汽油品质升级过程的环境影响分析与对比
|
摘要
低硫清洁燃料的生产需要在高温高压下进行,其生产过程对环境的影响不容忽视。在汽油品质升级时,针对采用传统加氢工艺和S-Zorb工艺的脱硫过程,基于全生命周期的Eco-indicator 99方法,分析对比了生产不同品质汽油时对环境的综合影响。以某炼油厂加工量为1.5×10~6 t/a的催化汽油加氢脱硫装置为例,当汽油硫质量分数从33μg/g降低至8μg/g时,生产过程消耗的公用工程以及排放的CO_2所造成的环境影响从2.76×10~6 point/a (point为环境影响的单位,1 point表示平均每年每人承受环境负荷的千分之一)增加到4.036×10~6 point/a,尽管产品燃烧排放SO_2的影响从5.233×10~5 point/a降低到1.259×10~5 point/a,但造成的对环境总影响增加了26.8%;而对于一个加工量1.2×10~6 t/a的S-Zorb装置,当汽油硫质量分数从31.3μg/g降到4.3μg/g时,生产过程的环境影响从1.426×10~6 point/a增加到1.626×10~6 point/a,产品燃烧排放SO_2的影响从4.09×10~5 point/a降低到5.67×10~4 point/a,最终使环境影响降低了8.3%。因此,在对汽油品质进行升级时,生产过程中公用工程消耗以及排放的CO_2对环境的影响不容忽视,无论采用何种脱硫工艺,降低产品对环境的影响是以增加生产过程对环境的影响为代价的,而当采用吸附脱硫时,总体上对环境是有益的。
Environmental impact of low sulfur fuel production processes should not be ignored due to the fact of high reaction temperature and pressure conditions. Comprehensive environmental impact for two gasoline production processes, i.e., a hydrodesulfurization(HDS) process and an S-Zorb process, are analyzed by Eco-indicator 99 method base on life cycle assessment. A gasoline HDS unit with capacity of 1.5×10~6 t/a is used as an example. When the sulfur mass fraction in gasoline decreases from 33 μg/g to 8 μg/g, the environmental impact of utility consumptions and CO_2 emission in the production process can increase from 2.76×10~6 point/a(point is the unit of environmental impact, 1 point denotes one thousandth of the yearly environmental load of one average human) to 4.036×10~6 point/a, however, SO_2 emission due to gasoline combustion only decreases from 5.233×10~5 point/a to 1.259×10~5 point/a. This causes total environmental impact increasing 26.8%. If the above process is replaced with an S-Zorb unit with the capacity of 1.2×10~6 t/a, the environmental impact of production process can increase from 1.426×10~6 point/a to 1.626×10~6 point/a, however, SO_2 emission caused by gasoline combustion will decrease from 4.09×10~5 point/a to 5.67×10~4 point/a. Thus the total environmental impact can reduce 8.3% with using S-Zorb Unit. Therefore, from the above examples, the impact of the utility consumption and CO_2 emission in production process must be considered when performing environmental impact analysis. No matter which desulfurization technology is used, reducing product environmental impacts is at the cost of environmental impacts of production process. However, adsorption desulfurization will have less environmental impact compared with HDS process.
Environmental impact of low sulfur fuel production processes should not be ignored due to the fact of high reaction temperature and pressure conditions. Comprehensive environmental impact for two gasoline production processes, i.e., a hydrodesulfurization(HDS) process and an S-Zorb process, are analyzed by Eco-indicator 99 method base on life cycle assessment. A gasoline HDS unit with capacity of 1.5×10~6 t/a is used as an example. When the sulfur mass fraction in gasoline decreases from 33 μg/g to 8 μg/g, the environmental impact of utility consumptions and CO_2 emission in the production process can increase from 2.76×10~6 point/a(point is the unit of environmental impact, 1 point denotes one thousandth of the yearly environmental load of one average human) to 4.036×10~6 point/a, however, SO_2 emission due to gasoline combustion only decreases from 5.233×10~5 point/a to 1.259×10~5 point/a. This causes total environmental impact increasing 26.8%. If the above process is replaced with an S-Zorb unit with the capacity of 1.2×10~6 t/a, the environmental impact of production process can increase from 1.426×10~6 point/a to 1.626×10~6 point/a, however, SO_2 emission caused by gasoline combustion will decrease from 4.09×10~5 point/a to 5.67×10~4 point/a. Thus the total environmental impact can reduce 8.3% with using S-Zorb Unit. Therefore, from the above examples, the impact of the utility consumption and CO_2 emission in production process must be considered when performing environmental impact analysis. No matter which desulfurization technology is used, reducing product environmental impacts is at the cost of environmental impacts of production process. However, adsorption desulfurization will have less environmental impact compared with HDS process.
引文
[1] 赵东风,陈璐,薛建良,等.石油化工企业周围环境中大气污染物的分布特征及源解析[J].石油学报(石油加工),2014,30(3):561-567.(ZHAO Dongfeng,CHEN Lu,XUE Jianliang,et al.Distribution characteristics and source apportionment of the atmospheric pollutants around petrochemical enterprise[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica (Petroleum Processing Section),2014,30(3):561-567.)
[2] BABUSIAUX D.Allocation of the CO2 and pollutant emissions of a refinery to petroleum finished products[J].Oil & Gas Science and Technology,2003,58(6):685-692.
[3] BABUSIAUX D,PIERRU A.Modelling and allocation of CO2 emissions in a multiproduct industry:The case of oil refining[J].Applied Energy,2007,84(7-8):828-841.
[4] TEHRANI-NEJAD M A.Allocation of CO2 emissions in petroleum refineries to petroleum joint products:A linear programming model for practical application[J].Energy Economics,2007,29(4):974-997.
[5] BREDESON L,QUICENO-GONZALEZ R,RIERA-PALOU X,et al.Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity,with allocation into products[J].The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,2010,15(8):817-826.
[6] TEHRANI-NEJAD M A,SAINT-ANTONIN V.Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity,with allocation into products:Comment[J].The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,2014,19(1):24-28.
[7] ABDUL-MANAN A,ARFAJ A,BABIKER H.Oil refining in a CO2 constrained world:Effects of carbon pricing on refineries globally[J].Energy,2017,121:264-275.
[8] MORETTI C,MORO A,EDWARDS R,et al.Analysis of standard and innovative methods for allocating upstream and refinery GHG emissions to oil products[J].Applied Energy,2017,206:372-381.
[9] 吴乐,朱强,刘永忠.燃油加氢深度脱硫过程的生态环境影响分析[J].石油学报(石油加工),2016,32(2):343-349.(WU Le,ZHU Qiang,LIU Yongzhong.Analysis of eco-environmental impacts of deep hydrodesulfurization process for fuel production[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica (Petroleum Processing Section),2016,32(2):343-349.)
[10] WU L,LIU Y Z.Environmental impacts of hydrotreating processes for the production of clean fuels based on life cycle assessment[J].Fuel,2016,164:352-360.
[11] 李大东.加氢处理工艺与工程[M].北京:中国石化出版社,2004.
[12] GOEDKOOP M,SPRIENSMA R.The Eco-indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.Methdology Report[M].Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2000.
[13] HEGGER S,HISCHIER R.Assignment of Characterisation Factors to the Swiss LCI Database Ecoinvent[M].Version 2.2.Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2010.
[14] GOEDKOOP M,EFFTING S,COLLIGNON M.The Eco-Indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment——Manual for Designers[M].Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2000.Environmental Impact Analysis and Comparison for Different Gasoline Production Refining ProcessesSHI Meirong WU Le ZHAO XinWhen gasoline quality is upgraded from low sulfur to ultra-low sulfur,the total environmental impact of a hydrodesulfurization unit will increase when considering environmental impact due to utility consumption during production process.However,the total environmental impact of S-Zorb unit is less compared with HDS process.
[2] BABUSIAUX D.Allocation of the CO2 and pollutant emissions of a refinery to petroleum finished products[J].Oil & Gas Science and Technology,2003,58(6):685-692.
[3] BABUSIAUX D,PIERRU A.Modelling and allocation of CO2 emissions in a multiproduct industry:The case of oil refining[J].Applied Energy,2007,84(7-8):828-841.
[4] TEHRANI-NEJAD M A.Allocation of CO2 emissions in petroleum refineries to petroleum joint products:A linear programming model for practical application[J].Energy Economics,2007,29(4):974-997.
[5] BREDESON L,QUICENO-GONZALEZ R,RIERA-PALOU X,et al.Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity,with allocation into products[J].The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,2010,15(8):817-826.
[6] TEHRANI-NEJAD M A,SAINT-ANTONIN V.Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity,with allocation into products:Comment[J].The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,2014,19(1):24-28.
[7] ABDUL-MANAN A,ARFAJ A,BABIKER H.Oil refining in a CO2 constrained world:Effects of carbon pricing on refineries globally[J].Energy,2017,121:264-275.
[8] MORETTI C,MORO A,EDWARDS R,et al.Analysis of standard and innovative methods for allocating upstream and refinery GHG emissions to oil products[J].Applied Energy,2017,206:372-381.
[9] 吴乐,朱强,刘永忠.燃油加氢深度脱硫过程的生态环境影响分析[J].石油学报(石油加工),2016,32(2):343-349.(WU Le,ZHU Qiang,LIU Yongzhong.Analysis of eco-environmental impacts of deep hydrodesulfurization process for fuel production[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica (Petroleum Processing Section),2016,32(2):343-349.)
[10] WU L,LIU Y Z.Environmental impacts of hydrotreating processes for the production of clean fuels based on life cycle assessment[J].Fuel,2016,164:352-360.
[11] 李大东.加氢处理工艺与工程[M].北京:中国石化出版社,2004.
[12] GOEDKOOP M,SPRIENSMA R.The Eco-indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.Methdology Report[M].Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2000.
[13] HEGGER S,HISCHIER R.Assignment of Characterisation Factors to the Swiss LCI Database Ecoinvent[M].Version 2.2.Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2010.
[14] GOEDKOOP M,EFFTING S,COLLIGNON M.The Eco-Indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment——Manual for Designers[M].Netherlands:PRé Consultants,2000.Environmental Impact Analysis and Comparison for Different Gasoline Production Refining ProcessesSHI Meirong WU Le ZHAO XinWhen gasoline quality is upgraded from low sulfur to ultra-low sulfur,the total environmental impact of a hydrodesulfurization unit will increase when considering environmental impact due to utility consumption during production process.However,the total environmental impact of S-Zorb unit is less compared with HDS process.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |