What are the characteristics of the continuous reforming IFP and UOP processes, and which one is better?
Thread Content
For continuous reforming, which is better: the UOP or IFP process? What are the respective features? There are many UOP units in China due to close ties with CNPC. Setting that aside, which company is better in terms of process technology, total investment for the units, energy consumption, and subsequent maintenance? ?
There are quite a few reforming units in local refineries these days
More UOP process packages are used in domestic refineries, right? The service attitude is good
I don’t know much about the process packages from UOP that are used for continuous reforming in my company
When the processing capacity is 1 million tons per year or less, the UOP process is relatively stable； For capacities of 2 million tons per year or more, the IFP process is relatively stable.
With a mature manufacturing process, there is a good reason to choose either one. China’s domestic reforming technology is also problem-free, and its capacity has now reached 1.5 million tons.
The domestically produced one is SEI’s counter-current reforming
Hello, I have a question: Is the operation process of IFP more complicated than that of UOP during production? Regarding the regenerator, there is alkali washing – what is the amount of additives used? ? ? Are there any comparisons in terms of specific energy consumption?
So, is it necessary to use a scrubbing tray for UOP stabilization? Because the reformation product oil does not have dechlorination facilities.
SLCR continuous reforming at Luoyang Plant. SEI has few records of operating countercurrent beds.