Seeking advice: How to estimate the time required for each stage of a 200,000–300,000-ton coal-to-oil project: construction period, commissioning period, and transition period.
Thread Content
This post was last edited by jordan569 on 2013-1-6 at 21:39. Dear “Kerosene” users: If investing in a coal direct liquefaction project with a capacity of 200,000–300,000 tons, and assuming the project is located in northern China, how long should each of the following stages be estimated to last (in years or months)? Stage 1: Construction period: This refers to the time from when the project starts construction until the time of completion and handover； Phase 2: Debugging period: This refers to the period in which the system is connected and operated continuously for 1,000 hours without issues, achieving acceptable oil quality and oil yield levels, etc ； Phase 3: Transition period: refers to the time required from completing the trial run to operating at full capacity. What percentage is generally considered a reasonable operating rate? Phase 4: Normal operation: Refers to the period of full-load operation or near-full-load operation ； The times mentioned above are directly related to costs and benefits, and they play a crucial role in calculating economic efficiency and return on investment; therefore, I humbly ask for your advice, dear coal industry professionals. I hope everyone will not hesitate to offer their advice. . Note $ # , $ $
I still hope to get some good suggestions.
Stop it; there’s no way this project will get approved. Why bother with it? For the direct liquefaction of coal, there likely won’t be any further actions at Shenhua Majiata until a conclusion is reached; it will be many years before any results come from Shenhua’s experiments.
Since there are many variables involved, it is not possible to provide accurate reference figures. The suggestion from upstairs is worth considering. Putting aside **’s policies for now, considering the current level of maturity of the process for directly liquefying coal into oil, as well as the various difficulties encountered in implementing such projects, I advise you to suggest to your company that it is better not to pursue such projects for the time being. The reasons are as follows: 1. The most important one is the human factor – can we find, either in China or abroad, an expert who has a good understanding of both the theory and practice related to direct liquefaction, and who knows how to address the practical engineering challenges involved? It’s very difficult; those who work in laboratories are unreliable. There’s no discrimination here; I myself also work in a laboratory ； Experts who have risen from other related operational positions are also unreliable. This is the talent gap issue faced by direct coal liquefaction. 2. Although the scale is small, there are no shortage of practical engineering problems that need to be dealt with, and there may even be more of them. The more problems there are, the lower the feasibility becomes, and the greater the risks. There are many reasons why Shenhua is not performing well at present, but the accumulation of risks is one of the main factors. 3. Direct liquefaction places high demands on the quality of coal as well as its stability. Large coal companies that possess coal deposits with stable quality can handle this process, as the stability of the coal quality can be ensured throughout the supply chain. Smaller enterprises that purchase coal for liquefaction should proceed with caution. If it has to be done, go with indirect liquefaction; it’s much less difficult than direct liquefaction. Currently, there are more and more people in China who can undertake such projects, and the techniques have become relatively mature, from a theoretical standpoint to practical implementation.