Transform 3+3
Thread Content
Recently, it has been suggested that under the new exhaust emission requirements, is the 3+3 conversion process feasible? Economic? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Please give me some advice!
The first time I heard about 3+3 was that a suitable catalyst is essential. Economically, I think it’s definitely not appropriate.
Rather than going with a 3+3 approach, it would be better for catalyst manufacturers to make improvements; that way, the problem can be solved.
"The 3+2” process, using imported catalysts, with cesium catalysts required for the first and fifth stages, should basically solve the problem.
It is of no value; if the sulfur dioxide from recycled exhaust gases is used to produce acid again, it not only offers good environmental benefits but also requires roughly the same level of investment
The last edit to this post was made by txglyl on 2011-6-5 at 22:55. Reply 1# LLXH2011: It sounds a bit uncertain, but I think environmental regulations in China will become increasingly strict; from the previous 3+1 or 3+2 systems, they might evolve to 3+3 or even 4+2； Currently, there are an increasing number of types of catalysts available. The newer models are more expensive, and in many cases their conversion rates are close to or equal to the equilibrium conversion rate. It seems that all focus has been placed on improving the performance of catalysts, which is not practical; it can easily lead to spending a lot of money only to learn from mistakes. I’m not sure if I understand correctly. Moreover, as far as I know, many domestic manufacturers are currently violating the original filling specifications; without any significant improvement in product performance, they blindly reduce these specifications in an attempt to win orders, under the pretense of introducing new products with ultra-low bulk weights, so as to secure orders at lower total prices. This is an exaggeration; if this issue isn’t addressed carefully from a scientific perspective, I believe it could undermine the entire industry. Be cautious!
Could someone give a brief introduction to knowledge about cesium catalysts?
We use a “3+2” process with domestic catalysts; the overall conversion rate is over 99.8%, and the exhaust emissions are well below the new standards.
3+2 is sufficient; in fact, 3+1+desulfurization works just as well. The operating costs for the two options are actually pretty similar.
Reply to 9# Pei Qinghua: Hello, may I ask what is the level of SO2 emissions from your vehicles? There’s a new standard now.