What are some cost-saving tips for Shell gasification?

I agree with the comments above; the listed measures are also feasible. Additional details are as follows: 1. Whether preliminary water treatment can be eliminated and the water can be sent directly to the plant’s final wastewater treatment system depends on whether the design of that final treatment system takes into account a margin for excess flow. This could be a good approach for new projects. 2. For quench gas compressors, given the temperature and corrosiveness of the gas, it is unlikely that domestic alternatives can be used in the short term, and companies are also unwilling to take the risk. 3. For high-temperature ceramic filters, some companies are already using domestic components, so the risk is low. 4. Personal analysis of burners: In the next two years, some companies will switch to domestic burners. In fact, some companies are already using them, but they are hesitant to make this public for fear that SHELL might raise objections. 5. There are no technical risks associated with using 304 material for oxygen pipelines. 6. The most effective way to reduce investment is to localize the production of gasifiers; the key lies in the localization of materials. In fact, the heat-resistant steel SA387, which is used primarily in gasifiers, can already be produced in China (by Wuyang Iron and Steel Company under Handan Iron and Steel Group). However, given the extreme importance of gasifiers, people are reluctant to take risks, and moreover, SHELL would certainly not agree to the use of domestic materials. 7. As for changing the quenching process, in my opinion, although SHELL has been in frequent contact with Xi’an Thermal Power Institute and the 11th Aerospace Research Institute recently, it will still take at least 3-5 years before industrialization can be achieved. Once the quenching process is industrialized, the total investment in pressurized powder coal gasification is expected to decrease by at least 20%, which is what everyone hopes for. This post was last edited by zjyang168168 on 2007-12-20 16:55.]

The brother upstairs spoke very well; I’d like to add a few of my personal thoughts. It’s hard to say whether they can be implemented, but everyone can discuss it. 1. The treatment of sludge and ash water at Shell is indeed quite complex, involving the addition of both acids and alkalis; all of this ends up in the wastewater discharged, increasing the burden and difficulty of wastewater treatment ； The intelligence involved in some areas is also quite expensive, which might be related to the more conservative nature of foreign companies. It might be worth taking a look at the process for treating ash in the water-coal slurry process. It’s simple and straightforward: no acids or bases are used, and heat is effectively recovered after staged flash evaporation. The treatment results are also good. Are there any aspects that could serve as a model to follow? 2. The performance and energy consumption of emergency cooling air compressors have long been a source of criticism, yet they represent a very critical component of the process itself; any issue with them can lead to the shutdown of the entire installation. I’m wondering if it’s possible to use direct quenching with a water spray Of course, the operating conditions involved are indeed quite severe; factors such as high temperatures, slag formation, and even the situation where quench water dries up all need to be taken into proper consideration. The challenge is considerable, but the advantages are many: it is easy to control, energy consumption is low, and it allows for further humidification of the syngas, resulting in an increased total volume of the crude syngas downstream (since the latent heat of water means that a large amount of water is required to achieve cooling). Shell’s upcoming quenching process takes into account some form of water quenching, but it still relies on using syngas for quenching before employing water-based quenching. I believe it would be better to increase research efforts to fully replace the current gas-based quenching method with water-based quenching. (The difficulty is indeed high.) 3. The development of a full quenching process should also be put on the agenda. For coal with a high ash content, dry ash removal offers many advantages; although the initial investment is higher, it is indeed worth it. However, when dealing with coal types with a low ash content, the advantages of dry ash removal are significantly reduced. In such cases, if a fully quenching process can be adapted to this situation, it is believed that a good balance can be achieved in terms of investment and plant performance. 4. The section of the oxygen pipeline near the burner should still be made of nickel-based alloys; this is also the practice in coal water slurry systems, primarily for safety reasons. The money spent on this is well spent. In terms of graywater treatment, the use of duplex steel in many water-coal slurry plants is very limited; there are also some successful cases. Of course, there are differences between the two processes, but some of the experiences gained can still be utilized as a reference.