Textbook Ebook Biofuels and Biorefining Volume 2 Intensification Processes and Biorefineries Claudia Gutierrez Antonio All Chapter PDF

Biofuels and Biorefining: Volume 2:
Intensification Processes and

Biorefineries Claudia Gutierrez-Antonio
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/biofuels-and-biorefining-volume-2-intensification-proc
esses-and-biorefineries-claudia-gutierrez-antonio/
BIOFUELS AND
BIOREFINING
BIOFUELS AND
BIOREFINING
Volume 2: Intensification
Processes and Biorefineries
Edited by

CLAUDIA GUTIERREZ-ANTONIO
FERNANDO ISRAEL GÓMEZ CASTRO
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies
and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency,
can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as
may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they
should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional
responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for
any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any
use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-12-824117-2
For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher: Charlotte Cockle

Acquisitions Editor: Peter Adamson
Editorial Project Manager: Jai Marie Jose
Production Project Manager: Sojan P. Pazhayattil
Cover Designer: Greg Harris
Typeset by STRAIVE, India

Contributors
Saira Asif
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory, SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Brno University of Technology, VUT Brno, Brno, Czech Republic; Faculty of
Sciences, Department of Botany, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Punjab,
Pakistan
Alexandra Barron
Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University; Gas and Fuels Research Center,
Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, TX, United States
Awais Bokhari
Engineering, Brno University of Technology, VUT Brno, Brno, Czech Republic;
Chemical Engineering Department, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan
P. Champagne
Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Quebec City, QC, Canada
Yoke Wang Cheng
Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering and Computing, Manipal
International University, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Chi Cheng Chong
Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering and Computing, Manipal
International University, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Natasha Chrisandina
Lai Fatt Chuah
Faculty of Maritime Studies, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu,
Malaysia
M. Collotta
DIMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Gabriel Contreras-Zarazúa
Chemical Engineering Department, University of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Julio Armando de Lira-Flores
Facultad de Quı́mica, Universidad Autónoma de Queretaro, Centro Universitario, Queretaro,
Mexico
Marcos R.P. de Sousa
University of Campinas, School of Chemical Engineering, Campinas, SP, Brazil
ix
x Contributors
Thiago Edwiges
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Technology,
Medianeira, Parana, Brazil
Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi
Massimiliano Errico
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Green Technology, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense, Denmark
Yulissa Mercedes Espinoza-Vázquez
Departamento de Ingenierı́a Quı́mica, División de Ciencias Naturales y Exactas, Universidad de
Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Ernesto Flores-Cordero
Biotechnology Engineering Department, University of Guanajuato, Campus Celaya-Salvatierra,
Guanajuato, Gto., Mexico
Juan Fernando Garcı́a-Trejo
Facultad de Ingenierı́a, Universidad Autónoma de Queretaro, Amazcala, Queretaro, Mexico
Fernando Israel Gómez-Castro
Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Claudia Gutierrez-Antonio
Junaid Haider
Sustainable Process Analysis, Design, and Engineering Laboratory, Energy and Chemical
Engineering Department, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), Ulsan,
South Korea
Salvador Hernández
Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Noemı́ Hernández-Neri
Jirı́ Jaromı́r Klemeš
Engineering, Brno University of Technology, VUT Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
Moonyong Lee
School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea
Nguyen Van Duc Long
School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; School of Chemical
Engineering and Advanced Materials, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Contributors xi
Antioco López-Molina
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Jalpa de Mendez, Mexico
W. Mabee
Queen’s University, Department of Geography and Planning, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, Kingston,
ON, Canada
Sergio Iván Martı́nez-Guido
Le Cao Nhien
School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea
Alvaro Orjuela
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Andrea del Pilar Orjuela
Process Solutions and Equipment SAS, Engineering Division, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Jose Marı́a Ponce-Ortega
Facultad de Ingenierı́a Quı́mica, División de Estudios de Posgrado, Universidad Michoacana de
San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
Cesar Ramı́rez-Márquez
Maria Cinta Roda-Serrat
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Green Technology, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense, Denmark
Araceli Guadalupe Romero-Izquierdo
Eduardo Sánchez-Ramı́rez
Harrson S. Santana
University of Campinas, School of Chemical Engineering, Campinas, SP, Brazil
Juan Gabriel Segovia-Hernández
Debalina Sengupta
Gas and Fuels Research Center, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station, College Station,
TX, United States
Claire Shi
Department of Chemistry, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States
Pau Loke Show
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham—Malaysia
Campus, Semenyih, Malaysia
xii Contributors
João L. Silva Júnior

Federal University of ABC, CECS—Center for Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social
Sciences, Alameda da Universidade, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brazil
G. Tomasoni
DIMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Stefania Tronci
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Chimica e dei Materiali, Universitá degli Studi di
Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
CHAPTER 1
Process intensification in biofuels

production
Salvador Hernández
Departamento de Ingenierı́a Quı́mica, División de Ciencias Naturales y Exactas, Universidad de Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
1.1 Introduction
Through history, the society has evolved due to the research and technological advances
in all the knowledge areas. These advances have allowed better quality life of the society,
through the medical advances, transportation means, home comforts, education, as well
as recreational activities. Even in the last decades, the globalization has made possible the
contact between people located in different parts of the world, which can interchange
experiences, culture, goods, news, and even real-time events with just a click on a com-
puter with internet access. All these improvements and benefits to the society has one
common factor: energy.
In 2019, the worldwide energy consumption was 14,406 Mtoe (IEA, 2020a); this
amount of energy proceeds from oil (31%), coal (26%), natural gas (23%), renewables
(14%), and nuclear (6%) (IEA, 2020a, 2020b). The forecasts indicated that this amount
of energy would have increased in 10% for 2028 (IEA, 2020c). However, the forecasts
changed due to the appearance and spread of the Sars-CoV-2, who has modified the
known world’s dynamics. Potential new practices and social forms being facilitated by
the pandemics are having impacts on energy demand and consumption, which has, in
general, declined ( Jiang, Van Fan, & Klemeš, 2021). In spite of two vaccines have been
successfully developed at an unprecedented speed (Huang, Zeng, & Yan, 2021), its large-
scale production is now the bottleneck. Nowadays, not all the world population has
received the vaccine; therefore there are still many economic sectors that are detained
or with low activity, such as the aviation sector which recovery process seems much
slower than anticipated (Dube, Nhamo, & Chikodzi, 2021). It is important to mention
that the pandemic situation, as well as its effects, is a constantly changing situation.
In this context, the International Energy Agency has proposed, in collaboration with
the International Monetary Fund, a Sustainable Recovery Plan (IEA, 2020d). This plan is
focused on boosting the economic growth, creating jobs, and building more resilient and
cleaner energy systems; it is important to mention that this plan is intended to be imple-
mented in the period 2021–23. The plan includes policies, investments, and measures to
accelerate the deployment of six key areas (IEA, 2020d), which are shown in Fig. 1.1.
Biofuels and Biorefining Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824117-2.00001-6 All rights reserved. 1
2 Biofuels and biorefining
Boost
Accelerate low
innovation in
carbon
technological
electricity
areas
Development of Sustainable
Spread cleaner
sustainable Recovery transport
biofuels Plan
Enhance Increase energy

efficiency of efficiency of
industrial buildings and
equipment appliances
Fig. 1.1 Sustainable recovery plan proposed by the International Energy Agency in collaboration with
the International Monetary Fund.
Fig. 1.2 Classification of biomass based on its chemical nature.
From Fig. 1.1, it can be seen that the development of biofuels plays a key role in this
Sustainable Recovery Plan.
Biofuels are defined as those fuels that are generated from the conversion of biomass,
which is a complex natural renewable material with enormous chemical variability
(Bonechi et al., 2017). The biomass is defined as all the organic matter originating from
living plants, organisms, as well as some types of residues from agricultural, agroindustrial,
food, domestic, and other sectors (Pang, 2016; Soria-Ornelas, Gutierrez-Antonio, &
Rodrı́guez, 2016). Biomass is considered a suitable source for renewable energy and bio-
based products due to its organic nature, carbon stability, and abundant supply (Gent,
Twedt, Gerometta, & Almberg, 2017). The biomass can be classified according to several
criteria, such as arable, edible, residual, among others. An interesting classification con-
sidering the chemical nature of the biomass is as follows: triglyceride, lignocellulosic,
sugar, and starch (Maity, 2015) (Fig. 1.2).
Process intensification in biofuels production 3
Bioethanol
Biogasoline
Biodiesel
Green diesel
Biojet fuel
B
I
O Biogas
F Syngas
U Biohydrogen
E
L
S Fuel pellets
Briquettes
Pales
Cubes
Fig. 1.3 Classification of biofuels according to its physical state.
The triglyceride biomass contains fatty acids (palmitic acid, linoleic acid, ricinoleic
acid) and triglycerides (palmitin, linolein, ricinolein); this type of biomass includes oils
from soybean, castor bean or microalgae, as well as fats from poultry, fish, beef. On
the other hand, the lignocellulosic biomass contains lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose
as main components; this type of biomass includes all the agricultural residues, leaves,
wood, grass, as well as energetic crops. Finally, as the name suggest, the sugar and starch
biomass contain pentose, hexose, glucose, amylose, and amylopectin; this type of biomass
includes sugarcane, potatoes, apples, as well as other edible crops. This classification
allows to group all the biofuel conversion processes based on the chemical nature of
the biomass, in spite of it is edible, nonedible, or residual.
The biomass can be converted into biofuels in liquid, gaseous, or solid state (Fig. 1.3).
Among liquid biofuels, those destined mainly for transport sector are found, such as bio-
gasoline, green diesel, and biojet fuel; however, they also can be used to generate elec-
tricity or heat. Regard the solid biofuels, the most popular are the fuel pellets, which can
be used to produce electrical or thermal energy, similar to the gaseous biofuels, among
which biogas is the most popular.
The biofuels are obtained from the conversion of biomass through chemical, bio-
chemical, thermochemical, and biological processes (Fig. 1.4). In the chemical processes,
the biomass (or a fraction of it) is converted through a set of chemical reactions, which
would require additional reactants, solvents, catalysts, and moderate to high temperature
and pressure; examples of this type of process are transesterification, hydrodeoxygena-
tion, hydrocracking, and oligomerization, among others. On the other hand, in the
Fig. 1.4 Conversion processes for the production of biofuels.
biochemical processes, the large molecules that constitute the biomass (or a fraction of it)
are converted in smaller ones through the action of microorganisms; this type of process
usually requires water and low temperature and pressure. The fermentation, hydrolysis, as
well as digestion, are biochemical processes.
On the other hand, in the thermochemical processes, the main objective is converting
the biomass (or a fraction of it) into gases, liquids, or even solid compounds, releasing the
energy contained in them as heat. The heat can be used directly or employed to produce
electricity; at the same time, the compounds generated can be transformed in other valu-
able products. In thermochemical process is required air or inert atmospheres as well as
high temperature and pressure. The pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion are examples
of this type of processes. Finally, the biomass (or a fraction of it) can also be converted
through biological processes; in this case, the biomass is used as feed for the organisms,
which generated new compounds as results of the digestion or new organisms which can
be further processed to generate other valuable products. In this category, we can men-
tion the culture of black soldier fly as well as worms.
It is important to mention that all biofuels are renewables, since they are generated
from biomass; however, they do not necessarily are sustainable, since this depends on
the kind of biomass and processing route. Each one of these processes have different ener-
getic efficiencies, obtained products, yields as well as operation and investment costs. To
have biofuels that are renewable and sustainable, it must be ensured that the whole supply
chain has reduced carbon footprint, with special emphasis on the conversion processes.
In the last years, researchers have focused their efforts on the development of produc-
tion processes for the production of biofuels. In the literature, there are studies for the
production of bioethanol (Ayodele, Alsaffar, & Mustapa, 2020; Greetham, Zaky,
Makanjuola, & Du, 2018; Mohd Azhar et al., 2017; Sharma, Larroche, & Dussap,
2020), biobutanol (Huzir et al., 2018; Ibrahim, Kim, & Abd-Aziz, 2018; Wang et al.,
2017; Yeong et al., 2018), biogasoline (Hassan, Sani, Abdul Aziz, Sulaiman, & Daud,
2015; Mascal & Dutta, 2020; Shamsul, Kamarudin, & Rahman, 2017), green diesel
(Ameen, Azizan, Yusup, Ramli, & Yasir, 2017; Amin, 2019; Arun, Sharma, & Dalai,
2015; Kordulis, Bourikas, Gousi, Kordouli, & Lycourghiotis, 2016), biojet fuel
(Galadima & Muraza, 2015; Gutierrez-Antonio, Gómez-Castro, de Lira-Flores, &
Hernández, 2017; Kandaramath Hari, Yaakob, & Binitha, 2015; Vásquez, Silva, &
Castillo, 2017), biogas (Pramanik, Suja, Zain, & Pramanik, 2019; Alavi-Borazjani,
Capela, & Tarelho, 2020; Kovacic et al., 2021; Liu, Ren, Yang, Liu, & Sun, 2021;
Liu, Wei, & Leng, 2021), syngas (Aziz, Setiabudi, Teh, Annuar, & Jalil, 2019;
Leonzio, 2018; Ren, Cao, Zhao, Yang, & Wei, 2019; Yeo, Ashok, & Kawi, 2019), bio-
hydrogen (Fagbohungbe, Komolafe, & Okere, 2019; Chen, Wei, & Ni, 2021; Dahiya,
Chatterjee, Sarkar, & Mohan, 2021; Fajı́n & Cordeiro, 2021), fuel pellets (Bajwa,
Peterson, Sharma, Shojaeiarani, & Bajwa, 2018; He et al., 2018; Mamvura & Danha,
2020; Pradhan, Mahajani, & Arora, 2018), and briquettes (Bajwa et al., 2018;
Kaliyan & Vance Morey, 2009; Zhang, Sun, & Xu, 2018). In these studies, several bio-
masses are analyzed as well as different conversion pathways, with the main objective of
obtaining feasible processes with high yields. Nevertheless, biofuels must also be compet-
itive from the economic point of view with its fossil counterparts; this implies that the
production costs of biofuels must be as small as possible. In this context, process inten-
sification plays a key role, since it could help to have compact process, with reduced
energy consumption, safer, and environmentally friendly.
Therefore, in this chapter the potential advantages on using process intensification in
the biofuel production processes will be explored. For this, it will be presented the gen-
eralities of the conventional production processes for biofuels, as well as the concept of
process intensification. Based on these concepts, the necessity of applying process inten-
sification in the production processes for biofuels will be exposed. Finally, the current
state of the intensified biofuel production processes will be described.
1.2 Basic concepts on process intensification

The production processes can be defined as a succession of unit operations, where the raw
materials are adequated, transformed, and purified to obtain the product of interest; this
type of production processes are usually known as conventional ones. Most of the con-
ventional equipment has as main troublesome the presence of dead zones, shortcuts in the
processing, or limited heat and mass transfers; as consequence, they are usually oversized,
which directly impacts its investment and operation costs. In this context, process inten-
sification arises in order to overcome these limitations.
Process intensification is defined as any chemical engineering development that leads
to a substantially smaller, cleaner, and more energy-efficient technology (Stankiewicz &
Moulijn, 2000). The intensification of a process considers two main strategies: the use of
highly efficient equipment or the combination of two, or more, unit operations. In the
first case, new equipment has been proposed, whose main characteristic is the high rate of
heat and/or mass transfer; as consequence, its size is small in comparison with its conven-
tional counterpart. In the second case, the thermodynamic synergy is used in order to
carry out two, or more, unit operations in the same vessel, which are usually called as
hybrid equipment; as consequence, the investment and operation costs are reduced.
The application of process intensification strategy has many advantages. The first one
is that this type of process are inherently safer; since the equipment are smaller or hybrid,
the amount of reactants, solvents, as well as energy are lower. Thus in case of an accident,
the potential consequences can be managed more easily. The second one is that the plants
are smaller, respect to the conventional ones, since higher rates of heat and/or mass trans-
fer are observed; in consequence, minor areas for the construction of the plant are
required, and in some cases, less pipes and additional equipment (like pumps). The third
one is that the intensified processes are more competitive from the economic point of
view, due to the efficient use of energy and raw materials. Finally, the intensified process
has a reduced carbon footprint without lose productivity. On the other hand, process
intensification has two main disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that not all
process intensification alternatives have a better performance in all type of process, in
comparison with the conventional one; thus the alternatives must be evaluated. The sec-
ond disadvantage is that process intensification implies the replacement of the equipment,
for a smaller one or for a hybrid technology.
Until now, several advances have been reported in the literature in relation to the
proposal of intensified equipment for reaction, separation, and conditioning tasks. These
alternatives will be presented next.
1.2.1 Reaction equipment

A reactor is a vessel where a chemical reaction is carried out. The reactors can be classified
based on the number of phases interacting on it. The homogeneous reactors are those
where the reactants, products, and catalysts are in the same phase; on the other hand,
the heterogeneous reactors are those where the reactants, products, and catalysts are in
at least two different phases. The reactors can also be classified based on its form: tank
with agitation and tubular (Fig. 1.5).
In spite of its form or the number of phases present, these types of conventional reac-
tors present dead zones, shortcuts, and it is necessary to introduce the reactants in excess
in order to obtain high conversion rates. In order to overcome these limitations, new
reactor equipment has been proposed, among which can mention multifunctional reac-
tors, microreactors, microchannel reactors, spinning disk reactor, heat exchanger reactor,
oscillatory flow reactor (Fig. 1.6).
The multifunctional reactors allow to carry on several reactions in the same vessel,
which favors the generation of some products of interest. In this type of reactor, the
Fig. 1.5 Conventional reactors.
Fig. 1.6 Intensified reactors.
intensification allows performing several reactions in the same vessel; however, the type
of reactor is conventional. For instance, the hydroprocessing of one step for the conver-
sion of oil into hydrocarbons is an example of this type of multifunctional reactor
(Gutierrez-Antonio et al., 2017).
On the other hand, the other equipment showed in Fig. 1.6 are new designs,
where the heat and mass transfer are intensified in such a way that the size of the equip-
ment is small.
Microreactors are devices consisting of single or multiple small-diameter channels,

typically between 10 and 1000 μm (Moulijn & Stankiewicz, 2017). Some of the reactions
that have been study in microreactors include hydrogen production and ethylene partial
oxidation (Keiski, Ojala, Huuhtanen, Kolli, & Leivisk€a, 2011). The main difference
between microreactors and microchannel reactors is the size of the channels. Microchan-
nel reactors can be defined as reactors consisting of channels with a hydraulic diameter
(Dh) more than 3 mm, while mini-channels can be considered as reactors with channels
with a hydraulic diameter in the range of 200 μm–3 mm and microchannels with a
hydraulic diameter in the range of 10–200 μm (Kiani, Makarem, Farsi, & Rahimpour,
2020). Microchannel reactors have been used for the conversion of syngas to alcohols
(Reay, Ramshaw, & Harvey, 2013a). The oscillatory flow reactors superimpose an oscil-
latory flow to the net movement through a flow reactor, with the aim to effectively have a
plug flow (Bianchi, Williams, & Kappe, 2020); this type of reactors has been used for the
conversion of jatropha oil to biodiesel (Ghazi, Resul, Yunus, & Yaw, 2008). The heat
exchanger reactor allows the combination of the reaction and heat exchange, which
increases the selectivity and prevent runaway reactions (Hesselgreaves, Law, & Reay,
2017a, 2017b); this type of equipment has been used for the steam reforming of LPG,
ethanol, and methanol and catalytic combustion of LPG and methanol (Kolb et al.,
2007). Finally, the spinning disk reactor has high fluid dynamic intensity, which
favors the rapid transmission of heat, mass, and momentum (Reay, Ramshaw, &
Harvey, 2013b), thereby making it an ideal vehicle for performing fast endothermic reac-
tions such as catalytic isomerization of α-pinene oxide to campholenic aldehyde (Reay
et al., 2013a, 2013b).
The intensified reactors offer higher transfer rates of heat and mass, which reduce dead
zones and, as consequence, the size of the equipment decreases. An important fact is that
in this type of equipment the conversion is higher, and the runaway reactions are better
controlled.
1.2.2 Separation equipment

Once the raw materials have been transformed into products, the purification of them
must be made. Usually, the purification implies the separation of unreacted compounds
as well as byproducts generated. There are several unit operations that can be used to
separate the products of interest, such as liquid-liquid extraction, adsorption, absorption,
membranes, evaporation, and distillation; nevertheless, distillation is the most common
method for the separation of fluid mixtures. Thus in this section, the focus will be given
on this unit operation.
Distillation is a unit operation that allows the purification of homogeneous mixtures
of fluids, through the transfer of mass between liquid and vapor streams; these last ones are
created with a reboiler and a condenser, located in the bottom and top of the distillation
Fig. 1.7 Conventional distillation sequences.
columns, respectively. A conventional distillation column can separate one product at the
time, by top or bottom; thus usually a train of distillation columns is required. These dis-
tillation trains are considered as conventional ones, and the two more known sequences
are the direct (where the most of the products are obtained at the top of the column) and
the indirect (where the most of the products are obtained at the bottom of the column);
the conventional distillation trains are presented in Fig. 1.7 for the purification of a ter-
nary mixture.
The distillation columns are very flexible in their design for the separation of mixtures
of different characteristics; their main disadvantage is their low thermodynamic effi-
ciency, due to the remixing effect. To overcome this weakness, new distillation config-
urations have been proposed, and they are known as thermally coupled distillation
sequences (Fig. 1.8).
The thermally coupled distillation schemes consist of distillation columns linked
between them through liquid and vapor interconnection flows. Since the supply of liquid
and vapor requirements is satisfied with the interconnection flows, it is possible to elim-
inate a condenser and/or a reboiler; this helps to decrease the investment cost for the
separation of the mixture. Moreover, in type of schemes, it is possible to reduce the
energy requirements since the interconnection flows are located to avoid the remixed
effect. According to the literature, thermally coupled distillation sequences can reduce
the energy requirements between 30% and 50%, in comparison with conventional dis-
tillation sequences (Caballero, 2009; Dejanovic, Matijaševic, & Olujic, 2010; Gómez-
Castro et al., 2016; Yildirim, Kiss, & Kenig, 2011). There are several types of thermally
coupled distillation sequences such as the direct and indirect ones, as well as the Petlyuk
Fig. 1.8 Thermally coupled distillation sequences.
distillation column and the dividing wall distillation column. In particular, the dividing
wall distillation column is a very promising technology allowing a significant energy
requirement reduction (Yildirim et al., 2011), as well as reduction in space requirements
and piping and installation costs.
Moreover, thermally coupled distillation columns have been used for the separation
of multicomponent mixtures (Avendaño, Pinzón, & Orjuela, 2020; Kiss, Ignat, Flores
Landaeta, & de Haan, 2013; Rong, 2011; Vazquez-Castillo et al., 2009), azeotropic
(Waltermann, M€ unchrath, & Skiborowski, 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2020), extractive mixtures (Aniya, De, Singh, & Satyavathi, 2018; Murrieta-Dueñas,
Gutierrez-Guerra, Segovia-Hernández, & Hernández, 2011; Staak & Gr€ utzner, 2017;
Yang et al., 2020) as well as reactive processes (Murrieta-Dueñas et al., 2011;
Weinfeld, Owens, & Eldridge, 2018).
1.2.3 Conditioning equipment

In all conversion process, reaction and purification zones, as well as the conditioning
equipment, are essentials. Usually, the conditioning equipment is used to modify the
temperature, pressure, or size of the raw materials; thus in this category of equipment,
heat exchangers, pumps, compressors, turbines, grinders, and crushers can be found
(Fig. 1.9). Among these equipment, the design of heat exchangers has been studied
Fig. 1.9 Conventional conditioning equipment.
Fig. 1.10 Intensified conditioning equipment.
and improved through different strategies (Awais & Bhuiyan, 2018; Dixit & Ghosh,
2015; Klemeš et al., 2020).
The traditional heat exchangers employ conventional tubes (6 mm) with various
cross-sections and orientations; even in those with enhanced surface textures, this tech-
nology is nearing its limits (Khan & Fartaj, 2011). In contrast, intensified equipment for
heat exchanger is of smaller size respect to conventional technology (Fig. 1.10).
Microchannel heat exchangers (1 mm) represent an improved alternative due to

their higher heat transfer and reduced both weight and space requirements (Khan &
Fartaj, 2011). There are also minichannel heat exchangers with diameters greater than
200 μm but minors or equal than 3 mm (Dhar, 2017). Other type of intensified equip-
ment is the compact heat exchanger, which is formed of layers of plates or finned channels
of fixed length and width (Hesselgreaves et al., 2017a, 2017b); among this kind of heat
exchangers, the following are included: the plate heat exchangers, the printed circuit
heat exchanger, the Chart-flow unit of chart heat exchangers, and the polymer film heat
exchanger (Reay, Ramshaw, & Harvey, 2008).
1.2.4 Design methodologies for intensified equipment

The design of intensified equipment can be addressed with three different approaches:
shortcut methodologies, optimization strategies, and the use of computational fluid
dynamics. Shortcut methodologies are defined as design procedures that employ mainly
material balances and simple equations for the modeling of the thermodynamic behavior
of the components involved. For instance, in the design of ideal conventional reactors,
mass balance along with the kinetic model is employed (Smith, 1981), while in conven-
tional distillation sequences, the Fensk-Underwood-Gilliland equations are used
(Henley & Seader, 1981). On the other hand, optimization procedures can be used as
a design tool; usually the objectives considered are the yield, energy consumption, or
volume. The optimization procedures can include mathematical programming as well
as metaheuristic strategies, and even can be linked to process simulators (Modak,
Lobos, Merigó, Gabrys, & Lee, 2020; Pistikopoulos et al., 2021). Finally, computational
fluid dynamics is an efficient computerized method of studying fluid mechanics based on
numerical analysis ( Junka, Daly, & Yu, 2013). Thus computational fluid dynamics is a
powerful tool for the simulation and design of intensified equipment, especially those
which are miniaturized.
Regard the design of intensified equipment for chemical reactions, optimization pro-
cedures as well as computational fluid dynamics are the most common tools. According
to the literature, optimization procedures have been applied to obtain the optimal design
of tailor-made reactors (Freund, Maußner, Kaiser, & Xie, 2019), a multitubular reactor
for ethylene production (Ovchinnikova, Banzaraktsaeva, & Chumachenko, 2019), and
capillary-based LSC-photomicroreactors (Zhao et al., 2020). On the other hand, compu-
tational fluid dynamics methodologies have been used to design a microchannel reactor heat
exchanger (Engelbrecht, Everson, Bessarabov, & Kolb, 2020), gas-solid vortex reactor for
oxidative coupling of methane (Vandewalle, Marin, & Van Geem, 2021), photocatalytic
reactors in the gas phase (Oliveira de Brito Lira, Riella, Padoin, & Soares, 2021), microwave
heating in heterogeneous catalysis (Yan, Stankiewicz, Eghbal Sarabi, & Nigar, 2021), as well
as pneumatically agitated slurry reactors (Geng, Mao, Huang, & Yang, 2021).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
and Iowa have since come into the Union, and they solemnly
repudiated and excluded slavery from those States forever.”
Charles Sumner on the Fallibility of Judicial
Tribunals.
Let me here say that I hold judges, and especially the Supreme
Court of the country, in much respect; but I am too familiar with the
history of Judicial proceedings to regard them with any superstitious
reverence. Judges are but men and in all ages have shown a full share
of frailty. Alas! alas! the worst crimes of history have been
perpetrated under their sanction. The blood of martyrs and of
patriots, crying from the ground, summons them to judgment.
It was a judicial tribunal which condemned Socrates to drink the
fatal hemlock, and which pushed the Saviour barefoot over the
pavements of Jerusalem, bending beneath his cross. It was a judicial
tribunal which, against the testimony and entreaties of her father,
surrendered the fair Virginia as a slave; which arrested the teachings
of the great apostle to the Gentiles, and sent him in bonds from
Judea to Rome; which, in the name of the old religion, adjured the
saints and fathers of the Christian Church to death, in all its most
dreadful forms; and which afterwards in the name of the new
religion, enforced the tortures of the Inquisition, amidst the shrieks
and agonies of its victims, while it compelled Galileo to declare, in
solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed, that the earth did
not move round the sun.
It was a judicial tribunal which, in France, during the long reign of
her monarchs, lent itself to be the instrument of every tyranny, as
during the brief reign of terror it did not hesitate to stand forth the
unpitying accessory of the unpitying guillotine. Ay, sir, it was a
judicial tribunal in England, surrounded by all the forms of law,
which sanctioned every despotic caprice of Henry the eighth, from
the unjust divorce of his queen to the beheading of Sir Thomas
Moore; which lighted the fires of persecution, that glowed at Oxford
and Smithfield, over the cinders of Latimer, Ridley, and John
Rodgers; which, after elaborate argument, upheld the fatal tyranny
of ship money against the patriotic resistance of Hampden; which, in
defiance of justice and humanity, sent Sydney and Russell to the
block; which persistently enforced the laws of conformity that our
Puritan Fathers persistently refused to obey; and which afterwards,
with Jeffries on the bench, crimsoned the pages of English history
with massacre and murder, even with the blood of innocent women.
Ay, sir, and it was a judicial tribunal in our country, surrounded by
all the forms of law, which hung witches at Salem, which affirmed
the constitutionality of the Stamp Act, while it admonished “jurors
and the people” to obey; and which now, in our day, has lent its
sanction to the unutterable atrocity of the Fugitive Slave Law.
Galusha A. Grow’s Speech on the Homestead
Bill.
In the House of Representatives, March 30, 1852. “Man’s Right to

the Soil.”
But even if the Government could derive any revenue from the
actual sale of public lands, it is neither just nor sound policy to hold
them for that purpose. Aware, however, that it is a poor place, under
a one hour rule, to attempt to discuss any of the natural rights of
men, for, surrounded by the authority of ages, it becomes necessary,
without the time to do it, first to brush away the dust that has
gathered upon their errors. Yet it is well sometimes to go back of the
authority of books and treatises, composed by authors reared and
educated under monarchical institutions, and whose opinions and
habits of thought consequently were more or less shaped and
moulded by such influences, and examine, by the light of reason and
nature, the true foundation of government and the inherent rights of
men.
The fundamental rights of man may be summed up in two words—
Life and Happiness. The first is the gift of the Creator, and may be
bestowed at his pleasure; but it is not consistent with his character
for benevolence, that it should be bestowed for any other purpose
than to be enjoyed, and that we call happiness. Therefore, whatever
nature has provided for preserving the one, or promoting the other,
belongs alike to the whole race. And as the means for sustaining life
are derived almost entirely from the soil, every person has a right to
so much of the earth’s surface as is necessary for his support. To
whatever unoccupied portion of it, therefore, he shall apply his labor
for that purpose, from that time forth it becomes appropriated to his
own exclusive use; and whatever improvements he may make by his
industry become his property, and subject to his disposal.
The only true foundation of any right to property is man’s labor.
That is property, and that alone which the labor of man has made
such. What right, then, can the Government have in the soil of a wild
and uncultivated wilderness as a source of revenue, to which not a
day nor hour’s labor has been applied, to make it more productive,
and answer the end for which it was created, the support and
happiness of the race?
It is said by the great expounder of the common law in his
commentaries, that “there is no foundation in nature or natural law,
why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of
land.” The use and occupancy alone gives to man, in the language of
the commentaries, “an exclusive right to retain, in a permanent
manner, that specific land which before belonged generally to
everybody, but particularly to nobody.” * * *
It may be said, true, such would be man’s right to the soil in a state
of nature; but when he entered into society, he gave up part of his
natural rights, in order to enjoy the advantages of an organized
community. This is a doctrine, I am aware, of the books and treatises
on society and government; but it is a doctrine of despotism, and
belongs not to enlightened statesmen in a liberal age. It is the excuse
of the despot in encroaching upon the rights of the subject. He
admits the encroachment, but claims that the citizen gave up part of
his natural rights when he entered into society; and who is to judge
what ones he relinquished but the ruling power? It was not necessary
that any of man’s natural rights should be yielded to the state in the
formation of society. He yielded no right, but the right to do wrong,
and that he never had by nature. All that he yielded in entering into
organized society, was a portion of his unrestrained liberty, which
was, that he would submit his conduct, that before was subject to the
control of no living being, to the tribunals to be established by the
state, and with a tacit consent that society, or the Government, might
regulate the mode and manner of the exercise of his rights. Why
should he consent to be deprived of them? It is upon this ground that
we justify resistance to tyrants. Whenever the ruling power so far
encroaches upon the natural rights of men that an appeal to arms
becomes preferable to submission, they appeal from human to divine
laws, and plead the natural rights of man in their justification. That
government, and that alone, is just, which enforces and defends all of
man’s natural rights, and protects him against the wrongs of his
fellow-men. But it may be said, although such might be the natural
rights of men, yet the Government has a right to these lands, and
may use them as a source of revenue, under the doctrine of eminent
domain. * * *
What is there in the constitution of things giving to one individual
the sole and exclusive right to any of the bounties provided by nature
for the benefit and support of the whole race, because, perchance, he
was the first to look upon a mere fragment of creation? By the same
process of reasoning, he who should first discover the source or
mouth of a river, would be entitled to a monopoly of the waters that
flow in the channel, or he who should first look upon one of the rills
or fountains of the earth might prevent fainting man from quenching
there his thirst, unless his right was first secured by parchment.
Why has the claim to monopolize any of the gifts of God to man
been confined, by legal codes, to the soil alone? Is there any other
reason than that it is a right which, having its origin in feudal times—
under a system that regarded man but as an appendage of the soil
that he tilled, and whose life, liberty and happiness, were but means
of increasing the pleasures, pampering the passions and appetites of
his liege lord—and, having once found a place in the books, it has
been retained by the reverence which man is wont to pay to the past,
and to time-honored precedents? The human mind is so constituted
that it is prone to regard as right what has come down to us approved
by long usage, and hallowed by gray age. It is a claim that had its
origin with the kindred idea that royal blood flows only in the veins
of an exclusive few, whose souls are more ethereal, because born
amid the glitter of courts, and cradled amid the pomp of lords and
courtiers, and, therefore, they are to be installed as rulers and law-
givers of the race. Most of the evils that afflict society have had their
origin in violence and wrong enacted into law by the experience of
the past, and retained by the prejudices of the present.
Is it not time to sweep from the statute book its still lingering relics
of feudalism; and to blot out the principles engrafted upon it by the
narrow-minded policy of other times, and adapt the legislation of the
country to the spirit of the age, and to the true ideas of man’s rights
and relations to his Government? If a man has a right on earth, he
has a right to land enough to rear a habitation on. If he has a right to
live, he has a right to the free use of whatever nature has provided for
his sustenance—air to breathe, water to drink, and land enough to
cultivate for his subsistence; for these are the necessary and
indispensable means for the enjoyment of his inalienable rights of
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And is it for a
Government that claims to dispense equal and exact justice to all
classes of men, and that has laid down correct principles in its great
chart of human rights, to violate those principles and its solemn
declarations in its legislative enactments?
The struggle between capital and labor is an unequal one at best. It
is a struggle between the bones and sinews of men, and dollars and
cents. And in that struggle, is it for the government to stretch forth
its arm to aid the strong against the weak? Shall it continue, by its
legislation, to elevate and enrich idleness on the wail and woe of
industry?
If the rule be correct as applied to governments as well as
individuals, that whatever a person permits another to do, having the
right and means to prevent it, he does himself, then indeed is the
government responsible for all the evils that may result from
speculation and land monopoly in the public domain. For it is not
denied that Congress has the power to make any regulations for the
disposal of these lands, not injurious to the general welfare. Now,
when a new tract is surveyed, and you open the land office and
expose it to sale, the man with the most money is the largest
purchaser. The most desirable and available locations are seized
upon by the capitalists of the country, who seek that kind of
investment. The settler who chances not to have a pre-emption right,
or to be there at the time of sale, when he comes to seek a home for
himself and his family, must pay the speculator three or four
hundred per cent. on his investment, or encounter the trials and
hardships of a still more remote border life. And thus, under the
operation of laws that are called equal and just, you take from the
settler three or four dollars per acre, and put it in the pocket of the
speculator—thus, by the operation of law, abstracting so much of his
hard earnings for the benefit of capital; for not an hour’s labor has
been applied to the land since it was sold by the government, nor is it
more valuable to the settler. Has not the laborer a right to complain
of legislation that compels him to endure greater toils and hardships,
or contribute a portion of his earnings for the benefit of the
capitalist? But not upon the capitalist or the speculator is it proper
that the blame should fall. Man must seek a livelihood and do
business under the laws of the country; and whatever rights he may
acquire under the laws, though they may be wrong, yet the well-
being of society requires that they be respected and faithfully
observed. If a person engage in a business legalized and regulated by
the law, and uses no fraud or deception in its pursuit, and evils result
to the community, let them apply the remedy to the proper source—
that is to the law-making power. The laws and the law-makers are
responsible for whatever evils necessarily grow out of their
enactments.
While the public lands are exposed to indiscriminate sale, as they
have been since the organization of the government, it opens the
door to the wildest system of land monopoly. It requires no lengthy
dissertation to portray its evils. In the Old World its history is written
in sighs and tears. Under its influence, you behold in England, the
proudest and most splendid aristocracy, side by side with the most
abject and destitute people; vast manors hemmed in by hedges as a
sporting-ground for her nobility, while men are dying beside the
enclosure for the want of land to till. Thirty thousand proprietors
hold the title deeds to the soil of Great Britain, while in Ireland alone
there are two and a half millions of tenants who own no part of the
land they cultivate, nor can they ever acquire a title to a foot of it, yet
they pay annually from their hard earnings twenty millions of dollars
to absentee landlords for the privilege of dying on their soil. Under
its blighting influence you behold industry in rags and patience in
despair. Such are some of the fruits of land monopoly in the Old
World; and, shall we plant its seeds in the virgin soil of the
New? * * *
If you would raise fallen man from his degradation, elevate the
servile from their grovelling pursuits to the rights and dignity of
men, you must first place within their reach the means for satisfying
their pressing physical wants, so that religion can exert its influence
on the soul, and soothe the weary pilgrim in his pathway to the tomb.
It is in vain you talk of the goodness and benevolence of an
Omniscient Ruler to him, whose life from the cradle to the grave is
one continued scene of pain, misery and want. Talk not of free
agency to him whose only freedom is to choose his own method to
die. In such cases, there might, perhaps, be some feeble conceptions
of religion and its duties—of the infinite, everlasting, and pure; but
unless there be a more than common intellect, they would be like the
dim shadows that float in the twilight. * * *
Riches, it is true, are not necessary to man’s real enjoyment; but
the means to prevent starvation are. Nor is a splendid palace
necessary to his real happiness; but a shelter against the storm and
winter’s blast is.
If you would lead the erring back from the paths of vice and crime
to virtue and honor, give him a home—give him a hearth-stone, and
he will surround it with household gods. If you would make men
wiser and better, relieve the almshouse, close the doors of the
penitentiary, and break in pieces the gallows, purify the influences of
the domestic fireside. For that is the school in which human
character is formed, and there its destiny is shaped. There the soul
receives its first impress, and man his first lesson, and they go with
him for weal or woe through life. For purifying the sentiments,
elevating the thoughts, and developing the noblest impulses of man’s
nature, the influences of a moral fireside and agricultural life are the
noblest and the best. * * *
It was said by Lord Chatham, in his appeal to the House of
Commons, in 1775, to withdraw the British troops from Boston, that
“trade, indeed, increases the glory and wealth of a country; but its
true strength and stamina are to be looked for in the cultivators of
the land. In the simplicity of their lives is found the simpleness of
virtue, the integrity and courage of freedom. These true, genuine
sons of the soil are invincible.”
The history of American prowess has recorded these words as
prophetic: man, in defence of his hearth-stone and fireside, is
invincible against a world of mercenaries. In battling for his home
and all that is dear to him on earth, he is never conquered save with
his life. In such a struggle every pass becomes a Thermopylæ, every
plain a Marathon. With an independent yeomanry scattered over our
vast domain, the “young eagle” may bid defiance to the world in
arms. Even though a foe should devastate our seaboard, lay in ashes
its cities, they have made not one single advance towards conquering
the country; for from the interior comes its hardy yeomanry, with
their hearts of oak and nerves of steel, to expel the invader. Their
hearts are the citadel of a nation’s power—their arms the bulwarks of
liberty.
Every consideration of policy, then, both as to revenue for the

general government, and increased taxation for the new States, as
well as a means for removing the causes of pauperism and crime in
the old, demands that the public lands be granted in limited
quantities to the actual settler. Every consideration of justice and
humanity calls upon us to restore man to his natural rights in the
soil. * * *
In a new country the first and most important labor, as it is the
most difficult to be performed, is to subdue the forest, and to convert
the lair of the wild beast into a home for civilized man. This is the
labor of the pioneer settler. His achievements, if not equally brilliant
with those of the plumed warrior, are equally, if not more, lasting;
his life, if not at times exposed to so great a hazard, is still one of
equal danger and death. It is a life of toil and adventure, spent upon
one continued battle-field, unlike that, however, on which martial
hosts contend, for there the struggle is short and expected, and the
victim strikes not alone, while the highest meed of ambition crowns
the victor. Not so with the hardy pioneer. He is oft called upon to
meet death in a struggle with fearful odds, while no herald will tell to
the world of the unequal combat. Startled at the midnight hour by
the war-whoop, he wakes from his dreams to behold his cottage in
flames; the sharer of his joys and sorrows, with perhaps a tender
infant, hurled, with rude hands, to the distant council-fire. Still he
presses on into the wilderness, snatching new areas from the wild
beast, and bequeathing them a legacy to civilized man. And all he
asks of his country and his Government is, to protect him against the
cupidity of soulless capital and the iron grasp of the speculator. Upon
his wild battle-field these are the only foes that his own stern heart
and right arm cannot vanquish.
Lincoln and Douglas.
The Last Joint Debate, at Alton, October 15, 1858.[85]
SENATOR DOUGLAS’S SPEECH.
Ladies and Gentlemen: It is now nearly four months since the

canvass between Mr. Lincoln and myself commenced. On the 16th of
June the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield and
nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States
Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid
down what he understood to be the Republican creed and the
platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. The
principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln’s were: First, that this
Government could not endure permanently divided into free and
slave States, as our fathers made it; that they must all become free or
all become slave; all become one thing or all become the other,
otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his
opinions almost in the identical language he used. His second
proposition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United
States because of the Dred Scot decision; urging as an especial
reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the negroes
of the rights and benefits of that clause in the Constitution of the
United States which guaranties to the citizens of each State all the
rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several States.
On the 10th of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the
people of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose to
appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the course I had pursued in
Congress. In that speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the
points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and
distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in
the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in
my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr.
Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length, and
reaffirming the positions which he had taken in his Springfield
speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had
before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an
equality with the white man. He adopted in support of this position
the argument which Lovejoy and Codding, and other Abolition
lecturers had made familiar in the northern and central portions of
the State, to wit: that the Declaration of Independence having
declared all men free and equal, by Divine law, also that negro
equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be
deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of
Independence included the negro in the clause, asserting that all
men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man
was allowed to take the position, that it did not include the negro,
others might take the position that it did not include other men. He
said that all these distinctions between this man and that man, this
race and the other race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by
the Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men were created
equal.
The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on
three points, we went before the people of the State. During the
following seven weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first
meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of the
people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined
myself closely to those three positions which he had taken,
controverting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our
fathers made it, divided into free and Slave States, controverting his
proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the
Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposition that the
Declaration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well
as the white men when it declared all men to be created equal. I
supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a distinct
issue between us, and that the opposite positions we had taken upon
them we would be willing to be held to in every part of the State. I
never intended to waver one hair’s breadth from that issue either in
the north or the south, or wherever I should address the people of
Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot proclaim my
political creed in the same terms not only in the northern but the
southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern but the Southern
States, and wherever the American flag waves over American soil,
that then there must be something wrong in that creed. So long as we
live under a common Constitution, so long as we live in a
confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for
certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which
cannot be proclaimed in every State, and every section of that Union,
alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln’s three propositions in my several
speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the
radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that
this Government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a
house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander
upon the immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have
often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our
Government can endure forever, divided into free and slave States as
our fathers made it,—each State having the right to prohibit, abolish
or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This Government was made
upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each
State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself, and that
right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that
inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must
have different and distinct local and domestic institutions,
corresponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when
they made the Government, that the laws and institutions which
were well adapted to the green mountains of Vermont, were unsuited
to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as
we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well
adapted to the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the
mining regions of California. They knew that in a Republic as broad
as this, having such a variety of soil, climate and interest, there must
necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws—the policy and
institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this
reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as
it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and
the various States were not allowed to complain of, much less
interfere with the policy, of their neighbors.
Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln and the
Abolitionists of this day had prevailed when the Constitution was
made, what would have been the result? Imagine for a moment that
Mr. Lincoln had been a member of the Convention that framed the
Constitution of the United States, and that when its members were
about to sign that wonderful document, he had arisen in that
Convention as he did at Springfield this summer, and addressing
himself to the President, had said, “A house divided against itself
cannot stand; this Government, divided into free and slave States,
cannot endure, they must all be free or all be slave, they must all be
one thing or all be the other, otherwise, it is a violation of the law of
God, and cannot continue to exist;”—suppose Mr. Lincoln had
convinced that body of sages that that doctrine was sound, what
would have been the result? Remember that the Union was then
composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding and
one free. Do you think that the one free State would have outvoted
the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured the abolition of
slavery? On the other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding States
have outvoted the one free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a
Constitutional provision, on every foot of the American Republic
forever? You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had
prevailed when the Government was made, it would have established
slavery as a permanent institution, in all the States, whether they
wanted it or not, and the question for us to determine in Illinois now
as one of the free States is, whether or not we are willing, having
become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority,
which we would have resisted with our hearts’ blood had it been
attempted on us when we were in a minority. How has the South lost
her power as the majority section in this Union, and how have the
free States gained it, except under the operation of that principle
which declares the right of the people of each State and each
Territory to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way. It was under that principle that slavery was abolished in
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania; it was under that principle that one-half of the
slaveholding States became free; it was under that principle that the
number of free States increased until from being one out of twelve
States, we have grown to be the majority of States of the whole
Union, with the power to control the House of Representatives and
Senate, and the power, consequently, to elect a President by
Northern votes without the aid of a Southern State. Having obtained
this power under the operation of that great principle, are you now
prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely because
we have the power you will wage a war against the Southern States
and their institutions until you force them to abolish slavery
everywhere.
After having pressed these arguments home on Mr. Lincoln for
seven weeks, publishing a number of my speeches, we met at Ottawa
in joint discussion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and let
himself down. I there propounded certain questions to him. Amongst
others, I asked him whether he would vote for the admission of any
more slave States in the event the people wanted them. He would not
answer. I then told him that if he did not answer the question there I
would renew it at Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt
and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, knowing that the next joint
discussion took place in Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did
answer my question in regard to no more slave States in a mode
which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, and accomplish the
object he had in view. I will show you what his answer was. After
saying that he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of “no
more slave States,” he declared:
“I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be exceedingly sorry to ever be put in
the position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to
know that there never would be another slave State admitted into this Union.”
Here permit me to remark, that I do not think the people will ever
force him into a position against his will. He went on to say:
“But I must add in regard to this, that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territory
during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people
should, having a fair chance and a clear field when they come to adopt a
Constitution, if they should do the extraordinary thing of adopting a slave
Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I
see no alternative, if we own the country, but we must admit it into the Union.”
That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfy the old line
Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and Virginians down in the
southern part of the State. Now what does it amount to? I desired to
know whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into the Union
with slavery or not, as her people desired. He would not answer; but
in a roundabout way said that if slavery should be kept out of a
Territory during the whole of its territorial existence, and then the
people, when they adopted a State Constitution, asked admission as
a slave State, he supposed he would have to let the State come in. The
case I put to him was an entirely different one. I desired to know
whether he would vote to admit a State if Congress had not
prohibited slavery in it during its territorial existence, as Congress
never pretended to do under Clay’s Compromise measures of 1850.
He would not answer, and I have not yet been able to get an answer
from him. I have asked him whether he would vote to admit
Nebraska if her people asked to come in as a State with a
Constitution recognizing slavery, and he refused to answer. I have
put the question to him with reference to New Mexico, and he has
not uttered a word in answer. I have enumerated the Territories, one
after another, putting the same question to him with reference to
each, and he has not said, and will not say, whether, if elected to
Congress, he will vote to admit any Territory now in existence with
such a Constitution as her people may adopt. He invents a case
which does not exist, and cannot exist under this Government, and
answers it; but he will not answer the question I put to him in
connection with any of the Territories now in existence. The contract
we entered into with Texas when she entered the Union obliges us to
allow four States to be formed out of the old State, and admitted with
or without slavery as the respective inhabitants of each may
determine. I have asked Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint
discussions whether he would vote to redeem that pledge, and he has
never yet answered. He is as silent as the grave on the subject. He
would rather answer as to a state of the case which will never arise
than commit himself by telling what he would do in a case which
would come up for his action soon after his election to Congress.
Why can he not say whether he is willing to allow the people of each
State to have slavery or not as they please, and to come into the
Union when they have the requisite population as a slave or a free
State as they decide? I have no trouble in answering the questions. I
have said every where, and now repeat it to you, that if the people of
Kansas want a slave State they have a right, under the Constitution of
the United States, to form such a State, and I will let them come into
the Union with slavery or without, as they determine. If the people of
any other Territory desire slavery, let them have it. If they do not
want it, let them prohibit it. It is their business, not mine. It is none
of our business in Illinois whether Kansas is a free State or a slave
State. It is none of your business in Missouri whether Kansas shall
adopt slavery or reject it. It is the business of her people and none of
yours. The people of Kansas have as much right to decide that
question for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it for
yourselves, or we in Illinois to decide it for ourselves.
And here I may repeat what I have said in every speech I have
made in Illinois, that I fought the Lecompton Constitution to its
death, not because of the slavery clause in it, but because it was not
the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said then in Congress, and
I say now, that if the people of Kansas want a slave State, they have a
right to have it. If they wanted the Lecompton Constitution, they had
a right to have it. I was opposed to that Constitution because I did
not believe that it was the act and deed of the people, but on the
contrary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting in the name of the
majority. When at last it was determined to send that Constitution
back to the people, and accordingly, in August last, the question of
admission under it was submitted to a popular vote, the citizens
rejected it by nearly ten to one, thus showing conclusively, that I was
right when I said that the Lecompton Constitution was not the act
and the deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will.
I hold that there is no power on earth, under our system of
Government, which has the right to force a Constitution upon an
unwilling people. Suppose that there had been a majority of ten to
one in favor of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an
Abolition President, and an Abolition Administration, and by some
means the Abolitionists succeeded in forcing an Abolition
Constitution on those slaveholding people, would the people of the
South have submitted to that act for one instant? Well, if you of the
South would not have submitted to it a day, how can you, as fair,
honorable and honest men, insist on putting a slave Constitution on
a people who desire a free State? Your safety and ours depend upon
both of us acting in good faith, and living up to that great principle
which asserts the right of every people to form and regulate their
domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States.
Most of the men who denounced my course on the Lecompton
question, objected to it not because I was not right, but because they
thought it expedient at that time, for the sake of keeping the party
together, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic party to violate
any one of its principles out of policy or expediency, that it did not
pay the debt with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our party
unless we always do right, and trust the consequences to God and the
people. I chose not to depart from principle for the sake of
expediency in the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do it on
that or any other question.
But I am told that I would have been all right if I had only voted for
the English bill after Lecompton was killed. You know a general
pardon was granted to all political offenders on the Lecompton
question, provided they would only vote for the English bill. I did not
accept the benefits of that pardon, for the reason that I had been
right in the course I had pursued, and hence did not require any
forgiveness. Let us see how the result has been worked out. English
brought in his bill referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the
people, with the provision that if it was rejected Kansas should be
kept out of the Union until she had the full ratio of population
required for a member of Congress, thus in effect declaring that if the
people of Kansas would only consent to come into the Union under
the Lecompton Constitution, and have a slave State when they did
not want it, they should be admitted with a population of 35,000, but
that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon having just such a
Constitution as they thought best, and to desire admission as a free
State, then they should be kept out until they had 93,420
inhabitants. I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever
Kansas has people enough for a slave State she has people enough for
a free State. I was and am willing to adopt the rule that no State shall
ever come into the Union until she has the full ratio of population for
a member of Congress, provided that rule is made uniform. I made
that proposition in the Senate last winter, but a majority of the
Senators would not agree to it; and I then said to them if you will not
adopt the general rule I will not consent to make an exception of
Kansas.
I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this
Government to throw the weight of federal power into the scale,
either in favor of the free or the slave States. Equality among all the
States of this Union is a fundamental principle in our political
system. We have no more right to throw the weight of the Federal
Government into the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the free
States, and last of all should our friends in the South consent for a
moment that Congress should withhold its powers either way when
they know that there is a majority against them in both Houses of
Congress.
Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters of the English bill stood
up to their pledges not to admit Kansas until she obtained a
population of 93,420 in the event she rejected the Lecompton
Constitution? How? The newspapers inform us that English himself,
whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure
it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would
disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with
such population as she might have when she made application. We
are informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the
States where elections have recently been held, was pledged against
the English bill, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Now, if I had
only done as these anti-Lecompton men who voted for the English
bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse to admit Kansas if she
refused to become a slave State until she had a population of 93,420,
and then return to their people, forfeited their pledge, and made a
new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she applied, without regard
to population, I would have had no trouble. You saw the whole power
and patronage of the Federal Government wielded in Indiana, Ohio
and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti-Lecompton men to Congress who
voted against Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then
denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves to their people
to disregard it. My sin consists in not having given a pledge, and then
in not having afterward forfeited it. For that reason, in this State,
every postmaster, every route agent, every collector of the ports, and
every federal office-holder, forfeits his head the moment he
expresses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln
and his Abolition associates. A Democratic Administration which we
helped to bring into power, deems it consistent with its fidelity to
principle and its regard to duty, to wield its power in this State in
behalf of the Republican Abolition candidates in every county and
every Congressional District against the Democratic party. All I have
to say in reference to the matter is, that if that Administration have
not regard enough for principle, if they are not sufficiently attached
to the creed of the Democratic party to bury forever their personal
hostilities in order to succeed in carrying out our glorious principles,
I have. I have no personal difficulty with Mr. Buchanan or his
cabinet. He chose to make certain recommendations to Congress, as
he had a right to do, on the Lecompton question. I could not vote in
favor of them. I had as much right to judge for myself how I should
vote as he had how he should recommend. He undertook to say to
me, if you do not vote as I tell you, I will take off the heads of your
friends. I replied to him, You did not elect me, I represent Illinois
and I am accountable to Illinois, as my constituency, and to God, but
not to the President or to any other power on earth.
And now this warfare is made on me because I would not
surrender my convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my
constituency, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how
I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hold that an
attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is
subversive of the principles of our Constitution. The Executive
department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is
independent of the President. In matters of legislation the President
has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and
treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right
to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have to tell
him whether he shall veto or approve a bill that the Senate has
passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say to a
Senator, “Do this, or I will take off the heads of your friends,” you
convert this Government from a republic into a despotism.
Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member
of Congress, “Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against
you at home which will crush you,” you destroy the independence of
the representative, and convert him into a tool of Executive power. I
resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a Senator, and I
intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give.
Yet, Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of
Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. I
stand by the platform of the Democratic party, and by its
organization, and support its nominees. If there are any who choose
to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good Democrats as I
am.
My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for
the Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand
together as it is to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past

Textbook Ebook Biofuels and Biorefining Volume 2 Intensification Processes and Biorefineries Claudia Gutierrez Antonio All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Ebook Biofuels and Biorefining Volume 2 Intensification Processes and Biorefineries Claudia Gutierrez Antonio All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biofuels and Biorefining: Volume 2:

Intensification Processes and

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

For information on all Elsevier publications

Publisher: Charlotte Cockle

Typeset by STRAIVE, India

João L. Silva Júnior

Process intensification in biofuels

Biofuels and Biorefining Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Enhance Increase energy

Fig. 1.2 Classification of biomass based on its chemical nature.

Fig. 1.4 Conversion processes for the production of biofuels.

1.2 Basic concepts on process intensification

1.2.1 Reaction equipment

Fig. 1.5 Conventional reactors.

Fig. 1.6 Intensified reactors.

Microreactors are devices consisting of single or multiple small-diameter channels,

1.2.2 Separation equipment

Fig. 1.7 Conventional distillation sequences.

Fig. 1.8 Thermally coupled distillation sequences.

1.2.3 Conditioning equipment

Fig. 1.9 Conventional conditioning equipment.

Fig. 1.10 Intensified conditioning equipment.

Microchannel heat exchangers (1 mm) represent an improved alternative due to

1.2.4 Design methodologies for intensified equipment

In the House of Representatives, March 30, 1852. “Man’s Right to

Every consideration of policy, then, both as to revenue for the

The Last Joint Debate, at Alton, October 15, 1858.[85]

SENATOR DOUGLAS’S SPEECH.

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is now nearly four months since the

You might also like

Microchannel heat exchangers (1 mm) represent an improved alternative due to