From the perspective of an environmental protection worker, how should one evaluate the existing FCC flue gas desulfurization, denitration, and dust removal processes?
Thread Content
Currently, there are an increasing number of FCC flue gas desulfurization, denitration, and dust removal technologies. On the surface, this represents progress or improvements in the processes, but in reality, many problems arise after one cycle of operation. From the perspective of an environmental protection worker, how should one evaluate the existing FCC flue gas desulfurization, denitration, and dust removal processes, such as EDV and WGS?
Please list the questions, and let’s discuss them together.
This post was last edited by Yongan Environmental Protection on 2017-3-10 at 08:56. Due to work requirements, I have had extensive exposure to EDV desulfurization processes, and after summarizing my experience, the main issues are as follows: 1. High solid content in the circulating liquid, along with severe wear of the nozzles; 2. Deviation of flue gas flow, resulting in poor washing efficiency by the circulating liquid and severe corrosion of the tower walls; 3. Too low flow velocity of the flue gas, which leads to inadequate absorption at the filtration modules and blue smoke emanating from the chimney; 4. High COD level in the circulating slurry, making it difficult to treat. Just trying to spark some discussion – let’s all exchange more ideas.:lol
We use WGS and SCR; the installation is still under construction at present, and the specific usage details are not clear. It seems that other units are operating well
New responder: Please don’t be upset if you get it wrong. The methods for removing sulfur and nitrogen involve absorption and conversion. EDV and WGS are used to wash the gases, converting other sulfides into solids. Setting aside the issue of conversion efficiency, the waste generated either has to be landfilled or processed to produce finished products in order to break even. In short, the economic benefits are low; it’s actually a loss-making venture. Nowadays, many factories are considering WSA and LOTOX – one is used to produce sulfuric acid from flue gas, while the other is used to produce nitric acid. From a product perspective, these methods represent a way to turn waste into valuable resources. Moreover, WSA doesn’t require any absorbents; once the equipment is in place, maintenance is simple. The advantages are clear. From a factory’s point of view, one option involves spending money on dealing with waste, while the other involves turning waste into value – clearly, the latter is more environmentally friendly. Think about it: that flue gas represents money. The more of it that can be converted, the better, and it also motivates the factory to work harder. A good environmental philosophy doesn’t force you to reduce your income in order to deal with your problems; rather, it turns those problems into great opportunities
Ammonia leakage may occur in the later stages of SCR; ammonium salts crystallize at low temperatures, leading to an increase in pressure drop. Blockages in the packing layer and rain falling into the chimney may occur in WGS