Thread Content
This post was last edited by shanxg on 2011-7-28 09:27. Comparison between aerospace gasification technology and two advanced foreign gasification technologies (taking a 300,000 tons/year methanol plant as an example). Comparison of technical parameters: Name – HT-L, Shell, Texaco. Oxygen consumption ratio (Nm3/KNm3): 330–360, 330–360, 410–430. Effective gas composition (CO+H2%): 89–91, 89–91, 78–81. Carbon conversion rate (%): >99, >99, >98. Efficiency of cooled gas (%): 80–83, 80–83, 71–76. Thermal efficiency of coal gasification (%): ~96, ~96, ~86. Method of transporting raw coal: Dry powder, gas transport; dry powder, gas transport; water-coal slurry, pump transport. Burner lifespan: 10 years, with the head part needing maintenance every 6 months; 10 years, with the head part needing maintenance every 18 months; the head part needs maintenance every 1.5 months. Lifespan of water-cooled walls or refractory bricks: The water-cooled wall structure is simple, consisting of cylindrical coils; it has a straightforward water circuit, is easy to manufacture, and has a lifespan of over 10 years, producing medium-pressure saturated steam as a by-product. The water wall consists of multiple sections of vertical tubes; its water flow pattern is complex. It is made of alloy steel, making it difficult to manufacture, and its service life exceeds 10 years. It produces medium-pressure saturated steam and superheated steam as by-products. The expensive refractory bricks last only one year and do not produce steam. Electricity consumption: Low. Due to the presence of a quenching gas compressor and a backblowing gas compressor, the electricity consumption is relatively high. Low investment cost. Unit: 10,000 yuan. Names: HT–L, Shell, Texaco. Patent fees: 1500, 6000, 6800. Gasification unit: 38000, 66000, 40000. Air separation unit: 18000, 18000, 26000. Other units: 45000, 60000, 45000. Total: 102500, 150000, 117800. Comparison of methanol consumption per ton: Unit: yuan. Names: HT–L, Shell, Texaco. Raw materials (coal): 603.7, 603.7, 603.7. Electricity consumption: 44.2, 9.93, 7.8. Power consumption of the air separation unit: 237.1, 237.1, 260.8. By-product steam: -184.2, -200.2, -144.7. Total: 700.8, 700.5, 830.0. Comparison of maintenance costs: Names: HT-L, Shell, Texaco. Maintenance costs: For fully domesticated equipment, the annual maintenance cost is around 10 million yuan. Many special valves, ceramic filter elements, gasification burners, etc. need to be imported, resulting in annual maintenance costs of around 60 million yuan. The refractory bricks in the gasification furnace need to be replaced annually, and the burners need to be replaced every 45 days; thus, the annual maintenance cost is around 30 million yuan. Overall comparison: One-time investment – 475 million yuan less compared to Shell’s gasification technology, and 153 million yuan less compared to Texaco’s gasification technology. Consumption and maintenance costs – 50 million yuan less per year compared to Shell’s gasification technology, and 20 million yuan less per year compared to Texaco’s gasification technology
Let me learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of the three processes, thanks!
I’ve learned it, but why is the same content repeated several times? Did it get stuck in the wrong place?
The actual situation differs greatly from what is mentioned above; it is necessary to conduct on-site inspections before drawing any conclusions, rather than relying solely on theory
Reply to 1# 196408: The HT-L is good; its cost-performance ratio is fairly high. However, its stability is a bit poor. It’s not that domestic products aren’t supported – the HT-L still performs well
I’ve learned it. . . . . . . . . . .
Which unit do you belong to? What is the product? The space furnace is working well now; you can get in touch with me
Reply to 8# Aerospace: I need to have your contact information too in order to get in touch with you. ;P
So far, no one has installed or planned to install space furnaces for coal-to-natural gas production. Based on the above comparison, the various parameters of the Aerospace Furnace meet Shell’s standards; it is far cheaper than Shell in terms of investment, electricity consumption, maintenance, and patent fees. Then why do most companies still not choose the Aerospace Furnace?
Reply to 9# dqllgm: I am from Xinjiang Dongming Plastic Co., Ltd.; my phone number is 13640564058, QQ number is 408716662, and the office phone number is 0994--6851029