Chemistry How to determine whether a single reaction is better than multi-stage reaction?

AI Thread Summary
Determining whether a single reaction is better than a multi-stage reaction involves analyzing energy dissipation and enthalpy changes. The single reaction has an endothermic enthalpy change of +13.23 kJ, while multi-stage reactions may incur unrecoverable energy losses and require additional energy to maintain temperature. Industrial considerations such as cost, equilibrium positions, and the nature of by-products play a crucial role in this evaluation. The discussion also raises concerns about the balance of equations and the relevance of specific reactions, such as methane synthesis. Ultimately, the efficiency and energy intensity of each approach must be assessed to determine the optimal process.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Consider the following reactions

$$\mathrm{2C(s)+2H_2)(g)=2CO(g)+2H_2(g)}$$
$$\mathrm{CO(g)+H_2)(g)=CO_2(g)+H_2(g)}$$
$$\mathrm{CO(g)+3H_2(g)=CH_4(g)+H_2)(g)}$$

and their sum

$$\mathrm{2C(s)+2H_2)(g)=CH_4(g)+CO_2(g)}$$
Relevant Equations
From the standpoint of heat balance, would it be better to develop a process to carry out the overall reactions in three separate reactors or in a single reactor?
The above question is the final part of a problem in Silbey, Alberty, and Bawendi's Physical Chemistry. The main part of the problem had to do with various calculations of changes in enthalpy at 500K, which I completed successfully. The single reaction is endothermic with reaction enthalpy +13.23 kJ.

I'm not sure how to think about the question of if a single reaction is better than the three separate reactions.

What I have thought about so far is the following.

Each separate stage will have unrecoverable energy dissipation.

The multi-stage reaction only has +13.23 kJ of enthalpy change if each reaction occurs and stays at 500K. Lost heat will decrease temperature and so extra energy will be needed to maintain temperature.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are the equations supposed to look like that?
They don't look balanced and I can't tell if that's intentional.

Is this methane synthesis/the Sabatier reaction?
 
I think all the H2 on the left should be H2O...
Which then means I can relate it to an industrial process and the target product is not methane. IMHO.

To attempt to answer the question asked.

In industry they always consider:
Cost, equilibrium positions, high pressures vs atmospheric, expensive catalysts, by-products (possibly sellable or not), high temps vs room temperatures, expensive separation procedures, corrosive reagents, toxic reagents..... even Ni(CO)4 is used in industry!!!

This applies to all commercial processes, and your task with the equations, I think, is to understand the energy used in the multi-step and consider whether a one vessel process exists, its yield, advantages and disadvantages. Even if a one vessel reaction was available, is it more or less energy intensive with a good yield.

But I am trying to interpret your question, and I often find that hard to do in your posts, due to how they are worded.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top