Why choose DMTO instead of UOP
Thread Content
This post was last edited by liaifeng on 2018-7-28 07:29. LZ is an outsider. The company needs this information. . A report needs to be prepared; I’ve gathered some information recently. But I can’t digest it. Why is DMTO chosen over UOP in the market? If what I list below is correct, it should be a comparison of DMTO-II data with UOP data. UOP DMTO-II: Methanol conversion rate – 99.8%, 99.8%; Methanol to olefins conversion – 2.54 t/t, 2.67 t/t; Catalyst consumption – 0.21 kg/t, 0.25 kg/t; Catalyst price – 20–25 W, 19–21 W; Actual annual catalyst consumption – around 300 t, around 420 tons. Is it because the investment cost for UOP’s equipment is very high that people choose DMTO instead? What could be the reason? I hope experts can help clarify this. . Thank you!
For these data of yours, is DMTO the one mentioned first? Well, DMTO is developed domestically, so it’s relatively inexpensive; supporting domestic products is also something that is encouraged. The equipment in question is of domestic origin, which makes it easier to purchase and maintain.
DMTO in front, UOP behind? ? If your data is structured in this way, you naturally need to choose DMTO. As I understand it, DMTO is a domestic technology that allows for maximum localization of the equipment; it is easy to maintain and service, and there is no need to engage in international lawsuits in case of disputes. :lol
Domestically, DMTO has indeed received policy support; aside from state-owned enterprises, private companies that prioritize efficiency and stable operations tend to choose UOP. It’s not that they lack funds, but rather they care about cost efficiency and are not constrained by institutional restrictions – it’s worth learning more about this. State-owned enterprises face severe problems such as fluid leakage and wear and tear over the long term when using DMTO, but due to institutional constraints, they dare not voice their concerns
Ugh, I just realized I had put the data in the wrong order; I’ve corrected it now. . DMTO-II has a higher consumption, while UOP has a lower one
Ugh, I just realized I had put the data in the wrong order; I’ve corrected it now. . DMTO-II has a higher consumption, while UOP has a lower one...
It seems that the performance of DMTO-II is not as good as that of UOP; DMTO generation 1 lags far behind UOP in terms of performance. .
That’s not quite right either; if Shenhua Baotou had chosen UOP instead of DMTO back then, the results likely wouldn’t have been much better. After all, initial equipment investment and catalyst costs are also very important. Without DMTO, UOP’s catalysts would not have been able to be reduced. Without the space furnace, Shell would not have taken the initiative to localize the equipment. After process optimization of DMTO, the gap between the diene yield and catalyst consumption and those of UOP is very small. Moreover, what really matters is the operation and subsequent improvements.
Shenhua Baotou did not choose DMTO; instead, it opted for UOP. The reason was simply that the **National Development and Reform Commission required DMTO to be used at that time – this point needs to be clarified!
There’s no need to take a one-sided approach either; UOP has its drawbacks as well. Its high conversion rate relies on the subsequent additional unit, OCP, and it is also subject to the constraints of the propylene market. In fact, SMTO is also worth considering, though DMTO has taken the lead