Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)

9 November 2016

Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution

SAEEC 2016

Copyright © Raventech CC, 2016

OVERVIEW

2Copyright © Raventech CC, 2016

• Introduction

• Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution

• Testing

• A stationary diesel engine dynamometer at the (NWU)

• Implementation

• Operational tests performed on

• Commercial trucking fleets

• Diesel generator applications

• Mining equipment

• Conclusion

INTRODUCTION


• Energy efficiency projects, historically, have been associated with electricity

• A significant portion of energy use in South African industries, especially mining and quarrying, is derived from liquid fuels

• Over the past decade the price of hydrocarbon based fuel has increased significantly

• Awareness in the potential of Fuel Energy Efficiency Solutions are rising

• This lead to a multi-year test program on a number of hydrocarbon based fuel applications in collaboration with the North-West University (NWU)

FUEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTION (FEES)

• A Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution (FEES)

• Developed in collaboration with the NWU

• Refined through a testing and implementation program with NWU


• Establish Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

• Establish Baseline in terms of KPI

• Usage Monitoring

• Fuel Management System

• Monitor and control bulk fuel storage system (Deliveries and Dispensing)

• Fuel pumping solution with tags/cards to increase the accuracy and control of fuel

dispensed to engines

• Also evaluate installation of tamper proof devices etc. to prevent theft and other

relevant equipment for preventing contamination of fuel

• Fuel Reporting System

• Using current information system and fuel management information for customized

reports

• Prepare customized reports for

• Fuel Consumption with relevant Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to track and verify fuel

consumption and savings i.e. litre/km, litre/ton etc.

FUEL CONSUMPTION BASELINE AND USAGE MONITORING


• Fuel quality monitoring system

• Compliance to SANS342 for diesel fuel

• Sampling of fuel loads delivered

• Random Testing of 30% of fuel loads delivered through

• NWU Biofuels Laboratory and/or

• Commercial Laboratories

• Common deviations from SANS 342

• Water contamination

• Particulate contamination

• Paraffin adulteration

• Excessive Sulphur content

FUEL QUALITY MONITORING, CONTROL & ENHANCEMENT


• Fuel quality control system

• Implementing on-site spot checking of fuel before offloading

• Paraffin

• Water content

• Reporting and exception management

• Fuel quality enhancement

• Filtration and dosing system on bulk storage tanks to address:

• Water contamination

• Particulate contamination

• Additive dosing system/process

• Manual to fully automated dosing

• Implement governance structures

• Project management and Technical oversight

• Training of personnel (operator / driver etc.)

FUEL QUALITY MONITORING, CONTROL & ENHANCEMENT


• Consider a modern diesel engine from a mechanical perspective:

• Trade-offs are constantly made between:

• Injection timing

• Fuel droplet/micelle size

• Injected fuel volume

• Furthermore the trade-offs are made to:

• Improve power output or

• Lower emissions

• Optimization of its components are beyond the scope of this project

• Injection system

• Induction system

• Valvetrain

• Engine block components

COMBUSTION ENHANCER


• Consider diesel fuel from a chemical perspective:

• Complex mixture of hydrocarbon chemicals

• Has inherently high surface tension

• Resists vaporization during injection

• Tends to re-agglomerate inside the combustion chamber

• However, optimization is attainable

• A locally developed and produced combustion enhancer additive

was identified, that:

• Acts as a surfactant

• Provides targeted breakdown of the fuel surface tension upon injection

• Prevents re-agglomeration of the fuel micelles

• Increases the surface area available for diffusion burn to take place

• Increases the burn velocity of the fuel

COMBUSTION ENHANCER


NWU TEST PROGRAMSTATIONARY DIESEL ENGINE AND DYNAMOMETER

• An engine test facility was established at NWU for testing in a controlled environment

• Test Description

• NWU conducted tests on a light commercial vehicle engine (GWM 2,5 TCI) coupled to a water brake dynamometer (Fraude Type X)

• The engine was tested with baseline fuel and fuel mixed with the additive for:

• Energy efficiency changes in terms of l/h KPI for maximum load per rpm interval tested

• Changes in emissions (NOx, COx and SOx)

• Test Control and Execution

• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test protocols and procedures, specifying

• Repeatability tests and acceptable limits

• Establishment of Baseline tests

• Test for fuel with added additive

• Test fuel was sampled ex-nozzle and tested for conformance to SANS 342 at NWU Biofuels laboratory

• Fuel tests were repeated for both:

• Baseline test fuel

• Fuel with added additive


NWU TEST PROGRAMSTATIONARY DIESEL ENGINE AND DYNAMOMETER

• Test Results

• Fuel efficiency in terms of KPI

• Average efficiency gains of 12% was realized

• Reductions in emissions were observed for

• CO and CO2

• NO and NO2

• CO2 reductions varied between 10 and 20% depending on the rpm value

• Testing at the dynamometer is ongoing with final year and post graduate students


NWU TEST PROGRAMCOMMERCIAL TRUCKING OPERATIONAL TESTING

• Description

• FEES was implemented on a sample of four representative trucks of an operational trucking fleet transporting ore

• The specific company was chosen because the high consistency of their operational parameters:

• Route

• Loads

• Driver monitoring

• Excellent documented and developed baseline usage figures


• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test protocols and procedures

• The vehicles operated between two fixed positions

• The return route distance was 1200km

• The loads transported was constant

• KPI used was km/l

• After auditing and accepting the baseline the test was ran over two weeks with the FEES combustion enhancer added to the base fuel


NWU TEST PROGRAMCOMMERCIAL TRUCKING OPERATIONAL TESTING

• Test Results

• Excellent increases in fuel efficiency were obtained

• The table shows the average increases in fuel efficiency over the test period for each test vehicle

• The figures shows how the KPI (km/l)

• Increases when the FEES solution is implemented and

• How it recovers back to the original baseline when the FEES is removed


Test Km

Test Litres

Test km/l

Baseline km/l

Saving %

Truck 1 4989 2333 2.14 1.898 12.67

Truck 2 3354 1573 2.13 1.898 12.34

Truck 3 4054 1905 2.13 1.898 12.12

Truck 4 5045 2215 2.28 1.898 20.00

NWU TEST PROGRAMSMALL GENERATORS FOR PRIMARY POWER APPLICATIONS

• Description

• FEES was implemented on a 10,5kVA diesel generator

• The generator was coupled to a purely resistive load bank



• An externally powered fan continuously cooled the resisters within the load bank

• This ensured constant resistance load to the primary driver (Engine)

• Power factor remained at 1 for the duration

• Load percentages and test intervals were kept constant

• The change in fuel usage was measured for purposes of the KPI of litre of fuel per kilowatt-hour (l/kWhr)

• Test Results

• An average fuel efficiency increase of 14.39 % ± 2 % was achieved


Load kW kVAFuel

addedl/kWh

Efficiency gain

Base load 1

25% 1.88 2.63 1925 1.027

17.92%

FEES 1 25% 1.88 2.63 1580 0.843

Base load 2

50% 3.75 5.25 2130 0.568

10.80%

FEES 2 50% 3.75 5.25 1750 0.507

Base load 3

75% 5.63 7.88 3000 0.533

15.33%

FEES 3 75% 5.63 7.88 2540 0.452

Base load 4

90% 6.75 9.45 1400 0.429

9.55%

FEES 4 90% 6.75 9.45 1310 0.388

Average over test range14.39%

NWU TEST PROGRAMMEDIUM SIZED GENERATORS FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATING POWER IN THE TELECOMS INDUSTRY


• Description

• FEES was implemented on a 110kVA, 3-phase diesel driven generator

• The generator was coupled to a resistive load bank



• An externally powered fan continuously cooled the resisters within the load bank

• This ensured constant resistance load to the primary driver (Engine)

• Power factor was set at 0,8 for the duration

• Load percentages and test intervals were kept constant


• Test Results

• An average fuel efficiency increase of 21,43 % ± 2 % was achieved

Load: 25% Amps: 33.2Duration: 60 min

Engine Temp: 80oC

Oil press: 3.6kpa

Liters at Start

Liters at Finish

Liters used Saving

Diesel only 30 22 8

21.88%Combustion enhancer

30 23.75 6.25


Engine Temp: 80oC

Oil press: 3.4kpa

Liters at Start

Liters at Finish

Liters used Saving

Diesel only 30 14.5 15.5

21.61%Combustion enhancer

30 17.85 12.15


Engine Temp: 80oC

Oil press: 3.3kpa

Liters at Start

Liters at Finish

Liters used Saving

Diesel only 30 13.25 16.7521.79%Combustion

enhancer30 16.9 13.1


Engine Temp: 80oC

Oil press: 3.3kpa

Liters at Start

Litres at Finish

Litres used Saving

Diesel only 30 11.75 18.2519.18%Combustion

enhancer30 15.25 14.75

Load: 100%Amps: 121.9

Duration: 60 min

Engine Temp:*82oC

Oil press: 3.3kpa

Litres at Start

Litres at Finish

Litres used Saving

Diesel only 30 4 2622.69%Combustion

enhancer30 9.9 20.1

NWU TEST PROGRAMLARGE SIZED GENERATORS FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATING POWER


• Description

• FEES was implemented on two large generator systems for Continuous Operating Power (COP) generation

• The generator was coupled to a purely resistive load bank in both cases

• Test Control and Execution – Test 1

• A 1,250kVA diesel generator with the primary driver being a Cummins KTA50 G3 engine; driving a Newage Stamford HCI734F2 alternator with a MX321 Automatic Voltage Regulator was used for the test


• The resisters within the load bank was cooled to ensure constant resistance load to the primary driver (Engine)


• Baseline and combustion enhancer fuel efficiency were evaluated for fixed time intervals at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the generator’s COP rating




• Test Results – Test 1

• A maximum increase of 5.6% at 75% of COP load was obtained

• THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED!

• Availability of the 1,250kVA generator required the completion of the fuel efficiency tests before fuel quality tests of the sampled fuel could be completed

• Subsequent fuel quality test results had the test fuel fail on visible water content

• ALL WAS NOT LOST

• This validated the fuel quality monitoring and control components of FEES

Load kW l/kWhEfficiency

gain %

Base load 1

100% 800 0.2543.54%

FEES 1 100% 800 0.245

Base load 2

75% 600 0.2675.62%

FEES 2 75% 600 0.252

Base load 3

50% 400 0.2712.21%

FEES 3 50% 400 0.265

Base load 4

25% 200 0.3380.89%

FEES 4 25% 200 0.335

Average over test range

2.92%



• Test Control and Execution – Test 2

• A 800kVA diesel generator with the primary driver being a Cummins QST30 G2 engine; driving a Cummins Generator Technologies HCI634H2 alternator with a MX321 Automatic Voltage Regulator was used for the test


• Repeatability tests were conducted prior to the baseline and combustion enhancer tests to determine the accuracy of the test procedure, i.e. the start, stop and refuelling of the generator, an error of less than 2% was made by using the test procedure

• The resisters within the load bank was cooled to ensure constant resistance load to the primary driver (Engine)


• Baseline and combustion enhancer fuel efficiency were evaluated for fixed time intervals at 50%, 75% and 100% of the generator’s COP rating


• Fuel quality risk was mitigated by means of external fuel filtration systems; providing both water and particulate filtration

• Onsite fuel testing was done on filtrated diesel before commencement of the test

• Offsite laboratory fuel quality testing was done as a final check



• Test Results – Test 2

• A maximum of 9.3% increase in fuel efficiency at 75% of COP load was obtained

• Levego, an independent third party emission monitoring company was contracted to measure engine emissions during the test

• The use of the combustion enhancer to obtain increases in efficiency had no significant effect on the emissions of the engine in terms of measured NOx, COx and SOx

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions were reduced by 79.2% with the use of the combustion enhancer

NWU TEST PROGRAMMINING EQUIPMENT TESTING: OPEN PIT COAL MINE


• Description

• FEES was implemented at an open pit coal mine on a 1983 Euclid R170 154ton rigid dump truck - using a Cummins KTA50-C power-plant



• The rigid dump truck ran continuously on a fixed circuit of 6.4km including being loaded inside the pit and offloading at the processing facilities

• KPI for the test was chosen as litres per kilometre

• The fuel consumption comparison was in terms of the test KPI

• Testing was done in three phases:

• Baseline data acquisition

• Testing with the combustion enhancer

• Testing without the combustion enhancer to prove a return to baseline KPI

• Test Results

• A baseline average fuel consumption of 9.49 l/km was established in phase 1

• A marked decrease in consumption to 7,16 l/km was observed for phase 2

• This equates to a percentile saving of 24.5% over the baseline consumption

• A second order polynomial trend line fitted on the calculated consumption data indicates an increase in the consumption trend towards the baseline figures for Phase 3

Phase I Phase II Phase III

NWU TEST PROGRAMMINING EQUIPMENT TESTING: OPEN PIT LIMESTONE QUARRY


• Description

• FEES was implemented on four CAT 740 Articulated Dump Trucks (ADT) at a limestone quarry

• The quarry was about 75 m deep and mining occurred at three different faces



• Data was collected from fuel level probes and smart GPS positioning devices

• Measured data included:

• Distance travelled,

• Tonnage hauled and

• Fuel consumption per cycle for every elevation (different faces)

• Similar cycles were grouped together and analysed

• In each case between 190 and 630 cycles were measured to ensure statistical significance

• Test KPI used for comparison was km/l

• Test Results

• FEES realised a 10% overall saving with a net cost saving of approximately 7%

Daily Data (km/l) Cycles l/100t l/km

Average Test Result 0,3214 431,00 34,50 3,14

Average Baseline 0,2915 36,67 3,43

Difference 0,0299

% Difference 10,3 %

Cost saving 7,2 %

ECONOMIC COMPARISON

• The proposed FEES provides a net efficiency (cost saving) gain of approximately 5 to 15 percent depending on the application

• For the various industries or applications under consideration, assuming:• A gross saving of 10 percent and

• A FEES implementation cost of ~4 percent of the fuel price,

• The net fuel saving can be expressed in monetary value per selected KPI:

• ~R0.60/km for transport

• ~R0.25/kWh for generators

• ~R15.40/km for mining and quarrying

• Two high level business cases are presented next to show the potential savings that can be achieved by implementation of the FEES solution for• A transport company and

• A remote mine


ECONOMIC COMPARISON:TRANSPORT BUSINESS CASE

• Assumptions:

• A transport company

with 300 long haul

trucks

• Each truck traveling

15,000 km per month

• Each truck running of a

baseline fuel

consumption of 1.9km/l

• With the

implementation of

FEES:

Description Value

Ave. monthly fuel consumption (Litres) 2,368,421

Ave. Fuel price (Assumed) R11.00

Ave. cost of fuel per month ~R26,052,631

Ave. gross monthly saving due to FEES

assuming 10%R2,605,263

FEES cost as % of Fuel price (~4%) (R1,042,105)

Monthly Saving R1,563,157

Potential Saving per Year ~R18,757,894


ECONOMIC COMPARISON:DIESEL GENERATOR BUSINESS CASE

• Assumptions:

• A remote mine uses

10MWe of diesel

generators to supply

continuous power to their

site

• The generators run at 75

percent load during the

month and

• The generators use

0.280 litres of fuel per

kWh generated

• With the implementation

of FEES:


Description Value

Ave. monthly fuel consumption (Litres) 1,512,000

Ave. Fuel price (Assumed) R11.00

Ave. cost of fuel per month R16,632,000

Ave. gross monthly saving due to FEES

assuming 10%R1,663,200

FEES cost as % of Fuel price (~4%) (R665,280)

Monthly Saving R997,920

Potential Saving per Year R11,975,040

CONCLUSION

• The results of the multi-year test program in collaboration with the

NWU shows good promise

• Significant fuel savings can be achieved when implementing the Fuel

Energy Efficiency Solution


Q&A

QUESTIONS?


Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)

Environment