What is the potential of fixed-bed oxygen-enriched continuous gasification?
Thread Content
RT. Fixed-bed batch gasification is bound to be a dead end, but not everyone can afford pressurized gasification. Not to mention Shell and Texaco, even domestic products such as space furnaces, Tsinghua furnaces, and various types of slurry systems cost anywhere from one to two billion yuan each. In the current economic climate, even big players like Jinmei and Yangmei don’t have the money to invest in projects. So, as a transitional technology, fixed-bed oxygen-enriched continuous gasification – do people think it has potential, and for how long can it serve as a transition? Personally, I believe pressurized coal gasification is the ultimate technology for coal gasification. . .
Oxygen-enriched fixed-bed gasification causes excessive pollution; it should have been shut down long ago
The trend in the coal chemical industry is that large state-owned enterprises continue to merge and consolidate, giving rise to several giants similar to those in the petrochemical sector. Given the current difficult circumstances and the urgent need to reduce emissions, the possibility of adopting large-scale transition technologies is virtually zero
The contamination of fixed-bed reactors is mainly related to the emission of dust and pollutants from the purge gas in intermittent gasification; however, with oxygen-enriched continuous gasification, there is no longer any issue with purge gas emissions. Whether it is atmospheric pressure gasification or pressurized gasification, the problems of desulfurization and dust must be addressed. I think this is just a chronic issue of intermittent vaporization, not a problem with the fixed-bed process itself. A good manufacturing process must be combined with economic benefits; once the price of pulverized coal rises, the cost advantages of briquetted coal and small-grained coal, as well as the advantages of fixed-bed systems such as lower investment and depreciation, will become more apparent. Especially in the coal-producing regions in the north, the advantages in terms of steam generated by thermal coal and electricity costs allow me to believe that an oxygen-enriched continuous gasification process can sustain itself for about 5 years. Of course, my conclusion isn’t backed by any data; it’s purely based on intuition.
Different people have different opinions; I agree with what was said above.
It’s not just air pollution; the circulating water in the gasification washing process also poses a serious problem, both in the morning and at night. It is also an undeniable fact that atmospheric pressure gasification requires high energy consumption. Not very optimistic.
Any coal gasification furnace causes some level of environmental pollution; the most important thing is regular maintenance and management to minimize environmental damage as much as possible.
Different types of gasification furnaces have distinct markets; proper guidance is needed to address pollution issues, as a one-size-fits-all approach will not work
In terms of specific consumption, the energy requirement for atmospheric pressure gasification is definitely higher than that for pressurized gasification. However, given the national conditions, atmospheric pressure gasification is not yet to the point where it’s absolutely essential. I’ve discussed this with the manager of a gasification plant at an ammonia synthesis plant within the Jinmei group. Based on coal prices in 2015, and taking into account not only the specific consumption rates but also financial costs, management costs, and other factors, even space-based gasifiers have higher gasification costs than atmospheric-pressure gasifiers – let alone those produced by Shell. . .
There is still a market for it, after all the investment required is low. If semi-coke or chemical coke is used as the feedstock for gasification, it simplifies the subsequent purification process and can reduce pollution to a certain extent