to the Siemens PEM technology [29]. While O2 is
emitted into the atmosphere, H2 is compressed in K1 to the pressure
required for the CH3OH synthesis. The CO2 source is supplied from the
onshore market and delivered in liquid phase via ships to the platform
[30] in order to ensure the molar ratio H2 to CO2 equal to 3:1 for the
following reaction. After unloaded, CO2 is pumped in P3 to reach the
desired pressure of 50 bar.
The obtained H2 and CO2 are then mixed with the recycled stream
properly compressed in K2. The resulting mixture is heated in HX2 to
reach the operating temperature of CH3OH synthesis and enters into the
multi-tubular catalytic reactor R1 where the following reactions take
place [31]:
CO2 + 3H2 = CH3 OH + H2 O ΔH° (298 K) = − 49.4 kJ/mol (2)
CO + 2H2 = CH3 OH ΔH° (298 K) = −90.55 kJ/mol (3)
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

CO2 + H2 = H2 O+ CO ΔH° (298 K) = 41.12 kJ/mol
The synthesis occurs with the Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst at a pressure
of 50 bar and a constant temperature of 235 °C according to the low-
pressure isothermal Lurgy’s system. In these conditions, the molar
conversion of CO2 in CH3OH is essentially equal to 100%. The output
from the reactor is then cooled down (HE1) and expanded through a
throttling valve (V1) to allow the atmospheric separation of CH3OH and
H2O from the other compounds in the flash drum D1. The liquid ob-
tained from the separation enters into the distillation unit composed of
the atmospheric column CO1, top-condenser CD1 and bottom-reboiler
VP1. Due to higher volatility, CH3OH is obtained relatively pure in the
distillate, while hot H2O represents the waste of the unit.
As indicated in Fig. 1, electricity from the wind-diesel-battery
system is supplied to the electrolyzers and to the compression and
pumping units, while the solar heating fluid is used to provide the re-
quired thermal power to one heater (HX2). In addition, the heat re-
leased from the reactor R1 is recovered to produce high-pressure va-
pour from desalinated H2O. This vapour provides a part of the thermal
power required in VP1. The remaining heat rate is supplied by a part of
vapour generated in VP2. The other part of vapour coming out from this
unit is used in HX1. Furthermore, sea H2O represents the cooling fluid
of HE1 and CD1, while synthetic oil the heating fluid of VP2. Both these
fluids are not recovered after their function.
The useful outputs of this scheme include CH3OH from the dis-
tillation unit as main product, while the secondary product is hot H2O
produced from the distillation unit, HX1 and VP1. The produced
CH3OH is intended to be delivered by the ship voyage to the onshore
market, while hot H2O can be used for services on the facility.
2.2. Description of the scheme B
The scheme B in Fig. 2 comprises at the first stage the hydrocarbons
separation and dehydration processes occurring at the Thebaud plat-
form in order to provide the gas mixture for the CH3OH production. As
illustrated in the figure, the raw gas and produced H2O together with
the recycled streams are routed to the three-phase separator PS1; the
condensate gas from the separation is heated in HX3 and expanded
through valve V2 in order to enter into the two-phase separator PS2.
(4) The gas coming out from this unit undergoes to a first stage of cooling
and compression by means of the cooler HE2, flash drum D2 and
compressor K3. After received the gas outlet from PS1, the gas is further
cooled and compressed in a second group of units composed of cooler
(HE3), flash drum (D3) and compressor (K4). After that, the dehydra-
tion process proceeds in the TEG absorption column (CO2); the en-
riched TEG produced at the bottom continues into the heat exchanger
HE6 and is then regenerated in the desorption unit composed of the
column CO3, top-condenser CD2 and bottom-reboiler VP3. The lean
TEG coming out from the bottom of this unit enters into the hot side of
HE6 and is pumped back through the heater HX4. The heat required is
supplied from the cooling of the gas outlet from the top of CO2.
A part of the obtained dry gas is further treated to meet the required
composition of CH4 and N2 for CH3OH synthesis. The treatment consists
of two steps of cooling, depressurization and separation in HE7/V5/D6
and HE8/V6/D7, respectively. The final mixture contains mainly CH4
(97% mol) and N2 (3% mol) which is then compressed in K5 to the
desired pressure of the following reaction. The general conversion of
this mixtures takes place by means of partial oxidation of CH4, as fol-
lows [15]:
CH 4 + 0.5O2 = CH3 OH ΔH° (298 K) = −125 kJ/mol (5)
Here, the reaction occurs in the gas phase by means of a free-radical
mechanism at high temperature (451 °C) and pressure (50 bar). In ad-
dition to CH4 and N2, it requires in input relatively pure O2 in order to
reach a molar concentration of 6.7% in the mixture [32]. In this con-
dition, the conversion of CH4 is 9.5 %mol and the selectivity of CH3OH
is 76 %mol. Thus, the required O2 is produced by means of sea H2O
electrolysis according to Eq. (1). The main units used in the desalination
and electrolysis systems are the same described in the scheme A, even
though the number of electrolyzers in the scheme B is 4 (EL6-EL9). O2
from the electrolyzers is then compressed to reach the required pressure
level and mixed with the CH4-N2 mixture. To reach the operating
temperature for the reaction, the resulting mixture is heated through
two heaters in series, HX6 and HX7. After that, it enters into the tubular
reactor R2.
Similarly to the scheme A, the output stream from the reactor is
cooled in HE9 and depressurized in the throttling valve V7. CH3OH and
H2O are then separated from the gas in the flash drum D8 and properly

Table 1
Assumptions applied to the analysis of specific components of the two process schemes disregarded in Aspen simulation.
Component Assumptions

Wind-diesel-battery system The diesel combustion occurs externally.

Solar parabolic trough collectors
RO1, RO2 (Reverse osmosis unit)
EL1-EL9 (Electrolyzers)
R1 (Reactor)
R2 (Reactor)
The coefficient of performance of the wind turbine is constant.
The charge and discharge coefficient of the battery storage is constant.
Heat losses due to storage inefficiency exist.
The heat transfer fluid is kept in the liquid state, specific heat capacity and density of the heat transfer fluid is constant.
Heat losses from thermal storage tanks and the receiver exist.
The commercial Lenntech large package for sea H2O [35] is assumed, with 45% recovery of the feed volumetric flow in the permeate
volumetric flow under standard conditions (pH 7.6, temperature of 15 °C, total dissolved solids 35 g/L), 95% salt rejection at 25 °C.
The commercial Siemens Silyzer 300 PEM electrolyzer [29] is assumed, with a constant energy efficiency of 75%, stack capacity of 10 MW,
1800 Nm3/h or 161.82 kg/h H2 produced under nominal load with a purity level of 99.5–99.9%, 1.5 L/Nm3 of fresh H2O required in input.
The gas in the inlet and outlet streams are ideal. The composition of the outlet stream is obtained by solving the material balances according
to Eqs. (1)–(2) and considering the molar conversion of CO2 of 99.99% [31].
The inlet molar composition is (%mol): H2 (75.44), CO2 (24.30), CH3OH (0.22), H2O (0.04)
The outlet molar composition is (%mol): H2 (4.90), CO2 (0.00), CH3OH (47.70), H2O (47.40)
The calculation of the heat of reaction released from the component is estimated by applying the energy balance equation, assuming ambient
temperature (25 °C) and ambient pressure (1 bar) as reference state. The thermodynamic data of reactants and products are retrieved from
[36], except for CH3OH whose properties are found in [37]. This reference [36] is used for the enthalpy of formation of all compounds.
The gas in the inlet and outlet streams are ideal. The composition of the outlet stream is calculated by solving the material balances according
to Eq. (4) and considering the molar conversion of CH4 of 9.5%, molar selectivity of CH3OH of 76%, selectivity of CO of 12.6%, selectivity of
CO2 of 11.4% [32]:
The inlet molar composition is (%mol): CH4 (91.43), N2 (1.87), O2 (6.7)
The outlet molar composition is (%mol): CH4 (82.29), N2 (1.86), O2 (3.06), CO2 (0.98), CO (1.09), CH3OH (6.57), H2O (4.15)
The calculation of the heat of reaction released from the component is estimated by applying the energy balance equation, assuming ambient
temperature (25 °C) and ambient pressure (1 bar) as reference state. The thermodynamic data of reactants and products are retrieved from
[36], except for CH4 and CH3OH whose properties are found in [37]. This reference [36] is used for the enthalpy of formation of all
compounds.

152
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

heated in HX8 in order to feed the distillation unit composed of the Table 3
atmospheric column CO4, the top-condenser CD4 and the bottom-re- Composition of the raw gas and produced H2O con-
boiler VP4. As previously described, CH3OH represents the distillate sidered in inlet to the scheme B.
stream, while hot H2O is produced as waste from the bottom of the unit. Compound Molar composition
Three refrigeration cycle are included in this scheme in order to
provide ultra-low temperature cooling to some coolers of the process. H2O 0.0597
N2 0.0099
Two of these cycles use ammonia as refrigerant and consist of a com-
CO2 0.0005
pressor (K7 and K9 respectively), an air-cooled condenser (CD4 and CH4 0.6374
CD6 respectively), a throttling valve (V8 and V10 respectively) and Ethane 0.0788
vaporizer (HE7 and HE9 respectively). The other cycle provides the Propane 0.0679
i-Butane 0.0197
cooling of HE8 by means of propane refrigerant. In addition to HE8, the
n-Butane 0.0296
cycle includes the compressor K8, the air-cooled condenser CD5 and i-Pentane 0.0296
throttling valve V9. In all these cycles fans (F1, F2, F3) allow air to flow n-Pentane 0.0020
through the cold side of the condensers. The other cooling fluid used in n-Hexane 0.0020
HE3, HE4, HE5, CD2 and CD3 is sea H2O, which is spilled into the sea C6-C10 0.0246
C10-C15 0.0148
after its function. Concerning the heating requirements of the process,
C15-C20 0.0099
desalinated H2O is fed to the reactor in order to remove the heat of the C20-C25 0.0049
reaction and keep constant temperature. High-pressure vapour is thus C25-C30 0.0030
produced and a part of this is then recovered in the hot side of VP3, C30-C35 0.0030
C35-C40 0.0010
HX5, HX6, HX8 and VP4. Molten salt is instead the heating fluid of HX7
C40+ 0.0020
due to the high temperature required. As described in the scheme A, the
wind-diesel-battery system supplies the electrical power to the elec-
trolyzers, pumps, compressors and fans. In addition, the solar parabolic considered as one sole unit for the distillation and desorption pro-
trough collectors provide the thermal fluid for the hot side of HX3. cesses.
Equally to the scheme A, CH3OH from the top of the distillation unit
is the main product and hot H2O coming out from the bottom of the
• The steady state operating conditions exist.

distillation column, HX5, HX6, HX8, VP3 and VP4 is the co-product.
Differently, other two co-products are produced in the scheme B, i.e. H2
from EL6-EL9, CH4-rich gas from the gas outlet of D8. Both these gases
can be used as fuel for onsite power generation. Moreover, the oil and
export gas derived from hydrocarbons separation and gas dehydration
are other useful products.
3. Thermodynamic analysis
In this section, the mass and energy balance equations are presented
for the components in Figs. 1 and 2 in order to estimate the thermal
loads of the system components, the energy efficiency of the main sub-
systems and of overall systems. Several general assumptions are con-
sidered in the analysis, as listed in the following. Proper assumptions
made for specific components, including the renewable energy systems,
are instead reported in Table 1.
In order to calculate the properties of the main fluids in the two
schemes, Aspen HYSYS version 10 [33] is used. Table 2 summarizes the
information about the Aspen models. For the analysis of the scheme B, a
gas equivalent volume of 74,908.61 Nm3/h and H2O volume of
1.07 m3/h are assumed to be produced at the offshore platform, as
published in the monthly production data of September 2018 for the
Offshore Sable Project [27]. The composition of the raw gas and pro-
duced H2O in input to the scheme B considered in Aspen simulation is
shown in Table 3. For the molten salt used in HX7 of the scheme B,
constant properties tabulated in the technical literature for the com-
mercial HITEC transfer salt [34] are assumed, as illustrated in Table 4.
The general mass and energy equations for the analysis of two
schemes are [38]:
∑ ṁ in = ∑ ṁ out (6)

• The pumps, compressors and fans are adiabatic (i.e. to incur no heat
losses) with an isentropic efficiency of 75%.
• The throttling process through valves is adiabatic (i.e. to incur no
heat losses).
• The separation process in flash drums and production separators is
adiabatic (i.e. to incur no heat losses).
• The absorption, desorption and distillation columns are adiabatic
(i.e. to incur no heat losses).
• The pressure losses in the reactors, heat exchangers, columns are
negligible.
• The column and related top-condenser and bottom-reboiler are
∑ ṁ in hin + Qiṅ + Wiṅ = ∑ ṁ out hout + Qout
̇ + Wout
̇ (7)
where ṁ is the mass flowrate in inlet or outlet from the component, Q̇ is
the heat rate required or released from the component, Ẇ is the work
rate required or produced from the component, h is the specific en-
thalpy associated to the inlet and outlet streams of the component. The
energy balance equations of the system components of the scheme A are
reported in Tables 5, while Table 6 summarizes the equations for the
units of the scheme B.
The energy analysis for the wind turbine includes the calculation of
̇ ), according to Eq. (8) [39]:
the kinetic energy of wind (Ewind

Table 2
Fluid packages used in Aspen HYSYS for the properties of the states of the two process schemes.
Fluid Properties method in Aspen HYSYS

H2, O2, N2, H2O, CO2, CO, CH3OH, Air, Ammonia, Propane, Peng Robinson package (applicable to any single-, two-, or three-phase system and oil & gas mixture, over a
Hydrocarbons mixture temperature range greater than −271 °C and a pressure range less than 1000 bar)
Sea H2O, synthetic oil UNIQUAC equation for liquid (applicable to a wide range of mixtures containing H2O, alcohols, hydrocarbons)
TEG-H2O Glycol package (applicable to TEG- H2O and related mixtures, over the range of temperatures, pressures, and
component concentration encountered in a typical TEG- H2O dehydration system, i.e. between 15 °C and 50 °C
and between 10 bar and 100 bar for the gas dehydrator, and between 202 °C and 206 °C and 1.2 bar for the
glycol regenerator)

153
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Table 4 The energy balance equation is then given as [40]:

Physical properties assumed for HITEC molten salt [34].
̇
Qsolar ̇ ,t
+ ṁ r , in hr , in + Ẇ p, solar = ṁ r , out hr , out + Qout (13)
Property Value
̇
where Qsolar is the total solar radiation incident on the field area at zero
Maximum operating temperature 142 °C
incidence angle evaluated as the product between the beam solar ra-
Minimum operating temperature 538 °C
Molecular weight 87.13 kg/kmol
diation (Ibeam ) and the total solar field area ( Asolar ), hr , in and hr , out are the
Density (773 K) 1713.65 kg/m3 specific enthalpy of the thermal transfer fluid flowing into and out of
Heat capacity 1560 kg/m3 the field, Qout
̇ , t are the total heat losses from the solar field. Thus, the
Viscosity (773 K) 0.00115 Pa s useful thermal output from the collectors (Qsolar ̇ , u ) can be calculated as
Thermal conductivity 0.48 W/(m K)
follows [40]:
̇ , u = ṁ r , in (cp, r , out Tr , out − cp, r , in Tr , in )
Qsolar (14)
̇ 1
Ewind = ρArot vw3
2 (8) where cp, r and Tr are the heat capacity and the temperature of the
heating fluid flowing into and out of the field, respectively. This useful
where ρis the density of air, Arot is the swept area of the rotor, vw is the
thermal energy can be stored in thermal energy tanks or directly sup-
average wind speed in the time interval considered. The power gener- ̇ ) based on the operating mode. On the other
plied to the process (Qload
ated by the wind turbine (Ẇwind ) depends on the power coefficient (Cp ), ̇ , u can be obtained also from Eq. (15) by applying the energy
hand, Qsolar
mechanical efficiency (ηmech ) and the efficiency of the generator (ηgen ): balance and transfer analysis to each collector of the system [41]:
1 ̇ , u = nrow Aap FR (S − Ar UL/ Aap ((Tr , in − T0))
Ẇwind = Cp ηmech ηgen ρArot vw3 Qsolar (15)
2 (9)

When the power delivered by the wind turbine integrated with
power supplied by diesel generators (Wdiesel ̇ ) exceeds the required
electrical load for the process (Ẇload ), the battery enters a charging
mode. When the demand is unmet, the battery discharges. When the
battery is in charging mode, the power entering into the battery
(Ẇbattery, in) is defined as follows:
Ẇbattery, in = (Ẇwind + Wdiesel
̇ − Ẇload ) ηcharging
where ηcharging is the charging efficiency of the battery storage. During
the discharge mode, the power flowing out from the battery is:
Ẇbattery, out = (Ẇwind + Wdiesel
̇ − Ẇload )/ ηdischarging
where ηdischarging is the discharging efficiency of the battery storage. The
summation of work flows into and out of the battery (Ẇbattery, net ) should
be net positive.
Concerning the solar technology, direct solar radiation is absorbed
from the parabolic trough collector and reflected on the receiver tubes.
The temperature of the heat transfer fluid increases along the receiver,
thus the solar radiation is transformed into useful heat. The mass ma-
terial balance for the flow of the heat transfer fluid (ṁ r ) entering and
leaving the receiver can be written as follows [40]:
ṁ r , in = ṁ r , out
where nrow is the total number of solar collectors rows, Aap is the col-
lector aperture area, FR is the heat removal factor of the collector, S is
the absorbed solar radiation per unit of aperture area, Ar is the area of
the receiverUL is the overall heat loss coefficient of the collectors, T0 is
the ambient temperature.
The first-law (energy) efficiency is defined in the present paper as
ratio of useful energy outputs, such as power, cooling, heating, CH3OH,
(10) H2, etc. to the energy inputs. In the following sections, the energy ef-
ficiency equations are presented for the main sub-systems of the two
schemes separately and for the overall systems. For the refrigeration
cycles in the scheme B, the energy performance is instead evaluated by
(11) means of the coefficient of performance (COP) considered as ratio of the
desired output to the required input.
3.1. Energy efficiency of the wind-diesel-battery storage sub-system
The sub-system is part of both the schemes A and B and comprises
the wind farm integrating with diesel generators and battery storage as
back-up technologies. The input energy is given by the kinetic energy of
wind and chemical energy of the diesel fuel. Included as products are
the total electrical load required to the process and the net work added
to the battery storage, while the heat losses from the storage in-
efficiency (Qouṫ , battery ) is lost into the environment. The efficiency of the
(12)
wind-diesel-battery sub-system is given as:

Table 5
Energy balance equations of the components of the scheme A. The subscripts refer to the component and states names in Fig. 1.
Component Energy balance equation

P1 (Pump) ṁ a2 ha2 + Wiṅ = ṁ a3 ha3

RO1a (Reverse osmosis unit) ṁ a4 ha4 = ṁ a5 ha5 + ṁ a6 ha6
PX1 (Pressure exchanger) ṁ a6 ha6 + ṁ a7 ha7 = ṁ a8 ha8 + ṁ a9 ha9
P2 (Pump) ṁ a9 ha9 + Win ̇ = ṁ a10 ha10
HX1 (Heater) ̇ = ṁ a14 ha14 ; Qin
ṁ a13 ha13 + Qin ̇ = ṁ a39 ha39 - ṁ a40 ha40
EL1-EL5a (Electrolyzers) ̇ = ṁ a15 ha15 + ṁ a16 ha16 +Qout
ṁ a14 ha14 + Win ̇
K1 (Compressor) ̇ = ṁ a18 ha18
ṁ a17 ha17 + Win
P3 (Pump) ̇ = ṁ a12 ha12
ṁ a11 ha11 + Win
HX2 (Heater) ̇ = ṁ a20 ha20 ; Qin
ṁ a19 ha19 + Qin ̇ = ṁ a31 ha31 - ṁ a32 ha32
R1a (Reactor) ̇ ; Qout
ṁ a20 ha20 = ṁ a21 ha21 + Qout ̇ = ṁ a34 ha34 - ṁ a33 ha33
HE1 (Cooler) ̇ ; Qout
ṁ a21 ha21 = ṁ a22 ha22 + Qout ̇ = ṁ a36 ha36 - ṁ a35 ha35
V1 (Throttling valve) ṁ a22 ha22 = ṁ a23 ha23
D1 (Flash drum) ṁ a23 ha23 = ṁ a24 ha24 + ṁ a25 ha25
K2 (Compressor) ṁ a27 ha27 + Wiṅ = ṁ a28 ha28
CO1-CD1-VP1 (Distillation unit) ̇ = ṁ a29 ha29 + ṁ a30 ha30 + Qout
ṁ a24 ha24 + Qin ̇ ; Qiṅ = ṁ a43 ha43 - ṁ a44 ha44 ; Qout
̇ = ṁ a38 ha38 - ṁ a37 ha37
VP2 (Vaporizer) ̇ = ṁ a42 ha42 ; Qin
ṁ a41 ha41 + Qin ̇ = ṁ a45 ha45 - ṁ a46 ha46

a
The component are not simulated in Aspen HYSYS, but considered in the energy analysis according to the assumptions in Table 1.

154
A. Crivellari, et al.
Table 6
Energy balance equations of the components of the scheme B. The subscripts
refer to the component and states names in Fig. 2.
Component
PS1 (Production separator)
HX3 (Heater)
V2 (Throttling valve)
PS2 (Production separator)
HE3 (Cooler)
D2 (Flash drum)
P4 (Pump)
K3 (Compressor)
HE4 (Cooler)
D3 (Flash drum)
P5 (Pump)
K4 (Compressor)
HE5 (Cooler)
D4 (Flash drum)
V3 (Throttling valve)
CO2 (Absorption column)
V4 (Throttling valve)
HE6 (Cooler)
CO3-CD2-VP3 (Desorption
unit)
P6 (Pump)
HX4 (Heater)
D5 (Flash drum)
HE7 (Cooler)
V5 (Throttling valve)
D6 (Flash drum)
HE8 (Cooler)
V6 (Throttling valve)
D7 (Flash drum)
K5 (Compressor)
P7 (Pump)
RO2a (Reverse osmosis unit)
PX2 (Pressure exchanger)
P8 (Pump)
HX5 (Heater)
a
EL6-EL9 (Electrolyzers)
K6 (Compressor)
HX6 (Heater)
HX7 (Heater)
R2a (Reactor)
HE9 (Cooler)
V7 (Throttling valve)
D8 (Flash drum)
HX8 (Heater)
CO4-CD3-VP4 (Distillation
unit)
K7 (Compressor)
CD4 (Condenser)
V8 (Throttling valve)
F1 (Fan)
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
Table 6 (continued)
Component Energy balance equation
Energy balance equation K8 (Compressor) ṁ b110 hb110 + Win ̇ = ṁ b111 hb111
CD5 (Condenser) ṁ b111 hb111 = ṁ b112 hb112 + Qouṫ ; Qout
̇ = ṁ b115
ṁ b2 hb2 = ṁ b3 hb3 + ṁ b4 hb4
hb115 - ṁ b114 hb114
̇ = ṁ b6 hb6 ; Qin
ṁ b5 hb5 + Qin ̇ = ṁ b84 hb84 -
V9 (Throttling valve) ṁ b112 hb112 = ṁ b109 hb109
ṁ b85 hb85 F2 (Fan) ̇ = ṁ b114 hb114
ṁ b113 hb113 + Win
ṁ b6 hb6 = ṁ b7 hb7 K9 (Compressor) ṁ b117 hb117 + Wiṅ = ṁ b118 hb118
ṁ b7 hb7 = ṁ b8 hb8 + ṁ b9 hb9
CD6 (Condenser) ṁ b118 hb118 = ṁ b119 hb119 + Qouṫ ; Qout
̇ = ṁ b122
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b9 hb9 = ṁ b10 hb10 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b93 hb93 -
hb122 - ṁ b121 hb121
ṁ b92 hb92
V10 (Throttling valve) ṁ b119 hb119 = ṁ b116 hb116
ṁ b10 hb10 = ṁ b11 hb11 + ṁ b13 hb13
F3 (Fan) ṁ b120 hb120 + Win ̇ = ṁ b121 hb121
ṁ b11 hb11 + Wiṅ = ṁ b12 hb12
ṁ b13 hb13 + Wiṅ = ṁ b14 hb14 a
The component are not simulated in Aspen HYSYS, but considered in the
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b14 hb14 = ṁ b15 hb15 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b95 hb95 -
energy analysis according to the assumptions in Table 1.
ṁ b94 hb94
ṁ b15 hb15 = ṁ b16 hb16 + ṁ b18 hb18
̇ = ṁ b17 hb17 ̇ , battery )
ηwind − diesel − battery = (Ẇload + Ẇbattery, net − Qout
ṁ b16 hb16 + Win
ṁ b19 hb19 + Wiṅ = ṁ b20 hb20 ̇
/(Ewind + ṁ diesel HHVdiesel ) (16)
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b20 hb20 = ṁ b21 hb21 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b101 hb101
- ṁ b100 hb100 where ṁ diesel and HHVdiesel are the mass flowrate and higher heating
ṁ b21 hb21 = ṁ b22 hb22 + ṁ b24 hb24 value (45,600 kJ/kg in this study [36]) of diesel fuel.
ṁ b22 hb22 = ṁ b23 hb23
ṁ b24 hb24 + ṁ b33 hb33 = ṁ b25 hb25 + ṁ b34 hb34
ṁ b25 hb25 = ṁ b26 hb26 3.2. Energy efficiency of the solar trough parabolic collectors-thermal
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b26 hb26 = ṁ b27 hb27 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b30 hb30 - storage sub-system
ṁ b29 hb29
̇ = ṁ b28 hb28 + ṁ b29 hb29 + Qout
ṁ b27 hb27 + Qin ̇ ;
The solar collectors and the associated pairs of thermal storage
̇ = ṁ b80 hb80 - ṁ b81 hb81; Qout
Qin ̇ = ṁ b97 hb97 -
tanks are considered in this sub-system. The input energy is the solar
ṁ b96 hb96
̇ = ṁ b32 hb32 energy and the pumping power. The useful output is the net rate pro-
ṁ b31 hb32 + Win
ṁ b32 hb32 + Qiṅ = ṁ b33 hb33 ; Qin
̇ = ṁ b34 hb34 - duced from the collectors, considering that the total heat losses from
ṁ b35 hb35 the thermal storage tanks and collectors are lost into the environment.
ṁ b35 hb35 = ṁ b36 hb36 + ṁ b37 hb37 The energy efficiency can be calculated as follows:
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b39 hb39 = ṁ b40 hb40 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b103 hb103
- ṁ b102 hb102
̇ , u )/(Qsolar
ηsolar − thermal = (Qsolar ̇ + Ẇ p, solar ) (17)
ṁ b40 hb40 = ṁ b41 hb41
ṁ b41 hb41 = ṁ b42 hb42 + ṁ b43 hb43
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b43 hb43 = ṁ b44 hb44 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b110 hb110
3.3. Energy efficiency of sub-systems in the scheme A
- ṁ b109 hb109
ṁ b44 hb44 = ṁ b45 hb45
ṁ b45 hb45 = ṁ b46 hb46 + ṁ b47 hb47
The efficiencies of specific sub-systems of the scheme A are pre-
ṁ b47 hb47 + Wiṅ = ṁ b48 hb48 sented in the following. The subscripts refer to the component and state
ṁ b50 hb50 + Win ̇ = ṁ b51 hb51 names shown in Fig. 1.
ṁ b52 hb52 = ṁ b53 hb53 + ṁ b54 hb54
ṁ b54 hb54 + ṁ b55 hb55 = ṁ b56 hb56 + ṁ b57 hb57
3.3.1. Energy efficiency of the H2 production sub-system
ṁ b57 hb57 + Wiṅ = ṁ b58 hb58
̇ = ṁ b60 hb60 ; Qin
̇ = ṁ b86 hb86 -
The desalination unit, the heater HX1 and the electrolyzers are in-
ṁ b59 hb59 + Qin
ṁ b87 hb87 cluded in this sub-system. The useful energy outputs are attributed to
ṁ b60 hb60 + Win ̇
̇ = ṁ b61 hb61 + ṁ b62 hb62 +Qout H2 produced in EL1-EL5 and hot H2O from HX1, while the heat released
ṁ b63 hb63 + Win ̇ = ṁ b64 hb64 from the electrolysis is lost. The energy efficiency is calculated as fol-
̇ = ṁ b66 hb66 ; Qin
ṁ b65 hb65 + Qin ̇ = ṁ b78 hb78 - lows:
ṁ b79 hb79
̇ = ṁ b67 hb67 ; Qin
ṁ b66 hb66 + Qin ̇ = ṁ b88 hb88 - ̇ , EL1 − EL5 + ṁ a40 cp, a40 (Ta40 − T0))
ηH 2prod = (ṁ a16 HHVH 2 − Qout
ṁ b89 hb89 ̇ , P1 + Win
̇ , P 2 + Win ̇ , HX 1)
̇ , EL1 − EL5 + Qin
/(Win (18)
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b67 hb67 = ṁ b68 hb68 + Qout ̇ = ṁ b77 hb77 -
ṁ b76 hb76
where HHVH2 is the higher heating value of H2, assumed equal to
̇ ; Qout
ṁ b68 hb68 = ṁ b69 hb69 + Qout ̇ = ṁ 117 hb117 -
141,700 kJ/kg in the present study [36]. cp, a40 is the specific heat ca-
ṁ 116 hb116
ṁ b69 hb69 = ṁ b70 hb70 pacity of hot H2O produced in HX1 at the average temperature between
ṁ b70 hb70 = ṁ b71 hb71 + ṁ b72 hb72 the temperature of the state and T0 .
ṁ b72 hb72 + Qiṅ = ṁ b73 hb73 ; Qin
̇ = ṁ b90 hb90 -
ṁ b91 hb91
3.3.2. Energy efficiency of the methanol synthesis sub-system
̇ = ṁ b74 hb74 + ṁ b75 hb75 + Qout
ṁ b73 hb73 + Qin ̇ ;
̇ = ṁ b82 hb82 - ṁ b83 hb83 ; Qout
̇ = ṁ b99 hb99 -
This sub-system comprises the compression of H2 and pumping of
Qin
ṁ b98 hb98
CO2, the heating in HX2, the reaction along R1 and the following
ṁ b103 hb103 + Wiṅ = ṁ b104 hb104 cooling and separation of the reactor products. The energy content of
ṁ b104 hb104 = ṁ b105 hb105 + Qouṫ ; Qout
̇ = ṁ b108 CH3OH in the liquid outlet from D1, as well as the heat rate derived
hb108 - ṁ b107 hb107 from R1 are the useful outputs. The heat released from HE1 is instead
ṁ b105 hb105 = ṁ b102 hb102 unused due to the spill of sea H2O into the sea. In addition to the
ṁ b106 hb106 + Win ̇ = ṁ b107 hb107 electrical and heat power needed, the chemical energy of H2 is con-
sidered in input. The energy efficiency is defined as follows:
155
A. Crivellari, et al.
̇ , R1 − Qout
ηCH 3OHsynth = (ṁ a24, CH 3OH HHVCH 3OH + Qout ̇ , HE1)
̇ , K 1 + Win
/(Win ̇ , P3 + Win ̇ , HX 2 + ṁ a16 HHVH 2)
̇ , K 2 + Qin (19)
where HHVCH 3OH corresponds to the higher heating value of CH3OH,
considered as 22,900 kJ/kg in the current analysis [36].
3.3.3. Energy efficiency of the CH3OH separation sub-system
The distillation unit (CO1-CD1-VP1) is the only one considered in
this sub-system. The useful energy outputs were the chemical energy of
CH3OH in the distillate, as well as the energy content of hot H2O from
the waste and from VP1. The heat released from CD1 is instead unused
due to the spill of sea H2O into the sea. The input energy includes the
heat rate supplied to VP1 and the chemical energy of CH3OH in the
feed. The resulting energy efficiency is illustrated as follows:
ηCH 3OHsepar = (ṁ a30 HHVCH 3OH + ṁ a44 cp, a44 (Ta44 − T0)
̇ , VP1)
+ ṁ a29 cp, a29 (Ta29 − T0))/(ṁ a24, CH 3OH HHVCH 3OH + Qin
(20)
where cp, a44 and cp, a29 are the specific heat capacities of hot H2O at the
average temperature between the temperature of the associated states
and T0 .
3.4. Energy efficiency of sub-system in the scheme B
The efficiencies of specific sub-systems of the scheme B are pre-
sented in the following. The subscripts refer to the component and state
names shown in Fig. 2.
3.4.1. Energy efficiency of the hydrocarbons separation sub-system
This sub-system includes the two stages of separation of hydro-
carbons, before the dehydration unit. The useful energy outputs are
attributed to the energy content of produced gas and oil and to the heat
rate released from HE5, while the heat generated from HE3, HE4 and
HE5 in terms of sea H2Oare assumed as lost into the environment. The
required input energy is associated to the raw gas entering into the
scheme, compression and pumping consumptions and heat rate needed
in HX3. The energy efficiency calculation is reported by:
̇ , HE5 − Qout
ηhydroc, separ = (ṁ b8 HHVb8 + ṁ b24 HHVb24 + Qout ̇ , HE 3 − Qout
̇ , HE 4
̇ , HE5)/(ṁ b1 HHVb1 + Win
̇ , P 4 + Win
̇ , P5 + Win
̇ , K 3 + Win
̇ ,K 4
− Qout
̇ , HX 3)
+ Qin (21)
Fig. 3. Wind resource in the considered offshore location for HOMER simulation.
156
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
where HHVb1, HHVb8 and HHVb24 are the higher heating values of cor-
responding states, whose values depend on the composition of the hy-
drocarbon streams.
3.4.2. Energy efficiency of gas dehydration sub-system
All the components involving in the dehydration process are con-
sidered in this sub-system. The useful outputs are the energy content of
the dry gas and the hot H2O produced from VP3, while the heat released
from CD2 is unused due to the spill of sea H2O into the sea. The re-
quired input energy is associated to the hydrocarbon gas entering into
the sub-system, pumping consumption and heat rate to VP3. The energy
efficiency can be calculated as follows:
̇ , CD2)
ηgas, dehyd = (ṁ b35 HHVb35 + ṁ b81 cp, b81 (Tb81 − T0 ) − Qout
/(ṁ b24 HHVb24 + Win ̇ , VP3)
̇ , P 6 + Qin (22)
where HHVb35 is the higher heating value of corresponding state, whose
value depends on the composition of the hydrocarbon stream. cp, b81 is
the specific heat capacity of hot H2O at the average temperature be-
tween the temperature of the associated state and T0 .
3.4.3. Energy efficiency of the gas treatment sub-system
The gas treatment sub-system comprises the two stages of com-
pression, cooling and separation of the dry gas before the CH3OH
synthesis. The energy content of the gas entering in the sub-system is
the only energy input. Useful outputs included the heat rate released
from HE7 and HE8, in addition to the energy content of the outlet gas
for export and CH3OH synthesis. The energy efficiency is given as fol-
lows:
̇ , HE 7 + Qout
ηgas, treat = (ṁ b38 HHVb38 + ṁ b47 HHVb47 + Qout ̇ , HE 8)
/(ṁ b35 HHVb35) (23)
where HHVb38 and HHVb47 are the higher heating values of corre-
sponding states, whose values depend on the composition of the hy-
drocarbon streams.
3.4.4. Energy efficiency of the O2 production sub-system
This sub-system includes the desalination and electrolysis units. The
chemical energy in the H2 and the hot H2O produced in HX5 are the
useful products. The heat released from the electrolysis is considered as
lost. Pumping and electrolyzers consumptions, as well as the heat rate
required to HX5 represented the input energy. The energy efficiency
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Table 7
Space requirements for single components considered in HOMER simulation.
Component Capacity Length (m) Width (m) Height (m) Footprint (m2)

Diesel generator [45] 14,890 kW 16.5 4.1 4.8 67.8

Battery storage [46] 1180 kWh 6.1 2.4 2.9 14.6

Fig. 4. Solar resource in the considered offshore location for SAM simulations.

Table 8 calculation is written as:

Characteristics of the solar collector considered in SAM simulation [53].
̇ , EL6 − EL9 + ṁ b86 cp, b86 (Tb86 − T0 ))
ηO2prod = (ṁ b61 HHVH 2 − Qout
Parameter Specification
̇ , P 7 + Win
/(Win ̇ , P 8 + Win ̇ , HX 5)
̇ , EL6 − EL9 + Qin (24)
Trough typology Luz LS-2
Aperture width of assembly (m) 5 where cp, b86 is the specific heat capacity of hot H2O produced in HX5 at
Length of assembly (m) 49 the average temperature between the temperature of the state and T0 .
Reflective aperture area (m2) 235
Number of modules per assembly 6
Piping distance between assemblies (m) 1 3.4.5. Energy efficiency of the CH3OH synthesis sub-system
Collector tilt (deg) 0
This sub-system comprises the compression of CH4-N2 and O2, the
Collector azimuth (deg) 0
heating of the resulting mixture in HX6 and HX7, reaction along R2 and
following cooling and separation of the reactor products. The useful
Table 9 products are attributed to CH3OH in the liquid outlet from D8, the CH4-
Input data for the calculation of the height of shadow between solar collectors. rich gas in the gas outlet from D8 and the hot H2O produced in HX6.
The symbols used for the parameters refer to the nomenclature reported in a Also, the heat released from HE9 and the part of the heat released from
previous study [50]. R2 which is recovered outside from the sub-system are included. The
input energy is attributed to the compression consumption, the thermal
Parameter Description Value (deg)
power into HX7 and the energy content of CH4-rich stream entering in
Φ Latitude 43.95 the sub-system. The energy efficiency is defined as follows:
Δ Solar declination angle −23.30
Ω Hour angle 1.23 ̇ , HE 9 + (Qout
ηCH 3OHsynth = (ṁ b72, CH 3OH HHVCH 3OH + Qout ̇ , R2 − Qin
̇ , HX 6)
γs Surface azimuth angle 270.00
α Field orientation angle 0.00 + ṁ b79 cp, b79 (Tb79 − T0) + ṁ b71 HHVb71
β Tracking angle 1.15
̇ , R2 − Qin
− (Qout ̇ , HX 5 − Qin
̇ , HX 6 − Qin
̇ , HX 8 − Qin
̇ , VP3
̇ , VP 4 ))/(Win
− Qin ̇ , K 5 + Win ̇ , HX 7 = ṁ b47 HHVb47)
̇ , K 6 + Qin
(25)
where HHVb47 and HHVb71 are the higher heating values of the

157
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Table 10
Main dimensions and footprint assumed for some components listed in Table 5 and Table 6.
Component Capacity Diameter/Length (m) Width (m) Length/Height (m) Footprint (m2)

RO1-RO2 [35] 5 m3/h of permeate H2O 4.00 1.0 1.60 4.0

10 m3/h of permeate H2O 4.00 1.0 1.60 4.0
20 m3/h of permeate H2O 6.00 1.2 1.60 7.2
PX1-PX2 [63] 6–22 m3/h of high-pressure brine – – – 0.32
21–41 m3/h of high-pressure brine 0.17 (Vertical)
EL1-EL9 [64] 10 MW – – 5.00 70.0
K1-K9 (Centrifugal) [65,66] 250–10,000 m3/h, < 220 bar 4.80 4.10 4.60 19.7
40,000–80,000 m3/h, 8–15 bar 2.77 2.72 2.71 7.5
400,000–50,000 m3/h, 8–15 bar 4.36 4.32 4.80 18.9
R1 (Cylindrical, 15 tubes) [24] 4150 kg/h of CH3OH 0.13a – 5.00a 2.5
R2 (Cylindrical, 100 tubes) 4150 kg/h of CH3OH 0.04 – 6.00 0.2
CD4/F1-CD5/F2- CD6/F3 (Air condenser and fans package) [58] 1,024,800 THRb 3.81 2.46 1.09 9.4
D1, D6-D8 (Cylindrical) [60] 0.46–0.62 m3 0.51 – 2.29–3.05 0.2 (Vertical)
3.56–5.34 m3 1.22 3.05–4.57 1.2 (Vertical)

a
This dimension refers to the single tube of the reactor.
b
This value is valid for a difference between condensing temperature and ambient temperature of 20°F.

Table 11
Assumptions and overall coefficients for some heat transfer equipment listed in Table 5 and Table 6.
Component Actual fluids Reference Assumed equipment Assumed fluids Uoverall (W/m2-K)

HX1 (Heater) H2O – Steam [57] Condenser Feed H2O – Steam 5678
HX2 (Heater) H2/CO2 Gas - Oil [67] Exchanger Light organics – Heavy organics 341
HE1 (Cooler) H2/CH3OH/CO2/H2O Gas - Sea H2O [57] Exchanger H2 containing natural-gas mixture – H2O 710
CD1 (Condenser) CH3OH Gas - Sea H2O [57] Condenser Alcohol vapor - H2O 1136
VP1 (Vaporizer) H2O – Steam [57] Vaporizer (Vertical) H2O – Steam 2271
VP2 (Vaporizer) H2O – Oil [57] Vaporizer (Vertical) Chlorine – Heat transfer oil 341
HE7 (Cooler) Gas (CH4) - Ammonia [67] Heater (Vertical) Steam - Ammonia 3975
HE8 (Cooler) Gas (CH4) – Propane [67] Heater (Vertical) Steam – Light organics 1136
HX5 (Heater) H2O – Steam [57] Condenser Feed H2O – Steam 5678
HX6 (Heater) CH4/O2/N2 Gas – Steam [67] Heater Gases – Steam 284
HX7 (Heater) CH4/O2/N2 Gas – Molten salt [67] Exchanger Light organics – Heavy organics 341
HE9 (Cooler) CH4/CH3OH/H2O Gas- Ammonia [57] Vaporizer (Vertical) Steam - Ammonia 3975
HX8 (Heater) CH3OH/H2O Liquid – Steam [57] Condenser Feed H2O – Steam 5678
CD3 (Condenser) CH3OH Gas – Sea H2O [57] Condenser Alcohol vapor Atmospheric - H2O 1136
VP4 (Vaporizer) H2O – Steam [57] Vaporizer (Vertical) H2O – Steam 2271

corresponding states, whose values depend on the composition of the ̇ , HE 7)/(Win

COPammonia,1 = (Qout ̇ , F 1 + Win
̇ , K 7) (27)
streams. cp, b79 is the specific heat capacity of the hot H2O produced in
HX6 at the average temperature between the temperature of the state
̇ , HE 9)/(Win
COPammonia,2 = (Qout ̇ , F 3 + Win
̇ , K 9) (28)
and T0 .

3.4.6. Energy efficiency of the methanol separation sub-system

The heater HX8 and distillation unit (CO4-CD3-VP4) are considered 3.4.8. Energy COP of the propane refrigeration cycle
in this sub-system. The useful energy outputs are the chemical energy of The heat rate obtained from HE8 is used for the propane evapora-
CH3OH in the distillate, as well as the energy content of hot H2O from tion in the refrigeration cycle. The input energy is represented by the
the waste, VP4 and HX8. The heat released from CD3 is instead unused consumption of F2 and K8. The COP of the cycle can be calculated as
due to the spill of sea H2O into the sea. The input energy includes the follows:
heat rate supplied to HX8 and VP4 and the chemical energy of CH3OH
entering in the sub-system. The resulting energy efficiency is reported ̇ , HE 8)/(Win
COPpropane = (Qout ̇ , F 2 + Win
̇ , K 8) (29)
as:

ηCH 3OHsepar = (ṁ b75 HHVCH 3OH + ṁ b91 cp, b91 (Tb91 − T0)
+ ṁ b74 cp, b74 (Tb74 − T0) + ṁ b83 cp, b83 (Tb83 − T0)) 3.5. Overall system efficiencies
/(ṁ b72, CH 3OH HHVCH 3OH ̇ , VP 4 + Qin
+ Qin ̇ , HX 8) (26)
The overall efficiency of the scheme A is defined as:
where cp, b81, cp, b74 and cp, b83 are the specific heat capacities of hot H2O at
the average temperature between the temperature of the associated ηoverall, A = (ṁ a30 HHVCH 3OH + ṁ a40 cp, a40 (Ta40 − T0) + ṁ a44 cp, a44 (Ta44 − T0)
states and T0 . ̇ , battery )
+ ṁ a29 cp, a29 (Ta29 − T0) + Ẇbattery, net − Qout
̇
/(Ewind ̇
+ Qsolar + ṁ diesel HHVdiesel ) (30)
3.4.7. Energy COP of the ammonia refrigeration cycles
The desired output of the ammonia cycle is the heat rate obtained
The overall efficiency of the scheme B is given in the following
from HE7 (or HE9) due to the ammonia evaporation. The input energy
equation:
is attributed to the electrical consumption of fan and compressor in
each cycle. The COP of the two cycles are given as follows:

158
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Table 12
Thermophysical properties of the states of scheme A. The labels of the state refer to material streams in Fig. 1.
State Fluid Molar vapour fraction T (°C) P (bar) Mass flowrate (kg/h) Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)

a1 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 31,887.8 −15,781

a2 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 18,491.0 −15,781
a3 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 18,491.0 −15,774
a4 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 31,887.8 −15,774
a5 Desalinated H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 14,000.0 −15,931
a6 Concentrated H2O 0.00 15.0 73.0 17,537.8 −15,781
a7 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 18,491.0 −15,781
a8 Concentrated H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 17,537.8 −15,781
a9 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 72.0 18,491.0 −15,774
a10 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 18,491.0 −15,774
a11 CO2 0.00 −50.0 10.0 5765.0 −9366
a12 CO2 0.00 −47.9 50.0 5765.0 −9362
a13 Desalinated H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 8091.0 −15,931
a14 Desalinated H2O 0.00 80.0 1.0 8091.0 −15,650
a15 O2 1.00 80.0 1.0 6430.5 50
a16 H2 1.00 80.0 30.0 809.1 781
a17 H2 1.00 80.0 30.0 795.0 781
a18 H2 1.00 155.0 50.0 795.0 1865
a19 H2, CO2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 0.5 50.0 6627.0 −7916
a20 H2, CO2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 235.0 50.0 6627.0 −7288
a21 H2, CH3OH, H2O 0.53 235.0 50.0 6628.0 −9098
a22 H2, CH3OH, H2O 0.05 31.5 50.0 6628.0 −10,521
a23 CH3OH, H2O 0.06 30.6 1.0 6228.0 −10,521
a24 CH3OH, H2O 0.00 30.6 1.0 6556.0 −10,589
a25 H2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 30.6 1.0 72.5 −4331
a26 H2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 30.6 1.0 6.7 −4331
a27 H2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 30.6 1.0 66.6 −4331
a28 H2, CH3OH, H2O 1.00 730.9 50.0 66.6 438
a29 H2O 0.00 99.7 1.0 2404.0 −15,400
a30 CH3OH 0.00 66.9 1.0 4152.0 −7410
a31 Therminol VP-1 oil 0.00 310.0 7.0 16,418.2 740
a32 Therminol VP-1 oil 0.00 260.0 7.0 16,418.2 617
a33 H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 3338.0 −15,931
a34 H2O 1.00 180.0 10.0 3338.0 −13,159
a35 H2O 0.00 15.0 1.1 336,200.0 −15,628
a36 H2O 0.00 21.1 1.1 336,200.0 −15,603
a37 H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 605,040.0 −15,628
a38 H2O 0.00 51.9 1.0 605,040.0 −15,483
a39 H2O 1.00 180 10.0 965.4 −13,159
a40 H2O 0.00 110 10.0 965.4 −15,517
a41 H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 3022.8 −15,931
a42 H2O 1.00 180.0 10.0 3022.8 −13,159
a43 H2O 1.00 180.0 10.0 4963.2 −13,159
a44 H2O 0.00 130.1 10.0 4963.2 −15,428
a45 Therminol VP-1 oil 0.00 310.0 3.0 35,261.5 740
a46 Therminol VP-1 oil 0.00 210.0 3.0 35,261.5 502

ηoverall, B = (ṁ b75 HHVCH 3OH + ṁ b81 cp, b81 (Tb81 − T0 ) + ṁ b86 cp, b86 (Tb86 − T0 )
+ ṁ b79 cp, b79 (Tb79 − T0) + ṁ b91 cp, b91 (Tb91 − T0 )
+ ṁ b74 cp, b74 (Tb74 − T0) + ṁ b83 cp, b83 (Tb83 − T0 ) + ṁ b61 HHVH 2
+ ṁ b71 HHVb71 + ṁ b38 HHVb38 + ṁ b8 HHVb8 + Ẇbattery, net
̇ , battery )/(Ewind
− Qout ̇ ̇
+ Qsolar + ṁ diesel HHVdiesel + ṁ b1 HHVb1)(31)
required number of diesel generators and batteries to be installed at the
offshore platform in order to meet the electricity requirements.
Therefore, a preliminary design analysis is performed for each
process scheme in order to estimate the footprint required for the
components expected to be installed on the offshore platform. In the
following sections, the design approaches adopted for the renewable
energy systems and processing units are described separately.

4. Design analysis 4.1. Design of the offshore wind and solar power systems

In addition to the energy needs, the space requirement is an im-
portant aspect to be considered during the feasibility evaluation of new
installations at the offshore location. Offshore oil & gas platforms are
usually characterized by high congestion of equipment, as well as
space, weight and height limitations. On the other hand, process
equipment may require to be protected against low temperature and
saline conditions and to be properly spaced for maintenance purposes.
Furthermore, solar parabolic trough collectors need to be installed on
the weather deck of the offshore facility and to be suitably located at a
given distance among each other in order to absorb the solar radiation
efficiently. Even though the sea offers a huge area for the installation of
wind turbines, the size of the offshore wind farm influences the
Two commercial software tools are used for the design of the wind-
diesel-battery storage sub-system and the solar parabolic trough col-
lectors-thermal storage sub-system, respectively, based on the meteor-
ological conditions at the offshore site and the energy load required by
the processes. The description, assumptions and modelling of each
software are presented below.
4.1.1. Design of the wind-diesel-battery storage sub-system
The Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources
(HOMER) Pro version 3.12.3 (Academic) [42] developed by US Na-
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory and HOMER Energy is used to
design this sub-system. HOMER Pro allows to model both grid and non-

159
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Table 13 Table 13 (continued)

Thermophysical properties of the states of scheme B. The labels of the state
refer to material streams in Fig. 2. State Fluid Molar T (°C) P (bar) Mass Specific
vapour flowrate enthalpy
State Fluid Molar T (°C) P (bar) Mass Specific fraction (kg/h) (kJ/kg)
vapour flowrate enthalpy
fraction (kg/h) (kJ/kg) b60 Desalinated 0.00 80.0 1.0 6472.8 −15,650
H2O
b1 Raw gas and 0.86 68.9 19.0 228,040.0 −3094 b61 H2 1.00 80.0 30.0 647.3 781
produced H2O b62 O2 1.00 80.0 1.0 5144.4 50
b2 Raw gas and 0.84 53.3 19.0 271,679.1 −3099 b63 O2 1.00 80.0 1.0 4212.0 50
produced H2O b64 O2 1.00 889.3 50.0 4212.0 890
b3 Wet gas 1.00 53.3 19.0 141,534.1 −3405 b65 O2 1.00 30.4 50.0 34,060.0 −3987
b4 H2O 0.00 53.3 19.0 5987.8 −15,764 b66 CH4, N2, O2 1.00 230.0 50.0 34,060.0 −3496
b5 Condensate gas 0.00 53.3 19.0 124,157.2 −2139 b67 CH4, N2, O2 1.00 451.0 50.0 34,060.0 −2831
b6 Condensate gas 0.03 75.0 18.5 124,157.2 −2093 b68 CH4, N2, O2, 1.00 451.0 50.0 36,130.0 −3844
b7 Condensate gas 0.38 59.6 1.5 124,157.2 −2093 CH3OH, CO,
b8 Condensate gas 0.00 59.6 1.5 109,769.0 −2066 CO2, H2O
b9 Wet gas 1.00 59.6 1.5 14,388.2 −2297 b69 CH4, N2, O2, 0.89 −40.0 50.0 36,130.0 −5389
b10 Wet gas 0.99 35.0 1.4 14,388.2 −2346 CH3OH, CO,
b11 Condensate gas 0.00 35.0 1.4 187.3 −2245 CO2, H2O
b12 Condensate gas 0.00 36.2 29.0 187.3 −2239 b70 CH4, N2, O2, 0.89 −70.6 1.0 36,130.0 −5389
b13 Wet gas 1.00 35.0 1.4 14,200.9 −2347 CH3OH, CO,
b14 Wet gas 1.00 92.1 6.0 14,200.9 −2249 CO2, H2O
b15 Wet gas, 0.52 35.0 5.9 14,200.9 −2553 b71 CH4, N2, O2, 1.00 −70.6 1.0 30,491.0 −4510
condensate gas CO, CO2
b16 Condensate gas 0.00 35.0 5.9 8310.1 −2518 b72 CH3OH, H2O 0.00 −70.6 1.0 5639.0 −10,141
b17 Condensate gas 0.00 36.7 29.0 8310.1 −2513 b73 CH3OH, H2O 0.00 30.6 1.0 5639.0 −9761
b18 Wet gas 1.00 35.0 5.9 5890.8 −2602 b74 H2O 0.00 99.9 1.0 1484.6 −15,502
b19 Wet gas 1.00 44.1 5.9 147,424.8 −3373 b75 CH3OH 0.00 61.0 1.0 4154.5 −7429
b20 Wet gas 1.00 251.4 91.0 147,424.8 −2921 b76 H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 14,814.6 −15,931
b21 Wet gas, 0.83 35.0 90.9 147,424.8 −3576 b77 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 14,814.6 −13,099
condensate gas b78 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 9394.4 −13,099
b22 Condensate gas 0.00 35.0 90.9 35,141.3 −3273 b79 H2O 0.00 243.4 35.0 9394.4 −14,880
b23 Wet gas, 0.44 16.0 29.0 35,141.3 −3273 b80 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 485.9 −13,099
condensate gas b81 H2O 0.00 223.4 35.0 485.9 −14,985
b24 Wet gas 1.00 35.0 90.9 112,283.5 −3670 b82 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 4076.2 −13,099
b25 TEG-H2O 0.00 35.4 90.9 1530.0 −5979 b83 H2O 0.00 120.0 35.0 4076.2 −15,471
b26 TEG-H2O 0.02 37.3 90.9 1530.0 −5979 b84 Therminol VP- 0.00 260.0 2.5 25,672.2 617
b27 TEG-H2O 0.06 120.0 1.8 1530.0 −5714 1 oil
b28 H2O 1.00 97.6 1.1 95.5 −10,584 b85 Therminol VP- 0.00 160.0 2.5 25,672.2 395
b29 TEG-H2O 0.00 205.0 1.1 1434.0 −5021 1 oil
b30 TEG-H2O 0.00 113.0 1.1 1434.0 −5303 b86 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 767.2 −13,099
b31 TEG-H2O 0.00 113.8 1.1 1436.0 −5301 b87 H2O 0.00 120.0 35.0 767.2 −15,471
b32 TEG-H2O 0.00 115.0 90.9 1436.0 −5290 b88 HITEC molten 0.00 530.0 1.0 241,923.0 788
b33 TEG-H2O 0.00 37.8 90.2 1436.0 −5520 salt
b34 Dry gas 1.00 35.1 90.2 112,200.0 −3664 b89 HITEC molten 0.00 470.0 1.0 241,923.0 694
b35 Dry gas 1.00 35.9 89.9 112,187.0 −3656 salt
b36 Condensate gas 0.00 35.9 89.9 0.0 −2985 b90 H2O 1.00 243.4 35.0 905.1 −13,099
b37 Dry gas 1.00 35.9 89.9 112,187 −3660 b91 H2O 0.00 120.0 35.0 905.1 −15,471
b38 Dry gas 1.00 35.9 89.9 17,693.4 −3660 b92 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.1 17,842.5 −15,628
b39 Dry gas 1.00 35.9 89.9 94,493.5 −3660 b93 Sea H2O 0.00 25.0 1.1 17,842.5 −15,589
b40 Dry gas, 0.65 −10.0 89.9 94,493.5 −3854 b94 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 109,616.8 −15,628
condensate gas b95 Sea H2O 0.00 25.0 1.0 109,616.8 −15,589
b41 Dry gas, 0.74 −31.2 41.0 94,493.5 −3854 b96 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 1420.2 −15,628
condensate gas b97 Sea H2O 0.00 85.0 1.0 1420.2 −15,352
b42 Condensate gas 0.00 −31.2 41.0 39,566.1 −3154 b98 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 61,492.0 −15,628
b43 Dry gas 1.00 −31.2 41.0 54,927.2 −4358 b99 Sea H2O 0.00 50.0 1.0 61,492.0 −15,490
b44 Dry gas, 0.34 −80.0 41.0 54,927.2 −4674 b100 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.1 2,443,000.0 −15,630
condensate gas b101 Sea H2O 0.00 25.0 1.1 2,443,000.0 −15,590
b45 Dry gas, 0.61 −116.3 11.0 54,927.2 −4674 b102 Ammonia 0.22 −50.0 0.4 16,562.7 −3951
condensate gas b103 Ammonia 1.00 −50.0 0.4 16,562.7 −2840
b46 Condensate gas 0.00 −116.3 11.0 24,868.5 −4528 b104 Ammonia 1.00 245.1 8.6 16,562.7 −2196
b47 CH4, N2 1.00 −116.3 11.0 30,058.4 −4795 b105 Ammonia 0.00 20.3 8.6 16,562.7 −3951
b48 CH4, N2 1.00 −18.2 50.0 4211.8 −4634 b106 Air 1.00 9.3 1.0 2,942,352.0 −16
b49 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 47,836.8 −15,781 b107 Air 1.00 10.0 1.0 2,942,352.0 −15.1
b50 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 20,090.0 −15,781 b108 Air 1.00 20.0 1.0 2,942,352.0 −15.2
b51 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 20,090.0 −15,774 b109 Propane 0.54 −90.0 0.07 81,285.5 −2736
b52 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 47,836.8 −15,774 b110 Propane 1.00 −90.0 0.07 81,285.5 −2523
b53 Desalinated 0.00 15.0 1.0 21,000.0 −15,931 b111 Propane 1.00 106.7 8.4 81,285.5 −2218
H2O b112 Propane 0.00 20.1 8.4 81,285.5 −16
b54 Concentrated 0.00 15.0 73.0 26,311.8 −15,781 b113 Air 1.00 9.3 1.0 4,345,385.0 −15.1
H2O b114 Air 1.00 10.0 1.0 4,345,385.0 −15.2
b55 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 27,746.8 −15,781 b115 Air 1.00 20.0 1.0 4,345,385.0 −3951
b56 Concentrated 0.00 15.0 1.0 26,311.8 −15,781 b116 Ammonia 0.22 −50.0 0.4 50,229.2 −3951
H2O b117 Ammonia 1.00 −50.0 0.4 50,229.2 −2840
b57 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 72.0 27,746.8 −15,774 b118 Ammonia 1.00 245.1 8.6 50,229.2 −2196
b58 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 75.0 27,746.8 −15,774 b119 Ammonia 0.00 20.3 8.6 50,229.2 −3951
b59 Sea H2O 0.00 15.0 1.0 6468.8 −15,931 b120 Air 1.00 9.3 1.0 2,942,352.0 −16
(continued on next page)

160
A. Crivellari, et al.
Table 13 (continued)
State Fluid Molar T (°C) P (bar) Mass Specific
vapour flowrate enthalpy
fraction (kg/h) (kJ/kg)
b121 Air 1.00 10.0 1.0 2,942,352.0 −15.1
b122 Air 1.00 20.0 1.0 2,942,352.0 −15.2
grid connected power systems consisting of renewable technologies,
conventional generators, and/or electrical/storage/chemical storage, to
simulate a viable system for all possible combinations of the equipment
considered based on proper settings, as well as to optimize the simu-
lated systems based on costs, fuel usage and/or space criteria.
The HOMER software package performs the calculations on an
hourly basis for each of the 8760 h in a year. The calculations make use
of energy balances and compare the electrical energy required from the
system. For systems including wind turbines and/or batteries and/or
fuel generators, HOMER determines for each hour whether to run the
generator or to charge/discharge batteries by applying a specific dis-
patch approach. The round-trip efficiency of the battery is assumed in
HOMER as constant over the load and power range and over the life-
time of the battery. The battery charge efficiency and the storage dis-
charge efficiency are assumed to be the same and equal to the square
root of the round-trip efficiency. More detailed information on the as-
sumptions and algorithms adopted from HOMER are reported by
Lambert et al. [43]. As useful outputs for the present analysis, HOMER
is able to provide the power output from the wind farm (Ẇwind men-
tioned Eq. (9)), the power output and fuel use of the diesel generator
̇
(Wdiesel in Eq. (10) and ṁ diesel in Eq. (14), the power flowing into and out
from the battery storage (Ẇbattery, in in Eq. (10) and Ẇbattery, out in Eq. (11)),
as well as the heat storage losses (Qout ̇ , battery mentioned in Eq. (14)).
The wind speed data at the desired offshore location provided from
the NASA Surface meteorology and Solar Energy database is used for
the wind resource input for HOMER. The monthly average wind speed
data given from the software is illustrated in Fig. 3. The wind speeds are
recorded at an elevation of 50 m and show an annual average value of
8.52 m/s.
The primary load required in input to HOMER is defined as the
electrical load that the system must meet immediately in order to avoid
unmet load. In each time step, it is able to dispatch the power producing
components of the system to supply the load. In the present study, the
primary load is assumed to have an industrial profile (constant daily
profile) and equal to the total electrical needs required from the pro-
cesses of the schemes A and B.
The Enercon E-126 [44] with rated capacity of 7580 kW, rotor
diameter of 127 m and hub height of 135 m is chosen as offshore wind
power technology in both the schemes. Then, a generic large diesel
generator with a size of 14,890 kW, as the maximum power rating of
the Caterpillar CM43C V-TYPE [45] is added. In addition, a generic
lithium ion battery package with a nominal capacity of 1 MWh and
nominal voltage of 600 V and round-trip efficiency of 90% is chosen as
storage component. This is considered equivalent to the Intensium
Max + 20E battery package (capacity 1.18 MWh) [46]. Finally, a con-
verter is inserted to allow the power to flow between the AC bus (linked
to the wind turbine and diesel generator) and the DC bus (linked to the
electrical load and the battery storage). The main dimensions and es-
timated footprint for the single diesel generator and the single battery
storage selected for the analysis are illustrated in Table 7.
Table 14
HHV values of some hydrocarbon states of the scheme B obtained from Aspen simulation.
State b1 b8 b24
HHV (kJ/kg) 38,004.7 25,403.7 52,218.7
161
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
Some constraints are introduced for the design of the hybrid system
by using the “search space” option in HOMER, i.e. defining specific
values for the maximum capacity or quantity of the components of the
system. HOMER uses these values to simulate all the feasible config-
urations in the system and determine the most efficient configuration.
In particular, the most critical parameter in the present study is the
space needed for the diesel generators and battery storage at the off-
shore platform. Thus, the maximum capacity for the diesel generators is
limited to 11,9120 kW which corresponds to 8 items, while the max-
imum number of the possible batteries are set to 10 (10 MWh of
nominal capacity). On the other hand, the size of the wind farm is
limited to maximum 80 turbines for a total capacity of 606.4 MW,
considering the capacity of the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm
[4] as upper limit.
4.1.2. Design of the solar trough parabolic collectors-thermal storage sub-
system
The optimal design of the parabolic trough field under environ-
mental conditions of the offshore site for a specific thermal load is
performed through the open source System Advisor Model (SAM) ver-
sion 2017.9.5 [47] developed by National Renewable Energy Labora-
tory. SAM is a performance and financial model for grid-connected
renewable power projects. The first step is to choose the performance
model for a single renewable technology from the available financial
models (residential, commercial, LCOE calculator, etc.). Next, the in-
formation and weather data about the project’s location, type of
equipment in the system and eventually costs for the installation and
maintenance should be provided or chosen from the databases in SAM.
In general, the performance models used by SAM apply hour-by-hour
calculations of the electrical and/or thermal output of a power system
generating a set of 8760 hourly values to represent the production of
the system over a single year.
For the sake of the present analysis, the process heat parabolic
trough model is used representing a version of the CSP physical para-
bolic trough model where the heat from the solar field is used for a
thermal application (heat sink) rather than to drive a power cycle for
electricity generation. The physical trough system model makes use of
the energy balances to characterize the performance of the system
components by using the component geometry and energy transfer
properties. Moreover, it allows to specify the solar field components,
including multiple receiver and collector types in a single loop and
additional thermal storage. Further details about the model are re-
ported by Wagner et al. [48].
The NREL National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) is used to
download solar resource data of the considered offshore location. The
daily global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and direct normal irradiance
(DNI) in the site over the year are illustrated in Fig. 4. The annual
average GHI and DNI are 3.67 and 3.61 kWh/m2/day, respectively.
Moreover, the average air temperature provided from the mentioned
database is equal to 9.3 °C.
Concerning the system design, SAM requires in input the target
thermal power for the heat sink at design condition, the target solar
multiple, as well as a value of DNI at design point. In the present study,
the heat load required for HX2 in the scheme A and HX3 in the scheme
B are assumed as design heat sink power. A value of 1.2 is set for the
solar multiple, while the design point DNI is considered equal to the
average hourly DNI data above 250 W/m2, i.e. 625 W/m2.
Since the heating applications required from the processes lie at
medium–high temperature, the commercial synthetic oil Therminol VP-
b35 b38 b47 b71
52,251.6 52,251.6 53,307.8 44,730.0
A. Crivellari, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166

Fig. 5. Power required and released from relevant components of the (a) scheme A and (b) scheme B.

Table 15 1 [49] is selected as heat transfer fluid for the parabolic solar trough
Summary of the design for the wind-diesel-battery storage systems of schemes A collectors due to wide range of operating temperature (12–400 °C) and
and B from HOMER simulation. its standard use for these solar systems. The effective inlet and outlet
Scheme A Scheme B temperatures depend on the required temperature of the states asso-
ciated to HX2 in Fig. 1 and HX3 in Fig. 2.
Renewable fraction 62.8 71.9 Another parameter required from SAM is the nominal thermal sto-
Number of wind turbines 28 78
rage capacity at full load. This value is derived by looking at the annual
Ė wind (kW) 134,363 374,297
94,908 264,386
average profile of solar irradiance in the selected location and con-
Ẇwind (kW)
Number of diesel generator 4 6
sidering three modes of operation of the system, i.e. solar, solar and
Ẇdiesel (kW) 30,086 47,768 storage, and storage modes [41]. Since at night time (from 7 pm to 6
ṁ diesel (kg/h) 4277 5317 am) the system runs using the energy stored in the thermal storage, in
Number of batteries 1 6 the present study the number of hours for the storage mode is con-
Ẇbattery,in (kW) 702 4095 sidered 11.
Ẇbattery,out (kW) 694 3960 Regarding the solar collector assembly, the commercial Luz LS-2
Q̇out,battery (kW) 73 424 collector is selected from the SAM library due to its compact geometry;
Diesel generators footprint (m2) 88 407 its orientation is assumed to be horizontal oriented North-South, thus
Battery storage footprint (m2) 15 271
each collector rotates from East in the morning to West in the evening.
The main features of the collectors considered in the analysis are re-
ported in Table 8. Since the spacing between consecutive troughs plays
Table 16
an important role on the shading effect of each trough row on next
Summary of the design for the solar parabolic trough-thermal storage systems
of schemes A and B from SAM simulation. trough, a specific value of row spacing is estimated by using the
equation of the height of shadow given by one row to the other [50]
Scheme A Scheme B and assuming zero shading as suggested by Masood et al. [51]. All data
Number of collectors 14 20 assumed for this calculation is reported in Table 9.
Number of loops 7 10 Due to space constraint at the offshore platform, the number of the
Total aperture reflective area (m2) 3290 4700 collectors in a single loop is limited to 2, thus the total length of the
Number of pairs of thermal storage tanks 2 3 loop keeps below 100 m, given the length of the single collector in
Q̇solar,u (kW) 1430 2040
Table 8. Moreover, the number of sub-sections in the solar field is set to
Ẇp,solar (kW) 25 31
1. Regarding the storage system, the number of pairs of hot and cold
Total field area (m2) 3619 5170
tanks is determined based on the maximum size of commercial tank, i.e.
Q̇solar (kW) 2262 3231
diameter of 3 m and length of 15 m [52].

162
A. Crivellari, et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of energy efficiency calculated for the sub-systems of the (a) scheme A and (b) scheme B.
Fig. 7. Footprints segments of diesel generator, batteries and process units for the (a) scheme A and (b) scheme B.
For the receiver element running through the focal line of the
trough-shaped parabolic collector, the Schott PTR80 [54] is chosen
from the SAM library without varying the provided characteristics. The
SAM uses all the information mentioned above to estimate the thermal
energy collected from the solar field under design conditions at the
̇ , u mentioned in Eq. (14). It provides also
actual solar multiple, i.e. Qsolar
in output the power consumption for the heat sink pumping and the
field heat fluid pumping (Ẇ p, solar in Eq. (13)). Finally, the SAM combines
the total aperture reflective area, the row spacing and the aperture
width of the collectors to calculate the total ground area required for
the solar technology. By multiplying this value for the design point DNI,
̇
the Qsolar required in Eq. (17) can be estimated.
4.1.3. Design of the process units in the schemes A and B
The estimation of footprint of the components listed in Tables 5 and
163
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
6 is performed by retrieving the geometric data from the technical lit-
erature, if available, or by applying standard approaches for a pre-
liminary design of chemical equipment for heat and material transfer. It
is worth noting that components of the separation and dehydration sub-
systems of the scheme B are excluded from this analysis since they are
already installed at the facility. Moreover, all the throttling valves and
pumps are not considered in this evaluation due to their relatively small
footprint.
The size of reverse osmosis units, pressure exchangers, electrolyzers
and compressors are estimated based on the existing datasheet provided
from specific manufacturers. Similarly, the geometry of the CH3OH
reactor in the scheme A is retrieved from a previous study [24], while a
proper scale-up strategy proposed by Nauman [55] for isothermal
tubular reactor is applied to the design of the reactor of the scheme B
A. Crivellari, et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of overall energy efficiency and footprints calculated for the
scheme A and the scheme B.
[32] in order to reach the benchmark CH3OH production. The main
dimensions and estimated footprints assumed for such equipment are
reported in Table 10.
For the heat transfer equipment, such as heater, coolers, vaporizers
and condensers, a preliminary estimation of the heat transfer area is
first made based on heat duties derived from the calculations, on ta-
bulated design overall heat transfer coefficient (Uoverall ) appropriate to
the fluids and equipment, and on logarithmic mean temperature dif-
ferences (and driving force correction factor, where applicable). The
diameter and total length of the equipment are then derived by ap-
plying standard design procedures [56,57], thus their footprints are
estimated. Table 11 illustrates the main assumptions adopted and Uoverall
values retrieved from the literature for these components, as starting
point of the design. For vaporizer Uoverall is considered equal to the final
overall heat transfer coefficient, thus the required area is assumed as
the geometrical area; the footprint is derived by considering the vertical
configuration.
In case of air cooled-condensers (CD4 and CD5), the footprint is
estimated by calculating its capacity based on the total heat of rejection
(THR) and using the available selection charts for standard condensers
[58]. Whereas, for flash drums, the main dimensions are estimated by
applying the Souders-Brown approach [59] with a typical design
parameter for vertical gas–liquid separator of 0.052 [60]. The reference
size adopted in this study for both these two components is reported in
Table 10.
Concerning the distillation column in the two schemes, the ap-
proach proposed in standard handbooks for the chemical engineering
design [56,61] is applied to determine the diameter and thus the
footprint of these components. Equilibrium data for CH3OH-H2O mix-
ture at atmospheric pressure is found in the relevant literature [62].
5. Results and discussion
In conducting the thermodynamic analysis, the composition, tem-
perature, pressure, mass flowrate and enthalpy of all states illustrated in
Figs. 1 and 2 are determined by using Aspen HYSYS simulation or
specific technical literature, if necessary. Tables 12 and 13 summarize
this data for the scheme A and scheme B, respectively. HHV values of
some hydrocarbons streams of the scheme B provided from Aspen are
tabulated in Table 14.
By using the thermophysical data collected in Tables 12 and 13, the
energy balance equations listed in Tables 5 and 6 can be solved in order
to calculate the energy duty of the process units of the scheme A and
scheme B. Fig. 5 shows the results obtained in terms of heat and
164
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
electrical power for both the schemes.
From Fig. 5a, it appears that most of the units of the scheme A re-
quire more heat or electrical power rather than releasing it. The highest
contribution to the total duty is attributed to the electrical consumption
of EL1-EL5 (50,000 kW). To follow, the heat rate required in VP1 and
VP2 and heat rate released from R1, HE1 and CD1 are the second
ranked, even though the associated values are one order of magnitude
less than that of the electrolyzers. The total electrical requirement is
calculated as 50,387 kW, while the power required by HX2 is equal to
1156 kW. These energy amounts are used to properly design the wind-
diesel-battery system and the solar-thermal system, respectively.
Looking at the findings of the scheme B (Fig. 5b), a comparable
number of equipment is obtained among components requiring elec-
tricity (15 of total 37) and components releasing heat power (13 of total
37). Thus, the need of cooling fluids is more significant for this scheme
than for the other one. Similarly to the scheme A, EL6-EL9 are the units
with the highest energy duty (40,000 kW). Other critical units are K4
and HE5 in the hydrocarbons separation sub-system, CD6 in the am-
monia refrigeration cycle, as well as R2 and HE9 in the CH3OH
synthesis sub-system as in the scheme A. The sum of the electrical
consumptions leads to a total 83,365 kW to be supplied by a suitable
wind-diesel-battery system. A heat rate of 1584 kW is instead calculated
for HX3 to be provided by the solar technology. Consequently, for the
scheme B, larger hybrid renewable energy systems are expected in the
following design analysis compared to the scheme A.
By applying the approach and assumptions described for HOMER
and SAM simulations, feasible hybrid renewable energy systems are
designed for both the two processes. The features of the wind-diesel-
battery systems derived from HOMER modelling are summarized in
̇
Table 15. This table contains also Ewind calculated by combining the
average wind speed and rotor area mentioned in the Section 4.1.1 with
the number of required wind turbines given by HOMER. Moreover, the
footprints estimated for diesel generators and batteries are reported.
As shown in Table 15, the scheme B makes use of greater renewable
fraction than the scheme A, but requires larger number of wind tur-
bines, diesel generators and batteries, as a confirmation of the results
derived from the comparison of power requirements.
The data obtained for the solar parabolic trough fields of the two
schemes in the SAM simulation is reported in Table 16. From this table,
it can be seen that the scheme A provides a thermal output less about
one order of magnitude than that of the scheme B, in accordance with
the lower heat requirement of the associated heater in the process. As a
consequence, the total ground area for the solar field of the scheme B
(5170 m2) is significantly higher than that required in the scheme A
(3619 m2). Considering that the collectors should be located in open
space to receive the solar radiations (i.e. on the weather deck level of
the platform), the solar technology for the scheme A can be placed
indiscriminately on one of two main platforms considered in this study,
while the footprint required from the solar field of the scheme B can be
offered only from the largest production platform.
The η values of the sub-systems of two schemes are evaluated by
inserting all the information above mentioned in the Eqs. (16)-(26).
Fig. 6 displays the results obtained. As shown in this figure, relatively
higher η are estimated in case of the scheme B: the hydrocarbons se-
paration, the gas dehydration and CH3OH synthesis sub-systems show
values close to 100% thanks to the energy content of the useful hy-
drocarbons products and the energy recovery within each sub-system.
On the other hand, for the scheme A, a maximum η of around 80% is
attributed to the CH3OH separation since CH3OH and other two streams
of hot H2O are produced in this sub-system. In both the schemes, the
wind-diesel-battery system is the least efficient mainly due to the losses
associated to the wind turbines and diesel generators, thus a lower
value of η is estimated for the scheme B. Moreover, the solar technology
and the H2/O2 production sub-systems give very similar performance
among the two schemes.
Regarding the refrigeration cycles in the scheme B, a COP of 1.44 is
A. Crivellari, et al.
obtained for each of the two ammonia cycles by using Eqs. (27) and
(28), while 0.62 is the COP estimated for the propane cycle trough Eq.
(29). The design approaches and assumptions described above are ap-
plied to estimate the footprints of the process units of the two schemes.
Since diesel generators and batteries can be located on lower levels than
the weather deck of the platform together with the process equipment,
a contribution comparison of the footprints associated to these units in
each scheme is thus performed, as shown in Fig. 7.
By comparing the results between the scheme A (Fig. 7a) and the
scheme B (Fig. 7b), the electrolyzers are recognized as the highest
cumbersome units of the scheme A, while diesel generators are the most
critical in the scheme B. Another large contribution to the total foot-
print of the scheme B is attributed to the air condenser-fan packages
required in the three refrigeration cycles.
The overall η of the scheme A and scheme B are calculated by means
of Eqs. (30) and (31), respectively. In addition, the overall footprint
associated to each scheme can be obtained by summing the values il-
lustrated in Fig. 7 and the footprints estimated for the solar parabolic
trough fields (Table 16). Fig. 8 displays the comparison of the overall η
and footprints of the two schemes.
From Fig. 8, it is evident that the two schemes show very different
performance from both the efficiency and footprints perspectives. As
demonstrated in the previous analysis for single components, the total
area of the scheme B is higher than the footprint of the scheme A by
approximately 2000 m2. A total value of 6642 m2 is estimated for the
scheme B against 4297 m2 for the scheme A. On the other hand, the
scheme B is the most efficient solution with an overall η of 52.3%,
which is greater than η of the scheme A by more than three times. This
is attributed to the beneficial use of the hydrocarbons extracted from
the offshore wells leading to the production of highly energetic fuels in
addition to CH3OH, as CH4-rich gas, oil and H2. Instead, the scheme A
using in input sea H2O and CO2 produces only CH3OH with a merely
overall η of 14.3%.
6. Conclusions
In the current study, two innovative schemes for the alternative
production of CH3OH based on combined wind and solar power at the
offshore Thebaud platform are defined and evaluated from the energy
efficiency and footprint point views. The integrated systems are de-
signed to reach a benchmark CH3OH productivity of 4150 kg/h. The
scheme A (catalytic hydrogenation of CO2) makes use of offshore re-
newable energy sources, sea H2O and external CO2, without any in-
tegration with the oil & gas process, to produce CH3OH and hot H2O.
Whereas, the scheme B (partial oxidation of CH4 via radical gas reac-
tion) includes also the hydrocarbons separation and dehydration stages
occurring the offshore platform in order to provide the suitable gas for
the CH3OH synthesis. This scheme gives multiple useful outputs in
addition to CH3OH, i.e. export dry gas and oil, hot H2O, H2, CH4-rich
gas. Aspen HYSYS is used for the simulation of the main process
equipment, while HOMER Pro and SAM tools are adopted for the design
of the renewable energy systems.
The following concluding remarks can be drawn from the analysis
and assessment results:
• A process operating in more drastic conditions as the partial oxi-
dation of CH4 in the scheme B can require numerous and larger
equipment for energy needs than simpler catalytic hydrogenation of
CO2 in the scheme A, thus increasing inevitably the space require-
ments in the considered offshore platform.
•
A larger footprint in the weather deck of the offshore facility is
necessary for the solar field in the scheme B. Both the wellhead and
production platform of the Thebaud complex can be used for the
installation of the solar field of the scheme A, while the solar
technology of the scheme B can be located only on the weather deck
of the largest production platform. Concerning the process units
165
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
which are placed below the weather deck, the most critical equip-
ment in the scheme A are the electrolyzers, while diesel generators
and air coolers show the highest contribution to the footprint of the
scheme B.
• The synergy of the renewable production of CH3OH with oil & gas
activities can counterbalance the footprint drawback of the scheme
B in favour of the energy efficiency performance. The overall η are
obtained as 14.3% for the scheme A and 52.3% for the scheme B.
Thus, the possibility for producing multiple valuable fuels and for
recovering more energy inside the process in the scheme B is the
most beneficial factor compared to the scheme A.
• For a thorough assessment of the two schemes, more aspects need to
be included in the analysis. The thermodynamic analysis could be
further extended to the application of exergy approach in order to
capture the thermodynamic imperfections of the components and
the entire system in terms of loss in energy quality (exergy de-
struction). Moreover, a preliminary estimation of the capital and
operating costs of the main components could play a crucial role to
assess the feasibility of the two schemes.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Italian
Ministry of Economic Development, General Directorate for Safety of
Mining and Energy Activities (DGS)-National Office of Mining for
Hydrocarbons and Georesources (UNMIG).
References
[1] BP. BP Energy Outlook 2018 edition 2018:125. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/342/1/012091.
[2] Esteban M, Leary D. Current developments and future prospects of offshore wind
and ocean energy. Appl Energy 2012;90:128–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2011.06.011.
[3] Makridis C. Offshore wind power resource availability and prospects: a global ap-
proach. Environmnetal Sci Policy 2013;33:28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.
2013.05.001.
[4] Orsted. Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm. 2017.
[5] Zhang HL, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Cacères G. Concentrated solar power plants: re-
view and design methodology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:466–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.032.
[6] Islam MT, Huda N, Abdullah AB, Saidur R. A comprehensive review of state-of-the-
art concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies: current status and research
trends. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:987–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.04.097.
[7] Diendorfer C, Haider M, Lauermann M. Performance analysis of offshore solar
power plants. Energy Procedia 2014;49:2462–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2014.03.261.
[8] IFC, IPIECA, UNDP. mapping the oil and gas industry to the sustainable develop-
ment goals: an Atlas; 2017.
[9] Absi Halabi M, Al-Qattan A, Al-Otaibi A. Application of solar energy in the oil in-
dustry – current status and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;43:296–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.030.
[10] Lakhal SY, Khan MI, Islam MR. An “Olympic” framework for a green decom-
missioning of an offshore oil platform. Ocean Coast Manage 2009;52:113–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.007.
[11] Oudman BL. Green decommissioning: re-use of North Sea offshore assets in a sus-
tainable energy future. Proc. 13th Offshore Mediterr. Conf. Exhib. March 29-31,
Ravenna, Italy. 2017.
[12] Olah GA. Beyond oil and gas: the methanol economy. Angew Chem - Int Ed
2005;44:2636–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527627806.
[13] Varone A, Ferrari M. Power to liquid and power to gas: an option for the German
Energiewende. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:207–18. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2015.01.049.
[14] Bozzano G, Manenti F. Efficient methanol synthesis: perspectives, technologies and
optimization strategies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2016;56:71–105. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pecs.2016.06.001.
[15] Zakaria Z, Kamarudin SK. Direct conversion technologies of methane to methanol:
an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:250–61. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2016.05.082.
[16] Olah GA, Goeppert A, Prakash GKS. Chemical recycling of carbon dioxide to me-
thanol and dimethyl ether: from greenhouse gas to renewable, environmentally
carbon neutral fuels and synthetic hydrocarbons. J Org Chem 2009;74:487–98.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jo801260f.
[17] Ganesh I. Conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol – a potential liquid fuel:
fundamental challenges and opportunities (a review). Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;31:221–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.045.
A. Crivellari, et al.
[18] CRI. The George Olah Plant - World’s Largest CO2 Methanol Plant 2011. http://
carbonrecycling.is/george-olah/ (accessed April 4, 2018).
[19] Yang S, Liu Z, Tang Z, Wang Y, Chen Q, Sun Y. Performance analysis of solar energy
integrated with natural-gas-to-methanol process. Energy Convers Manage
2017;150:375–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.036.
[20] Yang S, Chen Q, Liu Z, Wang Y, Tang Z, Sun Y. Performance analysis of the wind
energy integrated with a natural-gas-to-methanol process. Energy Convers Manage
2018;173:735–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.068.
[21] Bai Z, Liu Q, Lei J, Li H, Jin H. A polygeneration system for the methanol production
and the power generation with the solar-biomass thermal gasification. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;102:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.
02.031.
[22] Von Storch H, Roeb M, Stadler H, Sattler C, Bardow A, Hoffschmidt B. On the as-
sessment of renewable industrial processes: case study for solar co-production of
methanol and power. Appl Energy 2016;183:121–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.08.141.
[23] Kim J, Henao CA, Johnson TA, Dedrick DE, Miller JE, Stechel EB, et al. Methanol
production from CO2 using solar-thermal energy: process development and techno-
economic analysis. Energy Environ Sci 2011;4:3122–32. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c1ee01311d.
[24] Matzen M, Mahdi A, Demirei Y. Technoeconomics and sustainability of renewable
methanol and ammonia productions using wind. Power-based Hydrogen. J Adv
Chem Eng 2015;5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4568.1000128.
[25] Matzen M, Demirel Y. Methanol and dimethyl ether from renewable hydrogen and
carbon dioxide: alternative fuels production and life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod
2016;139:1068–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.163.
[26] Almahdi M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Analysis and assessment of methanol production
by integration of carbon capture and photocatalytic hydrogen production. Int J
Greenh Gas Control 2016;51:56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.015.
[27] ExxonMobil Canada. Offshore Sable Project 2018. http://soep.com/ (accessed
November 10, 2018).
[28] Hong S, Mun Y, Shin J, Nam H, Shin Y. An introduction to design, construction and
installation of SABLE Tier II compression platform in Canada. Proc. Seventeenth Int.
Offshore Polar Eng. Conf., Lisbon. 2007. p. 165–70.
[29] Siemens. Silyzer 300 Datasheet; 2018.
[30] Neele F, De Kler R, Nienoord M, Brownsort P, Koornneef J, Belfroid S, et al. CO2
Transport by ship: the way forward in Europe. Energy Procedia 2017;114:6824–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1813.
[31] Matzen M, Alhajji M, Demirel Y. Chemical storage of wind energy by renewable
methanol production: feasibility analysis using a multi-criteria decision matrix.
Energy 2015;93:343–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.043.
[32] Yarlagadda PS, Morton LA, Hunter NR, Gesser HD. Direct conversion of methane to
methanol in a flow reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 1988;27:252–6. https://doi.org/10.
1021/ie00074a008.
[33] Aspen Technology. Aspen HYSYS Software 2018. https://www.aspentech.com/
(accessed December 1, 2018).
[34] Serrano-lópez R, Fradera J, Cuesta-lópez S. Molten salts database for energy ap-
plications. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 2013;73:87–102. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cep.2013.07.008.
[35] Lenntech. Seawater desalination units - Large capacity packages Datasheet; 2018.
[36] Çengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. 8th ed. New
York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education; 2011.
[37] Poling BE, Thomson GH, Friend DG, Rowley RL, Wilding WV. Physical and chemical
data. Perry’s Chem. Eng. Handb 8th ed.The McGraw-Hil Companies; 2008. https://
doi.org/10.1036/0071511253.
[38] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development.
2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2013.
166
Energy Conversion and Management 187 (2019) 148–166
[39] Hacatoglu K, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Sustainability of a wind-hydrogen energy system:
assessment using a novel index and comparison to a conventional gas-fired system.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:8376–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.
2016.01.135.
[40] Alzahrani AA, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a parabolic trough solar
power plant using carbon dioxide power cycle. Energy Convers Manage
2018;158:476–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.071.
[41] Al-Sulaiman FA, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Exergy modeling of a new solar driven
trigeneration system. Sol Energy 2011;85:2228–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2011.06.009.
[42] NREL, HOMER Energy. Homer Pro Software 2018. https://www.homerenergy.
com/products/pro/index.html (accessed December 1, 2018).
[43] Lambert T, Gilman P, Lilienthal P. Micropower System Modelling with HOMER.
Integr. Altern. Sources Energy. John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
[44] Enercon. ENERCON E-126 Datasheet; 2018.
[45] Caterpillar. Diesel generator CM43C V-TYPE Datasheet; 2018.
[46] Saft 100. Intensium Max Energy Storage System Datasheet; 2018.
[47] NREL. SAM Software 2018. https://sam.nrel.gov/ (accessed December 1, 2018).
[48] Wagner MJ, Gilman P, Wagner MJ, Gilman P. Technical Manual for the SAM
Physical Trough Model. 2011.
[49] Eastman Chemical Company. Therminol VP-1 Datasheet; 2018.
[50] Sharma VM, Nayak JK, Kedare SB. Shading and available energy in a parabolic
trough concentrator field. Sol Energy 2013;90:144–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/
modpathol.2013.213.
[51] Masood R, Gilani SIUH, Al-Kayiem HH. A simplified design procedure of parabolic
trough solar field for industrial heating applications. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci
2016;11:13065–71.
[52] British Standards Institution. Workshop fabricated steel tanks - Horizontal cylind-
rical single skin and double skin tanks for the underground storage of flammable
and non-flammable water polluting liquids; 2003.
[53] Blair N, DiOrio N, Freeman J, Gilman P, Janzou S, Neises T, et al. System Advisor
Model (SAM) General Description (Version 2017.9.5); 2018.
[54] Schott Solar. SCHOTT PTR 70 Receiver 4th Generation Datasheet; 2018.
[55] Nauman EB. Chemical reactor design, optimization, and scaleup. 2nd ed. Hoboken,
New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
[56] Sinnott RK. Chemical engineering design. Coulson Richardson’s Chem. Eng. 4th ed.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005.
[57] Shilling RL, Bernhagen PM, Goldschmidt VM, Hrnjak PS, Johnson D, Timmerhaus
KD. Heat-transfer equipment. Perry’s Chem. Eng. Handb 8th ed.The McGraw-Hil
Companies; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071511342.
[58] Data Aire Inc. Air Cooled Condensers Selection Guide; 2018.
[59] Souders M, Brown GG. Design of fractionating columns-entrainment and capacity.
Ind Eng Chem 1934;26:98–103.
[60] American Petroleum Institute (API). API 12J: Specification for Oil and Gas
Separators. 8th ed.; 2008.
[61] Doherty MF, Fidkowski ZT, Malone MF, Taylor R. Distillation. Perry’s Chem. Eng.
Handb. The McGraw-Hil Companies; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071511369.
[62] Perry RH, Green DW. Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill;
1997.
[63] Danfoss. Energy Recovery Device iSave 21 Plus/iSave 40 Datasheet; 2018.
[64] Jepma C, Schot M van. On the economics of offshore energy conversion: smart
combinations Converting offshore wind energy into green hydrogen on existing oil
and gas platforms in the North Sea; 2017.
[65] Dresser-Rand. DATUM Centrifugal Compressors Datasheet; 2018.
[66] Siemens. STC-ECO Compressor Datasheet; 2018.
[67] Kern DQ. Process heat transfer. Tokyo, Japan: McGraw-Hill International Book
Company; 1965.