Capital cost degradation

Social costs reflect in this example all costs occurring from the provision and the use of transport infrastructure, such as wear and tear costs of infrastructure, capital costs, congestion costs, accident costs and environmental damage costs. Some of these costs are already indirectly included in the private costs through taxes and charges, while others are not. In the context of environmental economics, private and social aspects are of importance. Mainly since it is often the case that environmental degradation is a social cost caused by private activities. Hence, the distinction between private and social is as presented above another impact of costs not being properly internalized in prices. 

There are drawbacks to fuel cell pressurization such as the potential for faster cell degradation and the need for a larger pressure vessel wall thickness which leads to increased capital costs. It is quite possible that pressure vessel code requirements... 

Capital costs for a Sulfinol unit are lower than alkanolamine units that have the same capacity. This is because the equipment is smaller as a result of less foaming and lower circulation rates. However, certain treating applications may not be ideal for the Sulfinol process. A reclaimer may be needed to remove DIPA degradation products when C02 partial pressure is high. Also, aromatic and hydrocarbon co-absorption occurs when solvent -to-gas ratios are high260-... 

Table 4.15 compares common sulfur removal processes. Amine processes are based on the removal of an acid gas by virtue of a weak chemical bond between the acid gas component and the amine. Amine-based sulfur removal processes are generally regarded as a low capital cost option with part C02 coabsorption. However, amines do not chemically combine with COS. Only limited amounts of COS are absorbed with a physical solvent. COS can be physically removed only with very high solvent circulation rates. For syngases that contain appreciable quantities of COS, prior removal of the COS is usually required. In addition, for some of amine solvents, degradation and corrosion are also main disadvantages of the process. 

The results given above indicate that there is no obvious advantage of substituting the existing batch process for production of ISSPH by a membrane reactor process. However, this does not in general mean that continuous protein hydrolysis in a membrane reactor will be uneconomical. For example if the substrate is more completely degradable than soy protein (casein might be such a substrate), it is expected that in a small scale plant (where the capital costs would favour the membrane reactor) the membrane reactor process could be very attractive. The production of protein hydrolysates for dietetic and medical use, could well be considered in this context. 

The optimal reactor temperature from the standpoint of steady-state economics is the highest possible temperature since this minimizes reactor holdup for a given conversion, which results in the smallest capital cost. The upper temperature limitation may be due to metallurgical constraints, product thermal degradation, safety, undesirable side reactions, or other factors. 

---