Leveraging best practices & emerging technologies to optimize industrial process heating

Industrial Process Heating Optimization
J ason Smith, LEED A.P.
Industrial Energy Efficiency Summit
Nashville – TN July 17 - 18, 2013

Global Network:
 Global Sales ~ 143,000 Units (~ 12,000,000 BHP)
• Asia ~ 140,500
• North America ~ 2,500
 ~ 500 Trillion Btu Annual Energy Savings Worldwide
 ~ 180 Million Metric Tons of Annual CO2 Reductions Worldwide

Miura – North America:
 Current North American
regional offices:
 Sales and service
networt in the U.S. &
Canada via certified
local representatives
 Satellite offices
established in Mexico &
Brazil in 2011
 Made in the U.S.A.:
New U.S. manufacturing
operational in 2009
(Rockmart, GA)

Presentation Overview:
 Introduction
 Overview of Optimization Approach / Process
 Review of Thermal Energy Management BEST PRACTICES
 First Steps to Optimization – Assessment & Benchmarking
 Leveraging New Technologies to Back-fill Performance Gaps
 Case Studies of Successful Applications

Optimization Approach:
Key Concepts
Holistic / System-wide
Inclusive
BEST PRACTICE-rooted
Data-driven
Process / Load-specific
Controls-focused
Target-driven
Recurring
Long-term

Optimization Approach:
Process
 Assess & benchmark current system
performance relative to process loads
 Maximize heat recovery within system
 “Right-size” system relative to optimized
heat recovery
 Optimize system load matching / management
capability for process requirements
 Configure system to reduce potential for future
secondary / infrastructure energy losses
 Implement long-term system & infrastructure
BEST PRACTICES management program
 Implement continuous system monitoring &
management
 Implement recurring optimization “gap analysis”

Unlocking U.S. Energy Efficiency
Bang for Buck – Industrial Sector
 2009 McKinsey EE Report for DOE / EPA:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency
Energy Mgmt for
E/I Processes
Waste Heat Recovery
Steam Systems
~ 13 Quadrillion Btu’s at an avg.
capital investment of ~ $7 / MMBtu

U. S. Boiler Inventory:
Energy Consumption
 U.S. Industrial Boilers – Energy Consumption: ~ 6.5 Qbtu / yr
or up to 40% of all energy at industrial facilities
 Equivalent CO2 Emissions: ~ 500+ MtCO2 / yr
Food
BoilerFuelConsumption
(TBtu/yr)
Paper Chemicals Refining Primary
Metals
Other
Mfg
500
1,000
1,500
2,500
2,000

Optimization Objectives:
Enterprise Sustain-ability
 “Triple Bottom Line”:
Social Responsibility
Environmental
Stewardship
Economic
Prosperity
• Reduced
Fossil Fuels
Consumption
• Reduced GHG
Emissions
• Reduced Water
Consupmtion
• Reduced Fuel
Costs
• Reduced
Operation Costs
• Increased
Operational
Efficiency
• Extended Product Stewardship
• Online Maintenance System
• Safe & Easy Operation

Optimization Drivers: Emissions Compliance
NOx
 Map of ozone non-attainment areas in the U.S.
(existing / future projected counties):
 Ground-level ozone pollution - primary driver of
NOx emissions regulation in the U.S.

Optimization Drivers: Emissions Compliance
EPA Boiler MACT
 Focused on regulating large & “dirty” fuel boiler
emissions via emissions limits & smaller boilers via
regular tuning provisions
 Final amendments issued 01/31/2013 for major source
& 02/01/2013 for area source boilers
 Major source boilers defined as those emitting 10 TPY
of any single regulated hazardous air pollutant or 25
TPY of combined pollutants
 Area source boilers are those that fall below major
source emissions of HAP’s
 Establishes “large boilers” as having heat input
capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr or greater & “small boilers”
as those below 10 MMBtu/hr heat input capacity
 Specifies compliance deadline criteria differentiating
new vs. existing boilers (including energy assessment)

Optimization Drivers: Emissions Reductions
Carbon Content
 Comparison of carbon content of major fuels:
 Coal ~ twice the carbon content of natural gas
CO2 Equivalents (lbs/MMBtu)
• Natural Gas – 117 lbs
• Propane – 139 lbs
• Distillate Fuels – 162 lbs
• Residual Fuels – 174 lbs
• Coal (BC) – 205 lbs
• Coal (AC) – 227 lbs

Targeting Energy Efficiency
Going Backwards to Move Forward
 “Back-cast” or reverse-engineer solutions with a
specific targeted performance outcome in mind
 ISO 50001, Energy Star, etc. assist in setting targets
 Create portfolio of existing / emerging technologies
that meet the targeted path to objective

Targeting Industrial Energy Efficiency
U.S. Industry
 U.S. DOE ITP / AMO:
 Providing training & energy performance
evaluations for U.S. industries focused on key
energy intensive processes:
 Steam
 Process Heat
 Pumps
 Compressors
 Motors
 Targeting energy intensity reduction of 25% in U.S.
industries within the next 10 years

Unlocking Energy Efficiency
O&M BEST PRACTICES
10 Steps to Operating Efficiency:
1. Increase Management Awareness
of Facility Operating Efficiency
2. Identify Troubled Systems
3. Commit to Address Worst-
performing System
4. Commit to O.E. for Selected
System
5. Install Metering/Monitoring
of Selected System
6. Commit to Trending
Diagnostic Data from
M+M System
7. Use Trending Data to Select,
“Sell” & Complete OE Project
8. Publish Results
9. Select Next Troubled System
10. Start O.E. Process Over Again
Fund Future Projects from
Previous Energy Savings

DOE BEST PRACTICES:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/technical_assistance/m/steam.html#tipsheets
Optimization Areas with Potential Energy Savings:
 Benchmark the Fuel Costs of Thermal Energy (~1%)
 Minimize Radiant Losses from Boilers (1.5-5%)
 Minimize & Automate Boiler Blow-down (0.5%-1.5%)
 Utilize Efficient Burners / Combustion Systems (2-10%)
 Minimize Boiler Idling & Short-Cycling Losses (5-10%)
 Utilize Feedwater Economizer for Waste Heat Recovery (1-4%)
 Utilize Boiler Blow-down Heat Recovery (0.5–2%)
 Maintain Clean Water-Side Heat Transfer Surfaces (0-10%)
 Implement a Steam Trap Management Program (0-2.5%)
 Implement a Steam Leak Program (0-3%)
 Reduce Steam Pressure of Steam Distribution System (0-3%)
 Improve Insulation on Steam Distribution System (0-3%)

Optimization BEST PRACTICES:
Benchmark Energy Costs
 EXAMPLE:
 Operating pressure = 150 psig
 Feedwater Temp. = 150oF
 Fuel Type = Natural Gas
 Fuel Unit Cost = $4.00/MMBtu
 Cost of Steam ($/1000 lbs.):
($4.00/MMBtu / 106 Btu/MMBtu)
x 1,000 lbs (cost measure)
x 1,078 lbs/Btu (energy – steam)
/ 0.857 (combustion efficiency)
= $5.03 / 1000 lbs. steam

Minimize Radiant Losses
 EXAMPLE:
 Radiant Surface Area = 60 ft2
 Liquid Temperature = 170oF
 Ambient Temperature = 75oF
 Operating Hours = 3,000 hrs
 Total Heat Loss:
1,566 Btu/hr X 60 ft2
= $93,960 Btu/hr
 Annual Energy Savings:
93,960 Btu/hr X 2000 hrs
= 282 MMBtu /yr X $4.00/MMBtu
= $1,128 / yr
200 BHP
Firetube
Boiler
200 BHP
Miura
Boiler

Minimize Boiler Blow-down
 EXAMPLE: (Economic Impact)
 M/U Water Savings = 2,312 lb/hr
 Thermal Energy Savings = 311Btu/lb
 Boiler Operation = 8,760 hrs/yr
 Water/Sewer/Chemical = $0.005/gal
 Fuel Savings:
2,312 lbs/hr X 8,760 hrs/yr X 311 Btu/lb
X $4.00/MMBtu / (0.80 X 106 Btu/MMBtu)
= $31,443 / year
 Water & Chemical Savings:
2,312 lbs/hr X 8,760 hrs/yr X $0.005/gal /
8.34 lb/gal = $12,142 / year
 Total Cost Savings:
$31,443 (fuel savings) +
$12,142 (water / chemical savings)
= $43,585 / year

Minimize Boiler Blow-down
 EXAMPLE: (Environmental Impact)
 Steam Pressure = 150 psig
 Boiler Capacity = 100,000 lbs/hr
 Water / Sewer / Treatment Costs =
$0.005 / gallon
 Blow-down Reduction = 8% to 6%
 Boiler Feedwater:
Initial = 100,000 lbs/hr / (1-0.08)
= 108,695 lbs/hr
Final = 100,000 lbs/hr / (1-0.06)
= 106,383 lbs/hr
M/U Water Savings = 2,312 lbs/hr
 Boiler Water Enthalpy = 338.5 Btu/lb
 For 60oF M/U Water = 28 Btu/lb
 Thermal Energy Savings =
338.5 Btu/lb – 28 Btu/lb
= 310.5 Btu/lb
 Reduced CO2 Emissions =
0.037 lbs CO2 / lb steam
= 37 lbs CO2 / 1,000 lbs steam

Automatic Blow-down Controls
 EXAMPLE:
 Natural Gas-Fired Boiler
 Boiler Output = 100,000 lbs/hr
 M/U Water Temperature = 60oF
 Boiler Efficiency = 80%
 Water/Sewer/Chemical =
$0.004/gallon
 Blow-down Reduction = 2%
 Energy Savings:
= $54,400 (fuel savings)
+ $8,400 (water/chemical savings)
= $62,800 / year

Efficient Burners
 EXAMPLE:
 Annual Fuel Input = 500,000 MMBtu
 Existing Burner Efficiency = 79%
 Burner Efficiency Improvement = 2%
 Energy Cost Savings:
= 500,000 MMBtu/yr X $4.00/MMBtu X (1 – 79/81)
= $49,380 / year

Efficient Combustion Systems
 EXAMPLE:
 Operating Pressure = 150 psig
 Annual Input = 500,000 MMBtu
 Stack Gas Excess Air = 44.9%
 Net Flue Gas Temp. = 400oF
 Existing Combustion Efficiency =
78.2% (E1)
 Reduce Net Excess Air - 9.5%
 Reduce Net Flue Gas Temp. - 300oF
 Improved Combustion Efficiency =
83.1% (E2)
 Assume Fuel Unit Cost = $4.00/MMBtu
= Fuel Consumption X (1-E1/E2) X Fuel Cost
= 29,482 MMBtu/yr X $4.00/MMBtu
= $117,928 / year

Minimize Boiler Short-cycling
 EXAMPLE:
 Existing Boiler Output = 1,500 BHP (~50.2 MMBtu/hr)
 Existing Cycle Efficiency = 72.7% (E1)
 Replacement Boiler Output = 600 BHP (~20 MMBtu/hr)
 Replacement Boiler Cycle Efficiency = 80% (E2)
 Annual Boiler Fuel Consumption = 200,000 MMBtu
 Fractional Fuel Savings:
= 1 – (E1 / E2) = 1 – (72.7 / 80) x 100
= 9%
 Annual Fuel Savings:
= 200,000 MMBtu X 0.09 X $8.00/MMBtu
= $72,000 / year

Waste Heat Recovery via Economizer
 EXAMPLE:
 Existing Steam Boiler
 Pre-heated Feed-Water = 117oF
 Stack Temperature = 500oF
 Operating Hours = 8,400 hrs/yr
 Annual Energy Cost Savings:
= 45,000 lb/hr X (1,195.5 – 84.97) Btu/lb
= 50 MMBtu/hr = 4.6 MMBtu/hr (Recoverable Heat)
= 4.6 MMBtu/hr X $4.00/MMBtu X 8,400 hr/yr / 0.80
= $193,200 / year

Water Quality Management
 EXAMPLE:
 Annual Fuel = 450,000 MMBtu
 Operating Hours = 8,000 hrs
 Scale Thickness = 1/32”
 Operating Cost Increase:
450,000 MMBtu / yr
x $4.00 / MMBtu
x 0.07 (% energy loss, scale)
= $126,000 / yr
Excessive Scale vs. Efficiency Reduction:
 1/8” thick = 25% efficiency reduction
 1/4” thick = 40% efficiency reduction

Steam Trap Management
 EXAMPLE:
 Existing Failed Steam Trap
 Operating Hours = 8,760 hrs/yr
 Fuel Unit Cost = $5.00/klbs
 Assume 1/8” dia. Trap Orifice
Stuck Open:
 Steam Loss = 75.8 lbs/hr
= 75.8 lbs/hr X 8,760 hrs/yr
X $5.00/klbs
= $3,320 / year

Insulate Steam Piping
 EXAMPLE:
 Existing Steam System Survey
 Un-insulated Steam Pipe:
– 1,120 ft of 1” pipe @ 150 psig
– 175 ft of 2” pipe @ 150 psig
– 250 ft of 4” pipe @ 15 psig
 Annual Heat Loss:
1” line: 1,120 ft X 285 MMBtu/yr per 100 ft = 3,192 MMBtu/yr
2” line: 175 ft X 480 MMBtu/yr per 100 ft = 840 MMBtu/yr
4” line: 250 ft X 415 MMBtu/yr per 100 ft = 1,037 MMBtu/yr
Total Heat Loss = 5,069 MMBty/yr
 Annual Cost Savings (80% efficient boiler, 90% efficient insulation):
0.90 X $4.00/MMBtu X 5,069 MMBtu/yr / 0.80
= $22,810 / year

Understanding Boiler Efficiency:
Accounting for Load Variability
“Combustion Efficiency” (Ec)
• The effectiveness of the burner to ignite the fuel
• Per ANSI Z21.13 test protocol
“Thermal Efficiency” (Et)
• The effectiveness of heat transfer from
the flame to the water
• Per the Hydronics Institute BTS-2000 test protocol
• Recognized by ASHRAE 90.1 standard
“Boiler Efficiency”
• Often substituted for combustion or thermal efficiency
“Fuel-to-Steam Efficiency” (A.K.A. Catalog Efficiency)
• The effectiveness of a boiler operating at maximum
capacity and a steady state, with flue losses and
radiation losses taken into account.

Accounting for Load Variability
 Current boiler efficiency metrics are limited to
best-case operation (steady-state)
 Current boiler efficiency metrics are limited to
snapshot-in-time vs. annualized measurement
 At any given moment, various boilers may be:
• Off and isolated (via modular, on-demand system)
• Off, but with through-flow from active boilers
• Operating at steady-state high fire
• Modulating
• Operating at steady-state low fire
• Cycling
• Idling
IncreasedEfficiency

 Fuel-to-Steam vs. In-Service Efficiency
 Understanding operating efficiency = tracking energy losses
FUEL
IN
Radiation Loss
Exhaust Loss
Start-up Losses
Blow-down Losses
Loss @ High Turndown
Radiation Loss @
Idle / Stand-by
Pre- & Post-purge Losses
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency Changing Loads

Industrial Energy Assessment
DOE Technical Resources
 DOE Regional Industrial Assessment Centers:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/m/
iacs_locations.html

Optimization First Steps:
Energy Assessment & Benchmarking
You are not managing what you do not measure…
 Select assessment method based on
targeted objectives
 Select assessment period to capture standard
operating cycle characteristic of process
 Plan on sampling one full additional operating
cycle as a back-check to primary data
 Utilize measurement interval synergized with
production profile (process start/stop intervals)
 Review past 24 months utilities statements to
account for seasonal, etc. load characteristics
not captured during assessment period
Courtesy of ENERGY
STAR Program Guide

Optimization First Steps:
Energy Assessment & Benchmarking
 Meter existing equipment & collect data on
current consumption, including:
• Gas & water consumption rates
• Gas pressure at the meter
• Gas temperature at the meter
• Feedwater temperature
• Steam pressure
• Blow-down rate (via Conductivity)
 Review utilities statements for seasonal load
variations / production peaks
 Size loads and determine load “profile”
(high-low loads) correlated to production
 Aggregate over-shoot & part-load operation
into overall net operating efficiency relative to
production profile
Courtesy of ENERGY
STAR Program Guide

Operating Efficiency Analysis:
Benchmarking Tools
 Utilize mass balance approach to account for all
inputs & outputs:
Tank
Existing Boiler
Gas
Steam
Water
Gas Meter
Water Meter
Blow-down
Data Logger
Radiant Losses
Steam Demand

Boiler Operating Efficiency:
Tracking Results
 Benchmarked performance of 25 boilers via assessment data:
 Average Operating Efficiency = 66% at 33% average load factor
Every 5 m in.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
0:00
0:35
1:10
1:45
2:20
2:55
3:30
4:05
4:40
5:15
5:50
6:25
7:00
7:35
8:10
8:45
9:20
9:5510:3011:0511:4012:1512:5013:2514:0014:3515:1015:4516:2016:5517:3018:0518:4019:1519:5020:2521:0021:3522:1022:4523:2023:55
PSI
HPExample Steam Load Profile

Benchmarking to Save Energy:
In-Service Efficiency (ISE) Study
 Metered ISE study provides
detailed load profile
illustrating process usage
impact on steam demand
 Graphing load profile allows
for high level of precision in
“right sizing” of boiler
system optimized for
highest efficiency
 Executive summary
provides estimated energy /
cost savings, O&M savings
& reduced CO2 emissions

Steam Cost Calculator:
TCO (Total Cost of Operation) Analysis
 Fuel Cost
 Water Cost
 Sewer Cost
 Electricity Costs
 Chemical Costs
 Service Contract
 O&M Costs
 Future CO2 Costs
 Projected
Lifecycle Costs

Leveraging Assessment Data:
Natural Gas Rebate Programs
 Utilize assessment data to justify project savings for EE rebates
 Growing list of state & utilities sponsored rebate programs…
 Refer to www.dsireusa.org

U. S. Boiler Inventory:
Age Distribution
 U.S. Boilers – Age Distribution of Boilers > 10 MMBtu/hr:
 C/I Boiler Inventory – 163,000 units w/ capacity of 2.7 Trillion Btu/hr
 Optimization opportunity via implementing “state-of-the-shelf”
Pre-1964 1964 -
1978
BoilerCapacity
(MMBtu/hr)
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
1969 -
1973
1974 -
1978
1979 -
1983
1984 -
1988
1989 -
1993
1994 -
1998
1999 -
2002
47% of existing inventory – 40+ yrs. old
76% of existing inventory – 30+ yrs. Old

Conventional Boilers – “Gap Analysis”:
Opportunities for Innovation
 Design Limitations of Conventional Boilers:
• Physical Size / Footprint
• Excessive Warm-up Cycle
• Excessive Radiant Losses
• Sub-optimal Response to Changing Loads
• Sub-optimal System Turn-Down Capability
• Sub-optimal Overall Operating Efficiency /
Load Management Capability
• Innate Safety Issues via Explosive Energy
• Lack of Integrated Emissions Controls
• Lack of Integrated Heat Recovery
• Lack of Integrated Controls / Automation
• Lack of Integrated Online Monitoring

Modular Boiler Technology:
Filling Performance “Gaps”
 Reduction in system footprint per equivalent
output / improved asset mgmt flexibility
 Reduction in system load profile-specific
energy losses via optimized load-matching
capability
 Integrated heat recovery via packaged
feedwater economizer
 Optimized heat recovery via low-temperature DA-
less feedwater system
 Optimized low-emissions burner design
 Integrated online monitoring dashboard system
for real-time mgmt of boiler controls & water
treatment systems (i.e., 24/7 system
commissioning)

Boiler System Operating Efficiency:
Tracking Performance
 Operating Efficiency Comparison:
 Modular systems provide overall higher operating energy efficiency
with greater consistency from low to high LF
100
20
Load (%)
In-ServiceEfficiency(%)
80
60
40
20
40 60 80 100
Modular System
Watertube Boiler
Firetube Boiler

 Optimize system operating efficiency to maximize
efficiency credits in support of compliance
 Optimize system operating efficiency to minimize
economic impact of MACT compliance
 Leverage system modularity to minimize boiler
emissions “footprint” by strategic system
configuration
 Leverage compact modular design to capture
supplemental energy savings by short-circuiting
existing aged infrastructure via point-of-use
configuration
 Utilize low-emissions combustion technologies to
avoid impact of supplemental emissions mitigation
(FGR / SCR)
Modular Boiler Technology:
Emissions Compliance

Managing Energy Load Variability:
“Right-Sizing” Optimization
 Understand load profile for typical production cycle
 Quantify disparities between utility output & process needs
• Utility Design Safety Factor (1.33 – 1.5 ~2% EE Potential)
• Avg. LF over typical production cycle (LF<60% = EE Potential)
• Aggregate over-shoot + part-load intervals to identify potential ECM’s
 Investigate opportunities to mitigate sub-optimal LF via scheduling
time
Max.
Capacity
(100% LF)
load
Avg.
Output
(~33% LF)
DSFMax.
Output
(50-66% LF)

Conventional Systems
 Conventional boiler systems expend large amounts of energy to
meet variable load conditions
 Design limitations of conventional boilers prevent them from
efficiently responding to every-changing load demands
 Result: Significant wasted energy & emissions at load swings
Single
1000 BHP
Boiler
time
load

Modular On-Demand Systems
 Modular on-demand boiler systems reduce energy consumption
required to meet variable loads by dividing the output capacity
among multiple small units (like gears in a transmission)
 Modular systems are designed specifically to meet varying load
demands
 Result: Significantly reduced energy & emissions at load swings
5-200 BHP
Modular Boilers
time
load

Optimized Energy Management via
Modularity
 Modular design concept:
200HP
TDR=1:3
Step(H,L)
200HP
TDR=1:3
Step(H,L)
200HP
TDR=1:3
Step(H,L)
200HP
TDR=1:3
Step(H,L)
200HP
TDR=1:3
Step(H,L)

Optimized Energy Management via
Modularity
 Modular design concept:
 Each boiler unit acts like a single piston in
the overall boiler system
1000HP boiler system
TDR=1:15
(15 steps of modulation)

Modular Capacity Range:
Flexibility + Efficiency
 Boiler Types & General Capacity Ranges
 Modular – Point-of-Use to District Energy Capacities
BoilerCapacity
(MMBtu/hr)
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Firetube
Boilers
Small
Watertube
Boilers
Large
Watertube
Boilers
Stoker
Boilers
Fluidized
Bed
Boilers
Pulverized
Coal
Boilers
MIURABoilers
Max. Individual
Boiler Capacity
(+/- 10 MMBtu/hr
or 10,350 lbs/hr)
Multiple Boiler
Installation to
Meet Specific
Demand
(Multiple Boilers &
Controllers)
Max. Multi-Unit
Boiler Capacity w/
Single Controller
(+/- 150 MMBtu/hr
or 150,000 lbs/hr)

Modular Boiler Plant Configuration:
 Optimized load matching / management
 Potential for hybrid base load / peaking
 Optimized space utilization via compact
footprint
 Optimized flexibility in capacity
expansion via modularity
 Optimized N+1 via integrated back-up
capacity

 Conventional Approach: Primary + Back-up
 Modular Approach: Integrated Back-up
 Reduce purchased capacity by ~ 30% while also
complying with N+1 requirements
200 BHP
Modularity = Flexibility:
Optimize System N+1
200 BHP
600 BHP 600 BHP
200 BHP
Primary N+1
200 BHP
Primary N+1 Total Capacity = 1,200 BHP
Total Capacity = 800 BHP

Increasing Efficiency = Reducing Losses:
Radiant Losses
 With energy efficiency, size matters…
 Increase efficiency via reduced boiler thermal footprint
200 BHP
Firetube
Boiler
200 BHP
Modular
Boiler
1,000+
Gallons
65+
GallonsVS
Smaller Boiler Surface Area =
Significant Reduction
in Radiant Losses
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency

Radiant Losses
 Radiant Losses: 12 MMBtu/hr input at 100% output
 Option A – Conventional System:
 Single 12 MMBtu/hr unit input
 Rated at 2% radiant loss
 240,000 Btu/hr energy loss
 Option B – Modular System:
 3 x 4 MMBtu/hr unit input
 Rated at 0.5% radiant loss
 3 x 20,000 Btu/hr losses =
60,000 Btu/hr energy loss
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency
2%
0.5%0.5%0.5%

Radiant Losses
 Radiant Losses: 12 MMBtu/hr input at 33% output
 Option A – Conventional System:
 Single 12 MMBtu/hr unit at 33% =
4 MMBtu/hr input
 240,000 Btu/hr energy loss
 Results in 6% total radiant loss
 Option B – Modular System:
 3 x 4 MMBtu/hr units (only 1 operating)
 1 x 20,000 Btu/hr losses =
20,000 Btu/hr energy loss
 Only 0.5% total radiant loss
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency
6%
0%0%0.5%

Exhaust Losses
 Utilize feed-water economizer for built-in
waste heat recovery
 Feed-water economizers increase efficiency by
capturing waste exhaust gases to preheat feed-
water entering the boiler
 Boiler efficiency can be increased by 1% for
every 40oF decrease in stack gas temperature
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency

Enhanced Heat Recovery:
Temperature Neutral Water Treatment
 Eco-friendly Silicate-based water treatment
 Eliminates need for high temperature feed-water
(i.e., DA tank) to activate chemical treatment
 Provides increased boiler efficiency
by +1-2% via reduced blow-down & low
temperature feed-water
 Reduces boiler chemical treatment costs
due to more effective tube protection &
computer controlled chemical feed system
 Reduces maintenance issues related to
constant monitoring & adjustment of
boiler water chemistry
 Reduces boiler performance issues such as
feed-water pump cavitation, increasing pump
efficiency by +10-20%
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency

Start-up Losses
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency
 Thermal shock - primary constraint on
boiler performance
 Conventional boiler performance is limited by
thermal stress resulting in inefficiency by
requiring slow start-up & perpetual idling
 Firetube boilers: 60-90 min warm-up cycle &
must remain idling in stand-by mode
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
(min)
20
40
60
80
100
(psi)
On-Demand Boiler
Coil-tube Boiler
Fire-tube Boiler

Losses at High Turn-down
 Modular boiler system:
 Sequential boiler staging via “master” & “slave”
controllers for precise load matching capability
MP1 (master)
MT1 (slaves) Twisted pair cable
FUEL
IN
IN-SERVICE
EFFICIENCY
Fuel-to-Steam
Efficiency

Online Monitoring / Management:
“Dashboard” System
 Stand-alone online monitoring
system that interfaces with boiler
control system as thermal energy
management “dashboard”
 Provides 24/7 online M&T/ M&V
online maintenance system
 Real-time 24/7 operation,
fuel/water consumption,
efficiency & emissions
tracking capabilities
 Communicates with operations
staff via workstation interface,
PDA, email alerts
 Provides monthly reports
ＥＲ
internet
Web Server Client PC
Local
network

Online Monitoring / Management:
“Dashboard” System
 24/7 Real-time Operational Parameters:
• Firing Rate
• Steam Pressure
• Scale Monitor
• High Limit
• Flue Gas Temp
• Feedwater Temp
• Flame Voltage
• Next Blow-down
• Surface B/down
• Conductivity
• Date / Time

Complete Fully Integrated Boiler Plant
 Typical integrated modular, on-demand boiler plant

Reducing Boiler “Footprint”
20% -
70%
 Physical Footprint:
• Reduced space requirements
• Reduced energy plant construction costs
• Reduced boiler “hardware”
 Energy Footprint:
• Reduced energy consumption / wasted energy
• Reduced explosive energy
• Reduced embodied energy
 Environmental Footprint
• Reduced consumption of natural resources
• Reduced harmful emissions
• Reduced carbon footprint
20%
60%

Case Studies: Chemical Industry
Fuji-Hunt Chemicals (Tennessee)
 Boiler Upgrade – (2) EX-200 BHP units
 Placed into service: 2011
 Actual System Efficiency Improvement:
+24%
 Estimated annual fuel cost savings:
$165,000 / yr (370,000 therms / yr)
 Estimated annual O&M cost savings:
$107,000 / yr
 Project Simple Pay-back:
1.85 yrs
 Estimated annual reduced CO2 emissions:
1,850 metric tons CO2 / yr

Jason Smith, LEED A.P.
(770) 916-1695 Office
(678) 939-7630 Cell
jason.smith@miuraboiler.com
Qu estion s:

Leveraging best practices & emerging technologies to optimize industrial process heating

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Leveraging best practices & emerging technologies to optimize industrial process heating (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Leveraging best practices & emerging technologies to optimize industrial process heating