Is it okay to use only a two-stage furnace?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Chemical Gas Purification on 2012-11-14 at 20:09: the flue gas penetration tube is not considered, one furnace section is removed, and the catalyst amount for the second furnace section is not taken into account.
Sure, but in that case the conversion rate of process gas is very low, resulting in low ammonia production, which is not economical
This post was last edited by Chemical Gas Purification on 2012-11-14 20:10. Is it feasible if there is enough catalyst and a high water-to-carbon ratio? Economic issues are not taken into account.
What do you mean by feasible? My understanding is to achieve the ideal trace level at the outlet of the two-stage furnace. A high water-to-carbon ratio, high temperature, and high-quality catalysts can be achieved, but it is extremely uneconomical and not feasible! If it’s not economical, then there’s no point in discussing it
I think it’s possible, but the burner needs to be modified for use in drying or heating; no catalyst is required. It’s similar to a gasification furnace in that it consumes a large amount of oxygen.
Sure, we only have a two-stage furnace; it depends mainly on the methane content in the feed gas. Our two-stage furnace uses oxygen-enriched conversion
This post was last edited by Chemical Gas Purification on 2012-11-14 at 20:14. The question posed by the original poster is flawed in itself; those of us in the chemical industry first consider feasibility, which specifically refers to safety and cost-effectiveness. Which business owner would attend if it wasn’t cost-effective? It can’t be determined with just one sentence. But can I ask one question? Could the OP consider it?