Comparison of gasification processes

There are issues with the several vaporization methods you are comparing. For example, there is very little experience in the industrial application of GSP, and its capacity does not reach 2500 t/d; the highest capacity currently available is 720 t/d. Even with Shell, there are many industrial-related problems that have not yet been resolved. Additionally, there are issues related to the suitability of the raw materials. Therefore, it’s best to provide accurate information when uploading data, otherwise it may lead to misunderstandings

When will we have technologies with our own independent intellectual property rights?

Back to the upper floor: There are also many gasification technologies in China, including dry powder gasification and coal water slurry gasification, with numerous practical applications of these technologies. Of course, it is used more by small businesses. Nevertheless, domestic coal chemical research institutions should still increase efforts in technology development!

Compared with advanced foreign coal gasification technologies such as TEXACO, Shell, and GSP, the ash fusion fluidized bed pulverized coal gasification (CAGGTM) technology has the following relative advantages: 1. The particle size of the coal feedstock used in CAGGTM is generally ≤6 mm, so the coal powder generated during the coal production process can be used directly, unlike the gasification technologies of TEXACO, Shell, and GSP, which require the coal feedstock to be ground into fine powder. The preparation process of raw coal is relatively much simpler, and it is highly suitable for the situation where an increase in the proportion of pulverized coal occurs as a result of higher mechanization levels in coal mining, making it necessary to make rational and effective use of this pulverized coal. 2. Advanced foreign coal gasification technologies such as TEXACO, Shell, and GSP are indeed sophisticated and efficient, but they are not perfect. Due to the use of slag gasification, they have certain limitations in terms of their applicability; they are unable to efficiently gasify low-quality coals that are high in moisture, ash content, and ash melting point ； The TEXACO gasification technology places high demands on the grindability and slurry-forming capacity of coal, as well as the viscosity-temperature properties of its ash ； The cost of processing coal before feeding it into the furnace is high ； It has disadvantages such as a complex device structure, high costs for introduction, and high investment expenses. 3. The CAGGTM technology for coal gasification using a gray fused-bed fluidized bed features moderate operating temperatures and a solid slag discharge system, which enables it to adapt to a wide range of coal types, as well as ensuring an ample supply of raw material coal powder ； Capable of efficiently gasifying high-sulfur, high-ash, high-ash-melting-point, and low-reactivity coal powder ； Lower oxygen consumption and investment requirements ； The cost of processing coal before feeding it into the furnace is low ； It has the advantages of a simple structure, ease of operation, and convenience in maintenance management. Compared with TEXACO, Shell, and GSP, gasification units of the same scale require 40–50% less investment, have 20–30% lower oxygen consumption, and result in gas costs that are 10–15% lower. 4. Since the operating temperature of the gasifier in the Ash Fusion Fluidized Bed Pulverized Coal Gasification (CAGGTM) technology is lower than that of the TEXACO system, the service life of the refractory materials in the gasifier is relatively longer. 5. The CAGGTM technology for powder coal gasification in a gray fused-bed fluidized bed boasts advantages such as easy start-up and shutdown operations, as well as flexible adjustment of production capacity, owing to the large heat capacity of its gasifier; these are advantages over gasification technologies like TEXACO, Shell, and GSP. 6. The CAGGTM technology for coal gasification using a gray fused-bed fluidized bed is a new type of coal gasification technique that suits China’s national conditions, possesses independent intellectual property rights, and reaches international advanced levels. Compared with TEXACO, Shell, and GSP, it requires less investment and lower patent costs, which facilitates its widespread adoption among numerous enterprises in China.

The original poster’s comparison is somewhat one-sided; the pressurized fluidized bed vaporization technology doesn’t mention domestic technologies such as the four-nozzle system and oil-coal slurry technology. Is this an attempt to avoid addressing this issue? There are also domestic technologies such as ash pyrolysis technology, two-stage fluidized bed technology, and the vaporization technology developed by Tsinghua University. It’s best to be realistic to avoid misleading friends from Sichuan!

The point is that there are many good technologies available domestically, but unfortunately people have to turn to foreign ones; without addressing the flaws in the system and management, it’s difficult to achieve scientific development. The true soft technologies, that is, the mature core technologies used in engineering abroad, have not been widely introduced into China; instead, they mainly supply us with low-end equipment manufacturing capabilities. In many areas, we are still dependent on others. What people in China talk about as \"digesting and innovating\" is actually just an excuse used by corporate managers who think, \"Since the land isn’t mine, I can plant whatever I want.\" :lol

Comparison of Key Technical Parameters between Multi-nozzle Gasification Furnaces and Texaco Furnaces
Furnace Type | Specifications | Coal Consumption (t/d) | Raw Material | Coal Type | Effective Gas (CO+H2)% | Oxygen Ratio (Nm3/kNm3) | CO+H2 per Kilogram of Coal (kg/kNm3) | CO+H2 Conversion Rate (%) | Data Source
Guotai Multi-nozzle | 1150 | Beisu | 84.9 | 309 | 535 | >98 | Data from 2005
Luhua Texaco | 320 | Beisu | 82 | 336 | 547 | 96–98 | Data from the same period
Hualu Hengsheng Multi-nozzle | 750 | Shenfu | 83.5 | 631 | >99 | Operational statistics from June 22–July 1, 2005
Hualu Hengsheng Texaco | 500 | Shenfu | 631 | 95–96 | Data from the same period
Shanghai Coking Texaco | 500 | Shenfu | 81 | 412 | 638 | 95–96 | Data from 2004
Fertilizer Industry: Weihe Texaco | 750 | Huating | 78 | 415 | 627 | 95–96 | Data from 2005
Large-scale Fertilizer Production: Huainan Texaco | 500 | Huating, Yima | 77 | 425 | 702 | 95–96 | Data from 2002
Texaco Users’ Conference Proceedings