Which is more advantageous, basic oil production via non-hydrogenated dewaxing or hydrogenated dewaxing processes?
Thread Content
The processes used to produce lubricant base oils today have seen the elimination of methods such as furfural refining and acid/alkali washing. There are mainly two approaches for producing lubricant base oils nowadays: one involves hydrocracking the crude oil obtained through vacuum distillation, followed by hydrodesulfurization and then vacuum distillation to obtain the base oil; this method is widely used in advanced lubricant production processes, for example by Chevron in the United States. After 2000, non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes emerged; in these processes, crude oil from the first and second vacuum stages is processed through hydrorefining, catalytic dewaxing, further hydrorefining, and vacuum distillation to produce lubricant base oils. Compared to the two processes, the former is more stable and produces oil of higher quality, but it involves higher costs for facility construction and operation. The main advantage of the latter is its lower construction costs and operational expenses; even medium-pressure hydrogenation is sufficient for the hydrogenation process. Moreover, the base oil produced by the catalytic dewaxing process has a lower freezing point – the 75N freezing point can reach -50°C in some cases. Developed countries also studied non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes for producing base oils in the last century, but these efforts failed due to immature technology. In recent years, there has been a trend of large-scale adoption of such non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes in these countries, especially by some local refineries; however, it remains uncertain what the long-term prospects for this development will be. Do you think basic oil produced by the hydrodesulfurization process has more development potential, or basic oil produced by non-hydrogen processes?
Currently, there is no unified industry standard in the lubricant market; the various parameters for different grades fall within certain ranges. Moreover, even for the same grade produced by different manufacturers, the parameter values vary, and the requirements set by buyers are also not standardized. I have no experience with non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes, so I will not comment on them; however, the base oils obtained through hydrogenated dewaxing processes can reach grade 2 or higher, with some of these oils even reaching medical or food-grade standards. However, the investment should be higher than that of non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes. The development prospects should be better than those of non-hydrogenated dewaxing processes—this is my personal opinion.
I. Diesel deep hydrodesulfurization and ultra-deep hydrodesulfurization technologies 2 H) v+ D ]1 R3 n* n; X: `5 ~ As environmental regulations around the world become increasingly stringent, the quality requirements for petroleum products are also rising. Diesel specifications are constantly changing; in 1996, Europe introduced S
I just checked; haven’t you found the lubricant? Only diesel?
This post was last edited by Xiaocao Jianbian Sheng on July 8, 2012, at 13:52. The investment required for non-hydrogenated dewaxing is relatively low, making it suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises. In a couple of years, our factory plans to install a VRDS non-hydrogenated dewaxing unit; the resulting products will be used in the production of products with specific pour point requirements, such as transformer oil.
Many non-hydrogenated dewaxing units can’t operate these days due to raw material issues