烃类蒸汽转化制氢装置高温变换和中温变换方案对比  

Comparison of schemes of high temperature shift andmedium temperature shift of hydrocarbon steam reforming forhydrogen production unit

作　　者：司马蒙 Sima Meng(SINOPEC Guangzhou Engineering Co.,Ltd.,Guangzhou,Guangdong 510620)

机构地区：[1]中石化广州工程有限公司,广东省广州市510620

出　　处：《炼油技术与工程》2023年第10期12-16,共5页Petroleum Refinery Engineering

摘　　要：以某炼油厂原料气为研究对象,设计了两种方案,在工程投资、能耗、操作费用等方面进行了对比。其中,方案一为蒸汽转化+高温变换流程,方案二为蒸汽转化+中温变换流程。结果表明:在项目用地面积充裕、工程投资充足、项目蒸汽紧缺的情况下,方案二的CO转化率高、原料消耗量低、外输蒸汽量多、能耗低、操作费用低,此时方案二更有优势;在项目用地面积紧张、工程投资有限、项目蒸汽富裕的情况下,方案二需要考虑独立的中温变换开工还原流程及设备,开工流程复杂,催化剂费用高,占地面积相应增加,而方案一的工程投资低、占地面积小,此时方案一更有优势。Two schemes are designed based on the raw gas of a certain refinery,and comparisons are made in terms of engineering investment,energy consumption,and operating costs.Scheme 1 is steam reforming+high temperature shift,while Scheme 2 is steam reforming+medium temperature shift.The results show that in the case of abundant land area,sufficient engineering investment,and shortage of project steam,Scheme 2 has higher CO conversion rate,lower raw material consumption,more steam output,lower energy consumption,and lower operating costs.At this time,Scheme 2 has more advantages.In the case of tight project land area,limited engineering investment,and abundant project steam,Scheme 2 needs to consider an independent medium temperature shift start-up reduction process and equipment.The start-up process is complex,the catalyst cost is high,and the land occupation area increases accordingly.However,Scheme 1 has lower engineering investment and small land occupation area,which makes Scheme 1 more advantageous.

关 键 词：烃类蒸汽转化 制氢装置 高温变换 中温变换 开工还原 工程投资 能耗 操作费用 

分 类 号：TQ116.2[化学工程—无机化工]