Two applications of coal chemical technologies won the 2016 **Second Prize for Scientific and Technological Progress
Thread Content
On January 9, 2017, the **Central Committee and the State Council held a grand ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to award the 2016** science and technology awards. The project \"Innovation and Application of Key Technologies for Large-Scale and High-Efficiency Water-Coal Slurry Gasification Processes\", carried out by the team from the Institute of Clean Coal Technology at East China University of Science and Technology in collaboration with Yankuang Group Co., Ltd., and the project \"Key Technologies and Engineering Applications for 250MW-Class Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Generation\", developed through the cooperation between China Huaneng Group Clean Energy Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd. and Green Coal Power Co., Ltd., were awarded the **Second Prize for Scientific and Technological Progress**. Among them, the technology from the project \"Key Technological Innovations and Applications in Large-Scale and High-Efficiency Water-Coal Slurry Gasification Processes\" has been adopted by 32 enterprises (16 are in operation and 16 are under construction), resulting in a total of 94 gasifiers; compared with foreign technologies, this approach has saved 380 million yuan in patent fees. In the past 3 years, new sales amounted to 13.15 billion yuan, while new profits reached 1.62 billion yuan. Additionally, approximately 2.6 million tons of carbon dioxide were reduced, resulting in significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. China Huaneng utilized the achievement of \"Key Technologies and Engineering Applications for 250MW-Class Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Generation\" to develop China’s first IGCC gasification unit. The country’s first 250MW-class IGCC power plant built using this technology has been operating continuously and stably, with an annual operation time of over 5,500 hours and a maximum load of 265.9 megawatts. At the same time, this achievement also serves as a foundation for the development of coal-based chemicals, coal-based liquid fuels, hydrogen produced from coal, and natural gas produced from coal; it represents a common technical capability across the industry. It holds significant strategic importance for achieving efficient utilization of coal and sustainable development, as well as for maintaining **energy security.
Where is this IGCC now, and how is it operating?
I’m not sure where it is; I’m also waiting for colleagues who know the answer to provide it
Tianjin – Siemens’ gas turbines are highly advanced E-class turbines, but they simply have no place in gas power plants. It’s a copied Shell gasifier; it’s been in use for a few years, and I lost so much money that I almost had to sell my pants. It seems to have been copied from Xi’an Thermal Power Institute. It’s probably copied now. I think I heard last year that a fair amount of natural gas had to be injected before it could operate properly. It’s just a dry powder gasification furnace, a purification and desulfurization unit, along with a gas turbine – very simple.
Hehe, so there are these stories too! I learned it!
55555555555555
Haha, I know this project; their leaders even came to our factory back then. Never invest in gas turbines; they are nothing but a waste of money. IGCC is not viable in China; instead, the path of combined production should be pursued, to generate hydrogen, produce fuel gas, and engage in small-scale chemical manufacturing.
The person in charge of electricity said so at a certain time; the discussion was good. It’s not right to spread rumors without a reason: It’s impossible to win a national award without 3 years of reliability verification! Class E gas turbines are highly mature; they are natural gas-fired turbines. Gas turbines with lower calorific values are not yet mature. It took this factory about a year or more to get its turbines up and running, which is 2–6 years less than what’s required for similar facilities abroad (this information can be found easily online). Moreover, Class E gas turbines are considered core units in power plants; they certainly aren’t the type that can’t be utilized effectively in such plants. Thirdly, gas turbines are regarded as the jewel in the crown of human industrial technology. While China’s industrial sector has made breakthroughs in most areas, it still isn’t able to produce Class E gas turbines domestically. Even though Shanghai Electric Group has adopted measures such as acquisitions to address this issue, the use of natural gas in these turbines is not allowed at all, as any deviation in their calorific value or composition is unacceptable. There is indeed a natural gas-fired turbine in the second phase of this power plant. As for the claim that these turbines only function properly when natural gas is used, I’m not sure where that idea comes from. Power generation differs from chemical production; in chemical production, operations are controlled by grid dispatch instructions (rather than factory-based scheduling), and these instructions depend on factors such as regional load levels, factory production capacity, and annual targets. If a factory cannot operate stably and meets the required standards, its power supply will be delayed. This factory has experienced only one unplanned shutdown per year, and in recent years it has managed to meet its annual production targets ahead of schedule. So, can we really say that these turbines operate stably? As for SuperShell, all one can do is laugh; it’s recommended to take some time to understand the differences in their working principles
Regarding low-calorific-value gas turbines, when Siemens was promoting them in the United States, they used Chinese installations as examples to show just how excellent their products were. During that year of commissioning, Chinese engineers played a significant role in modifying the burners
I suggest that your power industry professionals go to China and see for themselves whether operating gas turbines with low calorific value is really as difficult as you claim; find out how long they can operate normally and what their continuous operation time is Ansteel used M701S in 2006, Baosteel used GT11N2-LBTU in 1997; there are also several other steel mills. Which of these has a lower calorific value compared to dry powder gasification gas? Ansteel’s unit is of class F, with a capacity of 300 MW – is that larger and of a higher class than Siemens’ class E units? If short operation times are all due to grid scheduling, then there’s nothing to say, but will scheduling take the blame for that? Regarding gasification, I won’t go into further details. You can create a separate post outlining the so-called differences between the two. There are many people on Haichuan who specialize in vaporization, and they will discuss this with you. Or it would be fine to have the Thermal Engineering Institute communicate directly with Shell.