Integrated Biorefinery Related Glenn Doyle Lesson … Doyle.pdfIntegrated Biorefinery Related Lesson...

1 | Bioenergy Technologies Office

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE

Integrated Biorefinery Related Lesson Learned

Glenn DoyleU.S. Department of Energy

Golden Field OfficeDecember 9th, 2014


BETO IBR Lessons Learned/Best Practices History

• Since 2006, $980M in federal funding for 29 IBR projects of varying scales (pilot, demo, commercial)

• Obtained Lesson Learned/Best Practice information from projects through formal project oversight


Pre-conceptual

Design

Conceptual Design

Framework for Executing DOE Project Management for Integrated Biorefinery Projects

Lessons Learned Data Collection

Preliminary Design

Final Design

ConstructionStart-up, Shakedown, Commissioning and

Operations

CD-0 CD-1

BP-1

CD-2

BP-2

CD-3 CD-4

BP-3

BP = Budget PeriodsCD = Critical Decision Points


BETO Role and IBR Lessons Learned/Best Practices Approach

• DOE-BETO role: Buy down project and technical risk to demonstrate improved levels of technical readiness such that it can attract private sector investment and create U.S. manufacturing jobs

• Approach:

– Developed a systematic method and database to document observations from the IBR portfolio

• Collect Observations

• Review and Analyze/Categorize Observations as “actionable items” or not; research best practices

• Leverage Findings

– Disseminate Observations, Best Practices, and Actionable Items

– Utilize internally for BETO Program Planning

– Facilitate strategic communications about risk reduction with key stakeholders, including investment community


Internal Lesson Learned Example: Validation

Observations

• Projects required more time to prove fundamental R&D.• Projects spending more than planned on R&D to achieve the

appropriate Technology Readiness Level.

Findings/Analysis

• Projects not at the appropriate TRL at onset as expected by DOE.• The degree and extent of prior research was not clear.• Projects proceeded to scale up with limited information.

Validating claims made in an application prior to selection can lower DOE-BETO Program Risk.


External Observations

• Solids Handling

• Integrated Piloting

• Overaggressive Schedules

• Over-reliance on Equipment Manufacturers

• Underestimating Site/Location Specific Impacts

• Start-up Contingency Planning

• Project Teams with Misaligned Experience


Solids Handling

Observations

• Bridging of solids, unreliable flow, lower throughputs, and particle size distribution too wide

• Limited testing/piloting with the planned actual feedstock at appropriate scale (downscaling is an issue)

• Projects extending start-up to debottleneck solids handling systems• Projects that planned to run multiple feedstocks typically optimized on a

single feedstock• Solids handling issues arise throughout process, not just at feed system

Impacts

• Design changes, operational changes, and additional investments in capital equipment required to adequately process solids

• Solids dynamics/scales negatively impact process yields• Start-up schedules extended 2 to 3 times versus planned

Solids handling risks are often underestimated (risks minimized or unmitigated).


Integrated Piloting

Fully integrated pilot plant tests are an essential practice for refining the scale-up design, testing modifications during startup/shakedown, and de-bottlenecking the plant.

Observations• Projects piloting only new unit operations, assuming commercially

available process units will simply plug-in to design• Ongoing R&D during design and construction phases• Critical piloted data/lessons not used in scale-up design (e.g. geometry of

reactor, heat transfer coefficients)• Resurrection of abandoned/disassembled pilot plants

Impacts• Fully continuous operations not achieved without significant investment• Equipment failures resulting in complete redesign• Process yields not achieved• Unanticipated recycle effects


Overaggressive Schedules

Observations• Project owners’ priority to be first to market drives schedules• Construction and start-up schedules based on non-first-of-a-kind facilities• Additional design post bid

Impacts• Schedules extended by 2-3 times; in some cases more• Vastly differing EPC(M) bids (costs and schedule)• Massive overtime spending• Complete project failure• Rebids and change orders

Overaggressive schedules mask inherent risks associated with project execution


Over-Reliance on Equipment Manufacturers

Active management of equipment manufacturers is vital to ensure proper design and materials of construction meet project requirements.

Observations• Limited detailed acceptance testing• Manufacturer designs not adequately reviewed and vetted by owners• Incorrect materials of construction used for fabrication, only identified

after delivery/installation• Missing parts/damaged equipment improperly accepted upon delivery• Limited or no onsite monitoring of equipment fabrication

Impacts• Delayed delivery of major equipment• Early failures/extreme wear• Inadequate equipment sizing/specification resulting in limited throughput


Over-Reliance on Equipment Manufacturers

Commercially available equipment must be treated as if it is new technology; demonstrate specific application at appropriate scale

Observations• Commercially available equipment did not operate as expected • Nameplate capacities not achieved• After initial commissioning, additional equipment required (scrubbers,

heat exchangers, pumps, etc.)

Impacts• Complete redesign of commercially available equipment• Extensive modifications during start-up and commissioning• Schedule delays, higher costs


Underestimating Site/Location Specific Impacts

Observations• Ambient weather extremes (humidity, freezes, road conditions/laws) not

taken into account during design phase• Inadequate performance of heat exchangers/boilers

Impacts• After commissioning, additional equipment required (driers, heat traces,

filters, etc.) • Burst pipes and exterior ice damage • Rewriting of operations, maintenance, and idle SOPs• Construction delays due to inability to deliver key equipment (frost laws)• Low quality process water introduced into system

Project location attributes and climate should be genuinely factored into the design phase


Underestimating Site/Location Specific Impacts

Observations• Power disruptions from small and medium utilities • Process power requirements not satisfied

Impacts• Significant process disruptions from even millisecond power disruptions • Inability to start-up facilities until power supply is addressed• Accelerated wear to equipment due to frequent cycling

(start/stop/restart)• Higher costs and schedule delays to upgrade power supply• Additional equipment such as boilers, generators, battery backup, new

power lines and/or transformers, etc.

Appropriate risks factors should be assigned to power supply and mitigation plans should be created for even minor power disruptions


Start-up Contingency Planning

Observations

• Construction and start-up schedules based on non-first-of-a-kind facilities• Projects requesting additional time and raising additional funds during

start-up and commissioning• Additional equipment required for successful start-up and commissioning• Operators require additional training for unique unit/operational

requirements

Impacts

• 2-3 times schedule delays for start-up and commissioning• Redesign of major unit operations after start-up• Unplanned costs

Projects should include additional contingency to address delays in commissioning, startup, shakedown and de-bottlenecking of IBR's at first-of-a-kind scale.


Project Team with Misaligned Experience

Observations

• Projects rely on current employees instead of hiring outside expertise

• Team members take on work they have little or no experience with– For example, a process engineer or lawyer conducting large scale project /

construction management or a chemist designing a feed system.

Outcomes

• Schedule delays and higher costs due to lack of expertise• Inadequate contract review resulting in large change orders• R&D specific issues not adequately communicated to the design

and construction teams

Proper qualifications, actual experience, and proper alignment of expertise in work areas, such as construction management and scale-up, are vital for a successful project


Recommended Actionable Items

Internal to DOE-BETO• DOE will validate technology readiness prior to selection• Expanded project kick-off meeting to include DOE lessons learned

External to DOE-BETO• Active use of Risk Register that includes observations discussed in

this presentation is critical• Plan on start-up and commissioning taking 12 to 24 months• 30% contingency should be considered and maintained up to

operations• Cost/Benefit analysis for purchasing pre-owned equipment should

include current condition and modification assessment• Identify your critical scale for fully integrated piloting… and pilot at

that scale• Test commercially available equipment with your process• Incorporate site specific climate when designing your project• Assess team expertise prior to starting a project and hire as needed


Next Steps

• What is DOE’s objective with its Lessons Learned/Best Practices database?– Internal analyses – e.g., solicitation planning, portfolio risk assessment

– Internal implementation of best practices – e.g., TRL validations prior to FOA selections

– External communications – Target key stakeholders to better communicate BETO role and advances in state of technology and risk reduction

• What actions does DOE intend to take in the future?– Considering RFIs, workshops, publications, targeted LL/BP seminars/webinars,

etc.

– Identify questions the industry has that can be answered using DOE-BETO’s database.

• Communicate with high-risk tolerance investment community about de-risking IBR technologies.

• Feedback is welcome and desired!

Integrated Biorefinery Related Glenn Doyle Lesson … Doyle.pdfIntegrated Biorefinery Related Lesson...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Biorefinery Related Glenn Doyle Lesson … Doyle.pdfIntegrated Biorefinery Related Lesson...