DOCSLIB.ORG

SFA Pacific, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SFA Pacific, Inc 444 Castro Street, Suite 720 SFA Pacific, Inc. Mountain View, California 94041 Telephone: (650) 969-8876 Engineering & Economic Consultants Fax: (650) 969-1317 Email: [email protected] Website: www.sfapacific.com PROCESS SCREENING ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE GAS TREATING AND SULFUR REMOVAL FOR GASIFICATION Revised Final Report December 2002 Prepared by Nick Korens Dale R. Simbeck Donald J. Wilhelm SFA Pacific, Inc. Mountain View, California Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania NETL Project Manager James R. Longanbach DOE Gasification Technologies Product Manager Gary J. Stiegel Task Order No. 739656-00100 Task 2 SFA Pacific, Inc. ii SFA Pacific, Inc. Table of Contents PAGE NO. 1. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 1-1 Mercury Removal ......................................................................................................... 1-1 Acid Gas Removal ........................................................................................................ 1-2 Sulfur Recovery ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Tail Gas Treating .......................................................................................................... 1-3 Hot and Warm Gas Cleanup ......................................................................................... 1-3 Acid Gas Injection ........................................................................................................ 1-5 CO2 Removal for Sequestration.................................................................................... 1-5 2. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 2-1 Background................................................................................................................... 2-1 Report Objective ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Approach to the Task.................................................................................................... 2-2 3. EMISSIONS REGULATIONS .................................................................................. 3-1 Cleanup Process Implications....................................................................................... 3-2 Sulfur Removal ....................................................................................................... 3-2 Mercury Removal ................................................................................................... 3-2 4. IGCC GAS PROCESSING OPTIONS.................................................................... 4-1 Current IGCC Gas Processing ...................................................................................... 4-1 Syngas Characteristics and Gas Cleaning............................................................... 4-1 AGR Processes Employed Commercially with Gasification.................................. 4-3 Future IGCC Processes................................................................................................. 4-5 5. MERCURY REMOVAL ............................................................................................. 5-1 Low Temperature Separation........................................................................................ 5-1 Activated Carbon .......................................................................................................... 5-2 Activated Carbon Bed Design Principles ............................................................... 5-2 Metal Carbonyls................................................................................................ 5-4 Zeolites.......................................................................................................................... 5-4 Other Methods .............................................................................................................. 5-7 6. ACID GAS REMOVAL PROCESSES.................................................................... 6-1 Amine Processes ........................................................................................................... 6-2 Flowsheet and Process Design................................................................................ 6-2 Performance and Cost Factors .......................................................................... 6-3 Generic Amine Processes ................................................................................. 6-5 iii SFA Pacific, Inc. Table of Contents (continued) PAGE NO. 6. ACID GAS REMOVAL PROCESSES (continued) MDEA..................................................................................................................... 6-5 H2S/CO2 Selectivity.......................................................................................... 6-5 COS Removal ................................................................................................... 6-6 CO2 Removal .................................................................................................... 6-7 Degradation of MDEA and Its Corrosivity....................................................... 6-8 Hindered Amines .................................................................................................... 6-9 Physical Solvents .......................................................................................................... 6-10 Selexol .................................................................................................................... 6-11 Rectisol ................................................................................................................... 6-15 Mixed Amine/Physical Solvent Processes.................................................................... 6-18 Sulfinol.................................................................................................................... 6-18 FLEXSORB PS and Hybrid FLEXSORB SE ........................................................ 6-19 General Perceptions of AGR Process Suitability for IGCC ......................................... 6-19 AGR Process Selection................................................................................................. 6-20 7. SULFUR RECOVERY PROCESSES..................................................................... 7-1 The Claus Process......................................................................................................... 7-1 Claus Plant Sulfur Recovery Efficiency ................................................................. 7-2 Oxygen-Blown Claus.................................................................................................... 7-4 The COPE Process.................................................................................................. 7-5 The OxyClaus Process ............................................................................................ 7-5 The SURE Process.................................................................................................. 7-8 Other Oxygen-Blown Claus Process Services........................................................ 7-10 Extended Bed Claus Processes ..................................................................................... 7-10 The SuperClaus Process.......................................................................................... 7-10 Extended Cold-Bed Claus Process ......................................................................... 7-11 Other Sulfur Recovery Processes ................................................................................. 7-12 The Selectox Process .............................................................................................. 7-13 Wet Oxidation (Redox) Processes—LO-CAT and SulFerox ................................. 7-13 8. TAIL GAS TREATING .............................................................................................. 8-1 Reduction of Sulfur Compounds via Hydrogenation and Hydrolysis .......................... 8-1 Tail Gas Hydrogenation/Hydrolysis ....................................................................... 8-2 Raw Synthesis Gas Hydrolysis ............................................................................... 8-2 The SCOT Process........................................................................................................ 8-3 iv SFA Pacific, Inc. Table of Contents (continued) PAGE NO. 9. HOT AND WARM GAS CLEANUP ........................................................................ 9-1 Drivers for HGCU......................................................................................................... 9-1 Waning Interest in HGCU ............................................................................................ 9-2 Further Temperature Considerations ............................................................................ 9-3 Mercury Removal ................................................................................................... 9-3 “Hot Gas” or “Warm Gas” Cleanup?...................................................................... 9-3 GT Fuel Control Valves.......................................................................................... 9-3 Syngas Conversion to Synthetic Fuels.................................................................... 9-4 Particulates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sulfur Recovery
    Sulfur Recovery Chapter 16 Based on presentation by Prof. Art Kidnay Plant Block Schematic Adapted from Figure 7.1, Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing, 2nd ed. Kidnay, Parrish, & McCartney Updated: January 4, 2019 2 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) Topics Introduction Properties of sulfur Sulfur recovery processes ▪ Claus Process ▪ Claus Tail Gas Cleanup Sulfur storage Safety and environmental considerations Updated: January 4, 2019 3 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) Introduction & Properties of Sulfur Updated: January 4, 2019 Copyright © 2017 John Jechura ([email protected]) Sulfur Crystals http://www.irocks.com/minerals/specimen/34046 http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10d-5/sulfur.html Updated: January 4, 2019 5 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) Molten Sulfur http://www.kamgroupltd.com/En/Post/7/Basic-info-on-elemental-Sulfur(HSE) Updated: January 4, 2019 6 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) World Consumption of Sulfur Primary usage of sulfur to make sulfuric acid (90 – 95%) ▪ Other major uses are rubber processing, cosmetics, & pharmaceutical applications China primary market Ref: https://ihsmarkit.com/products/sulfur-chemical-economics-handbook.html Report published December 2017 Updated: January 4, 2019 7 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) Sulfur Usage & Prices Natural gas & petroleum production accounts for the majority of sulfur production Primary consumption is agriculture & industry ▪ 65% for farm fertilizer: sulfur → sulfuric acid → phosphoric acid → fertilizer $50 per ton essentially disposal cost ▪ Chinese demand caused run- up in 2007-2008 Ref: http://ictulsa.com/energy/ “Cleaning up their act”, Gordon Cope, Updated December 24, 2018 Hydrocarbon Engineering, pp 24-27, March 2011 Updated: January 4, 2019 8 Copyright © 2019 John Jechura ([email protected]) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrocarbon Processing®
    HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: SRTTA HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Hydrocarbon Processing’s Gas Processes 2012 handbook showcases recent advances in licensed technologies for gas processing, particularly in the area of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The LNG industry is poised to expand worldwide as new natural gas discoveries and production technologies compliment increasing demand for gas as a low-emissions fuel. With the discovery of new reserves come new challenges, such as how to treat gas produced from shale rock—a topic of particular interest for the growing shale gas industry in the US. The Gas Processes 2012 handbook addresses this technology topic and updates many others. The handbook includes new technologies for shale gas treating, synthesis gas production and treating, LNG and NGL production, hydrogen generation, and others. Additional technology topics covered include drying, gas treating, liquid treating, effluent cleanup and sulfur removal. To maintain as complete a listing as possible, the Gas Processes 2012 handbook is available on CD-ROM and at our website for paid subscribers. Additional copies may be ordered from our website. Photo: Lurgi’s synthesis gas complex in Malaysia. Photo courtesy of Air Liquide Global E&C Solutions. Please read the TERMS AND CONDITIONS carefully before using this interactive CD-ROM. Using the CD-ROM or the enclosed files indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions. www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com HYDROCARBON PROCESSING® 2012 Gas Processes Handbook HOME PROCESSES INDEX COMPANY INDEX Sponsors: Terms and Conditions Gulf Publishing Company provides this program and licenses its use throughout the Some states do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclu- world.
    [Show full text]
  • Claus Process
    PROSIMPLUS APPLICATION EXAMPLE CLAUS PROCESS INTEREST OF THIS EXAMPLE This example corresponds to the simulation of the well-known Claus process. This process allows the recovery of elemental sulfur from acid gas containing H2S and water, and possibly hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. The particularity of this example lies in the use of equilibrium reactors calculated by minimization of Gibbs free energy to simulate the different steps of the process. ACCESS Free Internet Restricted to ProSim clients Restricted Confidential CORRESPONDING PROSIMPLUS FILES PSPS_EX_EN-Claus-Process.pmp3 Il est rappelé au lecteur que ce cas d'utilisation est un exemple et ne doit pas être utilisé à d'autres fins. Bien que cet exemple soit basé sur un cas réel il ne doit pas être considéré comme un modèle de ce type de procédé et les données utilisées ne sont pas toujours les plus exactes disponibles. ProSim ne pourra en aucun cas être tenu pour responsable de l'application qui pourra être faite des calculs basés sur cet exemple Copyright © 2015 ProSim, Labège, France - Tous droits réservés www.prosim.net Claus Process Version: September 2012 Page: 2 / 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROCESS MODELING ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Process Description ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Process Flowsheet .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes
    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - an Opportunity for European Refiners
    Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - An Opportunity for European Refiners European Coking.com Conference Sept. 30 - Oct. 2, 2008 Alex Broerse Lummus Technology a CB&I company © Lummus Technology Overview Introduction Delayed Coking Delayed Coking vs. Visbreaking Case Study Conclusions © Lummus Technology Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - 2 Fuel Oil Market General trend: reduction of sulfur content in fuel oil Typically 1.0-1.5 wt% S International Maritime Organization introduced SOx Emission Control Areas: . Sulfur content of fuel oil on board ships < 1.5 wt% . 1st SECA: Baltic Sea (effective 2006) . North Sea end of 2007 . More to follow Similar trend in other fuel oil application areas End of bunker fuel oil as sulfur sink? © Lummus Technology Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - 3 European Fuels Market Increased demand for ULS diesel Gradually decreasing fuel oil market Price gap between low sulfur crudes and opportunity crudes Re-evaluation of bottom-of-the-barrel strategy maximize diesel and minimize/eliminate fuel oil production What are the options? © Lummus Technology Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - 4 Bottom-of-the-Barrel Conversion Technologies Non Catalytic Catalytic Delayed coking Atm. / vac. resid hydrotreating Fluid / flexicoking Ebullated bed hydrocracking Gasification Resid FCC © Lummus Technology Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - 5 Lummus Capabilities for Bottom-of-the-Barrel Lummus Technology – Houston Delayed coking Resid FCC Chevron Lummus Global JV – Bloomfield Atmospheric/vacuum residue hydrotreating LC-FINING ebullated bed hydrocracking Lummus Technology – Bloomfield / The Hague Refinery planning studies (e.g., grassroots, revamps, processing of opportunity crudes) © Lummus TechnologyExtensive experience in heavy crude upgrade Converting Visbreakers to Delayed Cokers - 6 scenarios Overview Introduction Delayed Coking Delayed Coking vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sulfur Recovery from Acid Gas Using the Claus Process and High Temperature Air Combustion (Hitac) Technology
    American Journal of Environmental Sciences 4 (5): 502-511, 2008 ISSN 1553-345X © 2008 Science Publications Sulfur Recovery from Acid Gas Using the Claus Process and High Temperature Air Combustion (HiTAC) Technology 1Mohamed Sassi and 2Ashwani K. Gupta 1Department of Chemical and Mechanical Engineering, The Petroleum Institute, P.O. Box 2533, Abu Dhabi, UAE 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Abstract: Sulfur-bearing compounds are very detrimental to the environment and to industrial process equipment. They are often obtained or formed as a by-product of separation and thermal processing of fuels containing sulfur, such as coal, crude oil and natural gas. The two sulfur compounds, which need special attention, are: hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). H2S is a highly corrosive gas with a foul smell. SO2 is a toxic gas responsible for acid rain formation and equipment corrosion. Various methods of reducing pollutants containing sulfur are described in this paper, with a focus on the modified Claus process, enhanced by the use of High Temperature Air Combustion (HiTAC) technology in the Claus furnace. The Claus process has been known and used in the industry for over 100 years. It involves thermal oxidation of hydrogen sulfide and its reaction with sulfur dioxide to form sulfur and water vapor. This process is equilibrium-limited and usually achieves efficiencies in the range of 94-97%, which have been regarded as acceptable in the past years. Nowadays strict air pollution regulations regarding hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide emissions call for nearly 100% efficiency, which can only be achieved with process modifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Visbreaking: a Technology of the Past and the Future
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Scientia Iranica C (2012) 19 (3), 569–573 Sharif University of Technology Scientia Iranica Transactions C: Chemistry and Chemical Engineering www.sciencedirect.com Visbreaking: A technology of the past and the future J.G. Speight ∗ CD&W Inc., 2476 Overland Road, Laramie, WY 82070, USA Received 18 August 2011; revised 1 December 2011; accepted 28 December 2011 KEYWORDS Abstract Because of their relative simplicity of design and straightforward thermal approach, visbreaking Petroleum refining; processes will not be ignored or absent from the refinery of the future. However, new and improved Visbreaking; approaches are important for the production of petroleum products. These will include advances in current Fouling. methods, minimization of process energy losses, and improved conversion efficiency. In addition, the use of additives to encourage the preliminary deposition of coke-forming constituents is also an option. Depending upon the additive, disposal of the process sediment can be achieved by a choice of methods. ' 2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. 1. Introduction variables are (1) feedstock type, (2) temperature, (3) pressure, and residence time, which need to be considered to control the extent of cracking. Balancing product yield and market demand, without the manufacture of large quantities of fractions having low com- 2. The visbreaking process mercial value, has long required processes for the conversion of hydrocarbons of one molecular weight range and/or struc- Visbreaking (viscosity reduction, viscosity breaking), a mild ture into some other molecular weight ranges and/or struc- form of thermal cracking, insofar as thermal reactions are tures.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Objective Optimization of a Rectisol Process
    Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Petar Sabev Varbanov and Peng Yen Liew (Editors) Proceedings of the 24th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering – ESCAPE 24 June 15-18, 2014, Budapest, Hungary. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Multi-objective Optimization of a Rectisol® Process Manuele Gatti a,*, Emanuele Martelli a, Franҫois Maréchal b, Stefano Consonni a a Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Energia, Via Lambruschini 4, Milano, Italy b Industrial Process Energy Systems Engineering (IPESE), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract This work focuses on the design, simulation and optimization of a Rectisol®-based process tailored for the selective removal of H2S and CO2 from gasification derived synthesis gas. Such task is quite challenging due to the need of addressing simultaneously the process design, energy integration and utility design. The paper, starting from a Rectisol® configuration recently proposed by the authors, describes the models and the solution strategy used to carry out the multi-objective optimization with respect to exergy consumption, CO2 capture level and capital cost. Keywords: Rectisol, CO2 Capture, Numerical Optimization, PGS-COM, Pareto frontier 1. Introduction Coal to Liquids (CTL) as well as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants take advantage from the conversion of a cheap, fossil fuel like coal into a clean synthetic gas, mainly composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other minor species, either to produce Liquid Fuels or Electricity as output. In such plants, sulfur-containing compounds are among the most critical contaminants, and they should be separated from the raw syngas not only to cope with emissions regulations but, in the specific case of CTL, also to avoid any potential detrimental impact on the catalyst of the downstream chemical synthesis process.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Simulation of a Dual-Stage Selexol Unit for Pre-Combustion Carbon Capture at an IGCC Power Plant', Energy Procedia, Vol
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Process simulation of a dual-stage Selexol unit for pre- combustion carbon capture at an IGCC power plant Citation for published version: Ahn, H, Kapetaki, Z, Brandani, P & Brandani, S 2014, 'Process simulation of a dual-stage Selexol unit for pre-combustion carbon capture at an IGCC power plant', Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 1751–1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.182 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.182 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Energy Procedia General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 63 ( 2014 ) 1751 – 1755 GHGT-12 Process simulation of a dual-stage Selexol unit for pre-combustion carbon capture at an IGCC power plant Hyungwoong Ahn*, Zoe Kapetaki, Pietro Brandani, Stefano Brandani Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage Centre, School of Engineering, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JL, UK Abstract It is aimed to simulate a dual-stage Selexol process for removing CO2 as well as H2S from the syngas typically found in the IGCC power plant with a dry-coal fed gasifier.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen Sulfide Capture: from Absorption in Polar Liquids to Oxide
    Review pubs.acs.org/CR Hydrogen Sulfide Capture: From Absorption in Polar Liquids to Oxide, Zeolite, and Metal−Organic Framework Adsorbents and Membranes Mansi S. Shah,† Michael Tsapatsis,† and J. Ilja Siepmann*,†,‡ † Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0132, United States ‡ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Theory Center, University of Minnesota, 207 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0431, United States ABSTRACT: Hydrogen sulfide removal is a long-standing economic and environ- mental challenge faced by the oil and gas industries. H2S separation processes using reactive and non-reactive absorption and adsorption, membranes, and cryogenic distillation are reviewed. A detailed discussion is presented on new developments in adsorbents, such as ionic liquids, metal oxides, metals, metal−organic frameworks, zeolites, carbon-based materials, and composite materials; and membrane technologies for H2S removal. This Review attempts to exhaustively compile the existing literature on sour gas sweetening and to identify promising areas for future developments in the field. CONTENTS 4.1. Polymeric Membranes 9785 4.2. Membranes for Gas−Liquid Contact 9786 1. Introduction 9755 4.3. Ceramic Membranes 9789 2. Absorption 9758 4.4. Carbon-Based Membranes 9789 2.1. Alkanolamines 9758 4.5. Composite Membranes 9790 2.2. Methanol 9758 N 5. Cryogenic Distillation 9790 2.3. -Methyl-2-pyrrolidone 9758 6. Outlook and Perspectives 9791 2.4. Poly(ethylene glycol) Dimethyl Ether 9759 Author Information 9792 2.5. Sulfolane and Diisopropanolamine 9759 Corresponding Author 9792 2.6. Ionic Liquids 9759 ORCID 9792 3. Adsorption 9762 Notes 9792 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Claus Process in Refinery
    Claus Process In Refinery Equisetic Raymundo sometimes porrect any perfusion dice nicely. Is Patel plagal or wetter when crossbreeds some fame accrue nebulously? Lightless and unelectrified Uli crinkle so grumblingly that Zebulon madrigals his argemones. The first step to process plant and processing plant may be required if you provide measures may have different hydrogen in process can be oxidized in Proper gas cleaning also results in lower maintenance and operating costs for the plant. In a recent study, Li et al. For more videos on sulfur recovery, subscribe to our page. Illustration that shows the alkylation reaction used to produce gasoline. NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE MADE REGARDING PRODUCTS DESCRIBED OR DESIGNS, DATA OR INFORMATION SET FORTH. Modified Claus Process 17 Petroleum Refining Technology Economics 5th Ed by James Gary Glenn Handwerk Mark Kaiser CRC Press 2007. For revamp projects, the easy solution is to add one or more SRU train in line with the existing capacity of the SRU trains. Claus reactor to operate from lower temperatures compared to alumina catalysts. Most phosphogypsum produced in the United States is treated as hazardous waste that must be stored in stacks or piles. Lignin is separated from the spent cooking liquor, which also contains sodium and sulfur compounds. Kinetic modelling of a giant sulfur recovery unit based on claus straight up process: order with equilibrium model. Diagram that shows the products derived at which various boiling points of local oil. The mamority of domestic phosphate producers base their various fertilizer types on phosphoric acid.
    [Show full text]
  • Claus Process Malvade Rutik Vijay Pravara Rural Engineering College,Loni
    Claus Process Malvade Rutik Vijay Pravara Rural Engineering College,Loni Background : Desulfurization of Hydrogen Sulfide for the production of Elemental Sulfur Claus Process is the most significant process petended by chemist Carl Friedrich Claus in 1883 which has industrial standard for production of sulphur. The Claus multi-step method recovers sulfur from the gaseous hydrogen sulfide present in raw natural gas and from the by-product gases containing hydrogen sulfide produced from crude oil refining and other processes of industry. Gasses with an H2S content of more than 25% are ideal for sulfur recovery in Claus straight-through plants, whereas alternative systems such as split-flow set-up or feed and air preheating can be used to process leaner feeds. Description: The flowsheet use for recovery of Elemental consist of Burner ,Reaction Furnace Condenser, Reheater and Reactor. Thermal ( in burner above 8500C ) and Catalytic are the two main step of this process. The catalytic recovery of sulphur conist of three sub step:- - The gases are reheated and introduced to catalyst bed. - The remaining H2S is reacted with SO2 at lower temperature ( About 200-3500C ) over a catalyst to make more sulphur. For this reason more than one or two reactors are use. - In the sulphur condenser the process gas coming from the burner and from catalytic reactors is cooled to between 150 to 130 0C, sulphur being removed from each step. The reaction that are possible in reaction furnace are given below: 2 H2S + 3 O2 2 So2 + 2 H2O ( H = -518 KJ/Mol ) This is strongly exothermic reaction free-flame total oxidation of hydrogen sulphide genarting sulphur dioxide that subsequently react for the producting the sulphur.
    [Show full text]