What is the maturity level of FTO synthesis wax technology? Where is the bottleneck?

Technologically, the F-T synthesis wax technology is already very mature; the approaches adopted by different parties are largely similar, with similar focuses as well. It is usually cobalt, in a fixed-bed configuration. The so-called immaturity usually stems from insufficient time or not enough money having been spent. As for the so-called bottlenecks and difficulties, my understanding is that many problems are only recognized as such once one reaches this stage; it is then necessary to combine various previous solutions. Without reaching the stage of industrialization, what seems like huge problems in the laboratory turn out to be nothing serious; some of the issues that were previously unknown then become very important, and it becomes necessary to think of solutions starting from basic catalyst powders. It must be something that requires a great deal of time, effort, and money to grow.

According to our recent research, the catalysts used in FTO wax synthesis are not particularly stable, and the separation of different types of waxes also presents difficulties. Could you provide some insights on this matter?

This post was last edited by sunsea on 2017-7-12 at 16:10. The stability of catalysts needs to be discussed separately for fixed-bed, slurry-bed, iron-based, and Co-based catalysts. Fixed-bed reactors are generally required to have a service life of several years, including carbon burning for regeneration. Generally, a Co-based version is more suitable. There are also iron-based ones, but their stability is relatively lower; by \"relatively lower\" we mean in terms of the service life of the fixed bed, which should be at least over 1 year in total. Compared to fixed-bed reactors, slurry-bed reactors do not require such high stability; if there is some loss, it can be compensated for by adding more material or replacing it promptly. I’m not sure what exactly you mean by stability. The separation of wax is a challenge, but it’s not a particularly major issue. At Yashen Technology, this problem can now be solved very well. Of course, the optimization of the process route is endless.

What is the maximum percentage of wax that can be obtained from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis? Does it refer to substances with a C16 count or higher? Can the yield reach over 40%?

Does Yashen Technology have any industrial facilities under construction?

The wear life of the catalyst is crucial

Is a fixed-bed or a slurry-bed better for Fischer-Tropsch wax production? I heard that fixed-bed systems have been phased out already, is that true? I would be very grateful if the experts could provide an answer

Separation technology is no longer a challenge~ There are proven cases in China~ Those interested in this project can contact me via QQ: 644604847

Yashen has installations under construction, of grade C16 and above; if it’s based on CO, it should be at least 60% or more. There might be fewer Fe-based ones. Slurry bed + Fe base; this is widely used by Sasa. Iron-based systems don’t pay much attention to CO2 emissions, making them suitable for coal as the starting material. Fixed-bed + Co-based is a combination; Shell has a fairly large facility in Qatar that uses natural gas as the feed gas, which results in a higher C efficiency and very low CO2 emissions. Using Fe-based methods at present means ignoring the issue of CO2 emissions; in any case, the process starts with carbon, and CO2 is generated either during the gas generation stage or during the Fischer-Tropsch stage – it’s the same in both cases. For natural gas-based applications or situations requiring high C efficiency, Co-based systems have higher C efficiency. For fixed-bed and slurry-bed systems, my experience suggests that the choice depends mainly on the catalyst used; iron is more suitable for slurry-bed systems ； Either one will do; a fixed-bed reactor is relatively better. The reason why fixed-bed reactors were phased out, in my opinion, lies mainly in iron-based catalysts based on coal. Using iron for a fixed-bed system is quite problematic, as the lifespan of such systems is a major concern; moreover, catalysts are not expensive. There are various issues and difficulties associated with this approach, while using a slurry bed is much more straightforward.