Hello, if you have any need, please feel free to consult us, this is my wechat: wx91due
CEIC6714 Mini Design Proposal
Brief:
· Your team has been engaged to develop a business case for the use of locally generated green hydrogen and/or derivatives within the mining value chain in Australia.
o The derivatives you can use include ammonia and methanol, such that the costing tools for hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol can be used.
· The mining value chain is defined as including ore extraction, mineral processing, and transportation of minerals to a port for international export.
· The primary objectives of this project are:
o To evaluate the technical feasibility, the financial viability, and the environmental impact of the production of green hydrogen and derivatives in Australia, and subsequently use of this hydrogen locally within the mining value chain.
o To reduce the CO2 footprint of your mining process by at least 50% if possible, or as high as you believe is reasonable and achievable.
· More detailed information is given below.
Expectations:
You are expected to complete a report and video presentation comprising the following key project information:
· Project location.
o The mine site location will be given to each group. Mines include:
§ Boddington gold mine (Au) – Groups 1-2
§ Olympic Dam metal mine (Cu) – Groups 3-4
§ Cannington silver mine (Ag) – Groups 5-6
§ Mount Whaleback mine (Fe) – Groups 7-8
§ Murrin Murrin Mine (Ni, Co) – Groups 9-10
o You should estimate what the Scope 1 and 2 emissions are from this specific mine site
o These numbers will be needed to validate that you can reduce the emissions across the whole value chain by 50%
o Find the renewable energy generation data for your site using renewables ninja – the instructions are in the manuals for all the tools.
· Hydrogen and/or derivative end use.
o The end use must be located at the mine site(s) chosen.
o You have the option to supply hydrogen and/or derivatives to as many end use application areas within your mine site as desired.
o You should include an analysis of the expected hydrogen/derivatives required per year for this end use.
· Process:
o Detail the process narrative (using a process flow diagram), including any auxiliary/waste streams. Note that a mass and energy balance is not required.
o Determine a power plant configuration that is reasonable for the project location and in consideration of local infrastructure
· Economic analysis:
o Use the hydrogen cost tool to estimate a levelised cost of hydrogen/derivatives production over a 25-year period.
o Calculate any other project aspects not incorporated into the levelised cost. For example, the cost to replace current equipment or retrofitting.
o Justify changes to the inputs to the model that are different to the default values, if any.
o Provide commentary on the economic feasibility of the process. Is the cost reasonable compared to the current approach? What changes within the next decade could improve the techno economic feasibility?
· Environmental assessment
o Provide a judgement of the emissions reduction due to implementing your processes.
o Provide an assessment of environmental impacts such as traffic movements, power requirements, air and noise emissions, waste management and community impacts.
Background Information and Resources:
These resources may also help in your project:
|
Open-Source Tools |
Hydrogen Cost Tool: https://www.globh2e.org.au/hysupply-cost-tool Ammonia Cost Tool: https://www.globh2e.org.au/hysupplyammoniatool Methanol Cost Tool: https://www.globh2e.org.au/p2xmethanoltool |
|
Feedstock Data |
Renewable Energy Data: - Solar Data: https://globalsolaratlas.info/ - Wind Data: https://globalwindatlas.info/ - Hourly Data: https://www.renewables.ninja/ (Data for Solar and Wind generation is preloaded in the open-source costing tools for selected locations) Water Data: - Fresh Water: https://realtimedata.waternsw.com.au/ - Wastewater Resources: https://researchdata.edu.au/wastewater-treatment-facilities/1278436 |
The following textbooks may also be useful for your project:
· Sinnott, R. K. Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering Volume 6, Chemical Engineering Design. (1999).
· Towler, G. & Sinnott, R. Chemical engineering design: principles, practice and economics of plant and process design. (Elsevier, 2012).
· Peters, M. S., Timmerhaus, K. D. & West, R. E. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. (2003).
Report Structure:
· Join a group of 3-4 members on Moodle
· Your group report should include:
o Cover page.
o Executive summary.
o Table of contents.
o Introduction.
o Site location and estimated emissions (with necessary justification)
o Use cases for hydrogen and derivatives (with necessary justification)
o Process descriptions and process flow diagrams.
o Key equipment sizing (capacity of renewable plants, electrolysers, batteries etc.) and plant layout.
o Economic assessment.
o Environmental assessment.
o Conclusion.
o Reference list.
o Appendices. Note that your inputs to the tool (with justification) and key outputs should be in the appendix.
· The total length of the report (including the reference list and appendix) should not exceed 30 pages.
Informational Video Structure:
· Video should be approximately 2-3 minutes long.
· Explain your key findings tailored towards the general public.
· Avoid technical terms or jargon.
· Avoid discussion of irrelevant sections of the report (such as MEB, plant design), and focus on key outcomes (Economics and product / market / environmental aspects)
Report Marking Criteria
1. Executive Summary / Introduction / Conclusions (10%)
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
Deficient in several of the aspects below |
|
50-74 |
Acceptable to Thorough |
Deficient in one or two of the aspects below |
|
75-100 |
Comprehensive to Superior |
Executive summary is concise and contains key detailed information. Introduction sets the context and incorporates a detailed overview of the purpose of the project, in light of both environmental and policy / regulatory / social license issues. Conclusion comments on the economic feasibility of the process, areas that the process could improve to make it more economically viable, and proposes a pathway / timeline for implementation of these changes, in order to comment on the feasibility of the business case |
2. Option Selection, Process Narrative, PFD, Plant Layout (30%)
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
Deficient in several of the aspects below. Process narrative difficult to follow. No references. Difficult to assess how calculations were performed |
|
50-64 |
Acceptable |
Deficient in two of the aspects below |
|
65-74 |
Thorough |
Deficient in one of the aspects below |
|
75-84 |
Comprehensive |
Contains all elements as described below. Process narrative clear and linked to PFD and includes quality references (example, engineering textbooks, journals, etc.). All ancillary processes that may be required to interface with the plant are discussed (that is, all steam, water, waste, and air lines). Good summary of assumptions and calculations used and clear links to detail in appendices. Appropriate sizing of key process equipment that allows a plant layout diagram to be constructed. Plant layout is appropriate and overlaid over an existing map of the area. |
|
85-100 |
Superior |
As above. Process narrative clear identifying how the plant will be designed/operated, linked to PFD and includes references. All major units are annotated with a unique code which can be followed. Standard is well beyond expectation, professional level of detail. Proper and consistent referencing system. |
3. Economic Assessment (30%)
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
No model inputs changed from the default values. Poor explanation of the levelised cost. No sensitivity analysis. |
|
50-64 |
Acceptable |
Some model inputs are changed from the default values but no justification. No sensitivity analysis. |
|
65-74 |
Thorough |
Some model inputs are changed from the default values with justification. Good explanation of the levelised cost. Some sensitivity analysis. Key model inputs and outputs shown in appendix. Sensitivity analysis identifies with justification but lack insights on how they can be achieved. |
|
75-84 |
Comprehensive |
Contains all elements as described above. Sensitivity analysis includes multiple factors and effect on levelised cost. |
|
85-100 |
Superior |
Contains all elements as described above. Cost/revenue assumptions and estimates are benchmarked against comparable plants or businesses. Sensitivity analysis accurately identify key drivers and can provide a clear case for cost reduction, how these reductions can be achieved. |
4. Environmental Assessment / Policy / Regulations / Social License (20%)
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
No EIA. References are not present, or too few and of low quality. Severe deficiency across multiple key aspects as mentioned below. |
|
50-64 |
Acceptable |
Environmental assessment is present with limited scope and depth and is of qualitative nature only. Some discussion on policy and regulation. References are present but few or of low quality. |
|
65-74 |
Thorough |
Adequate environmental assessment covering most relevant aspects. Contains discussion of some social license aspects relevant to the project. References are relevant and from credible sources. |
|
75-84 |
Comprehensive |
Detailed environmental assessment with consideration of all key environmental factors. Environmental assessment includes quantitative comparison against benchmarks. Good understanding of relevant policy and regulation and how this could impact the current and future viability of the project. Includes discussion of several key social license aspects. |
|
85-100 |
Superior |
All elements are completed to a superior standard free of errors and omissions. Environmental assessment covers all key considerations and incudes quantitative assessment against multiple criteria and benchmarks. |
5. Report Presentation (10%)
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
Deficient in several of the aspects below. Page limit is not respected |
|
50-74 |
Acceptable to Thorough |
Page limit respected. Formatting is deficient in two of the aspects below. Minor formatting issues. Evidence of data book and appendix but difficult to follow |
|
75-100 |
Comprehensive to Superior |
Proper and consistent referencing system (minimal grey literature/references). Consistent formatting (font type, size, headings etc.). Table of contents evident. All tables, drawings and figures are labelled. Appendix completed and well organised. Evidence of document control. Note all actions taken during the review process and correctly identify revision numbers to document, drawings, and tables. Good cross-referencing to relevant part of the Appendix. |
Video Marking Criteria
|
Percent |
Descriptor |
Comment |
|
0-49 |
Deficient |
Deficient in several of the aspects below |
|
50-74 |
Acceptable to Thorough |
Deficient in one or two of the aspects below |
|
75-100 |
Comprehensive to Superior |
The video provides a non-technical overview of the project. Key outcomes and conclusions are detailed. The presentation style is engaging with minimal errors. The time limit is respected. |