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

PETROTECH 2010Oct 31 – Nov 3New Delhi, India

© 2010 Honeywell. All rights reserved.

Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO2 Reduction

Process Technology: The Key for Industrial Energy/CO2 Reduction

Frank Zhu

UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company

Frank Zhu

UOP LLC, A Honeywell Company

UOP 5441-01

• 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 240-360 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 5441-02

Energy & CO2 – Complex Refinery Picture

In the US, refining contributes to ~4% of CO2 emissions

$80 to $100 million/year on energy & 1.2 to 1.5 million metric tons/year of CO2

Energy costs 50% to 60% of total variable operating costs (excluding feedstocks)

CO2 emissions increase with heavier feedstock, cleaner fuels, conversion and complexity

Refining Unit

% of Energy

Consumed

CDU/VDU 17

Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Unit

20

Reformer 14

Hydrocracking 10

Alkylation and Hydrotreating

15

Coker 4

Utilities 15

Offsite 5

Basis: for a 100,000 BPSD refinery; natural gas cost @ $6/MMbtu

UOP 5441-03

Opportunities for Energy/CO2 Reduction

Area of Savings  Actions Energy Improvement

Profit Increase

CO2Reduction

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

Total 13 to 25% $17M to30M/year

176,000 to 320,000 tons/yr

Basis: for a 100,000 BPSD refinery; natural gas cost @ $6/MMbtu

Solutions for Energy and CO2 Reduction

GetEnergy

Cheaper

Improve Resource Allocation

Balance Supply & Demand

Boiler/Turbine Performance

Improve Monitoring& OperationOperate More

Efficiently Online Control & Optimization

UseEnergyMore

EfficientlyIn Process

Reduce Energy

Costs and Emissions

Improve Heat IntegrationRecoverMore Heat

Utilize NewProcess

Technology

Advanced Process Technology, Equipment

& Catalysts

Reduce Waste/Leaks

Managing H2/Fuel

SystemsEfficiently

Minimize H2 to FuelBetter Manage H2 Manage H2 Partial

Pressure

Maximize Recover ofValuable Components

Minimize FuelGas Flare

Better Manage Fuel

Gas System

UseCarbonCredits GHG Capture

& Storage

Renewable Energy Source

UOP 5441-04

Two Common Operational Inefficiencies

1. Inconsistent operations

En

erg

y, M

MB

TU

/h

Charge RateCharge Rate

Actual Performance

Target Performance

X

2. Consistent but non optimal

En

erg

y, M

MB

TU

/h

UOP 5441-11Operation inconsistency can lead to operational inefficiencies

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– H2/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 interactionProcess know-how is the key

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

Hydrocracking Energy Optimization

A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2C = 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 costAdd 4-Hx (A-D) to before

Rx & Frac charge heatersEnergy & Throughput benefit

Low CostA

C

C

B

D

D

BA

UOP 5441-16

A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2C = 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 heatersLarge energy benefit

at high cost

Optimize the ratio of flow through the

split (non-symmetric)raw feed trains

No cost energy benefit

UOP 5441-17

Hydrocracking Energy Optimization

A = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 1B = Effluent – Frac Feed Exchanger 2C = CFE 1 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger)D = CFE 2 – (Effluent Feed Exchanger)E = Diesel P/A – Heavy Naphtha Exchanger

PRT

Charge heatersare less full

More feed can be addedto the unit

Change catalyst forbetter cold flow propertyChange Rx internal for

better vapor/liquiddistribution

More product

Change Frac/separatorinternals

Improved throughput But…poorer diesel

cold-flow properties

~100 MMBtu/h saved and 15% increase in

throughput

UOP 5441-18

Hydrocracking Energy Optimization

B

A

ABC

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 5441-20

Innovations in Equipment to Drive Efficiency Helical baffle exchanger for fouling services? Enhanced heat transfer equipment? Dividing wall column for fractionators?

UOP 5441-21

B

A

ABC

C

Condensing Hydrocarbon

Cooling Water

LMTD

0 5 10 15

Duty (MM Kcal/hr)

Te

mp

. (°

C)

ΔT

20

30

40

50

Thermal Efficiency In Dividing Wall Column

A

ABC

B

C

Co

lum

n T

ray

Top

BottomComponent B mole fraction

Col 1 Col 2

Remixing occurs

A

ABC

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 5441-24

Motor Blower

Regenerator

PRC

Wet GasScrubber

WGS Inlet

Critical Flow NozzleOptional Fourth StageSeparation System

TSS

On / OffControl Valve

ThrottlingValve

SynchronizationValve

ExpanderGear

Generator

Isolation ValveIsolation Valve

TSSUnderflow

Bypass Valve andRestriction Orifice

Combustor

Equipment integrationExample: FCC Power Recovery Turbine

HP Steam

LP Steam

BoilerFeedWater

Box Type Flue

Gas Cooler

FGC

Expander

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 TurbineMP Steam

LP Steam

HP Steam Generated by FCC

HP Steam Export

MP SteamLP Steam

HP Steam

HP Steam Export

Power Export

PRT

New steam turbine along

Process Flowsheeting Optimization Process Flowsheeting Optimization

FEEDC

olu

mn

1

ReboilerReboiler

CondenserCondenser

Co

lum

n 2

ReboilerReboiler

CondenserCondenser

Co

lum

n 3

ReboilerReboiler

CondenserCondenserProduct 1Product 1

Product 2Product 2

Product 4Product 4

Product 3Product 3

UOP 4706E-10

Conventional Design Conventional Design -Requires High Utility Demand for Reboiling-Requires High Utility Demand for Reboiling

300 MMBtu/h300 MMBtu/hSteam & FuelSteam & Fuel

Process-ProcessProcess-ProcessHeat RecoveryHeat Recovery230 MMBtu/h230 MMBtu/h

600600

500500

400400

300300

200200

100100

00

Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr)Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr)

Tem

per

atu

re (

Tem

per

atu

re (°° F

)F

)

00 100100 200200 300300 400400 500500 600600 700700 800800 900900

Composite CurvesComposite Curves

320 MMBtu/h320 MMBtu/hCooling UtilityCooling Utility

UOP 4706E-11

UOP 4706E-12

Optimized Column Integration Optimized Column Integration - Minimizes Utility Needs for Reboiling- Minimizes Utility Needs for Reboiling

200 MMBtu/h200 MMBtu/hSteam & FuelSteam & Fuel

Process-ProcessProcess-ProcessHeat RecoveryHeat Recovery

600600

500500

400400

300300

200200

100100

00

Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr)Enthalpy (MM Btu/hr)

Tem

per

atu

re (

Tem

per

atu

re (°° F

)F

)

00 100100 200200 300300 400400 500500 600600 700700 800800

220 MMBtu/h220 MMBtu/hCooling UtilityCooling Utility

330 MMBtu/h330 MMBtu/h

Composite CurvesComposite Curves

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

Refinery wide energy retrofit project in 2005: Energy savings potential of 33 M$/yr and 330 kMt/yr CO2 reduction at capital cost of 30 MM US$ 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 reduction of 270 kMt/yr with overall payback of 1.5 years for 1 110 kPBD refinery

Refinery wide energy optimization for a 300 kBPD grassroots refinery in South America in 2010: energy saving of 20 M$/yr and CO2 reduction of 200 kMt/yr with overall payback less than 2 years

Refinery-wide Energy Optimization Projects

UOP 5441-27

Conclusions

There is NO single approach for improving process energy efficiency

The goal is to reduce operating costs and CO2 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

Thank You

Q&A

UOP 5441-29