Which gasification technology is suitable for bituminous coal in Jincheng? Except for atmospheric pressure fixed-bed!

The coal quality characteristic data can be uploaded for experts to review; at least the standard number should be provided.

If it is bituminous coal, and its ash fusion point is no more than 1400, Texaco is a good choice.

1. GE (formerly TEXACO) slurry gasification is definitely not suitable; the FT (T2, ash fusion point) of the anthracite in Jincheng is generally around 1350 degrees, whereas for slurry gasification the ash fusion point of the coal should not exceed 1250 degrees. 2. A clear example is that at Fengxi Chemical in Linyi, Shanxi, Tsinghua University’s (Qingda Huaye) coal-water slurry gasification technology similar to that of GE is currently being used, with raw materials primarily sourced from Shenhua and bituminous coals from Shanxi. 3. Under normal circumstances, the operating temperature of the gasifier must be more than 100 degrees higher than the ash melting point of the coal. This means that if anthracite from Jincheng, Shanxi is used as the raw material, the available gasification processes include (only feasibility is discussed, without evaluation of reliability): · SHELL powder gasification · Xi’an Thermal Power Institute’s two-stage furnace · Aerospace 11th Research Institute’s HT-L gasification · Siemens (GSP) powder gasification

Is Colin’s powder gasification technology feasible?

I recommend using GSP’s gasification technology.

It seems that so far, there have been no actual cases of using Shanxi coal for water-coal slurry gasification. GSP has already been put into practical use in Lanhua Coal Chemical Group’s ammonia, urea, and methanol production projects in Jincheng. In terms of current mainstream technologies, pulverized coal pressurized gasification seems to be more suitable in some cases.

Colin actually shares the same background as GSP; there isn’t much difference between them

I am extremely grateful to everyone above, especially Brother 5#. How is Lurgi?

Jincheng anthracite is a coal with a high ash fusion point, and it also has poor slurry-forming properties; therefore, it can only be used for dry coal powder gasification. GSP has already signed a contract with Orchid Group, but it is said that the leader who supported this partnership has left Orchid, and the other leaders are not very supportive of this technology; it remains to be seen whether it will actually be implemented.

Who can help me learn about Lurgi furnaces?

You can go check out the Shanxi Fertilizer Factory; they use Lurgi!

1. As far as I know, the FT value of anthracite in Jincheng is relatively high; according to various documents and sources, this FT value is generally above 1500 degrees, and such values are not suitable for GE technology.
2. Anthracite has low activity, making it unsuitable for coal slurry technology; dry coal powder technology is a viable option.
3. GSP has indeed signed an ammonia synthesis project with Lanhua; the Jincheng project is now under Lanhua Holdings, and the contract is said to have taken effect long ago.
4. CNOOC has recently been in talks with Jincheng regarding cooperation, and it seems those talks have been successful. Colin has signed a project in Kaiyang, but things have not been going well recently, and its progress in Jincheng is also limited.
5. Both GSP and Colin claim to belong to the same group, but GSP states that Colin can only handle biomass gasification – this was also mentioned by people from GSP. Domestic contracts signed by GSP are quite significant, while those signed by Colin are not as prominent; it’s possible this is the reason. Many people have pointed out that there are intellectual property issues with Collin; now that GSP belongs to Siemens, it’s unclear what actions Siemens will take. In summary, you can opt for dry coal powder technology; from an economic perspective, GSP and Collin are the better choices, but the final decision still requires your own investigation and understanding.

I’m not sure if it’s possible to modify the furnaces at East China University of Science and Technology to use dry feeding in order to adapt them to the coal quality available in Jincheng How to avoid the Shell&GSP mode? I’m not sure about investing.

Yankuang is also developing dry coal powder technology; it is said that pilot tests have already been carried out, but there isn’t much public information available. We’ll have to wait and see

In fact, I think it is also necessary to pay attention to the ash content of the raw coal. Although many pulverized coal gasification technologies are capable of handling coal with low calorific value and high ash melting points, whether the use of wet ash removal techniques is feasible when dealing with coal with high ash content remains a matter of debate.

If you don’t provide the analysis data for the coal, no one will be able to help you. Please provide the industrial analysis data, elemental analysis data, and ash fusion point data. In my opinion, it’s essential to choose mature technologies; one should not use them until the problems associated with Company S have been resolved – it’s up to those willing to take risks to do so. Company G still has no industrialization examples in China; it’s even worse off than Company S. It wants to serve as a test subject for others – whatever. There have been quite a few projects involving H technology recently; Hualu Hengsheng and Guotai have already started working on them. It’s important to ask them about any technical shortcomings they have and how to improve them. If the flow temperature is too high, there are problems with Company T; however, a cosolvent can be added to lower the ash melting point. It seems that this was the case in a bituminous coal project in Guizhou that they worked on. Bituminous coal generally has good slurry-forming properties, making it suitable for wet processing techniques. When it comes to technology selection, one must not focus solely on technical specifications. If you think Company S’s technology is excellent, but it has never been used over a long period of time, then it’s all for nothing. We Chinese should first see whether they work well or not before making a decision; we shouldn’t always be used as test subjects by others! ! ! :L Last edited by happydavy on 2007-12-20 10:35 ]

Based on experience, bituminous coal from Shanxi generally has a high ash melting point, so the BGL\Shell\GSP gasification technologies are suitable for use. However, it is necessary to compare the following aspects: 1. Since BGL produces syngas containing methane, tar, and other substances, it is generally suitable for urban gas production. 2. Shell and GSP have similar capabilities in processing coal with high melting points; the main differences lie in their production experience and the methods for recovering heat from the hot syngas. Shell has more production experience. Although there are currently issues associated with Shell, its technology remains advanced, whereas GSP has less experience, especially in terms of operating large-scale furnaces. 3. Shell uses waste heat recovery systems, which requires higher investment but results in higher efficiency in heat utilization. For example, in ammonia production, a gasification furnace with a coal feeding capacity of 2,000 tons can not only supply gas for downstream conversion units but also produce 100 tons of medium-pressure steam per unit time. This is equivalent to having a boiler with a capacity of 100 tons/h, and the cost can be recovered within 5–6 years. 4. Shell’s use of waste heat recovery systems is well-founded; it also employs such systems in its oil and gas conversion facilities in China, rather than using quenching methods like other facilities, which shows Shell’s emphasis on maximizing energy utilization. 5. Therefore, Shell is recommended for use

I basically agree with what was said above, but I think point 3 is not very objective. In the case of ammonia synthesis, the steam generated by the waste heat boilers is essentially used entirely in the downstream conversion units, with little capacity to supply steam externally.

It’s not about generating excess steam as a by-product; rather, it’s about producing medium-pressure saturated steam as a by-product. This way, the investment required for additional boilers is reduced, and the steam output increases as well.