Thread Content
This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2020-1-4 at 11:06. Many chemical companies and light chemical salt production enterprises recycle the high-concentration organic saline waste liquids generated during production, which amount to hundreds of tons per hour, using large-capacity waste alkali incineration devices; the flue gases from this incineration contain large amounts of lightweight saline powder. Currently, the commonly used flue gas treatment process in enterprises involves first using bag filters (one in operation and one as backup, or multiple in operation with one as backup) to capture the large amount of dust present in the flue gas, recovering dozens or even hundreds of tons of saline-alkali powder per hour ; A large-scale electrostatic precipitator is then used to capture the dust that escapes from the flue gas; the exhaust gas from this electrostatic precipitator is sent via an exhaust fan into the discharge chimney, from where it is released directly into the atmosphere. As is known in the operation of many enterprises, both the incineration process and the bag filter dust removal process require periodic backwashing with gas at regular intervals. The backflow operation lasts for several dozen minutes, with the backflow airflow carrying high-concentration dust to the electrostatic dust removal equipment. During periods when backwashing is not carried out, the electrostatic dust removal equipment is still able to effectively capture the smoke and dust that escape from the bag filter units, and the dust content in the exhaust gas from this equipment remains within acceptable levels. However, during the reverse blowing period, the dust concentration escaping from the bag filter is high; electrostatic dust removal equipment is unable to handle such high concentrations of dust, and the dust content in the exhaust gas from this equipment far exceeds the allowed levels, failing to meet environmental emission standards. Moreover, the electrostatic dust removal equipment itself also needs to periodically purge the dust accumulated in certain hard-to-reach areas. This is a common problem with similar devices; business owners, suppliers of environmental protection equipment, environmental engineering companies, and design firms have so far failed to find an appropriate solution to this troublesome issue. Currently, environmental regulations are becoming increasingly strict, making it urgent to address such issues. Please have the sea friends discuss and analyze: 1. What are the application limitations of electrostatic dust removal equipment that prevent it from effectively removing dust from the upstream reverse blowing air? 2. If the electrostatic dust removal equipment itself also requires intermittent purging, is it feasible from a technical and economic perspective to make an additional large-scale investment in such equipment so that one unit is in use while the other is on standby (with no purging when the unit is in use and purging during standby periods)? Can this approach ensure that the exhaust gas emitted by the system meets the required standards? 3. Are there any innovative solutions or methods with greater technical and economic advantages, that allow for more convenient technical upgrades by making only modest investments to add additional dust removal equipment after maintaining the existing process setup?
Is the process reversed? . Electrostatic first, then bag?
This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2016-5-29 at 11:47. Dozens or even hundreds of tons of dust per hour – just imagine how large an electrostatic dust collector would be needed to handle that amount How much investment is needed? For a facility of this scale, bag filters are used first, followed by electrostatic precipitators.
This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2023-10-3 at 15:20. Additionally, the following professional discussion posts that I posted on the Haichuan Chemical Industry Forum are listed here for everyone to use as links to join the discussions: 13. Discussion on improvements to the inlet devices of cyclone separators in gas-solid separation applications; please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1614524-1-1.html to participate in the discussion. 18. For the technical upgrade plan for equipment used in the dust removal, tar removal, and separation of coke oven gas, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1488997-1-1.html to participate in the discussion. 20. Regarding the issue of excessive ammonia nitrogen levels caused by the secondary steam collected from the top of the multi-effect evaporation crystallizer used for sulfuric acid production carrying ammonium liquid droplets, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1565169 to participate in the discussion. 21. For discussions on methods for dust and foam removal from high-temperature coke oven gas, pyrolysis gas, and upgraded gas from low-rank coal that contain dust and tar, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1565208-1-1.html to participate in the discussion.
This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2023-10-3 15:20. 35. Discussion on the removal of liquid sulfur foam from SO2 in the sulfur dioxide production unit of the sulfolane plant: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1616252-1-1.html.
37. Regarding the application of the C4 hydrocarbons/water coalescing separator in the MMA methyl methacrylate project, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1617142-1-1.html to participate in the discussion. To be continued......
This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2017-1-16 at 12:30. For discussions on measures for removing liquid droplets from the flue gas resulting from the mixed combustion of waste gas from chlor-alkali plants and coke oven gas, as well as for heat recovery and cooling processes, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1617257-1-1.html.
40. Regarding the unstable operation of the alcohol synthesis unit in the **device and the waste alkali liquid separator, which leads to problems in the operation of the subsequent coagulation separator, please visit http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1620515-1-1.html to participate in the discussion. To be continued......
Let’s start with the first question: What are the application limitations of electrostatic dust removal equipment that prevent it from effectively removing dust generated by backflow air upstream? 1. When the feed gas is introduced, its dust content must not be high. For operating conditions with high dust content, pre-dust removal equipment must be installed ahead of the electrostatic precipitator to remove most of the dust load in advance; only then can the remaining load enter the electrostatic precipitator, thereby meeting the technical requirements for the exhaust gas. 2. There are clear limitations on the size of solid particles/droplets carried in the airflow. Especially for medium-sized carriers, they are difficult to separate by gravitational sedimentation and carried away by air currents, and they are also hard to capture effectively by electrostatic precipitators. Small-sized carrying particles are more suitable for electrostatic dust removal. 3. The airflow must not contain gelling substances such as tar, asphalt, and high-carbon compounds. Otherwise, it is prone to coking and hardening on the electrodes, making maintenance and removal difficult and resulting in high operational costs. 4. The operating temperature should not be too high. Corona and electrode life issues are prominent. 5. The equipment has a high cost, many vulnerable components, and high operating and maintenance expenses.
For information and drawings related to the multi-factor cyclone gas-solid separator for burning waste salts and alkalis at NOVEL Company, please visit www.novelenergytech.com.
As the moderator has reminded us that more technical sharing posts cannot be posted, for the link list of technical posts after number 45, please refer to the content on page 43 of the post at http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1354814-1-1.html.