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

Transcription

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

2 Outline Introduction Energy Recovery Devices in CO 2 Removal Case Studies System Reliability Conclusions Q&A

3 Energy Recovery Devices in CO 2 Removal Units

4 Energy Recovery Devices, RRP or HPRT Reverse Running Pumps as Hydraulic Power Recovery Turbines- Sulzer Design and Experience, Sulzer Pumpen (Deutschland) GMBH

5 Energy Recovery Devices, Hydraulic Turbocharger PUMP SIDE IMPELLER TURBINE SIDE IMPELLER HIGH PRESSURE LEAN SOLVENT HIGH PRESSURE RICH SOLVENT LOW PRESSURE LEAN SOLVENT LOW PRESSURE RICH SOLVENT

6 Energy Recovery Devices, Hydraulic Turbocharger 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 WEAR RING

7 Turbocharger as Installed

8 Hydraulic Turbocharger, 2 x 100% 70% Smaller Pump

9 Energy Recovery Devices in CO 2 Removal Units Q P ε t ε p ε m Solvent fluid flow, m3/hr Differential pressure between the contactor and flash tank pressures, bar Overall hydraulic recovery device efficiency Solvent circulation pump efficiency Solvent circulation pump electric motor efficiency 36 Conversion factor Power Savings ( kw) = Q P ε t ε p ε m 36 EXAMPLE: Power Savings ( kw) = m bar 70% hr 80% 95% 36 Power Savings kw = 770 kw Annual Energy 0.08 $/kwh = $ 560,000

10 CO 2 Removal Process, 3 x 50%

11 Hydraulic Turbocharger, 3 x 50% Replaces 1 pump. 50% Energy Saved!

12 Turbocharger Control Treated Gas IsoBoost System Absorber LCV 102 Throttle Valve PT 102 LCV 101 AUX Valve PT 101 VT 100 Inlet Gas Absorber Turbine Pump LCV 100 Bypass valve PT 103 Turbocharger PT 100 Lean amine from Regen. LCV (standby) Rich amine to flash drum

13 Level Control Functionality

14 Case Study A: MDEA Gas Treating Facility

15 Case Study A: Saving Energy, Less Emissions, More Reliability Absorber pressure: 52 bar Flash drum pressure: 7 bar Amine flow rate: 170 m 3 /hr Reducing required power from 328 kw to 169 kw, ~ 50% reduction CO 2 emission reduction: 1,000 Tons CO 2 / year Energy saving: $139,000/ year 8 years in service with no failure

16 Case Study B: Gas Treating Facility, 3 x 50% Treated Gas Min. Circ. Line M Absorber 40 FCV-1 FCV-2 35 IsoBoost System M 34 Lean Solvent Circ. Pump A Lean Solvent Circ. Pump B (Standby) 31 From Solvent Regen. Inlet Gas 13 Throttle valve AUX valve Pump out Pump in Turbocharger Turbine in Turbine out Bypass valve LCV (Standby) To Rich Solvent Flash Tank

17 Case Study B: Gas Treating Facility, 3 x 50% Absorber pressure: 65 bar Flash drum pressure: 10 bar Amine flow rate: 1,360 m 3 /hr (each Train), Five Trains Reducing required power from 2.8 MW to 1.4 MW/ Train, 50% reduction CO 2 emission reduction: 8,400 Tons CO 2 / (year x Train) Energy saving: $1 MM/ (year x Train) Commissioning in 2017/18

18 Case Study C: 2,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 2 x 100% Purified Gas 1 Absorber, HP/ LP Flash 31 Lean Amine from Lean Solution Pump amdea 2,800 m 3 /hr 39 FCV M HPRT out of service CO2 Absorber 34 Semi-Lean Solution Pump (Standby) Process Gas 36 M 35 Semi-Lean Amine from LP Flash Drum 11 Semi-Lean Solution Pump LCV (Standby) Hydraulic Turbine 12 Trim Bypass valve Rich Amine to HP Flash Drum 19

19 Case Study C: 2,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 2 x 100% Purified Gas Lean Amine from Lean Solution Pump IsoBoost System Power Reduction and Energy Saving Comparison 2,800 m 3 /hr, amdea FCV 13 Throttle 38 Pump out Pump in Turbocharger 15 Turbine in Turbine out No ERD HPRT Turbocharger E-59 AUX Power, MW Bypass Annual Energy Cost, $M CO2 Absorber 34 M 33 Process Gas M Semi-Lean Solution Pump (Standby) Semi-Lean Amine from LP Flash Drum LCV (Standby) Semi-Lean Solution Pump Rich Amine to HP Flash Drum 19

20 Case Study D: 1,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 3 x 50% 1 Absorber, 2 Strippers Potassium Carbonate 1,200 m 3 /hr 2 HPRTs HPRTs efficiency: 50%

21 Case Study D: 1,200 MTPD Ammonia Plant, 3 x 50% M Semi-Lean Solvent to Absorber Pump C (standby) Steam In Power Reduction and Energy Saving Comparison 1,200 m 3 /hr, Benfield Two HPRTs One Turbocharger 11 Steam Out Steam Turbine 10 Semi-Lean Solvent 9 MP Steam, ton/hr Pump B Rich. Solvent to Stripper 1 Annual Energy Cost, $M FV-3 FV 43A 6 Rich Solvent from Absorber 4 1 FV IsoBoost 2 3 Rich. Solvent to Stripper 2 FV 41A 8

22 Reliability and Flexibility Comparison Reverse Running Pump Turbocharger Turbine M Pump Turbine Pump Courtesy of Shin Nippon Machinery Co., LTD

23 Pump/ Turbocharger Failure Rate Pump Component Base Failure Rate Mechanical Seals λ SE,B = 22.8 Shaft λ SH,B = 0.01 Bearings λ BE,B = Casing λ CA,B = 0.01 Fluid Driver λ FD,B = 0.2 Centrifugal Pump with motor Mean Time To Failure, Year Centrifugal Pump, theoretical (without seals, gaskets or coupling) Hydraulic turbocharger in seawater desalination Lack of mechanical seals is the main reason for higher reliability of hydraulic turbocharger than HPRTs

24 Conclusions Hydraulic Turbochargers provide substantial energy efficiency benefits in CO 2 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.

25 Thank You!