Northwest Institute’s multi-material slurry technology vs. Texaco’s gasification technology

It is recommended to use the multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology jointly developed by East China University of Science and Technology and Yankuang Group. This technology has already achieved remarkable results, and its market promotion is advancing rapidly. Currently, the 750-ton gasification furnace at Dezhou Hualu Hengsheng Chemical Co., Ltd. has accumulated a total operating time of 7,000 hours; the system is functioning well and its operational parameters are advanced. The two 1,000-ton gasification furnaces at Yankuang Guotai Chemical Co., Ltd. have also accumulated over 12,000 hours of operation, achieving excellent performance. Guotai achieved high production levels in 2006, generating profits of nearly 200 million yuan. The market promotion of the multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology is also progressing rapidly. To date, the projects under design and construction include: Guotai Company’s third 1,000-ton-class gasifier, Lunan Fertilizer Factory’s new gasifier with a capacity of 1,150 tons per day, Tengzhou Phoenix Fertilizer Co., Ltd.’s three gasifiers with a capacity of 1,500 tons per day (yielding 600,000 tons of alcohol-ammonia annually), and Jiangsu Linggu Chemical Co., Ltd.’s two gasifiers with a capacity of 1,800 tons per day. It is worth noting that Linggu Company has signed a contract for the GSP gasification patent; however, considering the company’s ability to bear risks and the excellent performance of the multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology, it has decided to postpone the use of GSP technology in favor of the gasification technology developed by East China University of Science and Technology. There are also several other companies interested in adopting multi-nozzle gasification technology, including: Jiangsu Supor’s 500,000-ton methanol project, Zekai Group’s 600,000-ton methanol project in Chifeng, Zhejiang Banshan Power Plant’s IGCC project, Shandong Luxi Fertilizer Company’s 400,000-ton ammonia and alcohol project... Ningxia Coal Industry and Yantai Wanhua are also interested in this type of gasifier and have sent people to Guotai Company for inspections and research. Gasification technology with independent Chinese intellectual property rights is about to experience a bright future. I hope everyone will give more support to the next-generation water-coal slurry gasification technology with independent intellectual property rights!

I prove that everything said on the second floor is true – what’s right for oneself is the best choice. There is no perfect option, only better ones

What the boss from Erlou said makes some sense. Last week, a conference was held in Shanghai on the multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology developed jointly by East China University of Science and Technology and Yankuang Group; could those who attended the conference give a brief introduction? :handshake

The multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology jointly developed by East China University of Science and Technology and Yankuang Group will not be discussed here; this technology has already been rejected! Everyone, share your opinions on GE and Northwest Institute’s technologies! Thank you!

I’m not familiar with GE technology. Our company is also undertaking coal chemical production for the first time, with an annual output of 600,000 tons of methanol; we use the technology developed by the Northwest Chemical Engineering Institute!

There is no substantial difference between the diversified slurry technology of the Northwest Research Institute and Texaco’s gasification technology; both are essentially identical in terms of process flow, equipment selection, and plant layout. The only difference lies in the patent holder and the patent licensing fees; be cautious of legal disputes with GE Corporation. Why deny multi-nozzle gasification technology? The use of multiple nozzles at the bottom is mainly to avoid patent infringement. As far as I know, they made many improvements to components such as the quench ring, Venturi tube, and scrubber tower in the gasification unit, building on the Yankuang Lunan Texaco facility, thereby enhancing the capacity for continuous and stable production. If the FT of the raw coal is less than 1350 degrees, none of the above technologies pose any problems; it’s merely a matter of investment.

The four-nozzle water-coal slurry gasification technology features numerous control valves; having many nozzles makes it difficult to control the process, and patent fees are also required. Although there is no substantial difference between the Northwest Research Institute’s multi-material slurry technology and Texaco’s gasification technology, there is no issue of infringement either; if GE really wants to file a lawsuit, it should take action in China** – unless it doesn’t want to operate in China anymore. I think that if the ash melting point is between 1300 and 1400 degrees, and the grindability index, moisture content, etc. are appropriate, then the multi-component slurry method is a good choice; all design institutes are capable of using this method, as it doesn’t present any technical difficulties. This post was last edited by GreyWolf1234 on 2007-5-22 17:59.]

There are already 15 units of the Northwest Institute’s multi-material slurry technology in China, and it differs significantly from GE’s technology

The multi-material slurry gasification technology has been adopted by several manufacturers in China; it is a version developed by Texaco. I have confidence in the capabilities of the Chinese people. The multi-nozzle technology works well at companies such as Guotai and Hualu Hengsheng – although it is more complex and comes with a higher accident rate, it remains an excellent option. I have visited the sites to conduct inspections.

The four-nozzle water-coal slurry gasification furnace in our company has proven to be very successful; it’s not as complex as people might think. In fact, it offers great operational flexibility, allowing for easy adjustments to the load. The entire production system operates stably. Additionally, thanks to the pressure-based continuous feeding technology covered by proprietary patents, it’s possible to resume operation of the other set of burners under pressure in a short time after one set stops working due to misoperation or fluctuations. This reduces unnecessary costs during startup and shutdown processes. The overall production volume only decreases slightly, and all four burners have been operating properly simultaneously for months now. Once people learn more about it, they will discover its many advantages!