Those who know about it, please come and claim your wealth!
Thread Content
I’m new to design work and have encountered a problem that I don’t quite understand (it’s my fault for not studying hard enough before :'(). I would appreciate it if anyone who knows the answer could tell me why it is more cost-effective to use circulating water for cooling and recovery after compressing gaseous ammonia, rather than using direct air cooling I guess this question is really stupid:D (Answer accepted, +5 wealth)
Circulating water cooling can save cooling water.
Actually, you can just answer as per the title in the original post: I know; it’s for wealth. One more thing – it’s not possible to obtain liquid ammonia using only cooling water; cooling water can only reduce the temperature of gaseous ammonia to 20 or 30 degrees. At such temperatures, ammonia remains in a gaseous state unless pressure is applied: victory:
Cooling with circulating water allows the recovery of cold energy
I’m asking why this is more energy-efficient :Q. . . . . . . . .
I’ve made it clear above: this is not a matter of energy conservation, but rather a question of whether it is possible to achieve it
In terms of performance, the use of recycled water yields the same results as using air cooling; however, recycled water relies on natural heat exchange, while air cooling depends on a compressor and thus relies entirely on electrical energy. Of course, recycled water is the better choice from a cost perspective.
The problem is that the circulating water also needs to be cooled. To be honest, however, the energy consumption for compression will definitely be higher, haha:lol
Generally, factories are designed with a surplus of cooling water. If the cooling tower is not variable frequency, it’s basically a waste.