Thread Content
For new projects, is it better to have more or fewer pressure vessels? How can this issue be addressed properly during the project design and construction phase? For example, those that can use steam or hot water were intentionally redesigned to use hot water; they are no longer pressure vessels, which reduces costs and simplifies management, right?
This question is too general; it’s difficult to answer. It seems I haven’t encountered anyone who considers things in this way during design. As you illustrated, if steam can be replaced by hot water, energy consumption will also decrease. It’s not just a matter of pressure vessels; so, can steam be replaced by hot water? This requires comprehensive consideration from a technical perspective.
It’s not necessary; it can lead to unreasonable design. For example, with saturated steam, once the temperature is known, the pressure can also be determined. If values are chosen arbitrarily, it may result in overpressure in the equipment, which is harmful to it.
Changing it to hot water makes it safer, but efficiency must also be taken into account. Although steam is more efficient, it also poses greater safety risks and requires higher investment.
I’ve already given suggestions regarding safety and efficiency; now I’ll mainly focus on the economic aspects. To be used as a pressure vessel, it requires management personnel and regulatory documents such as systems, monthly inspections, annual inspections, and periodic tests. Now, there are many fees that no longer need to be paid in various places, such as for pressure gauges and obtaining certificates. But there are still some things that need to be paid for, such as regular inspections and safety valve calibration. The cost is not low; the widgets are roughly at a one-to-one ratio. Of course, you don’t have to do any of these, but what awaits you then are fines – huge fines. If you don’t use it as a pressure vessel, then who cares about you? You can do whatever you want with your own stuff.