Comparison Table of Comprehensive Performance of Gasification Technologies
Thread Content
Dear experts, I have a project that requires a comparison of the performance of aerospace furnaces, as well as the Texaco, Shell, and GSP gasification processes. I have prepared a table; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it to point out any errors. Here are some suggestions. Project HT-LTexacoShellGSPGasification pressure: ≥4.0, 3.0–6.5, 2.0–4.0, 2.5–8.0
Gasification temperature: °C 1400–1900, 1300–1400, 1400–1600, 1450–1550
Maximum coal feeding rate per furnace per day: t/d 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000
Furnace type and features: Cold-wall furnace, dry coal feeding, multi-nozzle counterflow design; water-cooled walls inside the pressure-resistant casing, cold-quenching process; simple structure and easy to manufacture. By-product: medium-pressure saturated steam. Hot-wall type, coal water slurry feeding, single nozzle at the top, hot wall, fire-resistant lining, cold shock process (waste boiler process used in IGCC), all components except the nozzle are made of carbon steel; no steam is generated. Cold-wall furnace, dry coal feeding, multiple nozzles arranged in opposition at the lower part; a water-cooled wall is present inside the pressure-resistant casing. It operates on a waste-heat recovery principle to generate steam. The materials used are carbon steel, alloy steel, and stainless steel; the structure is complex, and it produces medium-pressure saturated steam as well as superheated steam as by-products. Cold-wall furnace, dry pulverized coal feeding, single nozzle at the top; a water-cooled wall is present inside the pressure-resistant casing. A quenching process is used, with a small amount of steam being recovered by the water-cooled wall. All components except the nozzle are made of carbon steel. Coal is supplied in the form of dry pulverized coal, while gases are used for transportation – 65% is coal slurry. Dry pulverized coal is transported by pumps, and gases are also used for transporting both the coal powder and the gasifying agent oxygen. Slag is discharged in liquid form. Carbon conversion rate: % ≥ 99.96–98 > 99 > 99. Effective components (CO + H2): % 9–91, 78–81, 89–93, 89–91. Oxygen consumption per kNm3 of (CO + H2): 330–360, 410–430, 330–360, 330–360. Efficiency of cold gas production: % 80–83, 70–76, 80–83, 80–83. Efficiency of gasification: % 96–98, 86, 96, 90. Environmental impact: Low. Types of coal that can be gasified: Almost all types of coal, from lignite to anthracite; it is possible to use locally sourced coal. High requirements are placed on the coal type (ash melting point below 1250 degrees, good slurry-forming properties); local sourcing of coal is not possible. Almost all types of coal, from lignite to anthracite, can be used for gasification, allowing for local sourcing of coal. Low power consumption. Equipment costs, patent fees, and other overall costs: Lowest, Highest, Higher, Higher. Domestic application examples
The costs related to equipment and patents are likely to be highest for Shell, followed by GSP, HT-L, and Texaco (patent costs are not very high due to their use of multi-component slurry technology). The investment costs for coal powder preparation and transportation are also considerable. Shell has not achieved long-term stable production in China; GSP has not yet started operation there. The first unit of the space furnace was put into use just before the New Year, and its stability is unknown, as is whether its efficiency with cold gas is 96%. The water-cooled walls can result in a lower effective gas yield. Texaco has mature domestic technology, but it requires a lower ash melting point for coal.
It is recommended to discuss equipment costs and patent fees separately! The description of the coal types suitable for gasification is a bit exaggerated; both the types of coal and the types of boilers have their specific requirements regarding the coal to be used for gasification ； The operational stability of the equipment and maintenance costs should be taken into account! Compare the actual operational performance in chemical production applications, and analyze the longest continuous operation period. Analysis of application fields for subsequent processing integration in different furnace types (power generation, chemicals, gas, IGCC, etc.). Once those few sections are completed, it should be quite comprehensive! ! ! !