High Duct Fired Gas Turbine Combined Heat & Power (DF-GT-CHP): a better steam raising system Suresh Jambunathan, Director of Business Development, NA Sales Larsen & Toubro Technology Services Cell: 630-335-4544 E-mail: Suresh.Jambunathan@lnttechservices.com April 9 th , 2015 Location: Hilton Houston North Convention Center Houston, TX April 21, 2015 | 1
Learning Outcomes Efficiency & flexibility automatically hedge against price & load volatility - being green is good for your wallet and your conscience Plan carefully for utilities when contemplating process plant new build or expansion High Duct Fired Gas Turbine Combined Heat & Power (DF GT-CHP) is a financially attractive, technically feasible and sustainable alternative to package boilers to an industrial site’s power & steam needs. April 21, 2015 | 2
Who is Larsen & Toubro Technology Services (L&TTS)? • A publicly owned $14.3 billion / 50,000+ employee global technology, engineering, L&T: India’s largest Engineering company – our parent group manufacturing and construction conglomerate • Manufacturing facilities in Asia, Middle East and Australia • Products & services delivered in 40+ countries • Global supply chain • 75+ years & growing L&T Technology Services - a wholly owned subsidiary of L&T • 175+ global customers • 47+ Fortune 500 customers Plant Engineering Industrial/Medical • 157+ patents co-authored • 9,500+ employees dedicated to engineering services • 6 ISO 9001:2008 & CMMI Level 5 certified delivery centers Transportation Telecom/Hi-Tech April 21, 2015 | 3
Imagine it …… and we’ll help design -build-commission it Non-traditional services, solutions & offerings Traditional Plant Engineering: Concept to completion Customer Technology Design, Project Management Energy Audit & Management (Plant Utility Management & Core Template Procurement Support FEED Build Optimization Services ( PUMOS) Asset Information Management (AIM) Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) & Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Vendor Packages Internet of Things (IoT) & Machine to Machine (M2M) solutions Data Analytics Machine Design Plant Engineering services, solutions & offerings Packaging Design Industrial & Product Design Application Development LEED Certification Support Procurement Management Construction Management Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Plastics Engineering April 21, 2015 | 4
Recent headlines reveal a rebirth of US manufacturing April 21, 2015 | 5
“Trendy” processes hog headlines, but “dowdy” utilities are essential ACME Chemical Co: UTILITIES Boss : We’re investing $$$$$$$ to build process XYZ • Power Assistant : What about utilities ? • Thermal Energy delivered as Boss : Just get it done steam hot water Assistant to Plant Manager : Get it done thermal oil refrigerant • Plant Manager: Compressed air Orders a new package boiler from “Bigger & Better Boiler” company • Pays ungodly $$ to utility company to upgrade electrical substation Lighting • Rule of Thumb : Insulation $$$Utilities are 10% to 40% of $$$Process • Water – surface & sub-surface • Wastewater treatment: anaerobic & aerobic April 21, 2015 | 6
Energy efficiency vs. waste… the energy recycling advantage Combined Heat & Power (CHP) at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Efficiency >80% Traditional central power generation. Efficiency ~35% .... burning money up the stack Uscommunityenergyguidehi.pdf community energy: planning, development and delivery, IDFA pub. Michael king 2012 April 21, 2015 | 7
Key utilities (power & steam): Two choices… one is arguably better Steam @ 100 psig 100 Kpph stack gas Process Package boiler system : safe & unimaginative Package boiler steam load Nameplate rating: 125 Kpph Steam: boiler 150 psig Natural gas 60% condensate @ 180F 136 MMBtu/Hr Power: grid supplied ή ~83% LHV 40% makeup @ 60F FSF~ 1,360 Btu/lb BFW @ 5 psig / 225F Deaerator Blow-down. High duct fired Gas Turbine Combined Heat & Power stack gas HRSG* (DF GT-CHP) : safe, sustainable & profitable Process Nameplate Steam ST power, 3.7 MW STG rating steam 125 Kpph 700 psig / 700F 4 MW load 750 psig 100 psig, 100 Kpph 750 F Blow-down. Steam: from HRSG 60% condensate @ 180F Power: onsite generation; remote grid provides back-up Nat. gas to Duct Fire 98 MMBtu/Hr 40% makeup @ 60F Gas Turbine Nat. Gas to GT HR: 12.2 GT power 4.0 MW Deaerator 50 MMBtu/Hr MMBtu/MWh STG: Steam Turbine Generator; HRSG: Heat Recovery Steam Generator; FSF: Fuel to Steam Factor April 21, 2015 | 8
Key utilities (power & steam): A closer look favors efficient & high DF GT-CHP Steam @ 100 psig 100 Kpph stack gas Generate inexpensive power for <= 10% extra fuel Process Package boiler steam load Nameplate rating: 125 Kpph Design point results Package boiler Duct fired GT- CHP system Difference 150 psig Natural gas 60% condensate @ 180F (100 Kpph / 100 psig) system 136 MMBtu/Hr ή ~83% LHV Fuel required 40% makeup @ 60F 136 148 12 FSF~ 1,360 Btu/lb MMBtu/Hr, LHV BFW @ 5 psig / 225F Deaerator Blow-down. Net onsite power, n/a 7.7 7.7 MW Fuel-to-Steam Factor 1.36 1.46 0.10 stack gas (FSF), MMBtu/Klb HRSG* Process CHP Heat Rate, LHV Nameplate Steam ST power, 3.7 MW n/a 4.5 4.5 STG rating steam 125 Kpph 700 psig / 700F MMBtu/MWh 4 MW load 750 psig 100 psig, 100 Kpph 750 F Blow-down. *Net operational cost $7.3 $4.9 ($2.4) 60% condensate @ 180F of steam, $/Klb Nat. gas to Duct Fire 98 MMBtu/Hr Fuel cost of power, 40% makeup @ 60F n/a $22.3 $22.3 Gas Turbine $/MWh Nat. Gas to GT HR: 12.2 GT power 4.0 MW Deaerator 50 MMBtu/Hr MMBtu/MWh * Net OpEx cost of steam reflects fuel cost, credit from onsite power and O&M costs of both systems April 21, 2015 | 9
Package boiler efficiency varies with load; sizing & optimal design point? 100% load Efficiency: 83% 40% load Efficiency: 73% April 21, 2015 | 10
DF GT CHP is a better alternative: Duct fire to efficiently & rapidly follow load April 21, 2015 | 11
ή DF GT CHP > ή boiler across the load curve. CHP Steam-to-Power Factor tracks load High duct firing GT-CHP efficiency consistently exceeds boiler efficiency, % Boiler efficiency, % GT CHP efficiency, % GT-CHP Steam:Power Factor, SPF (Klb/MW) 100% 14.0 90% 12.0 GT-CHP Steam-to-Power Factor, SPF (Klb/MW) Efficiency, % 80% 10.0 70% 60% 8.0 50% 6.0 40% 30% 4.0 20% 2.0 10% 0% 0.0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Process steam load, Kpph April 21, 2015 | 12
Higher marginal efficiency of duct firing converges fuel burned per lb steam High duct firing converges Fuel-to-Steam factor (MMBtu/Klb) Boiler FSF MMBtu/Klb GT CHP FSF, MMBtu/Klb Boiler Fuel, MMBtu/hr GT-CHP fuel, MMBtu/Hr 1.9 150 140 Fuel-to-Steam Factor, FSF, MMBtu/Klb 1.8 130 Total Fuel burned, MMBtu/Hr, LHV 1.7 120 110 1.6 100 1.5 90 80 1.4 70 1.3 60 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Process steam load, Kpph April 21, 2015 | 13
What about economics? simplified assumptions Process operations: 8,322 hrs/year Operations & Maintenance costs: Process steam load: 40 to 100 Kpph @ 100 psig GT: $10/MWh Delivered natural gas: $5/MMBtu, HHV Package boiler: 35 to 40 ¢/Klb Delivered grid power: 6.5 ¢/KWh ($65/MWh) HRSG: 35 to 40 ¢/Klb Full load package boiler efficiency : 83% LHV Gas Turbine heat rate (4.2 MW Centaur 50): 12,200 Btu/KWh, LHV Feedwater to DeAerator 100F April 21, 2015 | 14
Significant and consistent savings with DF GT CHP With DF-CHP, reduced cost of process steam Boiler: Net Cost of steam GT-CHP: net cost of steam SAVINGS: GT-CHP vs. Boiler $9.0 $2,500 $8.0 Net Operational Cost of steam, $/Klb $2,000 $7.0 $6.0 Net Savings, $K/yr $1,500 $5.0 $4.0 $1,000 $3.0 $2.0 $500 $1.0 $0.0 $0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Process steam load, Kpph April 21, 2015 | 15
Operational NET ZERO: What is your grid power and gas price? Operational NET ZERO for low (40 Kpph) & high (100 Kpph) steam load 100 Kpph 40 Kpph $80 $70 Displaced Grid power, $/MWh $60 DF-GT CHP operationally profitable above the line $50 $40 $30 $20 Package boiler operationally profitable below the line $10 $0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 Delivered cost of gas, $/MMBtu, HHV April 21, 2015 | 16
Short payback on incremental investment over package boiler systems Incremental Investment & Payback: "steaming savings" 100 Kpph 40 Kpph 10.0 9.0 8.0 Incremental payback, years 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 $5.5 $6.0 $6.5 $7.0 Incremental investment, $MM April 21, 2015 | 17
Recommend
More recommend
