pressure swing adsorption
Thread Content
Which process is more advanced, pressure swing adsorption or solution decarbonization, and how do they compare? Please enlighten me.
I don’t know much about this aspect, but I personally think that for the company, this is related to the company’s situation and the ammonia synthesis process adopted. As for who is more advanced, it can only be said that the solution decarburization method was used earlier, while the pressure swing adsorption method was used later.
in link http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-191736-1-1.html , there are related discussions for reference.
Our factory changed pressure swing adsorption to solution decarburization. It is said that it can reduce gas consumption, right?
There are a lot of PSA discussions in the forum, so you need to understand them thoroughly. PSA is currently in * * In the period, I personally think that changing PSA to solution decarburization is a bit hasty. PSA is not good at driving, so why should we change the route if it can solve the problem of PSA.
The pressure swing adsorption decarbonization process has also improved with the continuous improvement of the PSA process, such as reducing the gas loss rate and improving the safe operation rate of program-controlled valves. Solution decarbonization is a relatively old process. Our company's 100,000-ton synthetic ammonia plant was built in 1999 and used NHD decarbonization. The 100,000-ton methanol plant was built in 2004 and used PSA for decarbonization. Not only our company, but also many units that have launched new projects in recent years use PSA. Everyone has their own merits. Personally, I prefer PSA decarb because I feel like vomiting when I smell NHD and I always feel uncomfortable.
If it is a coal head, pressure swing adsorption is suitable. If it is a gas head, the liquid method is more reasonable.