Information on multi-component slurries

Is there really no one who has information on this? It can’t be found on the China Journal Network either; it’s urgently needed

So far, all the plants you mentioned are those that use multi-material slurry gasification technology and have been in operation for several years; they operate stably. Zhejiang Fengdeng uses Shenfu coal supplied by Shanghai Coking Plant, and Hualu also uses Shenfu coal. The efficiency of gas production (Co+H2) is above 80%, while the coal consumption is around 600 kg/kNm3 of (Co+H2), which is quite good

Good, could you be more detailed? For example, the components of the syngas, the gas production volume, and the investment aspects. The coal consumption is 600 kg per 1000 m3 of effective gas – isn’t that a bit too high? It differs significantly from Texaco’s technology, where the coal consumption is 550 kg

You’re all about to start, and you still don’t know the technical details? ? ? ? It’s really puzzling; they should have explained it to you clearly. In my opinion, it should be the same as that of Texaco, because it’s related to Texaco products; it’s called multi-material slurry. Think about it: is multi-material slurry a feeding method or a gasifier? ? ? GE has feedstocks that are coal water slurry; some of the feedstocks contain waste methanol, others contain residue oil, some contain petroleum coke, and still others contain sludge. The same is true for the four-nozzle setup; anything can go in, and that’s how the liquid feed enters. So are they also multi-component slurries? o(∩_∩)o... Haha.

Multi-material slurries are called multi-component slurries, but it’s actually all just a form of deception. Why is that? Afraid that some German antique company will sue for copyright infringement! In fact, the so-called multi-material slurry technology mentioned nowadays is actually that old German technique! Full name: German-style high-pressure water-coal slurry gasification technology! The domestic ones are just copies; but when it comes to their specific specifications, they are inferior to the German-style traditional ones! For example, the carbon content in the coarse residue: 5% for the German-type process, compared to 10% for the multi-material slurry! I suggest that for smaller units that burn 30–50 cubic meters of coal slurry per hour, domestic technology is sufficient; for larger units that burn more than 60 cubic meters per hour, German-style technology should be used! When the furnace is large, the immaturity of the technology becomes apparent! Now, the stoves of De Germanic Ancient Company are being modified by them themselves!

It seems that those on the 6th floor don’t know much about multi-component slurries. It was originally the case that there were no patents for multi-component slurry gasification technology; it was considered proprietary technology. Now, however, patents do exist – one can find them on patent databases under the title “A process for gasifying multi-component slurries”. The patent was granted by the Patent Office in June 2006. As for the carbon content in the coarse slag, that’s what really misleads people. What is usually mentioned is the carbon conversion rate. If the coal has a high ash content, then more slag is produced, and the carbon content in the coarse slag is low. If the coal has a low ash content, less slag is formed, and the carbon content is higher. In the case of burning slag oil, due to its extremely low ash content, the coarse slag consists essentially of unconverted carbon, with a carbon content of 90% in it. How can you say that its quality is poor?

In response to the person on the fourth floor: a coal consumption rate of 550 is indeed quite good. In reality, coal consumption is closely related to the composition of the coal type. Take Shenfu coal, which is currently considered the best quality coal in China, as an example. If the coal consumption is 550 Kg/KNm3 (CO+H2), and assuming that about 2150 Nm3 of CO+H2 are required per ton of synthetic ammonia produced, then the coal consumption per ton of ammonia would be 550*2.15=1182.5 Kg. You might want to ask which company has managed to achieve such a low level of coal consumption In fact, for the TEXACO units currently in operation, the best option is to use Shenfu coal as employed by the Shanghai Coking Plant, with a coal consumption of around 1,350 Kg per ton of ammonia produced. If the coal consumption is 550 Kg, think about it: a plant producing 300,000 tons of synthetic ammonia doesn’t need to be designed with a daily coal input of 1,500 tons; 1,200 tons per day would suffice. This would allow for a significant reduction in investment costs. Therefore, it seems that a coal consumption of 550 Kg/KNm3 (CO+H2) is purely an exaggeration, and it’s necessary to conduct a thorough analysis before making any decisions – one shouldn’t rely on promotional claims.

How are the operations of these three companies that are already using multi-material slurries performing? What are the coal input amounts, gas production volumes, and other relevant parameters?

It seems that Huaihua has already started trial operations; you can go there and take a look