Which is better between catalytic and coking processing routes?
Thread Content
Catalysis and coking are important methods for secondary processing of crude oil, each with its own merits. But I personally think that the coking processing route is better than the catalytic processing route. The reasons are as follows: 1. Coking has a wider selection of raw materials than catalysis. 2. Also accompanied by coking and hydrogen transfer reactions, coking produces the final tangible product petroleum coke or needle coke. No matter how much coke is catalytically generated, there is only one final destination.: Burn it! It generally accounts for about 3-5% of the raw materials, which is a pity. 3. The energy consumption of catalytic processing is on average 10 times higher than that of coking. 4. As explained in 2, the carbon dioxide emitted from the catalytically burned coke has a huge impact on the greenhouse effect and competes with humans for oxygen. Although the crude oil entering the refinery and even the crude oil extracted by humans is destined to be burned, it should not be in the factory! Although Mr. Min, as a great man of his generation, has achieved high honors in researching catalysts, ； Although the petroleum industry has attached great importance to catalysis for many years, ； Personally, I think there are three obvious shortcomings in the catalysis and coking processing routes.: The energy consumption is high, the losses are large, and a lot of waste gas is emitted into the environment. Which one is better and which one is worse is obvious.
Fuel must be burned wherever it is, no matter where it is. Today's industrialization will inevitably bring about this reality. Unless there is technology to harness energy sources such as solar energy and renewable biomass, it will be the same.
Catalytic dry gas can be used in other devices, such as furnaces, hydrogen production, etc., while coking furnaces require dry gas； The coke yield reaches 20%, and the price is only 1/3 of refined oil. ； The market price of coked naphtha is more than 300 yuan/ton cheaper than 90# gasoline. Catalytic coke is used to generate steam. If the refinery burns heavy oil to generate steam, then the catalytic route is better than the coking route.
Yes, 3-5% of the catalyzed petroleum coke is used for burning, but the final result of coking of more than 20% or higher petroleum coke is also used for burning. What is more, burning does not mean that the coke we burn will not be used. We will also use 3-5% of the heat source to generate electricity and generate steam. This means that this kind of heat is not wasted. What's more, the quality of the products we produce through catalysis is definitely superior to deep processing routes such as coking. From a comprehensive consideration of economy and energy, the catalytic route is better than the coking route.
Regarding the current research on the processing and utilization of heavy oil and the research on converting coal into oil, it would be too inappropriate if more people choose coking to turn oil into coal.
Catalysis and coking processing have different raw materials, each with its own characteristics and complementing each other. There is no standard for comparing their advantages and disadvantages.
I remember reading an article written by an academician, which probably means: At present, when there is less and less crude oil, it is very uneconomical to spend so much effort to get the oil out of the ground, only to end up turning the oil into coke.
It mainly depends on the properties of the raw oil, and it is meaningless to discuss it like this.
The catalytic route has a high comprehensive yield and can increase the yield of high value-added gas.
In fact, each has its own merits. The raw materials for the heavy oil catalytic cracking unit are relatively harsh, with heavy metal content, residual carbon value, and hydrogen content relatively strict, and the range of raw materials is relatively narrow.
This post was last edited by chengkang on 2009-5-3 12:18 Coking raw materials have a wider range than catalytic raw materials, but catalytic products are better than coking products. For example, catalytic gasoline has a higher octane number, while coked gasoline and coked diesel have high olefin content and high impurities. After entering a hydrotreating unit, coked gasoline is generally sold as naphtha. At the same time, coking can also refining some refinery wastes, such as waste oil, third mud, reduced residue, etc. Of course, the refining volume is not large. The coking process is relatively mature, with low energy consumption and strong adaptability to raw materials. Especially now that crude oil has become inferior, coking has even more advantages. Coking or catalysis mainly depends on the raw materials and material balance of the refinery, as well as the processing route and economics. ARDS and VRDS hydrogenation can be used without coking, but the equipment cost is very high. Coking can be equipped with wax oil catalysis or heavy oil catalysis to refining coked wax oil.
What you said on the seventh floor is correct. It is very uneconomical to burn oil. Moreover, coal is still used to make oil.
The main reason lies in the difference in the yield of the target products. There are many catalytic high value-added products, such as LPG, gasoline, and diesel, with high yields, and the cost of subsequent processing of these products is low.； In comparison, the follow-up cost of coking is high, the coked wax oil needs to be catalytically processed again, the added value of petroleum coke is low, and the environment is polluted. However, catalytic processing is more limited by raw materials.
Coking diesel has high yield and good quality, which is better than catalytic diesel.
All heavy oils can be refined by coking, but catalysis is limited by the nature of the raw materials.
At present, as crude oil becomes heavier and heavier, many raw materials for catalysis need to be pretreated. For example, in the last residual oil hydrodesulfurization unit, the original source of coking is very wide. Although coke is produced, the price is definitely cheaper than coal. It is a pity to burn the steam in the catalysis. Both have their own pros and cons, which mainly depends on the properties of the raw materials. If the properties are too good, coking will not be suitable. :handshake
Delayed coking has low investment, but the products must be processed again. The best combination is residual oil hydrogenation + heavy oil catalysis.
Catalytic cracking and delayed coking are both important processing methods for lightening heavy oil, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. But I have some objections to the original poster’s point of view.: 1. The selection of raw materials for coking is wider than that of catalysis. It is true that coking, as the "trash can" of the refinery, can process low-quality residual oil with high carbon residue value and heavy metal content. However, the yield and product quality of coking light oil largely depend on the properties of the raw materials. 2. You said that coking can produce petroleum coke, and the catalyzed coke can only be burned. I think this is exactly the shortcoming of coking.: The coke yield is too high. If high-quality petroleum coke can be produced and used as electrodes, ordinary petroleum coke can only be burned as fuel, and not all will be burned there! This shows that coking wastes more and causes more losses! Likewise, more oxygen is consumed and carbon dioxide is emitted! 3. In addition, the coking process is simple, and the investment and operating costs are lower than those of catalysis. ； Catalysis can produce high value-added olefins such as propylene, butene, etc. therefore: The specific process chosen will depend on the actual conditions of each refinery.