Presenters Scott A. Lucas Scott A. Lucas PE PE Founder & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Scott A. Scott A. Lucas Lucas PE PE Founder & Managing Director of Kansas-based Lucas E Lucas E3, LLC , LLC (Ethanol (Ethanol Expansion Expansion Engineering) Engineering)

Presenters

Jason Jason A. Cook

• A. Cook PE/SE/MBA

PE/SE/MBA President & Founding Principal of Kansas-based J.COOK J.COOK Structural Structural Engineeri Engineering LLC ng LLC

Presentation Outline  Section 1 - Section 1 - Introdu ntroduction ction & Presen & Presentation Outline tation Outline  Section 2 - Section 2 - Ethanol Prod thanol Production uction & Plant Issues & Plant Issues  Section 3 - Section 3 - Lucas E ucas E3 Philosophy of Service Philosophy of Service  Section 4 - Section 4 - Service Packages ervice Packages  Section 5 - Section 5 - Example Customer & Project xample Customer & Project  Section 6 - Section 6 - Energy Efficient Projects - nergy Efficient Projects - Looking Forward

• oking Forward

 Section 7 - Section 7 - Comments and Questions

• mments and Questions

Ethanol Production & Economic Impact

 For 2012 U.S. had For 2012 U.S. had 21 211 active ethanol plants 1 active ethanol plants producing 13.3 BGY producing 13.3 BGY at 90% of current national at 90% of current national nameplate capacity of 14.7 nameplate capacity of 14.7 BGY BGY  Minnesota Minnesota had 21 plants had 21 plants producing producing 1.0 BGY 1.0 BGY at at 100% nameplate capacity accounting for about 100% nameplate capacity accounting for about 7.7% of U.S. production 7.7% of U.S. production  Minnesota plants use about 400 m Minnesota plants use about 400 million bushels of corn annually illion bushels of corn annually, , account for about 4,300 jobs, and account for about 4,300 jobs, and have an have an estimated annual total estimated annual total economic impact of about $2.2 billion economic impact of about $2.2 billion  Due Due to size and to size and distribution all Mi distribution all Minnesota ethanol plants can benefit nnesota ethanol plants can benefit significantly f ificantly from s

• m specific

ific targeted targeted process improvements process improvements

 Few ethanol plants have a Few ethanol plants have a pr process engineer on staff,

• cess engineer on staff,

which some estimates put at about 20% which some estimates put at about 20%  Even with a Even with a process engineer process engineer, duties can preven duties can prevent the in- t the in- house design of simple and readily available projects house design of simple and readily available projects  Many opportunities exist for the small, targeted project Many opportunities exist for the small, targeted project that can improve energy efficiency at the plant, often that can improve energy efficiency at the plant, often with less than a with less than a $300,000 capital investment $300,000 capital investment  This type of This type of project is of project is often revealed after a detailed ten revealed after a detailed

• ptimization process using common engineering methods
• ptimization process using common engineering methods

Plight of the Smaller Ethanol Plant

 Large consulting design firm Large consulting design firms are often engaged on new s are often engaged on new plants and large additions or remodels plants and large additions or remodels  These firms focus on larger projects in excess of These firms focus on larger projects in excess of $1,000,000 and they tend not to approach small plants $1,000,000 and they tend not to approach small plants for proposals with minor upgrades and additions for proposals with minor upgrades and additions  When engaged on a When engaged on a smaller pl smaller plant they may come to the ant they may come to the table with a predetermined so table with a predetermined solution that has more than lution that has more than what the Owner really needs what the Owner really needs  Smaller firms can work more closely but may lack the Smaller firms can work more closely but may lack the breadth of experience, breadth of experience, relying more on past projects relying more on past projects Plight of the Smaller Ethanol Plant

 As Scott Lucas worked for one of the largest ethanol As Scott Lucas worked for one of the largest ethanol design firms, he came to see design firms, he came to see this plight of the small to this plight of the small to mid-size plant as mid-size plant as unacceptable and unnecessary unacceptable and unnecessary  In 2010 Scott founded Lucas E In 2010 Scott founded Lucas E3 and quickly began to and quickly began to associate with other experienced and like-minded associate with other experienced and like-minded designers, contractors, supplie designers, contractors, suppliers in order to offer Owners rs in order to offer Owners the same types of service – the same types of service – but with a ut with a twist twist  The twist? The twist? We do what our clients need us to do do what our clients need us to do regardless of plant size and project scope regardless of plant size and project scope Lucas E3 Philosophy of Service

 We start by focusing start by focusing our efforts to determine what the

• ur efforts to determine what the

Owner needs and develop solutions from there Owner needs and develop solutions from there  We spend time with the Owner spend time with the Owner, usually in face-to-face , usually in face-to-face meetings, to foster a meetings, to foster a close working relationship close working relationship  We educate the Owner on readily-available methods and educate the Owner on readily-available methods and projects that increase energy and operational efficiency projects that increase energy and operational efficiency  We develop solutions with develop solutions with significant Owner input significant Owner input Lucas E3 Philosophy of Service

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report  Engineering Design Engineering Design  Owner Representation & Owner Representation & Coordination Coordination Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through 2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model 3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model 4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison 5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through

a. a. Physicall Physically walk the plant to develo y walk the plant to develop a p a more complete understan more complete understandin ding of

• f
• pera
• perations and begi

and begin to to identify bo identify bottlenecks ttlenecks b. b. Col Collect ct opera

• perational inf

inform

• rmation

tion, data, drawings , data, drawings, etc. , etc. c. c. Int Interv rview opera w operational sta staff to discu to discuss s ss specific i ecific issues t sues to be be addr addressed essed

2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model 3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model 4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison 5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through 2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model

a. a. Material Material & Energy Balance to & Energy Balance to est establish curr curren ent proces process flows flows b. b. Defi Define proces process flow int flow into and out

• and out of each
• f each piece

piece of equ

• f equipm

pmen ent c. c. Model Model will more accu will more accuratel rately rep represent c resent current plant o rrent plant operations erations

3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model 4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison 5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through 2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model 3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model

a. a. Use baseline mo e baseline model t del to i introduce pr roduce process mo ess modifications difications b. b. Create modified P&IDs an Create modified P&IDs and M&EBs to qua d M&EBs to quantify tify impact impact

4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison 5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through 2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model 3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model 4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison

a. a. Evaluate chan Evaluate changes between ges between Base Baseli line Model Model and Improved Model and Improved Model b. b. Summari Summarize compari ze comparison sons for inclu for inclusio ion in Report in Report

5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

Service Packages

 Plant Evaluation & Plant Evaluation & Report Report

1. 1. Plant W Plant Walk-Through lk-Through 2. 2. Baseline Model Baseline Model 3. 3. Improved Model Improved Model 4. 4. Model Comparison Model Comparison 5. 5. Issue Report with Recommendations Issue Report with Recommendations

a. a. Summari Summarize operations ze operations at curren at current plant rate t plant rate b. b. Discuss bottlen Discuss bottlenecks, areas of conc ecks, areas of concer erns, ns, a and p potential e ntial energy s savings ngs c. c. Identify 10 to 15 recommen Identify 10 to 15 recommended ed proce process modif modifica cations (proj (projec ects) d. d. Devel Develop cost p cost est estimate and qua and quantify econ fy economic ben benef efit of each

• f each proj

project ect e. e. Devel Develop cost p cost est estimate for del for delivery of Engi ery of Engineering Desi g Design

Service Packages

 Engineering Design Engineering Design

1. 1. Lucas E Lucas E3 works with the Owner to develop an works with the Owner to develop an appropriate plan appropriate plan for implementing the projects iden for implementing the projects identif tified by the Plant Evaluation ed by the Plant Evaluation & & Report considering the Owner Report considering the Owner’s speci specific needs and needs and cond condit itio ions ns 2. 2. Project development made open Project development made openly to encourage communication ly to encourage communication and and coordination coordination that permits Owner input on that permits Owner input on project direction project direction 3. 3. Engineering Design package for Engineering Design package for selected projects are developed selected projects are developed to facil to facilitate ate the Owner the Owner’s abili ability to work direct ty to work directly with local with local contractors and contractors and vendors of choice vendors of choice

Service Packages

 Engineeri Engineering Design package includes process engineeri ng Design package includes process engineering g informati information such as n such as:

1. 1. Material Material and Energy Balance and Energy Balance 2. 2. P+IDs P+IDs

• Existi

Existing P+IDs marked up for updating and New P+IDs as needed ng P+IDs marked up for updating and New P+IDs as needed 3. 3. Equipmen Equipment Specifi t Specification cations

• Incl

Include the informati e the information

• n necessary f

necessary for Owner

• r Owner’s coor

coordination wit with vend vendors

• rs

and contractors and contractors 4. 4. Operati Operating Procedures ng Procedures 5. 5. Control Control Narratives Narratives

• Use

Used for coord for coordinating wit with progra programmers rs

Service Packages

 Owner Representation & Owner Representation & Coordination Coordination

1. 1. Where the Engineeri Where the Engineering Design package is developed for the ng Design package is developed for the Owner to work directl Owner to work directly with co with contractors and ntractors and vendors, Lucas E vendors, Lucas E3

3

can provide coordination can provide coordination assist assistance at the Owner ance at the Owner’s direction s direction 2. 2. Or we can act Or we can act as the as the Owner Owner’s Representat s Representative in using the ve in using the Engineering Design package to work directly with vendors and Engineering Design package to work directly with vendors and contra contract ctors on the Owner

• rs on the Owner’s beha

behalf lf 3. 3. Lucas E Lucas E3 can also act as can also act as an an on-call consultant to evaluate new

• n-call consultant to evaluate new

technologies and technologies and projects being projects being offered by other design firms,

• ffered by other design firms,

vendors, and vendors, and contractors contractors

Service Packages

 Lucas E Lucas E3 completed a completed a Plant Evaluation Plant Evaluation & Report package in early & Report package in early 2012 for the 45 2012 for the 45 MM GPY MM GPY Chippewa V Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. lley Ethanol Co. (CVEC) (CVEC) plant located in Benson, Minnesota plant located in Benson, Minnesota  That report identified twelve spec That report identified twelve specific projects that could directly ific projects that could directly address plant efficiency and address plant efficiency and create create signif significant cost savings with icant cost savings with coordinated installation coordinated installation  Considerabl Considerable time was time was spent wi spent with the Owner to revie th the Owner to review those w those recommendations and recommendations and discuss outcom discuss outcomes resulting from es resulting from possible possible adjustm adjustments to scope and ents to scope and schedule schedule

Example Customer & Project

 Lucas E Lucas E3 is currentl is currently devel y developing the engineeri ping the engineering package for two of g package for two of the twelve identi the twelve identified project ed projects which invol which involves a es a previously install previously installed d project designed by another firm project designed by another firm  Our Our ongoing relationship with CVEC

• ngoing relationship with CVEC staff has resulted in the

staff has resulted in the devel development of several pment of several new new project project ideas not initi ideas not initiall lly included in y included in the Plant Evaluation & the Plant Evaluation & Report Report  Value of long term relati lue of long term relationship in

• nship in that we

that we have the opport have the opportun unity to ity to continue to educate plant staff, whic continue to educate plant staff, which in turn makes it easier for the h in turn makes it easier for the plant staff plant staff to educate us to educate us about their plant operations about their plant operations

Example Customer & Project

 Three related energy-saving projects Three related energy-saving projects delivered as a delivered as a single package single package were revealed from our work with CVEC were revealed from our work with CVEC  This package of projects can be This package of projects can be applied at most ethanol plants, applied at most ethanol plants, which which makes it a makes it a larger benefi larger benefit to to the ethanol industry as a the ethanol industry as a whole whole  The The package consists of the following projects package consists of the following projects

1.

• 1. Energy

Energy Recov Recovery from Stack Gases ry from Stack Gases 2.

• 2. Alternative Front-End Heati

Alternative Front-End Heating 3.

• 3. Heavy Syrup Evaporation

Heavy Syrup Evaporation

Example Customer & Project

1.

• 1. Energy Recovery from Stack Gases

Energy Recovery from Stack Gases

a. a. Capture waste heat to displace use of steam Capture waste heat to displace use of steam b. b. Project value is dependent on ef Project value is dependent on effi fici cien ent end use of recover t end use of recovered heat d heat c. c. Most Most plants have several ar plants have several areas to util eas to utilize this waste heat e this waste heat d. d. For CVEC For CVEC the Energy Recovery portion was already in place but the Energy Recovery portion was already in place but not being fully utilized not being fully utilized

2.

• 2. Alternative Front-End Heating

Alternative Front-End Heating 3.

• 3. Heavy Syrup Evaporation

Heavy Syrup Evaporation Example Customer & Project

1.

• 1. Energy Recovery from Stack Gases

Energy Recovery from Stack Gases 2.

• 2. Alternative Front-End Heating

Alternative Front-End Heating

a. a. Uses waste heat in lieu of Uses waste heat in lieu of steam to heat up steam to heat up incoming corn incoming corn b. b. Improves flour Improves flour-water mixing water mixing

3.

• 3. Heavy Syrup Evaporation

Heavy Syrup Evaporation Example Customer & Project

1.

• 1. Energy Recovery from Stack Gases

Energy Recovery from Stack Gases 2.

• 2. Alternative Front-End Heating

Alternative Front-End Heating 3.

• 3. Heavy Syrup Evaporation

Heavy Syrup Evaporation

a. a. Use waste heat in lieu of steam to drive evaporation Use waste heat in lieu of steam to drive evaporation b. b. Reduces moisture of evaporated syrup sent to dryers Reduces moisture of evaporated syrup sent to dryers c. c. Reduces load and Reduces load and gas usage at DDG gas usage at DDG Dryer Dryer

Example Customer & Project

 For a For a 50 50 MM GPY plant including the installation of the MM GPY plant including the installation of the energy r energy recovery covery, alt , alternat rnative heating, and syrup ive heating, and syrup evaporation projects, evaporation projects, we estimate: we estimate:

• $2.0 mill

$2.0 million ion capital capital investmen investment

• Poten

Potential ial energy savin energy savings of 25 milli s of 25 million

• n btu/hr

btu/hr

• Energy cost savin

Energy cost savings of $1.0 mill s of $1.0 million ion per year per year

Example Customer & Project

 High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG  Water Saving Opportunities ter Saving Opportunities  Lucas E Lucas E3 Solvent Fractionation Solvent Fractionation Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

 High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG

1. 1. New process designed for existi New process designed for existing ethanol plants to diversify ng ethanol plants to diversify production, add revenue stream, production, add revenue stream, and and reduce operating costs reduce operating costs 2. 2. Co-product is extracted from Co-product is extracted from Thin Stillage Thin Stillage and can be sold and can be sold locally to poultry and locally to poultry and swine swine producers as a producers as a feed additive feed additive 3. 3. Removal of co-pro Removal of co-product duct can reduce can reduce: evaporator fouling, load on evaporator fouling, load on DDG DDG Dryer Dryer, and and operational issues

• perational issues when

when using Ring Dryers on using Ring Dryers on evaporated syrup evaporated syrup

 Water Saving Opportunities ter Saving Opportunities  Lucas E Lucas E3 Solvent Fractionation Solvent Fractionation Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

 High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG  Water Saving Opportunities ter Saving Opportunities

1. 1. Most plants are already zero proces Most plants are already zero process-wat s-water discharg r discharge, state regul e, state regulation

• n

changes will changes will requi require Owners to cont e Owners to continual nually look look at water usage issues at water usage issues 2. 2. Water usage in ethanol ter usage in ethanol pl plants commonly related to: ants commonly related to:

A. A. Cooli Cooling tower evapora g tower evaporation and blow-down ion and blow-down B. B. Direct steam usage Direct steam usage C. C. CO2 scrubber operation CO2 scrubber operation

3. 3. Several proj veral projects ects currently b currently being m ing marketed to the ethanol rketed to the ethanol industry to industry to reduce water usage in these areas reduce water usage in these areas

 Lucas E Lucas E3 Solvent Fractionation Solvent Fractionation Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

A.

• A. Cooling T

Cooling Tower Blow-Down wer Blow-Down T Treatment eatment

1. 1. Blow-down from cooling tower tr Blow-down from cooling tower treated to remove salt solids eated to remove salt solids before water is returned to tower before water is returned to tower 2. 2. Process reduces the required volume of make-up water Process reduces the required volume of make-up water 3. 3. Estimated potential savings of 0.75 gallons water for each Estimated potential savings of 0.75 gallons water for each gallon of ethanol produced gallon of ethanol produced

B.

• B. Direct Steam Usage Reduction

Direct Steam Usage Reduction/Elimination Elimination C.

• C. CO2 Scrubber Upgrade

CO2 Scrubber Upgrade Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

A.

• A. Cooling T

Cooling Tower Blow-Down wer Blow-Down T Treatment eatment B.

• B. Direct Steam Usage Reduction

Direct Steam Usage Reduction/Elimination Elimination

1. 1. Alternate methods of heating Alternate methods of heating can can significantly reduce or significantly reduce or eliminate need for direct steam eliminate need for direct steam 2. 2. Energy Recovery from Stack Gase Energy Recovery from Stack Gases to transfe s to transfer waste heat to waste heat to avail available area e areas is one econom s is one economic ical solu soluti tion

• n

3. 3. Estimated potential savings for di Estimated potential savings for displacing direct steam usage of splacing direct steam usage of 0.25 gallons water for each gallon of ethanol produced 0.25 gallons water for each gallon of ethanol produced

C.

• C. CO2 Scrubber Upgrade

CO2 Scrubber Upgrade Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

A.

• A. Cooling T

Cooling Tower Blow-Down wer Blow-Down T Treatment eatment B.

• B. Direct Steam Usage Reduction

Direct Steam Usage Reduction/Elimination Elimination C.

• C. CO2 Scrubber Upgrade

CO2 Scrubber Upgrade

1. 1. Clean fresh water is needed to produce the require Clean fresh water is needed to produce the required specif specification of CO2 n of CO2 relea released to the atmosphere ed to the atmosphere 2. 2. Modifications to existing scru Modifications to existing scrubber packing for more efficient bber packing for more efficient

• pera
• peration reduces need for fresh water

n reduces need for fresh water 3. 3. Estimated potential savings of 0.15 gallons water for each Estimated potential savings of 0.15 gallons water for each gallon of ethanol produced gallon of ethanol produced

Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

 High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG  Water Saving Opportunities ter Saving Opportunities  Lucas E Lucas E3 Solvent Fractionation Solvent Fractionation Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

 High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG High-Protein Low-Fiber Feed from DDG  Water Saving Opportunities ter Saving Opportunities  Lucas E Lucas E3 Solvent Fractionation Solvent Fractionation

1. 1. Patent- Patent-pending process developed by ending process developed by Scott Lucas Scott Lucas 2. 2. Provides method to process grai Provides method to process grain before use in the ethan n before use in the ethanol plant l plant 3. 3. Clean starches (sugars) are remo Clean starches (sugars) are removed from grains to be sent to ved from grains to be sent to plant for more efficient processing into ethanol plant for more efficient processing into ethanol 4. 4. Residual protein, oil and Residual protein, oil and fiber fiber are separated and are separated and sold as high sold as high value food grade product value food grade products

Energy Efficient Projects ‐ Looking Forward

 Scott Lucas will be Scott Lucas will be happy to take your questions or to happy to take your questions or to discuss comments you may have about the issues we discuss comments you may have about the issues we have presented today have presented today  You should also feel free to speak with him during u should also feel free to speak with him during the the rest of today’ rest of today’s event s event Comments and Questions