Specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption in gasification
Thread Content
As important technical indicators for coal gasification, some patent holders of coal gasification technologies often claim that their specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption are very low when promoting the advantages of their technologies. In my view, there is a certain element of \"fraud\" in this, as factors affecting specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption include not only the coal gasification technology itself but also elements such as the moisture content and ash content of the coal, the particle size distribution of the coal, the slurry concentration (for water-coal slurry gasification technology), the gasification temperature, the gasification pressure, and operational experience. In fact, patent holders of coal gasification technologies are well aware of this, but they deliberately avoid discussing these limitations. I welcome everyone’s discussions and suggestions on this topic. :handshake
Generally, specific values for specific coal consumption and specific oxygen consumption can only be determined after conducting experiments on different types of coal; otherwise, it is merely an estimate
For gasification technologies of the same type, such as fluidized bed gasification, those with a high residual carbon content in the slag tend to have higher coal consumption
For a fixed furnace type and a fixed coal type, it provides excellent guidance in practical operations compared to coal consumption and oxygen consumption!
Specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption are just one of the indicators; what really matters is the level of technological advancement. For example, fixed-bed systems have the lowest specific oxygen consumption, so why do people still prefer to use clean coal gasification as a substitute?
When discussing a certain four-nozzle technology, it is often said that its oxygen consumption is lower by so much compared to that of Texaco, and its coal consumption is lower by so much – but this is too general. As the original poster mentioned, comparisons should be made after specifying certain conditions.
What the original poster said makes sense. There are too many types of coal, and their properties vary greatly. Even coal from the same mine, or even from the same mining site, can differ in properties. For the same set of equipment and the same type of coal, it is very meaningful to compare the specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption over different time periods. As for other scenarios, such as using different types of coal with the same equipment, comparisons of specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption can only serve as a reference. As for different pieces of equipment, comparability is only possible when the same type of coal is used; otherwise, it is not feasible or meaningful. What the developers said isn’t entirely without reason – it depends on the conditions under which the comparison is made. But others shouldn’t try to deceive people with such comparisons!
These two indicators vary depending on the coal type and the technology used, so there is no fixed value, but there is generally a range!
In my opinion, these two indicators are meaningful for coal gasification technology; they can indicate the level of advancement of such coal gasification techniques. The person on the 5th floor used the concept of oxygen consumption incorrectly – steam is used in fixed-bed systems
For different technologies, specific oxygen consumption and specific coal consumption may vary, and these are also indicators of the quality of a technology. Gasification patent holders are well aware of this, but they deliberately avoid discussing its limitations in order to exaggerate the merits of their own technology; LZ has already provided a fairly detailed analysis of the influencing factors. Technical comparisons should be conducted in a comprehensive manner, that is, it is necessary to consider under what conditions the comparison takes place. Those who need this technology should not be deceived by handshakes!
Theoretically, it should be slag and ash that contain as little carbon as possible, with a low calorific value – is this achievable? It’s a blessing that it can now be started and run for a longer time.