Developing coal-to-methanol should be the priority in coal chemical industry
Thread Content
This post was last edited by jordan569 on 2013-1-6 at 20:57 — More mature than coal-to-oil technology, greener than coal-to-gas, and more economical than coal-to-olefins. According to Sinochem News, \"In terms of investment safety, carbon conversion rate, environmental friendliness, atom economy, and technical maturity and reliability, coal-based alcohol ether fuels are the preferred alternative to petroleum and deserve vigorous promotion.\" ”Experts expressed the above views at the recently held 2010 National Methanol Synthesis Technology Exchange Symposium. Fang Dingye, a professor at East China University of Science and Technology, believes that from the perspective of atom economy, whether it is coal-to-methanol or coal-to-olefins processes, coal must first be converted into syngas (CO+H2), after which methanol or hydrocarbons are synthesized from CO and H2. However, the synthesis of methanol from CO+H2 can be completed in one step, whereas in the Fischer-Tropsch process for synthesizing hydrocarbons, the first step is to introduce oxygen atoms into the syngas to produce methanol; thereafter, the oxygen atoms in methanol must be removed, and a large amount of by-product water must be separated before olefins can be obtained. Obviously, the atom economy of coal-to-olefins is lower than that of coal-to-methanol. From the perspective of economic viability of project investment, coal-to-methanol is superior to coal-to-oil. Statistical data from both domestic and international sources show that the fixed asset investment required for producing oil from coal is typically as high as 12,000 yuan per ton, whereas the fixed asset investment for producing methanol is only 4,000 yuan per ton. Due to the high level of capital investment, coal-to-oil projects suffer from high financial and management costs, resulting in poor profitability. At current oil and coal prices, it is difficult to be profitable for coal-to-oil projects with an annual production of less than one million tons. However, coal-to-methanol projects with an annual capacity of 300,000 to 600,000 tons built using modern gasification technologies can definitely be profitable. In terms of the maturity and reliability of the technology, the technology for producing alcohol-ether fuels from coal is already mature both domestically and internationally. The complete sets of technologies for the synthesis, separation, and purification of domestic methanol and dimethyl ether are widely in use, and they are evolving toward larger-scale applications. Within 3 to 5 years, alcohol-ether plants with capacities of 1 million to 3 million tons built using domestic technology will emerge, and economies of scale will become even more prominent. However, in terms of coal-to-oil technology, there are no domestic projects for indirect coal liquefaction with a capacity of 1 million tons per year that have reached the minimum economic scale required for such operations; scaling up such projects will take time and involves certain risks. The situation regarding direct coal-to-oil conversion is also not optimistic: there are no large-scale industrial demonstration facilities in operation abroad. In China, although the Shenhua Ordos million-ton direct coal-to-oil project has been put into operation, it still needs further evaluation in terms of the safe and stable operation of the facility, cost-effectiveness, energy and resource utilization efficiency, as well as environmental protection. “The technical feasibility and economic viability of coal-to-natural gas also require careful consideration. ”Fang Dingye reminds. He said that the process of producing natural gas from coal not only consumes large amounts of coal but also emits significant amounts of carbon dioxide, making it uneconomical and environmentally unsound. Furthermore, in terms of the safety of the facility, the coal-to-natural gas process is an exothermic reaction with very stringent operating conditions; therefore, the site for such projects must be located far away from residential areas. Even coal-based ethylene glycol, which is highly favored by many, still has numerous issues that need to be addressed and resolved, in Fang Dingye’s view. First, compared to the ethylene route, the quality of ethylene glycol produced from coal is significantly inferior; if coal prices rise sharply, it will no longer have a competitive advantage ； Secondly, the issue of the short lifespan of hydrogenation catalysts still requires significant efforts to address; otherwise, it will be difficult to reduce the cost of coal-based ethylene glycol ； Third, controlling the content of precious metal components in catalysts for oxalate ester synthesis and managing hot spots during the reaction process remain challenges ； Fourth, the engineering scale-up of reactors including the carbon monoxide dehydrogenation reactor, catalytic coupled carbonylation reactor, nitrite regeneration reactor, and hydrogenation reactor remains a major challenge ； Fifth, there are numerous side reactions in each reaction step, and the issue of a low overall yield of ethylene glycol is difficult to resolve in the short term. All these factors constrain the development of coal-based ethylene glycol production, and also pose significant risks to the safety and stability of such facilities as well as the economic viability of the projects. “The current new energy vehicle industries, such as those based on hydrogen and solar energy, appear to be environmentally friendly; however, when taking into account the energy consumed and carbon dioxide emissions during the production of these products, their entire life cycle is not more environmentally sustainable than that of alcohol-ether fuels. ”Jiang Lianbao, deputy secretary-general of the Special Committee on Alcohol-Ether Fuels and Alcohol-Ether Vehicles, said. “If, through policy guidance, more enterprises are encouraged to use coke oven gas, calcium carbide furnace off-gases, and untapped lignite to produce alcohol ether fuels, it not only yields clean and inexpensive alternatives to petroleum but also enables the resource utilization of waste, thus saving resources and protecting the environment. The entire process is more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly than hydrogen energy and solar energy. ” Wang Hongjin, deputy chief engineer at Hualu Engineering Technology Co., Ltd., told CCIN reporters that Tsinghua University has overcome the challenges associated with converting methanol into aromatics, and is working together with Hualu Company to build an industrial-scale pilot plant for this process, with a capacity of 30,000 tons per year. It won’t be long before it becomes possible to produce high-value products including MDI using methanol as a raw material. By then, methanol will not only be able to replace refined petroleum as a clean fuel, but it will also be able to replace oil in the production of olefins and aromatics, ethylene glycol, and many other chemical products. The methanol economy envisioned by scientists will truly arrive. http://www.ccin.com.cn/ccin/news/2010/07/08/134142.shtml. Note $ # , $ $
Fang Dingye, a professor at East China University of Science and Technology, believes that from the perspective of atom economy, whether it is coal-to-methanol or coal-to-olefins processes, coal must first be converted into syngas (CO+H2), after which methanol or hydrocarbons are synthesized from CO and H2. However, the synthesis of methanol from CO+H2 can be completed in one step, whereas in the Fischer-Tropsch process for synthesizing hydrocarbons, the first step is to introduce oxygen atoms into the syngas to produce methanol; thereafter, the oxygen atoms in methanol must be removed, and a large amount of by-product water must be separated before olefins can be obtained. Obviously, the atom economy of coal-to-olefins is lower than that of coal-to-methanol. Could Professor Fang make such a mistake? There’s still not enough methanol in the country, right?
“——“It is more mature than coal-to-oil technology, greener than coal-to-gas, and more economical than coal-to-olefins.” That’s indeed true, but what about the future of methanol? Currently, the operating rate of methanol production in China is severely insufficient, making it very difficult for methanol manufacturers to operate and leading to tough times for them. Finding a use for methanol requires some creativity; the project must be environmentally friendly and economically viable, so that at least the companies involved in the advanced processing of methanol can survive.
This report is from the China Chemical Industry News, so there should be no problem
From different perspectives, the statement \"—more mature than coal-to-oil technology, greener than coal-to-gas, and more economical than coal-to-olefins\" succinctly summarizes the characteristics of coal-based methanol production. Could it be intended to boost the morale of domestic methanol manufacturers who are facing difficulties?
Today and tomorrow are also different, but it can’t be said that they are entirely different days. Whether it’s coal-to-methanol, coal-to-oil, or coal-to-olefins processes, the environmental considerations remain the same; none of these processes is more environmentally friendly than another. Economically, the market plays a key role, while technology is determined by the development of processes, not by their level of maturity. Primitive society had the highest level of maturity, yet we still need to continue developing and exploring.
The last edit to this post was made by yangjie007 on 2010-7-10 at 08:56. Fang Dingye, a professor at East China University of Science and Technology, believes that from the perspective of atomic economy, whether it is coal-to-methanol or coal-to-olefins processes, coal must first be converted into syngas (CO+H2), after which methanol or hydrocarbons are synthesized from CO and H2. However, the synthesis of methanol from CO+H2 can be completed in one step, whereas in the Fischer-Tropsch process for synthesizing hydrocarbons, the first step is to introduce oxygen atoms into the syngas to produce methanol; thereafter, the oxygen atoms in methanol must be removed, and a large amount of by-product water must be separated before olefins can be obtained. Obviously, the atom economy of coal-to-olefins is lower than that of coal-to-methanol. ”Just because coal-to-olefins involves one more reaction step than coal-to-methanol, can it be said that coal-to-olefins is less economical than coal-to-methanol? Can methanol be used as an olefin? With this approach, wouldn’t it be more economical to use coal without any conversion at all?
It’s not clear who invited the old man to speak this time, but his intentions are quite obvious. He may not necessarily want to speak negatively about coal-based oil and olefin production; he’s not able to do so anyway ； He is more likely to be speaking on behalf of alcohol-based fuels. He focuses more on dimethyl ether; then why not talk about his own dimethyl ether product? Their group also does FTO, but for some reason they still speak about it in such a awkward way. It’s correct to consider things from the perspective of atomic economy; it’s right not to allow oxygen to come in and out constantly. But he is also a notable figure, and he should understand that comparisons shouldn’t be made from a one-sided standpoint. So I guess someone else asked him to come out and say it. I started thinking about people from the Jiangsu and Zhejiang regions again. I just don’t understand why there’s a need to create hype now that the national standards for methanol-based gasoline have already been established. Is it because there are difficulties in promoting its use in regions such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai? Is the M15 still not enough? Think too little methanol was added? The old man is a real figure; he’s the one who holds ultimate authority at the School of Chemical Engineering at East China University of Science and Technology.
Mr. Fang’s view is a bit one-sided.
Reply to 9# pecker: It’s not that Professor Fang speaks in a biased manner; he was simply invited to speak out on behalf of someone else. Heh. Professor Fang surely is aware of the situation of an excess supply of methanol, and he isn’t pretending not to know it – he’s just acting as requested, doing what’s expected of him. His situation can be understood. But isn’t such high-profile promotion also likely to mislead industry professionals? It also affects a person’s image, haha
The methanol industry is also a part of the industrial sector, and excessive development is not beneficial. Within the next 3 years, a number of small plants with production capacities of less than 200,000 tons will surely be phased out. It is recommended that relevant officials pay attention to this; there are too many examples of overcapacity in our country. Can we avoid such unfortunate situations from happening again? After all, the tuition fees we charge are too high; we’re **not as wealthy as people outside claim – our people are still very poor!** ! !