How many new Shell boilers are needed domestically?

After several years of exploration in the domestic market, Shell has reached a stable stage of production, featuring high gas output, long operation cycles, and broad adaptability to different types of coal. It is normal for companies to be interested in Shell’s technology; our company is also examining Shell’s technologies, and we have had two meetings already

The estimate shouldn’t be too high; Shell has managed this area well over the past few years, and there are no major issues left. The key factor is the substantial investment required, which is something that any company focused on profitability must take into consideration. Another point is that the space furnace, which is an improvement on the Shell furnace, has seen its manufacturing processes mature over the years through continuous experimentation; its investment cost is much lower than that of the Shell furnace, giving it a significant advantage. Shell can achieve high-temperature operation thanks to its waste-heat recovery process and furnace temperature control, which are not restricted by the use of refractory bricks; this gives it significant advantages in combined-cycle power generation. Additionally, Shell’s furnaces also have clear advantages in terms of environmental protection.

I agree with the original poster’s view. If used in the production of chemicals, Eastern furnaces and space-based furnaces have advantages in terms of coal type compatibility, long-term operation, energy consumption structure, and investment costs. In the field of combined-cycle power generation, they cannot compete with coal-fired boilers at the current stage; even with the current emphasis on controlling air pollution, the success of ultra-clean coal-fired power plants has blocked their path forward. The high investment cost is its major flaw; it often makes one wonder why the advanced Iridium system was defeated by the less advanced cellular systems