Discuss methods for controlling methane in the conversion gas of the conversion furnace
Thread Content
As is well known, when the methane content in the converter gas exceeds the specified limit, this issue can be resolved by increasing the temperature of the converter or the amount of steam supplied to it. However, nowadays there is a focus on saving energy and reducing consumption. My question to all of you is: when the methane level in the converter gas is too high, is it better to raise the converter’s temperature or to increase the water-to-carbon ratio? Which approach is more energy-efficient?
After increasing the steam supply, in order to maintain the original conversion outlet temperature, it is also necessary to increase the fuel gas supply; this may require more fuel gas than raising the reaction temperature directly, which is clearly uneconomical! And each catalyst manufacturer highlights the excellence of its technology by emphasizing that the catalyst can operate at lower water-to-carbon ratios without carbon deposition – which goes without saying!
In fact, whether it is increasing the water-to-carbon ratio or raising the temperature, both indicate a decrease in the catalyst’s activity. Increasing either of these factors will lead to higher energy consumption, with raising the temperature having a more direct effect. The catalyst manufacturer can measure the equilibrium temperature difference of the furnace tube; generally, if this difference exceeds 10°C, there is no need to increase the water-to-carbon ratio or the temperature – replacing the catalyst directly is a more energy-efficient solution. This is my personal opinion for reference only.
It’s obvious he’s an experienced person; he sees things very clearly: handshake
When the temperature in the converter is increased, the steam generation rate in the drum also increases. More steam at a pressure of 3.5 to 1.0 MPa will flow into the plant’s low-pressure steam network, which is certainly a good thing.
I don’t agree with you on this; it’s clearly not cost-effective to use natural gas to generate excessive steam. The cost of producing one ton of steam using natural gas is over 200, which is much higher than that of using thermal power
The fuel we use is not natural gas; it’s coking dry gas: P
The fuel we use is not natural gas; it’s coking dry gas: P
Qualitative analysis makes sense, but who has actually carried out quantitative measurement and comparative analysis?