Catalytic cracking flue gas sulfur transfer additive
Thread Content
Our unit used flue gas sulfur transfer agents in 2008, resulting in a significant reduction in the SOx content in the flue gas. However, if an excessive amount of sulfur transfer aid is added at once, the temperatures in the first and second dilute-phase sections drop significantly, resulting in fluctuations in the reverse reaction system ； If the amount of sulfur transfer aid added is small, it will have no effect. Dear teachers: Has your institution used flue gas sulfur transfer agents? ； How to refill ； How to adjust against reactivity system fluctuations?
Sulfur transfer promoters are generally used in combination with CO combustion promoters for better results. The proportion of sulfur transfer aids in the total amount of catalyst in the system is quite important, generally ranging from 3 to 5%, and it depends on the operating conditions of the plant, the SOx content in the raw flue gas, and the grade of the sulfur transfer aids.
Where is the sulfur transfer agent produced? I only know that it converts large-molecule thiol compounds into small-molecule sulfides, allowing them to be included in liquefied gas; I don’t know much else.
Our company conducted tests on sulfur transfer agents last year, but they proved ineffective, so the trials were discontinued. We have now decided to adopt catalytic flue gas desulfurization technology, with completion planned by the end of the year.
Haha, this is a trickery game that’s like covering one’s ears while stealing a bell. . . Sulfur transfer. . . ? Governance is needed wherever one goes. . . Go to the product? Then the desulfurization issue of your product will become a headache for you. . . It might force you to invest more money. . . Everyone is aware of the cost of hydrogenation. . . . Hahaha. . . . :lol
Yes, according to the principle of material balance, sulfur needs to be treated wherever it appears. The key question is whether flue gas emissions can meet the required standards after adding a sulfur transfer agent. If the standards cannot be met, increasing costs is meaningless. Just go with flue gas desulfurization. If marking is possible, it is necessary to determine which has a lower cost: flue gas desulfurization or product desulfurization.
The use of sulfur transfer promoters requires that the catalytic cracking unit operate under conditions of complete combustion of CO along with the presence of residual oxygen; it can be used in conjunction with CO promoters, as mentioned on the second floor. The content of the regenerating agent should be as low as possible (generally, less than 2% is preferred). Otherwise, the efficacy of the sulfur transfer agent may be very low or even ineffective.
It seems that many people are not very familiar with the use of sulfur transfer agents. Here is a brief explanation: Sulfur transfer agents convert the sulfur adsorbed on the catalyst into sulfates under oxygen-enriched regeneration conditions in the regenerator. These sulfates return to the reactor along with the regenerated catalyst, and in the humid environment of the reactor, they are reduced back to sulfur transfer agents and hydrogen sulfide gas. The hydrogen sulfide gas then exits the reactor along with the dry gas. The flue gas sulfur removal efficiency of the sulfur transfer agent is higher than 80%.
It seems that many people are not very familiar with the working principle of sulfur transfer agents. Here is a brief explanation: Sulfur transfer agents convert the sulfur adsorbed on the catalyst into sulfates under oxygen-enriched regeneration conditions in the regenerator. These sulfates return to the reactor along with the regenerated catalyst, and in the humid environment of the reactor, they are reduced back to sulfur transfer agents and hydrogen sulfide gas. The hydrogen sulfide gas then exits the reactor along with the dry gas. The flue gas sulfur removal efficiency of the sulfur transfer agent is higher than 80%.
In reply to the original poster, new technological advancements have been made in sulfur transfer agents: with an addition level of only 5% of the total amount of catalysts in the system, it is possible to achieve a flue gas desulfurization rate of over 80%. But there is one condition: the regenerator must be oxygen-enriched for regeneration. Please pay attention to the TDS-1 type sulfur transfer agent.
Our old catalysts are ineffective; for flue gas desulfurization in new catalytic cracking, S-transfer promoters are not useful. Flue gas desulfurization is a business that guarantees losses with no potential for profit; I guess few companies are engaged in it It’s all just for show
We used it before as well, but now it’s no longer needed after flue gas desulfurization and denitration are implemented