Abstract:

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.

Key words: hydrocarbon steam reforming, hydrogen production unit, high temperature shift, medium temperature shift, start-up reduction, project investment, energy consumption, operating cost

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。

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