HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

The efficiency of cold gas is actually only 23%

2008-06-18View Original

Thread Content

I recently used Aspen Plus to conduct gasification simulations, and the input parameters and simulation results are as follows: Coal feed rate: 87,500 kg/hr; HHV: 25.52 MJ/kg; 9,781.6 Btu/lb (1 kg = 2.2046 lb; unit conversion note). The composition and parameters of the resulting gas are as follows: Temperature: 1,401.7°C; Pressure: 28 kg/sq cm; Vapor fraction: 1; Mole flow rate: 7,067.961 kmol/hr; Mass flow rate: 16,561.2105 kg/hr; Enthalpy: -491.207 MMBtu/hr. The mole percentages are as follows: CO: 0.59%, CO2: 0.088%, H2: 0.197%, CH4: 8.2×10^-6%, O2: 0.001%, N2: 0.035%, Ar: 3.00×10^-6%, H2S: 0.002%, COS: 2.07×10^-4%, NH3: 2.30×10^-5%, H2O: 0.087%. I will first explain my calculation method, and I hope experts can provide feedback: Cold gas efficiency = Heat value of the gas / Heat value of the coal (high calorific values are used here; it’s not clear whether the Enthalpy value in the gas parameters refers to the high calorific value). For the heat value of the gas, I have used the Enthalpy value itself; 491.207 MMBtu/hr. Denominator: heat value of coal, q=25.52 MJ/kg; HHV per 1 kg = m*q = 87500*25.52 = 2232743.275 MJ/hr (total heat value). HHV in MMBtu/hr = 2116.143754 MMBtu/hr (the unit for the total heat value has been changed). Thus, the efficiency of cold gas is 491.207/2116.143 = 23%. Personally, I think there must be an issue with the heat value of the gas as calculated by the simulation; otherwise, the efficiency of cold gas couldn’t be so low ; (2) My approach is incorrect; I hope experts can explain it in detail
Reply #22008-06-18
I’m sorry, I made a mistake; it should be 79.84%. That gas enthalpy value cannot be used
Reply #32008-06-19
Considering the pressure and temperature conditions, it seems that the proportion of active gases in the gas is modeled after that of a SHELL gasifier. This post was last edited by renkingboy on 2008-6-19 14:04]
Reply #42008-06-19
For Aspen, which type of gasification – simulated fluidized bed gasification, fixed-bed gasification, or fluidized-bed gasification – yields results that are closer to actual operational data?
Reply #52008-06-19
The fluidized bed is relatively more accurate, but the water-coal slurry gasifier is not very accurate.
Reply #62011-09-21
Reply to 2# semeng: I’d like to ask, why can’t it be used?

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.