Performance and Cost Models for the Direct Sulfur Recovery Process. Task 1 Topical Report, Volume 3 Page: 29 of 112
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
250 and 300 C and a pressure of about 20 atm. Under these conditions, the following
reactions are believed to occur:
2 H2S + S02 ++. 3/x Sx +2 H20 (19)
COS + H20 ++ H2S + CO2 (20)
Recall that reaction (19) is the Claus reaction. The "x" is typically between 2 and 8
depending on temperature and residence time. Reaction (20) converts any remaining COS
to hydrogen sulfide, which is then converted to elemental sulfur via the Claus reaction.
Bench-scale tests indicate that reaction (20) proceeds to completion. Due to the reaction
mechanism for Stage II, the inlet stream should contain a 2 to 1 ratio of H2S and COS to
SO2 (Gangwal, 1993).
3.3 DSRP Design Studies
There have been two major published design studies that feature a performance and
cost evaluation of the DSRP as applied to several IGCC flowsheets. The first of these is a
1993 study by Texaco which was published in May 1993 (Robin et al., 1993). In this
study, the DSRP was evaluated as part of two different hot gas cleanup systems as applied
to a Texaco gasifier-based IGCC system. In one case, a moving bed zinc titanate
desulfuration system was evaluated, while in the other case a fluidized bed zinc titanate
desulfurization system was studied. In both cases, detailed performance and cost data were
reported. The performance data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for the two Texaco
design cases. The tables reference stream numbers which are depicted in Figure 6.
The second design study was developed by Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc (Buchanan
et al., 1994). This study focused on evaluation of gas stream cleanup systems as applied to
KRW gasifier-based IGCC systems. The DSRP was evaluated in conjuction with two
IGCC designs that featured fluidized bed zinc titanate desulfurization. The difference in the
two cases was that one was for an oxygen-blown gasifier, while the other was for an air-
blown system. The report by Buchanan et al. does not provide as much detail regarding
the DSRP performance and cost as does the report by Robin et al. Therefore, much of the
model development effort benefited primarily from the latter report.17
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Frey, H. C. & Williams, R. B. Performance and Cost Models for the Direct Sulfur Recovery Process. Task 1 Topical Report, Volume 3, report, September 1, 1995; [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc679670/m1/29/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.