1. MV Modeling If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money? How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs?

2. MV Modeling If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money? How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs? CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY IMPORTANT

3. MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg Model is Applied to Magnesium Technology Limited (MTL) version of Carbothermal Magnesium Production Introduction to That Technology MV Modeling Methodology Preliminary Results

4. MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg Work financed in part by Safe Hydrogen, Inc the practical route to the Hydrogen Economy www.safehydrogen.com. This research was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy. (Award Number DE-FC36-04GO14011). This support does not constitute and endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in the report

5. MV Modeling of Carbothermal Mg Safe Hydrogen has demonstrated vehicles powered by oil-slurry metal hydrides, see www.safehydrogen.com MgH2 + H2O  MgO + 2H2 For an oil slurry of MgH2 to be the fuel of the future, lower cost magnesium from a Western Source is needed. Safe Hydrogen wanted MV’s opinion on what would be the lowest cost method of making magnesium in the Western World … answer carbothermal magnesium.

6. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Endothermic reaction …. MgO + C  Mg + CO Carried out in electric arc furnace, or similar, at 1850 o C … known technology.

7. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Achilles heal …. Reverse reaction upon cooling gases from furnace … Mg + CO  MgO + C Many schemes to cool Mg and CO rapidly, most famous was the Permanente Plant that mixed gases with large quantities of natural gas.

8. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Adiabatic Expansion through a lavalle nozzle … Mg (g) + CO  Mg(l) or Mg(s) and CO Vacuum Slight positive pressure Hot Cooler

9. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Supersonic velocities, cooling in a fraction of a second …. Mg (g) + CO  Mg(l) or Mg(s) and CO Vacuum Slight positive pressure

10. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Delta pressure determines the amount of cooling that occurs. Mg (g) + CO  Mg(l) or Mg(s) and CO Vacuum Slight positive pressure

11. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Mathematically well defined, used in many industrial applications. Mg (g) + CO  Mg(l) or Mg(s) and CO Vacuum Slight positive pressure

12. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium SiC or Graphite or Ceramic Material of Choice for High Temperatures Mg (g) + CO  Mg(l) or Mg(s) and CO Vacuum Slight positive pressure

13. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium Solid magnesium produced on lab scale, very high efficiency approaching 100%.

14. MTL’s Carbothermal Magnesium The lab scale reactor without the SiO condenser produced magnesium metal containing about 700 ppm silicon and 50 ppm iron. The bench scale reactor with the condenser produced magnesium metal with the following average impurities (ppm): Al 110 Ca 21 Zn 35 P 15 Mn 77 Na 150 Si 80*Fe 15K 240 Ni < 5 ppm * Results for Si was only shown for one run. Meets 9980A ASTM B92M-83 but not 9990A or higher.

15. MV Model  Uses Excel Interface  Visual Basic for Applications (open source code*)  Subroutine for each unit Operation  Download from www.metallurgicalviability.com *Some confidential information removed from Model

16. PFD’s for Process  Calcining Process Flow Diagram  Furnace PFD  Utilities PFD

17. Calcining PFD

18. Furnace PFD

19. Utilities PFD

20. Program Flowsheet

21. Flowsheet Part II

22. Design Criteria

24. Raw Material Analysis

26. Costs

27. Prices

28. Example Code

29. Example subroutine

30. MB Check

31. Elemental MB

32. MB

33. Heat Balance

34. $

35. Income Statement

36. Impact of Costs - Example Energy

37. Example -Design Criteria impact

38. Preliminary Lessons Learned from MV Model Cool gases (CO) before pulling the vacuum. Process very competitive if magnesium can be condensed and collected in the liquid phase from the nozzle. Two stage steam ejectors are cost effective for collecting magnesium in the liquid phase. Two stage steam ejectors are not cost effective for collecting magnesium in the solid phase. Costs for producing adequate vacuum to collect magnesium in the liquid phase not yet determined (will probably involved mechanical pumps and/or condensers between stages).

39. Preliminary Lessons Learned from MV Model Process sensitive to power costs, less so to coke, methane, and oxygen. With oxygen at $0.06 per NCM, burning coke to make CO to make steam to drive the ejectors is not cost effective. More work needed on impurity distribution.

40. MV Modeling If the unit operations work (as advertised), does the process make money? How do project conditions, design criteria, and costs for raw material and energy impact operating costs?