Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PETROTECH 2010 Oct 31 – Nov 3 New Delhi, India © 2010 Honeywell. All rights reserved. Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO 2 Reduction.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PETROTECH 2010 Oct 31 – Nov 3 New Delhi, India © 2010 Honeywell. All rights reserved. Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO 2 Reduction."— Presentation transcript:

1 PETROTECH 2010 Oct 31 – Nov 3 New Delhi, India © 2010 Honeywell. All rights reserved. Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO 2 Reduction Frank Zhu UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company Frank Zhu UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company UOP

2 8-11% of crude equivalent is consumed in the refining process An energy efferent refiner uses 20-30% less energy than its peers  spends $20-30 MM/year less in energy cost and emit kMt/year less in CO2 emissions for a 100,000 BPD refinery. Technology is the key to achieve significant energy/CO2 reduction How to make energy production carbon neutral? UOP

3 Energy & CO 2 – Complex Refinery Picture  In the US, refining contributes to ~4% of CO 2 emissions  $80 to $100 million/year on energy & 1.2 to 1.5 million metric tons/year of CO 2  Energy costs 50% to 60% of total variable operating costs (excluding feedstocks)  CO 2 emissions increase with heavier feedstock, cleaner fuels, conversion and complexity Refining Unit % of Energy Consumed CDU/VDU17 Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Unit 20 Reformer14 Hydrocracking10 Alkylation and Hydrotreating 15 Coker4 Utilities15 Offsite5 Basis: for a 100,000 BPSD refinery; natural gas $6/MMbtu UOP

4 Opportunities for Energy/CO 2 Reduction Area of Savings Actions Energy Improvement Profit Increase CO 2 Reduction Improved operation and control  Improve online monitoring, control and optimization through multivariable, predictive control and optimization applications 2 to 3%$2 to 3M/year 24,000 to 36,000 metric tons/year Improved heat recovery  Increase heat recovery within and across process units. 5 to 10% $5M to 10M/year 60,000 to 120,000 metric tons/year Advanced Process Technology  Employ new process technology, design, equipment and catalyst technology 3 to 7% $3M to 7M/year 36,000 to 84,000 metric tons/year Steam and power Optimization  Optimization and controls for onsite steam and power production/supply and demand optimization 2 to 3% $2M to 3M/year 24,000 to 36,000 metric tons/year H2 and Fuel Gas Management  Optimize H2 recovery  Maximize LPG recovery 1 to 2% $5 to 7M/year 32,000 to 44,000 metric tons/year Total13 to 25% $17M to 30M/year 176,000 to 320,000 tons/yr Basis: for a 100,000 BPSD refinery; natural gas $6/MMbtu

5 Solutions for Energy and CO 2 Reduction Get Energy Cheaper Improve Resource Allocation Balance Supply & Demand Boiler/Turbine Performance Improve Monitoring & Operation Operate More Efficiently Online Control & Optimization Use Energy More Efficiently In Process Reduce Energy Costs and Emissions Improve Heat Integration Recover More Heat Utilize New Process Technology Advanced Process Technology, Equipment & Catalysts Reduce Waste/Leaks Managing H 2 /Fuel Systems Efficiently Minimize H 2 to Fuel Better Manage H 2 Manage H 2 Partial Pressure Maximize Recover of Valuable Components Minimize Fuel Gas Flare Better Manage Fuel Gas System Use Carbon Credits GHG Capture & Storage Renewable Energy Source UOP

6 Capturing Hidden Process Opportunities Pressure reduction in the crude tower  A fairly obvious solution is to reduce the operating pressure  Another study revealed that different shift operators used different parameters to operate the column  Led to higher column pressures and more energy usage for the same separation  Reducing the column pressure from 55 psig to 35 psig,  Reduced energy consumption  Increased throughput by 5 kBPD  Improved margin $1.5 MM/yr with no capital investment Operation inconsistency can lead to operational inefficiencies

7 Two Common Operational Inefficiencies 1. Inconsistent operations Energy, MMBTU/h Charge Rate Actual Performance Target Performance X 2. Consistent but non optimal Energy, MMBTU/h UOP Operation inconsistency can lead to operational inefficiencies

8  Optimize complex fractionation/separation systems –Column temperature and pressure conditions –Pumparound ratios – Column V/L ratios –Feed temperature –Maximize throughput/lift/desirable products Optimize reactor operation –Reaction temperature and pressure –H 2 /HC ratio Optimize complex interactions –Interactions between heaters, heat recovery systems and processes –Compressors adjusted to maximize energy efficiency Interactions between process energy demand and utility energy supply –Buy/sell? –Motor or steam turbines There are Hidden Opportunities in Operations The goal is to optimize complex systems and interaction Process know-how is the key

9  Heat recovery within and across process units  Low temperature heat recovery  Changes to process and heat exchanger networks  Integration of process energy with utility systems  Energy savings combined with increased throughput – Determine process bottlenecks – Transfer expensive bottlenecks to cheap ones – Optimize operating conditions simultaneously– pressures / specs / pump-arounds / rundowns  Practical considerations for any changes – Safety, operability, reliability Increase Process Heat Recovery

10 Hydrocracking Energy Optimization A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1 B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2 C = CFE 1 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) D = CFE 2 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) E = Diesel P/A – Heavy Naphtha Exchanger PRT Add power recovery turbine Medium energy benefit at medium cost Add 4-Hx (A-D) to before Rx & Frac charge heaters Energy & Throughput benefit Low Cost A C C B D D B A UOP

11 A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1 B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2 C = CFE 1 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) D = CFE 2 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) E = Diesel P/A – Heavy Naphtha Exchanger PRT Install combined convection section for two charge heaters Large energy benefit at high cost Optimize the ratio of flow through the split (non-symmetric) raw feed trains No cost energy benefit UOP Hydrocracking Energy Optimization

12 A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1 B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2 C = CFE 1 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) D = CFE 2 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger) E = Diesel P/A – Heavy Naphtha Exchanger PRT Charge heaters are less full More feed can be added to the unit Change catalyst for better cold flow property Change Rx internal for better vapor/liquid distribution More product Change Frac/separator internals Improved throughput But…poorer diesel cold-flow properties ~100 MMBtu/h saved and 15% increase in throughput UOP Hydrocracking Energy Optimization

13 B A ABCABC C  Take advantage of new technology, equipment and catalysts – High selectivity/activity catalyst – High efficiency reactor internals – High capacity fractionator internals – Enhanced heat exchangers – Modern power recovery turbines – Novel process design Utilize New Process Technology UOP

14 Innovations in Equipment to Drive Efficiency  Helical baffle exchanger for fouling services?  Enhanced heat transfer equipment?  Dividing wall column for fractionators? UOP B A ABCABC C Condensing Hydrocarbon Cooling Water LMTD Duty (MM Kcal/hr) Temp. (°C) ΔT

15  Porous metal coating applied to boiling side – Maximizes boiling coefficient – Extends boiling to very low LMTD’s  Overall coefficient 2 to 4 times that of bare tube  Conventionally used to reduce equipment size and installation cost  Can be leveraged to enable better heat integration between process operations for significant energy savings Enhanced Heat Transfer Tubing - Boiling UOP

16 Thermal Efficiency In Dividing Wall Column A ABCABC B C Column Tray Top Bottom Component B mole fraction Col 1 Col 2 Remixing occurs A ABCABC B C  Vertical wall separates column sections  Eliminates separation inefficiency  3 products using a single column  Typically 25-40% savings in capital and energy costs Dividing Wall Column Conventional Separation – 2 Columns UOP

17 MotorBlower Regenerator PRC Wet Gas Scrubber WGS Inlet Critical Flow Nozzle Optional Fourth Stage Separation System TSS On / Off Control Valve Throttling Valve Synchronization Valve Expander Gear Generator Isolation Valve TSS Underflow Bypass Valve and Restriction Orifice Combustor Equipment integration Example: FCC Power Recovery Turbine HP Steam LP Steam Boiler Feed Water Box Type Flue Gas Cooler FGC Expander

18 Integrate Steam Turbine with PRT  Extract steam to supply the FCC process: – Feed distributors – Lift distributors – Spent catalyst stripper – Reboiling services in VRU Net Benefit-20 kBtu/bbl - 3 MM$/yr Basis: For a 70,000 BPD FCC Install a Steam Turbine MP Steam LP Steam HP Steam Generated by FCC HP Steam Export MP Steam LP Steam HP Steam HP Steam Export Power Export PRT New steam turbine along

19 Process Flowsheeting Optimization FEED Column 1 Reboiler Condenser Column 2 Reboiler Condenser Column 3 Reboiler Condenser Product 1 Product 2 Product 4 Product 3 UOP 4706E-10

20 Conventional Design -Requires High Utility Demand for Reboiling 300 MMBtu/h Steam & Fuel Process-Process Heat Recovery 230 MMBtu/h Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr) Temperature ( ° F) Composite Curves 320 MMBtu/h Cooling Utility UOP 4706E-11

21 UOP 4706E-12 Optimized Column Integration - Minimizes Utility Needs for Reboiling 200 MMBtu/h Steam & Fuel Process-Process Heat Recovery Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr) Temperature ( ° F) MMBtu/h Cooling Utility 330 MMBtu/h Composite Curves

22 Enhancing Process Technology -- Examples  FCC energy efficiency increased by 20%  20% corresponding to energy savings of $8-10 M/yr and CO2 reduction of 800~100 kMt/yr CO2 for a 70 kBPD FCC  Aromatics complex improved by 33%  33% corresponding to energy savings of $20 M/yr and CO2 reduction of 190 kMt/yr CO2 for a 900,000 Mt/year pX Complex UOP 5472A-09 Basis: UOP 2009 vintage design

23  Refinery wide energy retrofit project in 2005: Energy savings potential of 33 M$/yr and 330 kMt/yr CO 2 reduction at capital cost of 30 MM US$ for a 450 KBPD refinery in USA  Refinery wide energy optimization for a 200 kBPD grassroots refinery in Asia in 2006: energy saving of 21 M$/yr and CO 2 reduction of 210 kMt/yr with overall payback less than 2 years  Refinery expansion project in Asia in 2007: energy savings of 22 M$/yr and CO 2 reduction of 220 kMt/yr with overall payback less than 2 years for a 350 kBPD refinery  Refinery expansion project in North America in 2008: energy saving of 27 M$/yr and CO 2 reduction of 270 kMt/yr with overall payback of 1.5 years for kPBD refinery  Refinery wide energy optimization for a 300 kBPD grassroots refinery in South America in 2010: energy saving of 20 M$/yr and CO 2 reduction of 200 kMt/yr with overall payback less than 2 years Refinery-wide Energy Optimization Projects UOP

24 Conclusions  There is NO single approach for improving process energy efficiency  The goal is to reduce operating costs and CO 2 emissions while enhancing throughput and yields  Identification of good energy projects requires combined skills in operation, process design and technology, and energy optimization  Technology is the key Energy saving of 12-25% is possible

25 Thank You Q&A UOP


Download ppt "PETROTECH 2010 Oct 31 – Nov 3 New Delhi, India © 2010 Honeywell. All rights reserved. Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO 2 Reduction."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google