Selection of technology for a new fertilizer plant with an annual capacity of 300,000 tons of synthetic ammonia

1. Low patent fees； 2. All have strong industrial performance ；

I think 1.4 billion isn’t enough if multiple nozzles are used! Aren’t the costs of equipment with multiple nozzles even higher than those of TEXACO?

1.4 billion yuan is not enough just for ammonia synthesis; if urea is also produced, the amount should be around 2.5 billion yuan. 300,000 tons of synthetic ammonia is not considered a large volume; a multi-component slurry is recommended.

Investment is quite tight. Have you done any experiments? Is it suitable for water-coal slurry technology? The two-stage furnace hasn’t had much performance so far; it’s better to wait until it gets a project

We have also considered two-stage furnaces; currently, three projects have already been signed.

It’s still in the planning stage at the moment; no experiments have been conducted yet. How about using a space furnace?

Personal opinion: 1. This coal type has a high volatility content and a moderate ash melting point, making it an ideal raw material for coal water slurry gasification; it can be used in both GE and multi-nozzle coal water slurry gasification processes. 2. It is also possible to use SHELL powder for gasification, but the total investment is about 15% higher than that of water-coal slurry. 3. If the coal-water slurry process is used, there are two options for the gasifiers: ·Option 1: Two gasifiers, one in operation and one as a backup, with a gasification pressure of 8.5 MPa; the daily coal input per gasifier is 1,500 tons, similar to the configuration used by Sinopec Nanhua Company. ·Option 2: three gasification units, with two in operation and one as a backup; the gasification pressure is 6.0 MPa, and the daily coal input per unit is 800–1000 tons, similar to the configuration used on the Wei River in Shaanxi. My personal opinion leans towards Option 2. 4. Other recommended configurations and processes: · Oxygen generation unit for gasification: oxygen production capacity of 40,000 Nm3/h, with an internal compression process ； ·Transformation: Wide-temperature sulfur-tolerant transformation ； ·Desulfurization and decarbonization: Low-temperature methanol washing ； ·Refining: Liquid nitrogen washing ； ·Ammonia synthesis: Low-pressure energy-saving ammonia synthesis process ； ·Hydrogen recovery: membrane separation process ； ·Urea: Carbon dioxide stripping process ； ·Thermal power plant: Two 130 t/h medium-temperature and medium-pressure circulating fluidized bed boilers. 5. The total investment for the project is estimated to be around 2.2 billion yuan, and this does not include any contingency funds. After all, there is still significant pressure due to rising prices, so 1.4 billion yuan is definitely not sufficient. This post was last edited by zjyang168168 on 2007-12-18 11:55.]

The investment for producing 300,000 tons of ammonia and 520,000 tons of urea using multiple slurries at the Northwest Plant ranges from 2.25 to 2.4 billion yuan; using SHELL’s technology can save around 700 million to 800 million yuan, but the choice of process depends on your coal-based production capabilities.

They said upstairs that using SHELL can save money, but that’s unlikely! Is that the opposite of what should be said?

Agree with what was said on floor 8, and would like to add the following. 1. The vaporization pressure is 6.5 MPa, not 6.0 MPa ； 2. The air separation unit needs to be designed based on the type of coal; it’s hard to say whether 40,000 is sufficient – it should be designed for 45,000 Nm3/H, as it is currently difficult for domestic air separation units to reach such a design capacity ； 3. The investment cost for the equipment is estimated to be 2 billion, unless too many imported components are used

What technology was used for the 2 billion upstairs?

My opinion is as follows: Firstly, this type of coal is very suitable for water-coal slurry gasification, as it has a low ash melting point, low ash content, low moisture content, and a high calorific value; therefore, both the oxygen consumption and coal consumption should be satisfactory. Using a Shell furnace is certainly an option, but the investment required for the gasification section is much higher, and the by-produced steam has to be used entirely in the shift unit, which makes it not cost-effective. Although oxygen and coal consumption are lower, current operating systems do not allow for long-term operation without a backup furnace; therefore, its use in such applications is not recommended, especially in ammonia synthesis plants. For a synthetic ammonia production capacity of 300,000 tons per year, the effective volume of synthesis gas should be either 80,000 Nm3/h (8,000 hours per year) or 89,000 Nm3/h (7,200 hours per year). This can be achieved using 3.2-meter-diameter gasifiers in a one-operational-one-backup configuration at a pressure of 6.5 MPa; the corresponding coal consumption is around 1,300 or 1,500 tons per day ； Of course, it is also possible to use gasification furnaces with a diameter of 2.8 meters, two in operation and one as a backup, but the investment cost will be slightly higher compared to the previous option. Due to the high quality of the coal, oxygen consumption will not be very high; a capacity of 36,000 or 40,000 Nm3/h should be sufficient. If it is necessary to increase the production load in the future, a larger capacity can also be considered. The process configuration provided on the 8th floor is very suitable. From an investment perspective, if we consider only the cost of the process equipment, 1.4 billion should be sufficient. However, for a new facility, utility systems and auxiliary facilities are essential; adding in land acquisition and various other financial costs, 2.4 billion might be a more realistic estimate.

The total investment for building a new plant using Shell’s gasification technology to produce 500,000 tons of synthetic ammonia is around 3 billion. Since liquid nitrogen is used in the synthesis process, there is no need for a hydrogen recovery system. The main costs for the various facilities are as follows: 1 billion for the coal gasification unit, 500 million for the synthesis complex, 250 million for the heat and power generation system, and 180 million for the air separation unit

Are those the actual figures for the 3 units invested in by Sinopec upstairs? 180 million for air separation units is definitely unattainable at the moment; even domestic air separation units with a capacity of 40,000 units now cost over 200 million. Moreover, Shell’s gasification process for producing 500,000 tons of synthetic ammonia requires air separation units with a capacity of around 50,000 units, which means the cost will be at least 300 million.

Zhongyuan Dahuahua’s air separation unit with a capacity of 52,000 Nm3/h is entirely domestically produced, and it achieved successful operation from the first attempt.

I have heard before that there are domestic air separation units with a capacity of 40,000 units that use entirely domestic equipment, but for air separation units with a capacity of over 40,000 units, users generally opt for imported equipment for the key components such as compressors and boosters; I have not heard of any large-scale air separation unit that is fully domestically manufactured. I’m also in the gas industry now, and I’m quite interested in this field. Could you provide detailed information on the suppliers of complete air separation systems as well as the key equipment used in such systems? Also, is the price you mentioned just the cost of the equipment itself, or does it already include the costs for construction and installation? If it really is the construction cost, then there will basically be no room for competition in importing air separation units in the future. :lol

First, decide whether to use dry coal powder or slurry coal. Economic comparison should start with an analysis of investment and operating costs, rather than focusing solely on investment. If you buy a \"old man\" at a low price and take him home, will your life get better from then on? If it comes to water-coal slurry, GE, multi-component slurries, and multi-nozzle technology, there are little differences; the only thing is that in China the patent fees and technical service costs are low, and in some cases services can even be provided on demand at no cost. In terms of investment, multi-nozzle systems require more investment than GE and multi-material slurry systems. The water-coal slurry technology is highly mature, and there are many manufacturers available for reference; however, the current refractory bricks and burners affect the operational life of the entire equipment. Several million are spent each year on replacing refractory bricks, and their oxygen consumption is higher than that of dry coal powder; moreover, they have poor adaptability to different types of coal. For dry coal powder: Shell, GSP, Collin, two-stage furnace, space furnace. Among them, Shell and two-stage furnaces represent one approach, which is more suitable for power generation; I believe it is not appropriate for producing synthetic ammonia, not only due to investment reasons but also as pointed out by many domestic experts on multiple occasions. GSP, Colin – the space furnace is like children born to a mother at different times. GSP currently has two major projects: one is methanol and the other is synthetic ammonia. Reports indicate that the project it signed for, which involves 300,000 tons of synthetic ammonia and 520,000 tons of urea, also includes 100,000 tons of methanol, with a total investment of around 2 billion. Collin signed for 500,000 tons of synthetic ammonia; urea is not produced, and the total investment is around 2.4 billion. The largest scale for space-based furnaces at present is 200,000 tons of methanol. There is limited data available regarding investment costs; compared to GSP Colin, patent fees are saved, and the equipment is manufactured domestically. Consult the design institute; some money will still need to be spent.

As an additional note, if you use fluidized bed technology, regardless of which manufacturer’s system it is, 1.4 billion is definitely not enough at present. Moreover, you will need to have at least another 100 million in working capital to get the system up and running; otherwise, you could go from being wealthy to being in debt. In southern Shandong, the Shuanghuan incident serves as a lesson from the past

As a supplementary note, how much land area is required to build a plant for producing 300,000 tons of coal-based synthetic ammonia, and how much of that is needed for construction purposes? What is the total land area of the project, how much are the fixed assets, and what about the current assets? I hope everyone will contribute their ideas and continue to uphold this spirit; thank you all!