Comparison of SHELL and Texaco gasification technologies
Thread Content
I have a few questions: 1. Which manufacturers can maintain an effective gas content of 90% during normal operation, or can operate at a level of over 85%?； 2. It is said that the SHELL coal type has strong adaptability and can gasify coals with high ash melting points and high ash contents, but this is not entirely true. In actual operation, it is also necessary to consider the impact of coal ash on the fly ash treatment system, the gasifier cooler system, and the slag treatment system. Could anyone please provide information on how various manufacturers handle this issue? ； 3. At present, the main advantages of Texaco are its high vaporization pressure, low investment requirements, and relatively mature operational experience and technology. However, there may be areas for further improvement, such as the persistent issues related to the treatment of graywater and slag ； 4. It is well known that the burners and refractory bricks used by Texaco have a short service life. What progress has been made in these areas domestically and internationally recently? How can the wear resistance of burners to coal powder particles be improved? Since the water wall structure is superior to that of refractory bricks, why haven’t new manufacturers, as well as Texaco itself, made any improvements in these areas to date?
It’s probably the investment risks that are being considered; after all, Texaco has considerable experience in operation, and there are still many areas for improvement in its practices!
Texaco does not use water wall tubes because the water-coal slurry itself contains a large amount of moisture, which absorbs a significant amount of heat during the gasification process. By using water wall tubes as well, maintenance becomes easier, but the heat absorbed by these water wall tubes further reduces the efficiency of the cold gas.