The relocation of polluting enterprises, as well as the city's eye-catching sky, is undoubtedly a good starting point. However, relocation is not a good way to prevent pollution. At most, it is an expedient measure. The greater possibility is that not only the pollution of the relocated company is not effectively managed, but also new pollution may be triggered. For example, Shan Rubber Group. Since 'difficult to fundamentally solve environmental pollution and production safety hazards', then this 'polluting large family' is still a 'large polluter' after relocation, and the relocation process is not a process of pollution control, but only a major transfer of pollution. If Shan Rubber is relocated, the already contaminated environment will not return to its original shape as the relocation begins, and the original clean site will be immediately contaminated with the relocation. 'The old wound has not been cured, and the new disease has developed.' Therefore, relying on relocation to control pollution is not worth the candle.
Is it true that the pollution of Shan Oak is 'drug-free'? From the author's understanding of the situation, the answer is no. At present, in countries and regions where environmental protection requirements are more stringent than ours, such as Japan, the United States, and the European Union, all have produced chloroprene rubber. We haven't heard of any of them having been relocated because of pollution problems.
Japan Electrochemical Industry Co., Ltd., which uses the acetylene carbide process route, is also not a problem. It seems that there are still ways to control the production of pollution from neoprene on the earth. Therefore, to solve the pollution problem of mountain oaks, we should base ourselves on 'governance' rather than 'relocation'. Besides, our country's land area is limited. Wherever we move there are people. Foreign countries do not want to. We cannot always move on the moon. Therefore, to solve the problem of pollution of companies like Shan Rubber Group, we should make a fuss about 'governance' and not just 'move'.
Why say closed cooling tower is energy saving and environmental protection equipment, more and more users are using this kind of equipment to replace the original equipment (open tower), we can through data analysis and comparison, the two energy data accounting can be obvious. Energy consumption is basically two major aspects, one is water, the other is electricity. Both are energy costs that no cooling tower can escape, unless you leave the equipment on.
First of all, look at the consumption of water. Water is generally consumed in two aspects. One is the flying overflow after spraying, and the other is the evaporation consumption of water.
Let's look at the open cooling tower, the spray water of the tower is basically between two and three percent of the overflow rate, if we according to the daily operation of 10 hours, excluding holidays, 280 days of operation. According to the actual open cooling tower flow of 6000 cubic meters per hour to calculate. 6000*2%*10*280= 336,000 tons of water, and the same closed cooling tower, its spray flying overflow is very small, because after all, the spray work is carried out in the tower, almost can be controlled in a few thousandths, we calculate according to 5 thousandths, the same is 10 hours of work, 280 days a year operation, To achieve the same cooling amplitude is basically 4,500 tons per hour of closed cooling tower is enough, then the calculation results: 4,500 *0.5%*10*280= 63,000 tons, it is not difficult to see, because of the different design structure caused by the waste of spraying water resources, more than 200,000 tons of terror. The bigger the pool of the open tower, the more wasted water, because the evaporation area increases, and the closed cooling tower has no pool, so the consumption here is zero. Judging from the price of a ton of water, just such a equipment, a year to solve the capital of hundreds of thousands of enterprises.
Let's look at the comparison of electric energy, electric energy is not different, because they are all through the same power equipment to operate the equipment, the power of the two is similar, the running time is the same, basically the energy consumption is about the same.
To sum up, for the closed cooling tower energy saving accounting can be strong to open the tower out, and, today are advocating energy conservation and environmental protection, this is the general trend, so the closed cooling tower is more and more favored by the majority of users.
Closed Cooling Tower,Closed Circuit Cross Flow,Closed Loop Cooling Tower,Closed Circuit Cooler
Wuxi Ark Fluid Science Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.fangzhou-arkfluid.com