HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

Introduction to the partial water quenching process package for Shell gasification

2007-11-20View Original

Thread Content

This post was last edited by lflsedin on 2015-8-9 09:00. Introduction to the water quenching process package in Shell’s gasification technology. Shell’s gasification technology is mature and reliable, but it requires a high level of investment. To deliver more value to our customers, we have been actively seeking ways to reduce costs without compromising our advantages of wide coal variety compatibility, high efficiency, reliability, and environmental friendliness. By the beginning of this year, we had successfully developed some water-quenched gasification process packages, enabling us to provide customers with basic engineering design services. This process retains the existing design of the gasifier (feed at the bottom, multiple nozzles, upward flow of syngas, and separation of ash and slag by gravity), and it still uses the clean syngas from subsequent stages as a quenching gas to cool the hot syngas exiting from the upper part of the gasifier from 1600ºC to 900ºC; thereafter, it enters a water quenching chamber where atomized water is sprayed to further reduce the temperature to 500ºC. Since the quenched syngas is only at 500ºC, a primary cyclone separator can be used to remove most of the dry ash. Thereafter, the remaining fly ash in the syngas is removed using a two-stage Venturi scrubber, and it then enters the wet scrubber tower. The temperature of the syngas exiting the wet scrubber is 220–230ºC, with a water vapor content of 60%, which fully meets the requirements of sulfur-tolerant shift reactors for water vapor. The feature of this process is that it eliminates the syngas cooler, and a conventional cyclone separator is used in place of the ceramic filter. Although the amount of ash water increases slightly (due to the lower dust removal efficiency of the cyclone separator compared to the ceramic filter), the overall investment in the gasification unit can still be reduced by about 20%. At the same time, since most of the fly ash is removed by dry methods, the amount of ash water to be treated is lower compared to a complete water quenching process, which reduces the risk of scaling and blockages in the ash water system and maintains the advantage of the dry powder gasification process in terms of its compatibility with medium/high-ash coal types. Furthermore, compared to the original process, this process requires the fewest modifications. Key components such as the gasifier and syngas quenching have been fully validated. Cyclone separators have been in use at the Buggenum power plant in the Netherlands for many years, and they have also been applied in China’s Yuntianhua and Datang Dolun projects. Overall, this process reduces investment costs without posing any risks to customers. Of course, since the syngas cooler is omitted, the thermal efficiency of the entire system will decrease. As an example, for a gasification unit with a capacity of 2000 tons per day that uses Shenfu coal, the original process allows for the production of 2500 tons per day of high-quality steam (at 400ºC and 5.2 Mpa). After accounting for the steam required for sulfur-tolerant conversion processes (taking methanol production as an example), there is still more than 2000 tons per day of steam available to be fed into the medium-pressure pipeline network to drive turbines. With partial water quenching now in use, the aforementioned steam production is no longer present; accordingly, the sulfur-resistant conversion unit downstream does not require additional steam, and a certain amount of low-quality medium/low-pressure saturated steam is generated. This post was last edited by Tianya Langji on 2009-1-18 at 17:52.]
Reply #22007-11-23
This is a solution proposed by Shell recently, after the operation of several domestic units, to address the problem of ash accumulation in the quench gas coolers. Not yet implemented on the device. This post was last edited by Tianya Langji on 2009-1-19 at 17:41.]
Reply #32007-11-23
What is the difference between the device that sprays atomized water and the cooling rings in other water-cooled gasification furnaces?
Reply #42007-11-23
This estimate assumes limited quenching, equivalent to a temperature reducer. It is estimated that this will lead to problems such as poor ash removal and inadequate cleaning effects, which are difficult to resolve or cannot be effectively addressed through engineering solutions at present; this is likely one of the reasons why its adoption has been delayed.
Reply #52008-01-28
Industrial production relies on mature process flows, and experiments are absolutely not permitted. It’s better to complete the pilot test first, find a manufacturing partner to build a demonstration unit; once it operates successfully, the process package will have a large market potential!
Reply #62008-01-30
There has been much research on the subsequent process issues of Shell gasifiers. The process using a waste heat boiler is employed in power generation processes. Quenching processes should be used in the chemical industry, but the 19 furnaces introduced in China for chemical use employ waste heat boiler processes instead. This results in high investment, complex processes, and increased operational difficulties.
Reply #72008-06-19
The information is excellent! Thank you to the original poster. The Texaco gasification units do have a waste boiler process as well, but in China, the companies that use Texaco equipment are mostly chemical manufacturers, and they generally employ a quenching process ; From what we understand, Shell’s gasification units used in China to promote Shell’s technology also employ a quenching process, and the performance with that approach is even better! (My opinion) This post was last edited by Qingfeng Yao Mingyue on 2008-6-19 15:20.]
Reply #82008-07-28
This idea originated from a proposal put forward by Sinopec’s senior management after several of its plants were brought online; the main issue was the high investment costs associated with the Shell waste boiler process, and the goal was to reduce those costs. So, it’s a bit tragic for Chinese people to serve as stepping stones for others.
Reply #92008-07-29
If these people can think of such things, can’t others think of them as well? :Lol, it can be said that such a proposal, coming from Sinopec’s senior management, carries more weight; this might well have been the direct factor that prompted Shell to adopt some form of water quenching process. Although the current plan represents a significant improvement in terms of investment, it seems that the difficulties in operation and design have not decreased; rather, they have increased. See which user dares to try the first crab.
Reply #102008-07-29
I don’t know about the other aspects. In that case, has the overall efficiency of gasification decreased? It’s not 99% as Shell claims, right? Additionally, there’s always been a question: is the 99% mentioned by Shell referring to the conversion rate of coal, and not the gasification efficiency?
Reply #112008-07-30
99% is the coal conversion rate. Of course, Shell’s gasification efficiency is also the highest among all types of furnaces

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.