What is the difference between multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology and single-nozzle water-coal slurry gasification technology?
Thread Content
Single-nozzle water-coal slurry gasification technology: The technology is mature, with extensive operational experience accumulated over time. Multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology: It is currently in use, and Lunan Chemical has reported that it performs well. If industrialization is achieved, gas production efficiency and output will increase. However, Texaco does not advocate for complete gasification of coal slurry in the furnace, as this would reduce the amount of useful gas and increase carbon dioxide levels. Let’s discuss the differences between multi-nozzle opposed water-coal slurry gasification technology and single-nozzle water-coal slurry gasification technology Which one is more suitable to use?
Texaco can function well when each furnace processes less than 1,300 tons of dry coal per day; the plants currently in use mostly have a capacity of 750 or 1,000 tons per furnace per day. Their design is simple, but to handle larger volumes, it is necessary to add more gasification furnaces. At present, the largest plants with a capacity of 1,300 tons per day are not yet operating stably, and further improvements are needed to increase their scale. The operation of a single furnace with four nozzles to process 2,000 tons of dry-base coal has been successful and stable; in terms of scaling up, using four nozzles remains the more advantageous option.
Reply to 1# Yitailong'er: Compared with Texaco, the conversion rate of carbon via four-nozzle gasification is significantly higher, the processing capacity per furnace is greater, and the range for adjusting the production load is wider. A preliminary purification technique combining a cyclone separator and a water scrubber yields better purification results. Secondly, it possesses independent intellectual property rights and is based on domestic technology, resulting in significantly lower technology transfer fees compared to foreign technologies.