Is the fluidized bed boiler a technology about to be phased out?

I don’t know where the poster learned that fluidized beds are being phased out. As far as I know, today’s large-scale units are basically all fluidized beds?

Since the requirements for coal-fired types are not high, it is the preferred furnace type for small and medium-sized boiler users. The shortcomings of wear and short operating cycles have now been greatly improved.

Fluidized bed boilers have become large-scale. The main advantage is good adaptability to coal types. The currently popular technology is low bed material fluidized combustion technology, which can reduce the original emission index of Nox. However, if it reaches* * The stipulated ultra-low emission standards also require post-furnace desulfurization and denitrification wet power and other devices. If the fuel is not too poor and all environmental protection devices are installed, there will be no technical advantage. At present, the recommended furnace type in Shandong Province is pulverized coal furnace.

Let me express my humble opinion, don’t laugh: lol. Personally, I think CFBB has great advantages regardless of size. Large-scale is well known, let’s talk about miniaturization. 4L said that Shandong promotes pulverized coal. This is true, but the effect should be very average. Designers all know that it is difficult to control the coordination between the height and volume of pulverized coal and CFB. The problem of miniaturization of CFB and pulverized coal is also due to this point. The various styles of small pulverized coal promoted have strict requirements for pulverized coal. Young coal is seriously coked, old coal is incompletely burned, and there are also WNS-type transformations. It's really incomprehensible. The multi-process CFB completely solves the above problems. The above discussion is about performance. Power consumption is another matter, but performance (feasibility) comes first.

The problem is not with the technology of fluidized bed boilers, but mainly with the excessive pressure on environmental protection.

CFB also needs to denitrify, but it has the advantage of denitrification cost.

This post was last published by pzhmotor on 2017-5-22 11:37. The editor agrees with the opinion of the 5th floor. The newly installed large-scale power generation boilers are basically circulating fluidized bed boilers (colleagues said that there seems to be a hard and fast rule in this area that pulverized coal furnaces are not allowed). This is a photo of the slag field taken during the trial operation of a 30W unit at a power plant on May 12. There is a small amount of carbon inclusion, but the slag is already very yellow. (Dongguo’s stove is designed with a combustion efficiency >92%. Used to eliminate three overdue 10W pulverized coal furnaces)

What is the approximate carbon content or calorific value of the slag? Thanks

Circulating fluidized bed boilers will not be eliminated, but will continue to be promoted and used in the future. First, this type of boiler can burn low-quality coal and even coal gangue. The current circulating fluidized bed boiler technology has solved the wear problem. Second, it is environmentally friendly. For low-sulfur coal, in-furnace desulfurization of sulfur dioxide can meet emission standards. Due to the use of low-temperature combustion, nitrogen oxide emissions are also very low. Only the low-cost, low-investment SNCR denitrification process can achieve emission standards.

The calorific value is very low, not exceeding 500, and can be ignored. But it also has a lot to do with the type of coal used.