overall incinerator fuel optimization · 2018. 11. 21. · below design justification jreduction of...
TRANSCRIPT
Overall Incinerator
Fuel Optimization
Singapore Methyl Methacrylate
(SMM)
Presentation
● Introduction of Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM)
● SMM MMA Products Application
● Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Project
Introduction of SMM
● Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM) is a leading manufacturer ofMethyl Methacrylate Monomer (MMA-m) and Polymer (PMMA).
● 100% Subsidiary of Sumitomo Chemical Asia (SCA), headquarteredin Japan (Sumitomo Chemical Corporation)
● Located in SMAG @ Sakra Island
● Production Capacity : 223KTA MMA-m / 150KTA PMMA
MMA-m Plant(3 Plants)
Monomer Plants
PMMA Plant 3PMMA Plant 2PMMA Plant
(3 Plants)
Polymer Plants
Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM)
Application of MMA-m
PMMA Resin Copolymer Applications(MS - MMA Styrene Copolymer)
Emulsion Paint
Sound BarrierAquarium Block
Application of PMMA
Bathtub Signboard LED Lighting Cover
Sunglasses Motorcycle Tail LampCar Tail Lamp
House-ware Products
Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Project
Project Objectives
Optimizing Approaches
Challenges
Overall Results
Incinerator Operation
● SMM Plants Incinerators treat Process Waste Oil (WO) andWastewater (WW) generated from Monomer Process.
● Designed to operate at 1000 degC and powered by Keroseneand partially by Process WO.
Kero + Process WO-A
Process WO-B
WW
Flue Gas
HeatRecovery
Heat Recovery Stack
TemperatureControl
BFW
Steam
Combustion Chamber
Residual O2Analyser
Air
● Heat is recovered from flue gas via heat exchangers to producesteam before emitting to atmosphere.
IncineratorWindbox
● Superheated steam is also produced to drivedownstream turbines
● Residual O2 at flue gas is monitoredcontinuously for complete combustion.
Project Objectives
Since Y2010, SMM MMA-m Plants embarked on the
Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Initiative targeting to
a. Improve Energy / Fuel Efficiency of Incinerator
b. Reduce CO2 Emissions
c. Reduce Fuel Cost
Kero + Process WO-A
Process WO-B
WW
Flue Gas
HeatRecovery
Heat Recovery Stack
TemperatureControl
BFW
Steam
Combustion Chamber
Residual O2Analyser
Air
IncineratorWindbox
Optimizing Approaches (Overview)
Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017 Y2018 Y2019
j Reduction of
Incinerator Operating
TemperatureBelow Design
k Reduction of
Main Burner Guns
Min. Firing RateBelow Design
l Substitution of
Purified Water (WP)
Use with Process
Wastewater (WW)
j Temp. Reduction
k Step 1 Min. FiringReduction
k Step 3 Min. FiringReduction
k Step 4 Min FiringReduction
k Step 2 Min. FiringReduction
l Step 1 WP Substitution
l Step 2 WP Substitution
Optimizing Approach j
● OEM had experiences operating at lower than design conditions.
j Reduction of
Incinerator Operating
TemperatureBelow Design
k Reduction of
Main Burner Guns
Min. Firing RateBelow Design
Justification
● Historical flue gas emission results complying well below NEA Limits.
Temp => NOx CO
l Substitution of
Purified Water (WP)
Use with Process
Wastewater (WW)
Optimizing Approach j
Methods
1. Technical Feasibility Study
Conduct heat and mass balance to simulate and evaluate critical process conditions are maintained with Incinerator temp. reduction:
a. Minimum stack temperatures (prevent fouling on fin tubes)
b. Minimum superheated steam temperature (internal requirements)
2. Actual Plant Trial
Stepwise temperature reduction with detail monitoring at each step
a. Compliance with NEA emission limits
b. Validate above critical process conditions within expectation
c. Confirm actual site flame condition is healthy
880
900
920
940
960
980
1000
Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
Inci
ner
ato
r Te
mp
. (d
egC
)
Incinerator Temperature Reduction
SMM-1 Incinerator Temp (degC)
SMM-3 Incinerator Temp (degC)
Design Set Temp (degC)
Results
Optimizing Approach j
Note. Actual temperature
maintain above 900 degC due
to main burner firing already
@ min. rate.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
Flue Gas CO (mg/Nm3)
CO
CO Limit
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
Flue Gas Nox (mg/Nm3)
NOx
NOx Limit
Compliance with NEA limits are maintained with
Operating Temperature reduction
Optimizing Approach k
k Reduction of
Main Burner Guns
Min. Firing RateBelow Design
Justification
j Reduction of
Incinerator Operating
TemperatureBelow Design
Burner already operate at min. fuel turndown of burner guns. (According to Vendor Manual guideline, 1/3 of gun capacity to maintain stable flame)
● OEM and Licensor had experiences operating at lower than design conditions.
● Actual site flame conditions is healthy.
l Substitution of
Purified Water (WP)
Use with Process
Wastewater (WW)
Limitations
Burner Firing Reduction trials conducted stepwise just before Shutdown Maintenance.
Optimizing Approach k
Methods
Kero + Process WO-A
Process WO-B
WW
Flue Gas
HeatRecovery
Heat Recovery Stack
TemperatureControl
BFW
Steam
Combustion Chamber
Residual O2Analyser
Air
IncineratorWindbox
Flame stability ensured with proper adjustment of burner guns atomizing air
Confirmation of flame
distribution / stability
Stepwise reduction of
burner guns
SMM Incinerators main burner gun min. turndown successfully reduced below design
Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
Ker
o+
Pro
cess
WO
Fir
ing
Plant No.3 Kerosene + Process Waste Oil Firing
SMM-3 Kero+Process WO Firing (kg/h)
Min Turndown Adjustment (kg/h)
Optimizing Approach k
Results
Design min. turndown
25%
Reduction
below design
min. turndown
achieved
Optimizing Approach l
j Reduction of
Incinerator Operating
TemperatureBelow Design
k Reduction of
Main Burner Guns
Min. Firing RateBelow Design
l Substitution of
Purified Water (WP)
Use with Process
Wastewater (WW)
Strategy
Justification
● Routine Process WW Analysis showed that the process WW quality is suitable for recycling with tolerable impacts to the process.
Worked in conjunction to overcome Approach k (Min. Fuel Firing) limitation by concurrently reducing WW load to achieve actual fuel savings
Wastewater reduced by ~10 KT / year due to process wastewater recycling initiatives
145,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017
Was
tew
ater
Gen
erat
ion
(to
n)
Total Wastewater Generation Trend
Wastewater Generation (ton)
Optimizing Approach l
Results
Challenges
Challenges to achieving project objectives include:
b. Operational Stability
● Challenging of design conditions potentially increase risk to plant stability eg. Production Loss.
● Overcome traditional risk-adverse mindsets through risk management & close monitoring
This new levels of energy efficiency is attained together with the full support and endorsement from management
a. Operating Below Design Conditions
● Clear understanding of actual process vs design conditions
● Technical and operational knowledge as well as consultation with vendor for “best experience”
Overall Results
a. Improvement in Energy (Fuel) Efficiency
0.041
0.0450.048
0.045
0.038
0.039
0.038
0.038
0.035
0.037
0.039
0.041
0.043
0.045
0.047
0.049
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017
Fue
l Un
it C
on
sum
pti
on
(t
on
-fu
el/t
on
-WW
)
Fue
l Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ton
)
Yearly Fuel Consumption Trend
Fuel Consumption (ton)
Fuel Efficiency (ton-fuel/ton-WW)
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017
Ene
rgy
fro
m F
ue
l (T
J)
Yearly Energy Trend (from fuel)
Energy from Fuel (TJ)
NOTE: Actual Fuel Consumption could
be subject to process loads and WWquality variation.
Improvement in Fuel Efficiency = 7%
Annual Energy Saving = 123 TJ
Overall Results
b. Reduction in CO2 Emission
20,972
22,277
23,788
21,683
18,326 18,54317,787 18,192
10000
15000
20000
25000
Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017
CO
2 Im
pac
t (t
on
)
Total CO2 Impact (ton)
CO2 Impact (ton)
CO2 Emission Reduction = 13%
Overall Results
c. Full Compliance with NEA Emissions Regulations
• SMM continues to comply to NEA Emissions Regulations in all changes made to operating conditions of Incinerators
• Emission parameters were also ensured to comply with future regulated limits (O2 Denominated)
Conclusion
Success Factors:
● Rigorous technical & practical considerations
● Strong inter-departmental synergy
● Strong management commitment
Always seek to overcome design constraints. Don’t Give Up!
Consider combined optimizing approaches
Challenge systematically with proper risk management
Summary of Achievements:
SMM managed to breakthrough Incinerator design limitations without
compromising operational stability with following results:
- Fuel Consumption Reduction : 880 ton/year
- Fuel Efficiency Improvement : 7%
- CO2 Emission Reduction : 13%
Key takeaways from Project:
Thank You for your attention!