Middle East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System Max Shirazi...

25
Middle East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System Max Shirazi Applications Engineering Director, Energy Recovery Inc., USA

Transcript of Middle East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System Max Shirazi...

Middle East IsoBoost Energy Recovery System

Max Shirazi

Applications Engineering Director, Energy Recovery Inc., USA

Outline

• Introduction

• Energy Recovery Devices in

CO2 Removal

• Case Studies

• System Reliability

• Conclusions

• Q&A

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Energy Recovery Devices in CO2 Removal Units

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Energy Recovery Devices, RRP or HPRT

“Reverse Running Pumps as Hydraulic Power Recovery Turbines- Sulzer Design and Experience”, Sulzer Pumpen(Deutschland) GMBH

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Energy Recovery Devices, Hydraulic Turbocharger

PUMP SIDE IMPELLER

TURBINE SIDE IMPELLER

HIGH PRESSURE LEAN SOLVENT

LOW PRESSURE LEAN SOLVENT

LOW PRESSURE RICH SOLVENT

HIGH PRESSURERICH SOLVENT

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Energy Recovery Devices, Hydraulic Turbocharger

WEAR

RING

• No shafts exiting the casing

• Rotary assembly is a single moving part

• Bearings are self-lubricated by process fluid

• Rotary assembly speed is unconstrained and self-regulating

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Turbocharger as Installed

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Hydraulic Turbocharger, 2 x 100%

70% Smaller Pump

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Energy Recovery Devices in CO2 Removal Units

Q Solvent fluid flow, m3/hr

∆𝑃 Differential pressure between the contactor and flash tank pressures, bar

𝜀𝑡 Overall hydraulic recovery device efficiency

𝜀𝑝 Solvent circulation pump efficiency

𝜀m Solvent circulation pump electric motor efficiency

36 Conversion factor

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 ( 𝑘𝑊) =𝑄 × ∆𝑃 × 𝜀𝑡𝜀𝑝 × 𝜀𝑚 × 36

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 ( 𝑘𝑊) =1000

𝑚3ℎ𝑟

× 30 𝑏𝑎𝑟 × 70%

80% × 95% × 36

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑘𝑊 = 770 𝑘𝑊Annual Energy Saving @ 0.08 $/kWh = $ 560,000

EXAMPLE:

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

CO2 Removal Process, 3 x 50%

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Hydraulic Turbocharger, 3 x 50%

Replaces 1 pump. 50% Energy Saved!

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Turbocharger Control

Turbocharger

Turbine Pump

AUX Valve

Rich amine to flash drum

Lean amine from Regen.

PT100PT

103

PT101

PT102

LCV101

LCV102

LCV100

VT100

Throttle Valve

Bypass valve

LCV (standby)

Inlet Gas

Treated Gas

IsoBoost System

Absorber

Absorber

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Level Control Functionality

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study A: MDEA Gas Treating Facility

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study A:

Saving Energy, Less Emissions, More Reliability

• Absorber pressure: 52 bar

• Flash drum pressure: 7 bar

• Amine flow rate: 170 m3/hr

• Reducing required power from 328 kW to 169 kW, ~ 50% reduction

• CO2 emission reduction: 1,000 Tons CO2/ year

• Energy saving: $139,000/ year

• 8 years in service with no failure

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study B: Gas Treating Facility, 3 x 50%

Lean Solvent Circ. Pump B(Standby)

Lean Solvent Circ. Pump A

M

To Rich Solvent Flash Tank

From Solvent Regen.

Turbocharger

Pump out Pump in

Turbine in Turbine out

AUXvalve

IsoBoost System

31

32

16

38

34

39

11 17

15

M

Absorber

Treated Gas

Inlet Gas

14Bypass valve

Throttle valve

LCV (Standby)

12

40

35

13

Min. Circ. Line

33

FCV-1

FCV-2

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study B: Gas Treating Facility, 3 x 50%

• Absorber pressure: 65 bar

• Flash drum pressure: 10 bar

• Amine flow rate: 1,360 m3/hr (each Train), Five Trains

• Reducing required power from 2.8 MW to 1.4 MW/ Train, 50% reduction

• CO2 emission reduction: 8,400 Tons CO2/ (year x Train)

• Energy saving: $1 MM/ (year x Train)

• Commissioning in 2017/18

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study C: 2,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 2 x 100%

• 1 Absorber, HP/ LP Flash

• aMDEA

• 2,800 m3/hr

• HPRT out of serviceSemi-Lean Solution Pump

(Standby)

M

CO2 Absorber

Rich Amine to HP Flash Drum

Semi-Lean Amine from LP Flash Drum

Purified Gas

Pro

cess

Gas

11

32

34

39

FCV

Semi-Lean Solution Pump

Hydraulic Turbine

36

18

Lean Amine from Lean Solution Pump

LCV (Standby)

31

19

Trim Bypass valve

17

12

33

35

M

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study C: 2,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 2 x 100%

Power Reduction and Energy Saving Comparison2,800 m3/hr, aMDEA

No ERD HPRT Turbocharger

Power, MW 2.7 1.7 0.8

Annual Energy Cost, $M

1.9 1.2 0.5

E-59

Semi-Lean Solution Pump(Standby)

CO2 Absorber

Rich Amine to HP Flash Drum

Semi-Lean Amine from LP Flash Drum

Purified Gas

Pro

cess

Gas

Turbocharger

Pump out Pump in

Turbine in Turbine out

Bypass

AUX

IsoBoost System

14

15 16

3738

Throttle

11

13

32

33

34

39

FCV

Semi-Lean Solution Pump

36

19

35

Lean Amine from Lean Solution Pump

LCV (Standby)

31

M

M

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study D: 1,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 3 x 50%

• 1 Absorber, 2 Strippers

• Potassium Carbonate

• 1,200 m3/hr

• 2 HPRTs

• HPRTs efficiency: 50%

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Case Study D: 1,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 3 x 50%

Pump B

SteamTurbine

Pump C (standby)

IsoBoost

M

Steam In

Steam Out

FV-6

Rich. Solvent to Stripper 1

Semi-Lean Solvent

Rich. Solvent to Stripper 2

Semi-Lean Solvent to Absorber

Rich Solvent from Absorber

1

9

2 3

10

14

11

1716

15

6

4

FV 43A

FV 41A

8

FV-3

Power Reduction and Energy Saving Comparison1,200 m3/hr, Benfield

Two HPRTsOne

Turbocharger

MP Steam, ton/hr 7.4 4.5

Annual Energy Cost, $M

1.55 0.95

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Reliability and Flexibility Comparison

Turbine PumpM Turbine Pump

Reverse Running Pump Turbocharger

Courtesy of Shin Nippon Machinery Co., LTD

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

Pump/ Turbocharger Failure Rate

Pump Component Base Failure Rate

Mechanical Seals 𝜆𝑆𝐸,𝐵 = 22.8

Shaft 𝜆𝑆𝐻,𝐵 = 0.01

Bearings 𝜆𝐵𝐸,𝐵= 0.00004

Casing 𝜆𝐶𝐴,𝐵 = 0.01

Fluid Driver 𝜆𝐹𝐷,𝐵 = 0.2

Mean Time To Failure, Year

Centrifugal Pump with motor Centrifugal Pump,

theoretical (without seals,

gaskets or coupling)

Hydraulic turbocharger in

seawater desalination

2.9 8.9 10

• Lack of mechanical seals is the main reason for higher reliability of hydraulic turbocharger than HPRTs

| Steering the Fertilizer Industry through Challenging Times

• Hydraulic Turbochargers provide substantial energy efficiency benefits in CO2 Removal Units.

• The turbocharger design with hydraulic turbine and pump contained in one single-case unit, with no

mechanical seals or shafts exiting the casing, effectively eliminates high maintenance components rendering

the system virtually maintenance free.

• Simple design and fewer components make hydraulic turbochargers far more reliable energy recovery

devices than legacy technologies.

Conclusions

Thank You!www.gpca.org.ae