What is the catalyst unit consumption of each device?
Thread Content
As the headquarters has repeatedly lowered the cost of chemical raw materials in recent years, the catalyst unit consumption of the catalytic cracking unit has been declining. What is the appropriate catalyst unit consumption? Is the lower the better? Can it take into account both device product distribution and economic benefits? Let’s discuss it. In fact, the catalyst unit consumption of foreign catalytic devices is higher than ours.
It seems that it is not good for us to control the unit consumption of the catalyst ourselves, because we change the amount of catalyst added as the feed oil changes and the catalyst activity changes, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the catalyst.
You still have to consider necessary losses! Otherwise, the gain outweighs the loss.
Catalyst unit consumption is not better when it is lower, nor is it better when it is higher. It should be determined based on the properties of raw materials, catalyst properties, process conditions, production plans and equipment conditions.
Ours is between 1.3 and 1.5. It would be best if we could escape from the chimney, otherwise we would have to unload the agent, which would be even more troublesome.
It is unscientific to only consider the loss of catalyst. It depends on the overall economic benefits, and which one maximizes the benefits between catalyst consumption, product yield, and product quality. While ensuring catalyst activity and meeting conversion requirements, operational losses can be reduced. If the nature of the raw materials is too heavy, or there are special requirements for product distribution, the agent consumption cannot be too small. Different devices, different raw materials, and different conditions are not exactly the same. This is 1.4 for us, but it is not a requirement.
I remember once chatting with a group of colleagues, someone said that the unit cost of the catalyst there was only 0.34, which was mandated by the company, and it could actually be lower. This is how I look at this problem. If the benefits are certain, the smaller the corresponding material consumption is, the better. But now there are certain single parameters in the industry that represent the operating quality of a certain device. In fact, this is very unscientific and imprecise, and is harmful to the device. Now is not the era of "satellites" flying all over the sky. Is it necessary? It's not you who suffers the hardship by pretending to be fat, so why bother?