Equipment purchase costs reactors

Including 20 ft2 for miscellaneous items not identified in this section, 110.3 ft2 must be rented, at an annual cost of 44,100/yr. Note that this moderately sized complex is added to an existing electronic materials manufacturing facility. Hence, no direct charges are added for infrastructure, such as non-clean room and office space. The total purchase cost, 6,492,100, provides equipment modules that require small installation costs, on the order of 1% that is, 65,000. Note also that two PECVD reactors are provided to assure uninterrupted operation when the plant is in operation, around the clock, 330 day/yr. While the robot loads and unloads one of the reactors, the other reactor is in operation. 

The purchased cost of a 50-gal glass-lined, jacketed reactor (without drive) was 8350 in 1981. Estimate the purchased cost of a similar 300-gal, glass-lined, jacketed reactor (without drive) in 1986. Use the annual average Marshall and Swift equipment-cost index (all industry) to update the purchase cost of the reactor. 

The total fixed capital investment (FCI) for the entire system taking all costs for heat-exchanger equipment, pumps, piping, installation, etc., into account is equal to the initial cost of the catalyst solution plus 4.5 times the purchased cost of the reactor. Assume none of the unreacted materials can be recovered. 

For the ammonia process, which operates at high pressure (200 atm), mostly in the gas phase, the total f.o.b. purchase cost of the on-site process equipment is 31,520,000. Installation costs boost this amount by a factor of 3.453 to a total bare-module cost of 108,830,000. As seen in Table 16.14, this cost is dominated by the gas compressors, with significant contributions from the heat exchangers and the membrane separators. Surprisingly, the reactor cost is a small fraction of the total cost. This is often the case for chemical plants. The reactor may not cost much, but it is the heart of the process and it better produce the desired results. 

Refrain from purchasing any reactor until inn installation cost estimates have been added to the equipment cost. Escalating installation costs are the rule rather than the exception. 

If higher hydrogen pressures could be used, the rates of desulfurization could be substantially increased. However, this is a limited option. As discussed in the beginning of this report, some refineries were able to purchase new high-pressure reactors during a time of low equipment and construction costs. However, new construction will not benefit from this luxury. Many of the presently installed reactors were designed for moderate pressures, less than 5 MPa. It would therefore be desirable to devise new processes around these pressures. 

One of the major costs involved in any chemical process is for the equipment. In many cases, standard types of tanks, reactors, or other equipment are used, and a substantial reduction in cost can be made by employing idle equipment or by purchasing second-hand equipment. If new equipment must be bought, several independent quotations should be obtained from different manufacturers. When the specifications are given to the manufacturers, the chances for a low cost estimate are increased if the engineer does not place overly strict limitations on the design. 

In the factor methods for cost estimating, first calculate the purchased or delivered cost of all major equipment, for example, distillation columns, reactors, pumps, heat exchangers, etc. Then multiply the total equipment cost by factors to estimate the various other components of the depreciable capital cost given in Equation 2.2, such as piping and electrical wiring. Thus, we arrive at the cost of installing all the equipment and supplying all the services needed to produce an operational process. 

Unfortunately, you have to pay for all the reactant fed to a process, not just the fraction that reacts, and any A that leaves with the product therefore represents wasted resources. Suppose, however, you could find a way to separate most or all of the unconsumed reactant from the product stream. You could then sell the resulting relatively pure product and recycle the unconsumed reactant back to the reactor. You would, of course, have to pay for the separation and recycle equipment, but you would compensate for this cost by having to purchase less fresh reactant and being able to sell the purified product at a higher price. 

It is obvious that the purchase of raw materials dominates. Personnel, equipment, facility, and utility costs combined are only slightly over 10% of the total cost to produce the SiC fiber. The calculations indicate, for the reference case, that the quantity of fiber produced per reactor per year is 110000 lbs at a cost of 10.3/lb. 

However, cost of purchase and taxes have already been incurred/paid on obtaining and installing these equipments (but they may not be required now) while licensing fees, royalties for process know-how, and catalysts charged in the reactors are to be paid on a recurring basis. The erection and commissioning expenses for the equipment have already been incurred. 

---