Which gasification process is more suitable for producing methanol?

Coal water slurry pressurized gasification technology is more suitable. This technology is available from GE Texaco technology, East China University of Science and Technology's four-nozzle technology, and Tsinghua University's slag-non-slag graded gasification technology.

Texaco’s coal-water slurry gasification has very mature technology

Brief reply: 1. The choice of gasification process is mainly determined by the type of coal used. 2. From a technical perspective, coal-water slurry gasification (including multi-nozzle from GE and East China University of Science and Technology or two-stage gasification from Tsinghua University) and pulverized coal pressurized gasification (SHELL, two-stage furnace) can meet the requirements. 3. Most of the currently operating devices use coal-water slurry to produce methanol. This is mainly because SHELL’s devices that use carbon dioxide as pulverized coal to transport pulverized coal as a medium (including Zhongyuan Dahua, Henan Kaixiang Chemical, and Henan Yongcheng Coal and Electricity Longyu Coal Chemical. These devices have now entered the trial run stage and will be put into production soon) have not been put into operation and lack support from actual operating data. 4. If the coal type is anthracite coal-water slurry with a high ash melting point, it is not suitable, and dry pulverized coal gasification may only be used.

4 nozzles are more efficient... 4.0MPA is probably enough for 100W tons. Considering future development, there are 6.5MPA and 8.7MPA for you to choose from... Investment and construction funds will also increase with the pressure...

The reasons are as follows: 1. Shell can use lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal and other coal types as well as petroleum coke as raw materials, or it can also use a blend of the two types of coal. The raw material adaptability is good, and low-quality coal with high ash content (5.7-24.5%, up to 35%), high moisture (4.5-30.7%) and high sulfur content can be successfully gasified. 2. Low oxygen consumption. Compared with coal-water slurry gasification, dry coal pulverized feed does not need to evaporate water in the furnace, so the oxygen consumption can be reduced by 15 to 25%, thereby reducing costs. The scale of the supporting air separation unit is relatively small, and the investment can be reduced accordingly. 3. The wastewater discharge volume is small. The wastewater volume of a gasifier with a daily coal input of 2500t/d is about 20m3/h. 4. The gasification temperature is high, generally 1400~1600℃, the carbon conversion rate is as high as 99%, and the syngas quality is good. The methane content in coal gas is very small, about 0.1%, does not contain heavy hydrocarbons, and (CO+H2) reaches 90%. This is particularly important for methanol production. We know that methane does not participate in the reaction in the methanol synthesis tower and is an inert gas. Low inert gas content means less purge gas and less effective synthesis gas emissions, which is conducive to increasing methanol production and correspondingly low energy consumption. Therefore, Shell coal gasification technology is the best

I think that when discussing which coal gasification technology is more suitable for producing methanol, at least the following aspects should be considered: 1. The composition of the crude gas after coal gasification is closer to the composition ratio required for methanol synthesis. 2. The impurity components and entrained ash in the crude gas should be as small as possible, and they should be easily removed through subsequent purification processes. 3. The pressure of the generated crude gas should be as low as possible. The amount is close to the pressure of methanol synthesis. 4. Considering the maturity of the technology, the factory is different from the laboratory. Try not to be the first to eat crabs. As Mr. Li Shaolei, the former chief engineer of Hualu Hengsheng, said, "It is best to copy the gourd." 5. From unit investment, coal purchase cost, coal processing and transportation before entering the furnace, coal gasification, ash treatment, crude gas preliminary purification, conversion, decarbonization, desulfurization to methanol synthesis and other processes, the raw and auxiliary material consumption cost, energy consumption cost, regular maintenance cost, labor cost, sewage cost, etc. Generally consider the manufacturing cost of coal-to-methanol. This post is finally written by sdz * a Edited at 2008-1-6 19:58 ]

I quite agree with 7#'s statement. When choosing which coal gasification method to choose, all factors should be considered comprehensively to maximize the benefits of the plant. Don't simply compare the advantages and disadvantages of coal gasification methods. The best may not necessarily be the most suitable.

In terms of energy conservation, the 6.5MPa process should be used, which saves compressors during methanol synthesis. The choice of furnace shape mainly depends on the type of coal you want to use. Three-high coal is not suitable for Texaco gasification. GSP, shell and other pulverized coal gasification can be used. Also, I wish you good luck with your project! !

I think this may be related to the region. There should be some differences between the north, which basically uses coal, and the south, which uses natural gas to produce methanol.

Is this the IGCC project that the poster mentioned? As far as I know, the IGCC project does not produce methanol, but mainly generates electricity.

At present, the relatively advanced large-scale gasification technologies include Texaco coal-water slurry gasification technology, Shell pulverized coal pressurized gasification technology, GSP pulverized coal pressurized gasification technology, multi-nozzle new coal-water slurry gasification technology and multi-component slurry pressurized gasification technology. (1) Shell gasification technology, which uses pure oxygen, steam gasification, dry powder feeding, gasification temperature of 1400~1700°C, carbon conversion rate of 99%, effective gas (CO+H2) of more than 90%, and liquid slag discharge. Using dry powder gasification, the oxygen consumption is low. However, it requires nitrogen sealing, the gasification pressure cannot be too high, the structure is complex and bulky, and the equipment costs and patent fees are relatively high. The supply period of Shell gasifiers is long, generally not less than 18 months, and the localization rate of key equipment is low, which makes the investment of Shell gasifiers high and the construction period long, increasing investment risks. (2) Texaco gasification technology, the gasification temperature is 1300~1400°C, a single furnace can process a large amount of coal, the maximum daily coal processing capacity of a single furnace is 2000 tons, and the production capacity is high. Under the same methanol synthesis purge gas, Shell gasification is 21K more productive than Texaco gasification. g methanol/ton of coal. However, since the inert component content in the methanol synthesis gas of Shell gasification is about 5%, the amount of methanol synthesis purge gas is three times that of Texaco gasification methanol synthesis purge gas. Texaco gasified coal has wide adaptability, small amount of three wastes, light environmental pollution, and the waste residue can be used as cement raw material. (3) GSP gasification technology. GSP gasification technology is a water-cooled wall gasification technology developed by the German Future Energy Company. It uses dry pulverized coal as feed and pure oxygen and steam for gasification. The gasification temperature is 1400~1600°C, the carbon conversion rate is greater than 99%, and the equipment cost is low. However, there are very few industrial installations of GSP gasification technology in the world, and this technology has yet to be verified in practice.

What you are talking about is not a simple IGCC project, it should be a coal and electricity polygeneration project. If methanol is simply synthesized, as far as the current gasification technology is concerned, wet gasification technology should be the most reasonable. It can convert the CO content to ~45%. Partial conversion can meet the requirements for methanol synthesis. The conversion burden is much lower than that of dry gasification, and the investment will be much lower. Dry gasification converts the CO content to ~63%. To meet the requirements for methanol synthesis, the conversion burden is heavy and the investment is high. At the same time, due to the entrained N2, the air speed of the entire conversion system is much larger, the synthesis purge gas volume is large, and the circulation volume is large. Moreover, due to the presence of N2, the methanol synthesis efficiency has a certain impact. If it is a power generation project, the efficiency of IGCC is because the high-pressure superheated steam generated by dry gasification can be used to generate electricity using a steam turbine. Unlike wet gasification, which mainly generates medium and low-pressure saturated steam, the power generation efficiency of dry gasification is higher. If gasification technology is selected for polygeneration, the choice must be based on many factors, which cannot be explained clearly in one or two sentences.

I think Texaco's coal-water slurry technology is a good fit.

SES is also working on coal and electricity cogeneration. It seems that the company's project in Zaozhuang, Shandong is nearing completion.

It is more suitable to use dry pulverized coal gasification such as shell for IGCC. The outlet CO2 is low, CO+H2 is high, and the waste boiler process can also produce steam. It is better to produce syngas (methanol, synthetic ammonia) coal-water slurry such as texco. The quenching process saves investment and also provides the steam needed for transformation. What is the purpose of methanol in the IGCC project? Peaking adjustment or increasing product variety? Series operation or parallel operation? Therefore, the technology used must serve the purpose and requirements of the project. In fact, I have never done such a project, it is just my personal opinion.

It is recommended to take a good look at the current application status of SHELL, four nozzles and GE. It is recommended to use mature and reliable ones.

For methanol production, wet gasification such as coal-water slurry and semi-waste boiler process are the best, which can produce high-grade steam and provide variable steam at the same time. But this kind of technology seems to be rare in the world. Everyone is using the chill process. IGCC, the people above have made a good point. It is actually very difficult to take into account both the factors and utilize them comprehensively and efficiently. I think the first thing is to consider the route of the coal and choose the appropriate gasification method. The second thing is how to efficiently utilize the generated coal gas and use up the high-grade heat in it to generate high-pressure steam.

Texaco stove technology is relatively mature. This post was last edited by Lang Taosha on 2008-3-13 20:16 ]

Why did the poster disappear after raising a question? The IGCC project must be mainly focused on power generation. It is probably another coal chemical project with IGCC as its name. It uses the name of IGCC to get some money from the Ministry of Science and Technology, haha. I hope the original poster can introduce it in detail.

In fact, no matter which coal gasification technology is used to produce methanol, it is possible; only the requirements for conversion rate are different; many factors should be taken into consideration when selecting technology: First of all, we should consider the maturity of the technology, but also the construction cost; the degree of localization of the equipment; the domestic technology support situation. From the current status of domestic coal gasification technology, we should focus on coal-water slurry gasification technology. At present, the investment in SHELL gasification unit products is high, and there are still some problems in engineering. In fact, there have been some discussions in the forum. The operation cycle should be at least 300 days per year. Otherwise, the loss caused by a shutdown (whether planned or accidental) will be more than one million yuan. The current coal water slurry gasification technology has single nozzles and four nozzles; the single nozzle has the technology of GE and the Northwest Chemical Research Institute; the Northwest Research Institute technology is a domestic technology with independent intellectual property rights. Since most of GE's patents have expired, there is actually no need to spend so much foreign exchange to purchase GE's patents; the four-jet technology The technology of the mouth is from East China University of Science and Technology. The purpose of development at that time was to break GE's technology monopoly. The investment was relatively high. The industrialized device has been running for more than three years and is considered a mature technology. Other technologies include Lurgi's pressurized fixed bed coal gasification technology, which is not suitable for chemical synthesis because of its poor gas composition. Taken together, it is best to choose the technology from the Northwest Chemical Research Institute of China. This post was last edited by TE1530926 at 2008-2-2 20:54 ]