How To Save Energy Through Enhanced Automation

How to Save Energy Through
Enhanced Automation
AIChE Spring Meeting

2008
Douglas White
Emerson Process
Management
Standards
Certification
Education & Training
Publishing
Conferences & Exhibits
Speaker
Doug White
Principal Consultant and Vice
President, APC Services
Advanced Applied Technologies
Process Systems and Solutions
Emerson Process Management
Many years experience designing,

justifying, installing and
commissioning advanced real time
computer applications in the process
industries.
©2008 Emerson Process Management
2
Natural Gas Prices
Natural Gas Prices (Henry Hub)
14
12
10
$/ MMBTU
2 Forecast
0
Jan-93 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09
Date

3
Process Energy Usage
Value; 10% Energy

Process Energy; Reduction; $/ Ton
MM BTU/ Ton
s t
($7/ MMBTU)
Petroleum Refining 4.4
M o 3.1
Integrated Pulp/Paper Mill
ti
29.0 n 20.3
Cement Production
o s 7.9 5.5
Chemicals
e C
Ethylene
b l 7.1 5.0
Polyethylene lla s!
ro
t la n t 6.7 4.7
EDC
o n P
9.4 6.6
PVC
t C 4.0 2.8
EO
e s 6.2 4.3
EG
rg 7.1 5.0
L a
Ethylbenzene 2.9 2.1
Styrene 38.8 27.2

4
Session Objective
Present some case studies of the many ways that

automation, advanced automation and asset
management can save energy in process plants

5
Outline
• How is energy used in process plants?
• How can automation help save energy?
• How do we implement an energy reduction program?

6
General Process Site Energy Flow
Process
Purchased Steam
Steam Drives
Export
Steam
Central
Steam Process Process
Production Heating/ Steam
Purchased Cooling Generated
Fuel
Process Export
Fired Fuel
Raw Material Equipment
As Fuel
Central Process Process
Power Direct Fuel Misc Electric
Production Usage Usage
Export
Power
Purchased Process
Power Power Plant Electric
Process and Drives
Offsites
7
“Average” Chemical Site Energy Flow
Process
Purchased Steam
Steam Drives
Export
Steam
Central
Purchased 32% Cooling Generated
Fuel
Process Export
63% Fired 27% Fuel
As Fuel
18%
37% Export
4%
Power
Purchased Process 1%
22%
Process and Drives
Offsites
%-Equivalent BTU basis (Including
©2008 Emerson losses) on total input
Process Management
8
Integrated Pulping Paper Mill Energy Flow
Process
Purchased Steam
Steam Drives
Export
Steam
Central
Fuel
Process Export
42%
5%
Fired Fuel
As Fuel
Central Process Process/ Fac
50%
Production Usage 4% Usage
Export
25%
Power
Purchased Process
29%
8% Process and Drives
Offsites
%-Equivalent BTU©2008
basis (Including
Emerson losses) on total input
Process Management
9
Oil Refinery Energy Flow
Process
Purchased Steam
Steam Drives
Export
1%
Steam
Central
Fuel
Process Export
25%
44%
Fired Fuel
As Fuel 6%
64%
Export
5%
Power
Purchased Process
15%
10% Process and Drives
Offsites
%-Equivalent BTU basis (Including
©2008 Emerson losses) on total input
Process Management
10
Reducing Plant Energy Costs
• Reduce Usage
– Individual Equipment
– Improve Efficiencies – Boilers, Heaters, kilns
– Maximize Useful Recovery - Preheat
– Minimize Losses
– Cooling water
– Minimize Motor Losses
– Unit Savings
– Optimize Process Unit Operations
– Distillation/ Fractionation
– Maximize Waste Heat Recovery
– Minimize waste/ off spec
– Site/ Multi – Unit Savings
– Minimize Steam Losses and Downgrading
– Switch of steam drives for electric or vice versa
– Seasonal effects
• Reduce Cost of Production and Purchase

– Fuel Substitution
– Generation Maximization
– Boiler and Turbine Allocation
– Electric Purchase Optimization
Automation and Advanced Automation are the keys to

effective operation and minimum ongoing energy usage
11
Process Industry Energy Saving Primary Targets
• Fired Heaters
• Distillation/ Fractionation
• Central Power and Steam Production

12
How can Automation Reduce Energy
Usage?

13
Variability – Potential Energy Savings
Example
Heater Stack O2 Variability
12 800
11
700
10
600
9
500
8
Fuel Gas
O2, % 7 400
Flow
6
300
5
200
4
Target 100
3
2 0
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00
Time

14
Energy Savings Through Automation –
Target Areas
Site- Wide
Process
Unit
Draft
Control
O2
Equipment FI
PI
TC
PI
M ass
Cont
Dens
FC FF Fuel
Gas
3-5
FT
Device,
Loop
3-5
Bottoms
15
Saving Energy – Automation Examples
Improved Loop/ Multi-loop

Control Performance
FC
3-5
FT
3-5
Improved Better Control

Measurements Valve Performance

16
Component Heating Values
Fuel Gas Component

Heating Value
Component Heat of Combustion Heat of Combustion

kcal/ NM3 (gross) kcal/ kg (gross)
Hydrogen 3020 33910
Methane 9520 13280
Ethane 16820 12410
Propane 24320 12040
Butane 32010 11840
Control Fuel Flows By Mass Instead of Volume

17
Energy Savings From Improved Measurements –
Hydrogen Plant
Mass Measurement
Ref: MMI WP_00724
Objective: Control S/C ratio as close to 3.2 as possible but avoid going below
Disturbance: Fuel gas C1 77 – 85%; C2 6.8 – 15; N2, CO also fluctuate
Test: Normal orifice plus GC – max error 0.2; MMI – max error – 0.02
Benefits: Moving 0.2 ratio closer to limit worth 8 BTU/SCF of H2;
80 MMSCFD plant; $7 MM BTU gas –
$1.6 MM per year 18
Energy Losses Through Bypassing
F2
TC TC TC
Fuel
F1
F1/(F1+ F2) Heat Loss

Increase -%
0.14 3.2
Reference:
0.25 6.8 Shinskey;
Energy Conservation
Through Automation
0.4 14.3
19
Energy Savings – Equipment Level
Draft
Control
O2
•Improved Multi-Loop
Control – Advanced
Control
FI TC
PI
M ass
PI
•Improved Performance
Dens
FF
Cont
Fuel
Gas
Monitoring
•Improved Diagnostics

20
Steam System Control Issues
Vent Objective:
PIC3 PIC1 Maximum
750 psig
TGA Flow to TGA
FIC2 FIC1
TGB
Users
Vent
PIC4 PIC2
50 psig
Condensate
psig PRC1
757.0 Problem:
754.0
751.0
Pressure
748.0 Instability in
745.0
0 4500 9000 13500 18000 Header
Mean=750.814 3Sig=3.242 Sec
mlb/hr FRC1 Limited Flow
320.0
315.0
to TGA
310.0
305.0
300.0
0 4500 9000 13500 18000
Mean=212.955 3Sig=6.987 Sec

21
Steam System Diagnosis – Valves and Tuning
%Out PRC 1 OP
60.00
58.00
56.00
5%
5%
54.00
52.00
4800
220sec
220 sec 5200 5600 6000 6400
Flow controller to TGB
has 5% deadband;
Mean=56.0123 3Sig=9.381 Sec
mlb/hr FRC2
Sec
induces limit cycle in
225.9
221.8
pressure
217.8
213.7
209.6
Correction:
4800 5200 5600
Mean=114.983 3Sig=19.7
6000 6400
Sec
Fix TGB turbine
governor/
psig PRC1 steam valve
752.9
751.8
Tune controllers as
750.6
749.5
748.3
4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 system – not
Mean=650.814 3Sig=3.242 Sec
individually
Estimated value of increased flow

to TGA - $3000/ day
22
Fired Heater Controls

23
Combustion Control

24
Heater/ Boiler Combustion Control Savings
$/ Yr Savings
100 MM BTU/ Hr
$7/ kSCF Gas
400 F Stack Gas Rise
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$/ Yr $300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
2 3 5 7 10
% O2

25
Typical Heater APC Package
HIC PIC PIC

353D 359D 357D
TI
071
AIC CO
354D
AIC O2 MPC Block

356D
FIC H306 TIC
TI
101 067
TI 362D TIC
072 361
FIC TI
102 069
TI
073
FIC TI
103 069
TI
043
FIC TI
104 TI 070
(Up to 4) 075
Pass Fuel Air
Balance Demand Demand
FIC
Combustion 361
Control

26
Excuses For Not Improving Heater Controls
• Damper/ Air controls are not reliable

– Answer: Add positioners to dampers, with feedback to
control system; Analyze and fix controller problems
• Don’t have online analyzer/ can’t maintain them

– Answer: Analyzers are cheaper and more reliable –
particularly mass flow meters. With higher fuel costs, they
are well justified.

27
Distillation Controls

34
Typical Distillation Column
PC
LC FC
FC
Distillate, D
Feed, F < 5%C5 ;$45/ Bbl
Reflux,
20,000 BPD R AR > 5%C5; $38/ Bbl
$50/ Bbl TC
FC
LC
Reboiler,
E
Bottoms, B $36/ Bbl FOE
< 5 %C4 ; $70/ Bbl
> 5%C4; $50/ Bbl AC

35
Distillation Column Control Savings
Cost Per Year

Excess Reflux
20000 BPD Stabilizer Column
$10/ MM BTU Steam
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$/ Yr
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
5 10 25 50
% Excess Reflux

41
Column Pressure Effect
Relative Reboiler Cost Per Year

Column Pressure Effect
20000 BPD Stabilizer
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100 120 140 160 180 200
Pressure, PSIA
Basis: Constant Separation

Modeled With ChemSep
Peng Robinson Equation of State
42
Energy Savings – Site Wide
•Site Energy/ Utility Management

•Steam System Control
•Fuel System Control

43
Energy Management and Optimization
System

44
Plant Utility Systems – Many Opportunities for
Savings
BFW
• Many interacting
FB1 FB2 FB3 WHB1 WHB2 GT1 decision variables
HRSG
• Large number of
constraints
Vent
FG
HPS
ST1 ST2
PRV
Unit 1 Unit 2 Vent
MPS
Demin PRV
Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
Plant
LPS
Make-Up Vent
Condensate

45
Optimizer Decisions
• Which boiler(s) should I run? What load?

• How much electricity should I produce? Buy? Sell?
Is it economic to run the steam turbine?
• Which fuel should I buy? How much?
• Should I be using more steam drives or more electric
drives?
• When will efficiency gain from maintenance balance
the cost of shut down for this equipment?
• How does my actual compare with plan corrected to
standard conditions?

46
Full Utility Optimization
BFW
• Many interacting
FB1 FB2 FB3 WHB1 WHB2 GT1 decision variables
HRSG • Large number of
constraints
FG
HPS
ST1 ST2
PRV
Unit 1 Unit 2
MPS
Demin PRV
Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
Plant
LPS
Make-Up
Condensate

47
Overall Energy Optimization Strategy
• Continuously Calculate Production Costs Over Load Range with

Current Fuel Mix
• Incorporate Constraints on All Equipment
• Decisions Made Through Rule Based Logic
• Boiler Load Allocation
– Distribute Steam Production Based on Cost and Constraints
• Turbine Load Allocation
– Distribute Steam for Minimum Cost with Constraints
• Tie-Line Control
– Control Electrical Purchase Based on Economic Decision and
Constraints

48
Boiler Load Allocation

49
Load Allocation
90
How to provide 200 kpph steam?
Boiler
No. 4 Load
Efficiency Most
Efficient
No. 3
85
Minimum
Cost
No. 2
Equal
Loads No. 1
80
25,000 50,000 75,000

Boiler Load, lb/hr
50
Energy Savings via Site Energy Balance
Flue Gas; Flue Gas;

200 F 200 F
1600 psia; 940 F 1600 psia; 940 F

Blow- Blow-
19200 pph Power 13550 pph
Down Down Power
384 1000 KW 271 1000 KW
pph Fuel pph Fuel
24,393 200 psia 0 18510 200 psia 3754
kBTU/ hr kBTU/hr kBTU/ hr 9600 pph kBTU/hr
Steam; Steam;
125 psia 125 psia
Make-Up Make-Up 10,100
20,200
384 Condensate pph 271 Condensate pph
pph pph
Naïve calculation, value 125 psia steam reduction =

1000 x (1031 Btu/ lb (ΔHv) ÷ 0.7(eff))x $7/MMBtu (Fuel) = Reference: Kinney;
$10.31 per klb Energy Conservation in
Process Industries
Actual site value 125 psia steam reduction =

$4.08 per klb

51
Typical Energy Management System
Benefits
1 – 3 % Overall site utility cost

savings!

56
Example

57
Utilities Example – Biomass Power
Boiler
• Paper mill
• 160k PPH Fluidized-bed Boiler
• Fuels:
– Sludge
– Wood waste
– Tires
– Fuel gas
• Incentives:
– Maximize use of cheap fuels (Tires & Wood)
– Burn all the sludge to minimize land fill
– Maximize steam production

58
Solid Fuel Composition Control
Tire Derived
Sludge Presses Fuel (TDF) TDF
Target
M
VSM FC
Sludge FC
Sludge Bin Sludge
Recovery
Hopper Target
FC
M
Bark Yard Bark

Target WS
RSP
FC
RSP
RSP
HC HC Solid
Fuel Bin HC
Silo 1 Silo 2
VSM VSM
WS WS RSP HC
Solid
Fuel To
Boiler 59
Boiler Control
To ID Fan
PC To ID Fan Speed Control

FC Combustion
Control
Secondary
Solid Fuel Boiler Air Blower
FC
Solid Fuel Overfire
Air Ports
(18)
FC Primary Air
FC Blower
Load Burners (4)

RSP
FC TC
Avg
Fuel Gas
NC FC
Lance Burners (16) TI A-F
Air Preheater
Ash Screws (2)
HS M M HS TI
To Ash
Handing ©2008 Emerson Process Management
60
Boiler Process Control Issues
• Varying water in sludge

• Long delay & lag times (20 – 60 minutes) to
change fuel composition
• Fuel composition time constants are a
function of fuel bin level
• Solid fuel composition in fuel bin is
unknown
• Bed temperature constraints (max & min)
• Multiple operators controlling same unit
• Different operating philosophy used by each
shift
61
Solid Fuel Composition Control
Tire Derived
Sludge Presses Fuel (TDF) MPC Block
TDF
Target
M
VSM
Sludge FC
Sludge Bin Sludge
Recovery
Hopper Target
FC
M
Predicted
BTU
Bark
Content
Bark Yard Target
WS
RSP
FC
RSP
RSP
HC HC Solid
Fuel Bin HC
Silo 1 Silo 2
VSM VSM
WS WS RSP HC
Solid
Fuel To
Boiler 62
Boiler Control
To ID Fan
MPC
Outputs PC To ID Fan Speed Control
FC Combustion
Control
Secondary
Solid Fuel Boiler Air Blower
FC
Solid Fuel Overfire
Air Ports
(18)
FC Primary Air
FC Blower
Load Burners (4)

RSP
FC TC
Avg
Fuel Gas
NC FC
Lance Burners (16) TI A-F
Air Preheater
Ash Screws (2)
HS M M HS TI
To Ash
Handing ©2008 Emerson Process Management
63
Power Boiler Sludge
60
50 Key
Current Average
40
TPH
30 SLDG
New Average
20
Max Sustainable
10
0
00
01
1
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
0/
9/
29
18
10
30
19
/2
1/
1/
2/
3/
3/
4/
12

64
Power Boiler Bark Fuels
45
40
35 Key
30 Current Average
TPH
25
BARK
20 New Average
15
10 Max Sustainable
5
0
00
01
1
1
1
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
0/
9/
29
18
30
19
10
/2
1/
2/
3/
1/
3/
4/
12

65
Power Boiler APC Benefits
Difference in
Hourly Costs
Power Boiler & (Savings) Total Savings
Natural Gas $2.22
$56k / mo
Sludge Disposal ($23.04)
Sludge Ash Disposal $9.18

$672k / yr
TDF $0.46
Project Justified:
TDF Ash Disposal $0.00
• Replacement of required
Waste Wood $26.91 pneumatic instruments
W Wood Ash Disposal $0.77 • DCS Hardware / Software
Total $16.50
• APC Tools
Package Boilers
Displaced Natural Gas ($98.42)
• Turnkey Engineering Services
Net Savings, $/Hr ($81.92)

66
Issues in Evaluating Plant Energy Usage
• Unit energy usage depends on production rate
• Unit energy usage variance dependent on production

rate
• Need to correct to standard unit conditions

67
Unit Energy Usage
Energy Specific
Usage Energy
Btu Usage
Btu /Bbl
0 50 100
Throughput - % Max Capacity
68
Energy Usage - Example
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
MMBTU/Hr 40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Production
T/Hr 69
Unit Energy Usage
x
x Variance
x
x Increases at
x Lower Rates
Specific
x
x
Energy
x
x
Usage
x Btu /Bbl
x
x
x x Confidence
x
x x Limits
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
0 50 100
Throughput - % Max Capacity
70
Unit Energy Usage - Example
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
MMBTU/Ton
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Production 72
Excuses for Doing Nothing
• Not enough manpower - Too busy doing other things
• Our plant is special – analysis based on other sites

doesn’t apply
• We run our plant well already, there won’t be any big

savings found
• Ostrich - (If we find something obvious,

management will ask why we didn’t find it before)

76
Summary
• Energy is the largest controllable cost in process

operation – it’s efficient production and use are keys to
plant profitability
• Automation and Advanced Automation are keys to

effective use and management of energy in the plant
• Implementation of a program to save energy requires a

disciplined approach to evaluation and analysis

77
Questions? Comments?
doug.white@emersonprocess.com
More material on subject:

http://www.emersonprocess.com/solutions/services/aat

78

How To Save Energy Through Enhanced Automation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

How To Save Energy Through Enhanced Automation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

How to Save Energy Through

AIChE Spring Meeting

Many years experience designing,

Natural Gas Prices (Henry Hub)

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Value; 10% Energy

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Present some case studies of the many ways that

©2008 Emerson Process Management

• How is energy used in process plants?

• How can automation help save energy?

• How do we implement an energy reduction program?

©2008 Emerson Process Management

• Reduce Cost of Production and Purchase

Automation and Advanced Automation are the keys to

• Central Power and Steam Production

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Improved Loop/ Multi-loop

Improved Better Control

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Fuel Gas Component

Component Heat of Combustion Heat of Combustion

Hydrogen 3020 33910

Methane 9520 13280

Ethane 16820 12410

Propane 24320 12040

Butane 32010 11840

Control Fuel Flows By Mass Instead of Volume

©2008 Emerson Process Management

F1/(F1+ F2) Heat Loss

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Estimated value of increased flow

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

HIC PIC PIC

AIC O2 MPC Block

©2008 Emerson Process Management

• Damper/ Air controls are not reliable

• Don’t have online analyzer/ can’t maintain them

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Cost Per Year

©2008 Emerson Process Management

Relative Reboiler Cost Per Year

Basis: Constant Separation

•Site Energy/ Utility Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

• Which boiler(s) should I run? What load?

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

• Continuously Calculate Production Costs Over Load Range with

©2008 Emerson Process Management

©2008 Emerson Process Management

25,000 50,000 75,000

Flue Gas; Flue Gas;