HEAT RECOVERY FROM TAIL GAS INCINERATION TO GENERATE POWER By Tarek A.

Tawfik Engineering Staff Consultant AMEC Power & Process Americas 1979 Lakeside Pkwy, Suite 400 Tucker, GA 30084 ABSTRACT Many industrial processes result in tail gas wastes that must be flared or incinerated to abide with environmental guidelines. Tail gas incineration occurs in several chemical processes resulting in high-temperature exhaust gas that simply go to the stack, thus wasting all that valuable heat! This paper discusses useful heat recovery and electric power generation utilizing available heat in exhaust gas from tail gas incinerators. Tail gas, which is considered as the main fuel in this study, is typically free fuel. Eventhough with low heat content, when the heat is recovered and utilized properly, heat recovery of tail gas will result in significant savings to the plant. The thermodynamic and economic study presented here assumes that heat will be recovered in a wast-heat recovery boiler from the exhaust gas out of the incinerator and will produce enough superheated steam to generate 25 MW in a condensing steam turbine generator. Data for this study were provided by an operating chemical production facility in the southeastern region of the US. Energy analysis and a total project scope cost estimate were developed for this study. Actual costs were obtained for all major equipment. Different thermodynamic scenarios were considered to identify the optimum and most economical energy system design. The main goal of the study was to fulfill the plants power and steam requirements and sell the additional power to the local utility. An existing old steam boiler will be retired after the incorporation of the new cogeneration plant. Process steam will be supplied via a steam turbine extraction. The results indicate that the total capital cost of a 25% grade estimate for the supply and installation of the 25 MW cogeneration system, is estimated to be $51,000,000 in the fourth quarter of 2008 dollars with escalation through end of 2010, representing $2000/kW. Based on an internal power demand of 12 MW by the chemical plant, a balance of 13 MW is assumed be sold to the local utility. The cost of electricity used for this study was assumed to be 9 cents per kilowatt-hour for purchased power and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for sold power. The annual plant savings in purchased power is estimated to be over $6,300,000 while the annual plant revenue from selling the remaining power is estimated to be in excess of $6,200,000. The cost analysis, when accounting for operation and maintenance, resulted in a pay back period of less than 4 years and an internal rate of return on investment of over 13 percent after 6 years.

INTRODUCTION An engineering study and cost estimate was conducted to assist a chemical production facility to investigate constructing a steam power plant at their operating plant in the Southeast region of the United States. The project will involve recovering most of the heat from the existing tail gas incinerator to generate superheated steam that will expand in a steam turbine generator to produce electric power. This study involved conducting heat balance / cycle analysis, developing process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), single lines, equipment layouts, equipment specifications, bid evaluations, definition of project scope, and a total project cost estimate. The main goal of the proposed project was to fulfill the plants power and steam requirements and sell the additional power to the local utility. The new project will consist of a waste heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), steam turbine generator, surface condenser, cooling tower, deaerator, pumps, and associated balance of plant (BOP) equipment. The existing natural gas fired packaged boiler will be only used on a standby basis as process steam will be provided through a steam turbine extraction. A 25% grade estimate was performed for the supply and installation of this system. The estimated capital cost of the project is a little less than $51,000,000 based on last quarter of 2008 pricing with escalation though the end of 2010.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION The plant used for this study produces different grades of chemical product materials and includes one tail gas incinerator that incinerates tail gas from the plants different processes. The exhaust gas from the incinerator is currently being exhausted to a stack after being quenched with water to reduce the gas temperature to acceptable environmental limits. The quench chamber is located between the incinerator outlet and the stack. Tailgas is a low Btu gas, consisting mainly of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, and water vapor; with traces of methane, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon monoxide. The exhaust gas exits the incinerator at a high temperature of 1900 oF. The plant is currently investigating recovering most of the heat in the exhaust gas from the incinerator into superheated steam that can expand in a steam turbine generator to produce electric power. The proposed project will consist of one single-casing, multi-stage, single extraction, condensing steam turbine generator; one single-pressure HRSG with superheating, evaporating, and economizing sections; one surface condenser; one two-cell counter-flow cooling tower with twospeed fans; one feedwater deaerator with pegging steam supplied by one turbine extraction; pumps and BOP equipment. The HRSG will provide main steam to the steam turbine generator. The exhaust gas feeding the HRSG will come from a new outlet at the incinerator on the opposite side of the current outlet to the stack. Makeup for the HRSG will be from treated city water while makeup for the cooling tower will be treated water from a nearby waterway. Current process steam demand is currently supplied by a natural gas fired boiler. This boiler will be only used on a standby basis once the power project is complete. Process steam will then be

supplied from a steam turbine extraction. Savings in burning natural gas will be added to the total project cost analysis. Although the heat available in the incinerator exhaust gas, when operating at maximum load, is sufficient to generate power in excess of 35 MW, the Federal EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is limiting the power generation at that particular plant to 25 MW or less. Therefore, the incinerator will eventually have two flue gas outlets, one feeding the new HRSG while the other, as currently operating, exiting straight to the quench section and stack. Flue gas from the HRSG will tie in to the existing transition to stack (downstream of the quench section). This configuration will allow the incinerator to operate at its maximum capacity regardless of the operation of the HRSG. Furthermore, the incinerator can still operate when the HRSG or steam turbine are out of service. Since the flue gas from the HRSG will tie in to the remaining flue gas from the incinerator to stack, the HRSG ID fan will operate with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to control flow through the HRSG. An isolation damper will be installed in the new duct from HRSG to stack to close when the HRSG is out of service. A removable spool piece will be installed in the transition duct between the incinerator and the HRSG. Another spool with blinds will be installed in place of the regular spool to isolate the HRSG from the incinerator when needed. This will require shutting the incinerator down prior to replacing spools.

Tail Gas

Comb Air

Natural Gas Incinerator

Exhaust Gas Quench

Boiler

Stack

Process Steam

Figure 1: Current Configuration

Electric Power Tail Gas Comb Air Process Steam

Power Island

Steam

Feedwater

Incinerator HRSG

Exhaust Gas Stack Quench

ID Fan

Figure 2: Proposed Configuration

THERMAL ANALYSIS Several heat balances / cycle analyses were conducted to predict the performance of the proposed power plant. GE Enter Software GateCycle was used as the main heat balance software for this study. Different design configurations and technologies were considered for the power plant. A multiple extraction turbine with feedwater heaters, multi-pressure HRSG, wet cooling vs. aircooled condenser were among different options that were considered in this study. Only the results of the most optimum case are presented in this paper. The design basis of this study is as follows: Maximum Power Generation Limited to Annual Average Dry Bulb Temperature Annual Average Wet Bulb Temperature Site Elevation Tail Gas Lower Heating Value (LHV) Tail Gas Combustion Temperature HRSG 25 MW (Net from Turbine Gen) 95 oF 80 oF 20 ft Above Sea Level 970 Btu/lb 1900 oF (Outlet of Incinerator) Single Pressure

Steam Turbine Extraction Pressure Superheated Steam Conditions Steam Turbine Backpressure Deaerator Pressure Continuous Steam Demand to Process

Single Extraction / Condensing 115 psia 1465 psia / 950 oF 3 Hg 90 psia 10,000 lb/hr @ 100 psia

HEAT BALANCE The following tables (Tables 1, 2) and heat balance flow diagrams (Figures 3, 4, 5) summarize the predicted performance of the proposed power plant. Table 1A: Tail Gas Composition Volume Percentage H2 CH4 C2H2 CO CO2 N2 H2S COS H2O % % % % % % % % % 10.20 0.20 0.20 6.80 2.80 35.60 0.20 0.10 43.90 H2 CH4 Ar CO CO2 N2 SO2 O2 H2O % % % % % % % % % Table 1B: Exhaust Gas Composition Volume Percentage 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 6.84 53.50 0.25 1.51 37.54

LHV HHV

Btu/lb Btu/lb

970 1376

Avg. Cp Mol. Wt.

Btu/lb.F

0.34 25.53

Table 2: Heat Balance Results Summary

Units Steam Turbine Power Throttle Steam Flow Throttle Steam Pressure Throttle Steam Temperature Extraction Steam Flow Extraction Steam Pressure Steam to Process Turbine Exhaust Pressure Feedwater Temperature Tail Gas Flow Exhaust Gas to HRSG Bypass Gas to Stack Gas Temperature to HRSG HRSG Exit Gas Temperature MW lb/hr psig
o

Normal 24.99 220,432 1450 950 49,391 100 10,000 3.00 323 295,700 530,700 0 1900 450

Minimum 12.35 106,383 1400 950 30,251 100 10,000 1.77 323 143,500 257,500 0 1900 421

Maximum 24.98 220,317 1450 950 49,391 100 10,000 3.00 323 455,000 530,700 286,300 1900 450

lb/hr psig lb/hr In Hg

o

lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr

o

F F

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE The capital cost estimate presented in this paper is based on an approximate 25% accuracy range. This estimate is based on vendor pricing for major equipment such as the turbine, HRSG, condenser, and cooling tower received in last quarter of 2008. Assumptions: In developing the estimate, it was assumed that the project will be performed using multiple contractors for the major disciplines, contracted on a lump sum basis. A Construction Manager will be utilized to develop the contracts and oversee the construction effort, and report. The estimate was based on a 50 hour work week. Allowances: Costs for erection supervision on site to oversee the installation of specific equipment were included in the total equipment pricing. This includes the erection and start up supervision for the turbine generator, HRSG, condenser, and cooling tower.

Direct Costs: (1) Equipment: This cost includes major equipment such as turbine, HRSG, condenser, cooling tower; as well as balance of plant (BOP) equipment such as pumps, deaerator, tanks, water treatment, chemical feed, sampling, and compressed air system. Prices for the main process systems and equipment were from budget proposals prepared from written specifications. Other equipment prices were based on budget quotations and current in-house price information. (2) Installation: Equipment installation cost includes erection labor, foundations, piling, paint, and insulation. (3) Buildings: Building costs include an electrical room and a shed for the steam turbine generator. Other structures such as deaerator and pipe bridges support steel, grating, stairs, and handrails are included in this total cost as well. (4) Piping: This cost includes all process piping, heat tracing, and insulation. Piping costs were based on vendor pricing for main steam and factored pricing for the balance of piping system. (5) Electrical: This cost includes substation transformers & switchgear, motor control centers, batteries & charger, power wiring, and grounding. Electrical costs were based on vendor pricing and in-house information. (6) Instrumentation: This cost includes DCS equipment and configuration, control panels, field instruments, as well as supply and installation of tubing, and wiring. Instrumentation costs were based on preliminary P&IDs prepared for this study. (7) Site Preparation and Services: This cost includes all associated site work including gates/fences, drainage, underground utilities, yard lighting, fire loop, roads, and paving. Indirect Costs: (1) Sales Tax: A sales tax of 4% was included on the costs of the equipment and construction materials. (2) Engineering Costs: A lump sum allowance for detail engineering was included. This allowance was derived from experience in similar projects and based on expected total man hours to complete the project. (3) Construction Management Costs: A lump sum allowance for construction management was included. This allowance included salaries and expenses for one site manager and discipline leads in mechanical, piping, electrical, and instrumentation. The Construction Manager will be responsible for developing bid packages and managing the field effort through construction completion. (4) Spare Parts: An allowance of 3% of the equipment cost was included for capital spare parts. This allowance includes cost of vendor-recommended spare parts (on major equipment) as well as cost of other undefined spare parts.

(5) Owners Cost: An allowance of 2% was included to cover Owners costs for the project. This includes items such as training, job site costs, startup, etc. Other Costs: (1) Contingency: An allowance of 10% was added to the total direct and indirect costs for contingency. (2) Escalation: An escalation rate of 4% of total direct costs (to end of 2010) was assumed for this study.

Items Not Included in Estimate: The following items were not included in this capital cost estimate: Financing costs or capitalized interest costs Land purchase, if required Utility interconnections Builders risk insurance Site survey or geotechnical investigation Owners engineer cost Construction power Start-up and commissioning cost Fire protection system and fire water storage (tie to existing) Service water system and storage (tie to existing) Potable water system and storage (tie to existing) Electrical distribution system

COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY The total project cost estimate summary is as shown in Table 3 below: Table 3: Cost Estimate Summary Direct Cost Equipment Installation Buildings Piping Electrical Instrumentation Site Preparation Total Direct Cost Equipment $21,383,000 ---$1,262,000 $885,000 -$23,530,000 Material -$1,138,000 $917,000 $3,392,000 $240,000 $273,000 $700,000 $6,660,000 Labor -$3,107,000 $634,000 $2,128,000 $743,000 $308,000 $189,000 $7,109,000 Total $21,383,000 $4,245,000 $1,551,00 $5,520,000 $2,245,000 $1,466,000 $889,000 $37,299,000

Indirect Cost Sales Tax Engineering Construction Mgmt Spare Parts Owners Cost Total Indirect Cost

Basis 4% of Equip & Material Cost Lump Sum Lump Sum 3% of Equipment Cost 2% of total Direct Cost $1,208,000 $3,500,000 $1,257,000 $706,000 $746,000 $7,417,000

Subtotal Contingency Escalation 10% of Direct & Indirect Costs 4% of total Direct Costs

$44,716,000 $4,472,000 $1,492,000

Total Project Cost

$50,680,000

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (1) Power Requirements: The simple economic analysis on this study is based on the power requirements and parasitic loads as per Table 4 below. Table 4: Power Requirements and Parasitic Loads Generated Power [kW] 24,990 Plant Demand [Existing] 8,800 Parasitic Load [Power Project] 3,170 Net Power Sold [kW] 13,020

(2) Cost of Electricity: The cost of electricity assumed for this study was based on information provided by the Owner as per Table 5 below: Table 5: Cost of Electricity Purchased Power Sold Power 9 cents per kilowatt-hour 6 cents per kilowatt-hour

(3) Cost Analysis Summary: The cost analysis summary is as per Table 6 below: Table 6: Cost Analysis Hours of Operation Total Cost of Purchased Power Total Revenue of Sold Power Natural Gas Savings (Process Steam) Operation and Maintenance (0.4 c/kWh) Annual Profit Simple Payback Power Project Internal Rate of Return on Investment: (after 5 years) (after 6 years) (after 7 years) % % % 8.4% 13.4% 16.8% hr/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr yr 8000 $6,336,000 $6,249,800 $1,045,000 (old boiler will retire) $800,000 12,830,800 3.95

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Heat recovered from tail gas incineration can lead to significant savings if properly utilized. The exhaust gas from tail gas incineration is at a relatively high temperature (1900 oF) to waste! A plant generating about 530,000 lb/hr of clean exhaust gas that is mostly N2 and H2O at 1900 oF has the potential to generate 25 MW of electric power. The results indicate that after fulfilling all internal power demands and parasitic loads, a net power of more than 13 MW could be sold to the local utility generating annual revenue of more than $6,200,000. The annual saved purchased power is expected to be over $6,300,000. Furthermore, as the existing gas-fired steam boiler will retire and process steam will be supplied from the proposed cogeneration power plant, an additional annual saving of more than $1,000,000 in burning natural gas fuel is expected. This leads to a net total annual profit of more than $12,800,000 and a simple payback period of a little less than 4 years. The internal rate of return on capital investment is expected to be more than 13% after six years and over 20% after the eighth year of operation. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Industrial facilities should conduct periodic energy audits to investigate the potential of energy conversion and conservation. Close attention should be focused on high temperature valuable heat that may be recovered into more useful forms of energy. It is highly recommended to invest in energy conversion / optimization research to investigate the potential in long-term savings. This is particularly very attractive when the fuel is free as in the case of this study. The author was the lead process engineer in a similar project involving recovering the heat in a 15 MW cogeneration plant. This plant has been successfully in operation for over three years generating actual annual savings higher than what was initially estimated. The proposed 25 MW cogeneration project discussed in this paper is expected to begin detailed engineering in the first quarter of 2010. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Mr. Frank Kalany, Mr. Jeff Swoope, and Mrs. Sharon Cosgrave for their support and cooperation for publishing this work. REFERENCES 1. Black, W. Z. and Hartley, J.G., Thermodynamics, Second Edition, 1991. 2. Wagner, W., Heat Transfer Technology with Organic Media, 1977. 3. Incropera, F. P. and Dewitt, D. P., Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Second Edition, 1985. 4. Senju, S., Fushimi, T., Fujita, S., Profitability Analysis for Managerial and Engineering Decisions, 1980. 5. GE Enter Software, GateCycle Heat Balance Program.

Figure 3: Flow Diagram Design Case (Normal Operation)

Figure 4: Flow Diagram Minimum Flow (Part Load)

Figure 5: Flow Diagram Maximum Flow (Bypass Operation)