Comparison between high-column regeneration and spray regeneration for coke oven gas desulfurization
Thread Content
Currently, desulfurization in coking plants is mostly carried out using high-tower regeneration, with some manufacturers gradually adopting spray regeneration. Please, colleagues, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two processes. This post was last edited by ryn on 2009-3-14 16:54]
By comparison, I feel that jet regeneration has significant advantages: first, it requires less investment in infrastructure (equipment and civil works); second, it offers high desulfurization efficiency; third, it is easy to maintain and operate; fourth, its energy consumption is not much different.
Regenerating tall towers requires heavy investment, while spray regeneration offers good results with lower costs
I did a rough calculation, and the investment difference between the two regeneration processes is around 3 million yuan (for a capacity of 600,000 tons per year).
The day before yesterday, I had a discussion with a manufacturer, and spray regeneration is gradually being accepted by them.
It is true that jet regeneration requires low investment, but it is not conducive to the subsequent treatment of foam. Since spray regeneration is a type of low-tower regeneration, the foam tanks are all flat-bottomed. Over time, a large amount of sulfur accumulates at the bottom of these tanks, requiring manual cleaning. This is a very labor-intensive task, and cleaning must be carried out frequently, every 2 to 3 months.
It might be due to poor regeneration, so the foam doesn’t rise to the surface. There is some sulfur paste at the bottom each year, and we usually carry out a thorough cleaning during the annual maintenance; there should be no problem.
Tall tower recycling was used quite frequently in previous designs; its main advantage is that the tower can be manufactured in a factory, without the need for on-site construction. However, since a blower is required to force air into the tower, the energy consumption is high. In the regeneration tank, since there is no need to force air into the tank, the required air can be drawn in by the ejector located on the tank. Just adding a regeneration pump will do. Moreover, the power consumption of the regeneration pump is much lower than that of the blower. Therefore, it is still more energy-efficient to use a regeneration tank. Its drawback is that the regeneration tank needs to be fabricated on-site. As for the sulfur precipitation in the regeneration tank, I believe that as long as there are no issues with the equipment and the desulfurizing agent chosen is appropriate, it is possible to wait through one production cycle before cleaning it, or even avoid cleaning it altogether. This won’t affect production.
Jet regeneration is recommended, mainly because it facilitates the observation of the formation of sulfur foam.
Reply to floor 6: You can also make the regeneration tank have a pointed bottom and be equipped with stirring devices, and then there will be no problem. Many foam tanks used in conjunction with regeneration tanks also have pointed bottoms