Weekly Topic November 10, 2015

The impact of degassing the liquid sulfur tank and sending the gas to the flue gas incinerator on SO2 levels in the flue gas is 100–200 mg/m3; some designs send it to the hydrogenation reactor, while others send it to the sulfur removal furnace. May I ask: which method is better? What are the impacts on operation and exhaust emissions respectively? After sulfur burning in the Klaus catalytic reactor, the exhaust gases proceed to the hydrogenation reactor... The gases with high sulfur content go directly to the exhaust gas incinerator

The impact of degassing the liquid sulfur tank and sending the gas to the flue gas incinerator on SO2 levels in the flue gas is 100–200 mg/m3; some designs send it to the hydrogenation reactor, while others send it to the sulfur removal furnace. May I ask: which method is better? What are the impacts on operation and exhaust emissions respectively? Entering the hydrogenation reactor is better for environmental protection.

Personal opinion: For the gases containing hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide emitted from the liquid sulfur tank, the traditional treatment method involves sending them to an exhaust gas incinerator where they are burned to reduce their toxicity before being released – this is the simplest approach. However, this method affects the standards regarding sulfur dioxide emissions, especially since the regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions became more stringent in 2017. Entering the sulfur production furnace and hydrogenation reactor is highly beneficial for environmental protection, primarily due to considerations such as safety and operational flexibility. Personally, I think entering the sulfur production furnace provides greater operational flexibility, but it requires higher standards for plant modifications, especially regarding the entry point into the sulfur production furnace! This has a significant impact on the safety of the sulfur production furnace and the entire system. Entering the hydrogenation reactor results in a lower pressure drop, making modifications easier and reducing the level of risk; however, it reduces the flexibility of operating the facility.

Binary sulfur reaction furnace? Our furnace temperature is already low enough to meet the requirements for low-ammonia conditions, so we have no choice but to feed it into the hydrogenation reactor.

Enters the hydrogenation reactor, which is more environmentally friendly

Why? Could you elaborate on it?

The impact of degassing the liquid sulfur tank and sending the gas to the flue gas incinerator on SO2 levels in the flue gas is 100–200 mg/m3; some designs send it to the hydrogenation reactor, while others send it to the sulfur removal furnace. Into the hydrogenation reactor

Each of the two methods has its advantages; when entering the hydrogenation reactor, it is necessary to consider whether the hydrogenation catalyst currently in use is suitable

What if it is considered from the design stage?