Advantages and disadvantages of Cassali and KBR technologies in ammonia synthesis
Thread Content
Our company is building a new nitrogen fertilizer production facility with a capacity of 30–52 units, and we intend to use the Cassali ammonia synthesis technology. We would appreciate it if experts in ammonia synthesis could compare and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the Cassali technology versus that of KBR
Firstly, it is necessary to analyze based on the operational characteristics of the entire plant. In the case of ammonia production from coal, the Topsoe and Cassali ammonia synthesis technologies have certain advantages in terms of heat recovery, and the structure of the synthesis towers is also slightly simpler. However, KBR has also made some improvements to its ammonia synthesis technology for coal-based production, reducing the number of ammonia cooling stages from three to two, while generating high-pressure or medium-pressure steam as a by-product. Secondly, comparisons should be made based on the lowest investment and operating costs. When producing synthetic ammonia from natural gas, KBR’s ammonia synthesis technology still holds a significant advantage.
What are the current problems with Cassali technology and Topso technology? The used ones should be described in detail – what problems are there at the moment?
The Casali tower is an imported type; it seems that when using designs created by foreigners, one must opt for the Casali tower. In fact, domestic technology for towers of similar scale is already quite advanced, capable of meeting the same design and operational requirements, with a more favorable cost-performance ratio. It is recommended to use domestically produced towers.
A capacity of 300,000 tons can be achieved domestically, with satisfactory results; the investment required is relatively low. We can use domestic technology for a 300,000-ton project
I need it too. Does anyone have a comparison of Casali, Guochang, and Jutuo Technology?