炼油技术与工程 ›› 2023, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 1-6.

• 综述 •    下一篇

双碳背景下能源化工能效评价指标研究探讨

王龙延1, 周建华2, 张政学3, 经铁1   

  1. 1.中石化炼化工程(集团)股份有限公司洛阳技术研发中心; 2.中国石油化工股份有限公司炼油事业部; 3.宁夏瑞科新源化工有限公司
  • 收稿日期:2022-11-08 出版日期:2023-01-15 发布日期:2023-01-31
  • 作者简介:王龙延,正高级工程师,享受国务院特殊津贴,中国石化集团有限公司高级专家,中石化炼化工程(集团)股份有限公司首席专家,本刊编委会委员,从事石油炼制技术研究开发工作。联系电话:0379-64330526,E-mail:wanglongyan.segr@sinopec.com。

Research on evaluation index of energy efficiency in energy chemical industry under the background of double carbon dioxide

Wang Longyan1, Zhou Jianhua2, Zhang Zhengxue3, Jing Tie1   

  1. 1.Luoyang R&D Center of Technologies of SINOPEC Engineering (Group) of Co., Ltd.; 2.SINOPEC Petroleum Refining Department; 3.Reekestar Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd.
  • Received:2022-11-08 Online:2023-01-15 Published:2023-01-31

摘要:

针对炼油行业、石油化工行业和煤化工行业能效评价指标各自独立、互不兼容的现象,建立了单位工业增加值能耗评价指标和相应计算方法来衡量能源化工企业(或装置)的用能水平,为能源化工行业提供了一种能效评价和对标管理的手段。按照不变价格体系和市场价格体系平均值计算:DCC-PLUS(增强型催化裂解)装置与MIP(多产异构烷烃的催化裂化)装置相比,单位原料综合能耗高86%,单位工业增加值能耗仅高28%;CVMTO(煤经甲醇制烯烃)工艺和CVOTO(煤经费托合成油制烯烃)工艺相比,单位产品综合能耗低37%,单位工业增加值能耗低48%。基于市场价格体系比较,CVOTO工艺比CVMTO工艺的单位原料增加值高4.41元/t原料,单位工业增加值能耗低1 833.73 MJ/t原料

关键词: 能源化工, 能耗, 能效评价, 炼油, 石油化工, 煤化工, 单位工业增加值能耗, 双碳背景

Abstract:

Energy consumption per unit industrial value added and its corresponding calculation method have been established so as to solve the problem that the existing energy efficiency evaluation indexes in oil refining, petrochemical and coal chemical sectors are mutual independent and incompatible. It provides a better alternative means of energy efficiency evaluation and benchmarking management for energy and chemical industry. The case study shows that based on the average value of constant price system and market price system, the comprehensive energy consumption per unit feedstock of DCC-PLUS unit is 86% higher than that of MIP unit, and its energy consumption per unit industrial value added is only 28% higher; the comprehensive energy consumption per unit product(ethylene and propylene) of CVMTO process is 37% lower than that of CVOTO process, and its energy consumption per unit industrial value added is 48% lower. However, based on market price system, the unit feedstock value added of CVOTO process is 4.41 yuan per ton higher than that of CVMTO process, and the energy consumption per unit industrial value added is 1 833.73 MJ per ton feedstock lower.

Key words: energy chemical, energy consumption, energy efficiency evaluation, oil refining, petrochemical, coal chemical, energy consumption per unit industrial value added, double carbon dioxide background