In the current petrochemical industry, which has more promising prospects: hydrogenation or heavy catalysis?
Thread Content
For current refineries, which is more promising: hydrogenation or heavy catalysis? Please discuss it
This post was last edited by chengkang on 2009-8-12 at 21:40. Personally, I think hydrogenation has great prospects, as the quality of products produced through this method is good. In many foreign countries, **hydrogenated gasoline accounts for a large proportion, while in China catalytic gasoline dominates the market; it will take some time before hydrogenation replaces catalysis.
The two cannot be compared in this way; each has its own advantages and characteristics. If the original poster wants to get the best of both worlds, I suggest learning about hydrocracking. Personally, I think hydrocracking holds great prospects for development and represents the trend in the oil refining industry going forward!
I would like to ask the friend upstairs: is hydrocracking part of hydrogenation? I don’t know how it’s divided exactly
Hydrogenation replacing catalytic cracking is only a matter of time; hydrogenation technology abroad has been developing for 50 years now. Hydrocracking is a combination of hydrogenation and catalytic cracking processes. On one hand, it enables heavy oil products to be converted into lighter oils such as gasoline, kerosene, and diesel through catalytic cracking reactions; on the other hand, it prevents the formation of large amounts of coke. It also removes impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen from the feedstock, as well as saturating the olefins. Hydrocracking features high yields of light oils and excellent product quality.
Hydrogenation is good; catalysis still cannot fully utilize resources
It should be said that these are two different types of processes: hydrogenation is a method for upgrading the quality of gasoline, while hydrocracking is a method for improving the quality of diesel fuel. Hydrocracking is also a process used in secondary processing to increase the yield of light oils; the two cannot replace each other. Reforming develops relatively quickly, and as crude oil becomes of lower quality, more hydrogenation processes are required. A single plant can have multiple hydrogenation units, whereas for reforming, one unit is usually sufficient.
Cracking can serve as a substitute for catalysis; relatively speaking, the quality of the hydrogenated product is good, allowing it to be shipped directly as a finished product. Catalytic gasoline has a high sulfur content, while catalytic diesel has a high content of unsaturated hydrocarbons; desulfurization or hydrogenation is required to improve the quality of these products. Catalytic cracking can tolerate lower requirements for the feedstock. Therefore, refineries generally have one or more hydrogenation units, which is an inevitable trend
They can be used in combination: the raw materials are first hydrogenated, followed by catalytic cracking. The products are then hydrogenated and refined according to quality requirements, thereby meeting the requirements regarding yield and environmental protection.
Both are necessary and important, and they both fall under the category of hydrogenation. However, a reforming unit is used only for processing gasoline, while a hydrogenation unit has a more diverse range of processes that allow for the flexible production of various products (such as light naphtha and tail oil for use as raw materials in ethylene production, heavy naphtha for reforming to produce jet fuel or diesel, as well as base oils for lubricants). It can also process a wider range of feedstocks (catalytic diesel, coker diesel, fractionated diesel, wax oil, residue, and so on). In terms of process diversification and development trends, hydrogenation units have more prospects; as the eighth floor mentioned, a refinery needs multiple hydrogenation units, and this is an emerging trend.