Comparison of investment costs for fluidized bed gasifiers
Thread Content
Who can provide a comparison of the investment costs for fluidized bed gasifiers? I think, in general, the order is Shell > four-nozzle type > Texaco > GSP > multi-material slurry type > two-stage type > staged fluidized bed > space furnace. I’m not sure if my order is correct or if there are any types I missed. I hope everyone can give some advice
I think the order should be like this: shell > two-stage > four-nozzle > GSP > space furnace > Texaco > multi-material slurry > classified fluidized bed. Generally, the investment required for a dry feed + waste boiler process is higher than that for a wet feed + quenching process. This post was last edited by zhangjsh1972 on 2007-12-26 08:35.]
Baotou Hualu is considering adopting it precisely because of its lower cost for a two-stage setup. Our company is also considering adopting this technology to save money, and it is ranked second among the priorities. :o
What is the investment cost for various gasification furnaces? What are the costs for starting up and shutting down? What about energy consumption and emissions? I hope some more specific data can be provided.
In response to the second floor: two-stage gasifiers also fall under the category of dry gasification. Although there are no industrial-scale installations available yet, the investment required is likely to be quite high. Overall, I agree with the views expressed by the second floor； Furthermore, the investment for the dry feed + waste boiler process should be higher, not lower, than that for the wet feed + quenching process.
Apart from SHELL using waste heat boilers, two-stage, GSP, and the aerospace industry also use quenching.
shell>Four nozzles > Texaco > GSP > Multi-component slurry > Two-stage > Graded fluidized bed > Space furnace. Is this sequence correct? Please give me some advice. :handshake
Oh, thank you for the reminder. Indeed, the investment required for the dry powder feeding + waste boiler process is higher than that for the wet feeding + quenching process. The original post contained an error, and it has been corrected.
Both the two-stage type and GSP as well as those used in the aerospace industry employ quenching techniques. Moreover, no backup furnace is required. I think the investment cost is lower than that for Texaco; (two-stage type > four-nozzle type > GSP > aerospace furnaces > Texaco)??????? Additionally, both the two-stage type and aerospace furnaces utilize domestic technology, so their performance is superior to that of Texaco’s.
What are the criteria, and how was the conclusion reached?
Basic investment principles: Water-cooled furnaces are 30% more expensive than refractory brick furnaces; those with waste heat recovery systems are 80% more expensive than those with quenching systems; for the same type of furnace, multi-nozzle versions are more costly than single-nozzle versions. Thus, the order of cost is: GE + radiation waste heat recovery system > two-stage furnace + waste heat recovery system > Shell + waste heat recovery system > two-stage furnace + quenching system > GSP + quenching system > aerospace furnace + quenching system > four-nozzle system + quenching system > GE + quenching system. According to investigations, if import taxes can be waived, imported equipment is not necessarily more expensive than domestically produced equipment, especially for those that can be manufactured locally.