Energy Benchmarking in the Chemicals Sector KBC R2 [Read … Doug Hutton_neeconf.pdfCase Study: The...
14
Energy Benchmarking in the Energy Benchmarking in the Energy Benchmarking in the Energy Benchmarking in the Chemicals Sector Chemicals Sector PROPRIETARY INFORMATION © 2011 KBC Advanced Technologies plc. All Rights Reserved. 24 May 2011
Transcript of Energy Benchmarking in the Chemicals Sector KBC R2 [Read … Doug Hutton_neeconf.pdfCase Study: The...
Energy Benchmarking in theEnergy Benchmarking in theEnergy Benchmarking in the Energy Benchmarking in the Chemicals SectorChemicals Sector
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION© 2011 KBC Advanced Technologies plc. All Rights Reserved. 24 May 2011
The purpose ofThe purpose of bbenchmarks is to tell us how weenchmarks is to tell us how we cancanimprove our performanceimprove our performance
• Benchmarks are not an end in themselves• Benchmarks tell us how well we are performing compared to
CompetitorsIndustry standardsTechnology standards
• Properly executed benchmarking will also identifyperformance gaps
Where e can impro eWhere we can improveHow much we can improve
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION24 May 2011 2
UsingUsing a technology standard provides a strategy for a technology standard provides a strategy for improvementimprovement
• Benchmark against a practical & economically viable Best Technology (BT) design
Design incorporating energy conservation features with payback < 3 yearsDesign incorporating energy conservation features with payback < 3 yearsTakes into account actual process configuration, operation and economics
• Provides a practical basis for determining energy cost d ti t ti lreduction potential Comparison with BT performance quantifies performance gapComparison with BT design highlights areas for improvement and enables p g g g pgap closure measures to be developed
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 324 May 2011
Best in industry sector does not mean best possible Best in industry sector does not mean best possible performanceperformance
• Benchmarking against Best Technology (BT)– Uses a technology standard rather than best-in-class Top performing refineries
consume 20 to 30% lessthan average refinerythan average refinery
Top performing refineries still consume
20 to 30% moreenergy than Best
Technology
• Why are refineries not achieving 100% BT?Units designed when energy cost lowUnits designed when energy cost lowUnits designed for minimum investmentPhased expansion means units are not integrated and utility system is not optimised for the new configuration
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4
y p g
24 May 2011
Best Technology is now the same as best practice Best Technology is now the same as best practice for ethylene plantsfor ethylene plants
Top performing ethylene plantsnow performing ahead of 1990
performance index
200
250
150
ndex
(%)
50
100BT
In
0
50
Ethylene Plant BT
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 524 May 2011
Performance gaps identified from BT benchmarking Performance gaps identified from BT benchmarking are the basis for defining improvementsare the basis for defining improvements
• Fired heater efficiency• Shaftwork efficiency• Heat integration effectiveness• Process Design
4%22%
Typical Gap Distribution
30%Furnaces
Heat integration
44%
Shaftwork
Process
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 624 May 2011
Gap analysis compares current performance with Gap analysis compares current performance with best practicebest practice
• Furnace efficiency BT performance defined as 92% efficiency for most f /b il d 94% f th l ki ffurnaces/boilers and 94% for ethylene cracking furnaces
• Heat integration effectivenessPinch analysisy
• Process designReview of design features versus BT design
Sh f k ffi i• Shaftwork efficiencyUse of R-curve…
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 724 May 2011
Shaftwork Efficiency Gap Shaftwork Efficiency Gap -- ApproachApproach
Best practice for a specific site is determined from an “R-curve”100%
70%
80%
90%
50%
60%
Effic
ienc
y
30%
40%Cyc
le
+ Condensing Turbines+ GT with UNfired WHB
0%
10%
20% + GT with UNfired WHB
Current Cycle Efficiency
Target Cycle Efficiency
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 8
%0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Power / (Steam Energy) Ratio
24 May 2011
BT Benchmarking can be applied to new chemical BT Benchmarking can be applied to new chemical processesprocesses
• No database of industry plants for comparison• Still possible to compare with Best Technology by p p gy y
developing own BT standardFurnace efficiencyHeat integration effectivenessShaftwork efficiencyP d i ?Process design?- PFD review of design features
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 924 May 2011
Case Study: Energy master plan Case Study: Energy master plan for Asian oil refiner for Asian oil refiner & petrochemicals producer& petrochemicals producer
• Benchmarking of downstream operationsKey sites with good potential for improvement were identifiedTotal gap in terms of financial savings evaluatedTotal gap in terms of financial savings evaluated
200
250
160
180
200
50
100
150
40
60
80
100
120
140
BT In
dex
(%)
300300
0
Plant A - Site 2 Target Starting BT
0
20
Plant B - Site 1 Target Starting BT
100
150
200
250
BT
Inde
x (%
)
100
150
200
250
BT
Inde
x (%
)
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 10
0
50
100
Refinery 1 0
50
100
Target Starting BT
24 May 2011
Case Study: The master plan defined a multiCase Study: The master plan defined a multi--year year programme that is now being rolled outprogramme that is now being rolled out
Corporate EnergyCorporate Energy BenchmarkingEnergy Study
(Site A)Energy Study
(Site B)Energy Study
(Site C)Energy Study
(Site D)
• Corporate energy benchmarking against best practiceMaster plan developed for rollout to individual sites
• Programme has so far identified $100m/yr of saving opportunitiesg $ y g pp• Training and organisational improvements delivered as part of
programme
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1124 May 2011
EffectiveEffective benchmarking considers energy benchmarking considers energy management as well as technical performancemanagement as well as technical performance
• Best practice plant performance is the intended outcomeWell designed and operated plant is central
B t ti t ill d li th t• Best practice energy management will deliver the outcome
PeopleT h l Roles & responsibilities
Energy focused organisation
Appropriate skills
Design• Energy efficient equipment• Heat integration
Technology
Opportunity identification & evaluationMethodologies
• Site wide integration• Process design features
Operation• Optimisation
Investment planning
Equipment selection
Target setting
• Scenario planning• Performance tracking
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 12
Maintenance programmes
24 May 2011
Case Study: Energy management benchmarkingCase Study: Energy management benchmarkingLevel 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Pts
Energy Policy
No explicit policy An unwritten set of guidelines
Unadopted energy policy set by energy manager or senior departmental manager
Formal energy policy, but not active commitment from top management
Energy policy, action plan and regular review have commitment of top management as part of an environmental strategy
3.0Organising No energy management or
any formal delegation of responsibility for energy
Energy management is the part-time responsibility of someone with limited
Energy manager in post, reporting to ad-hoc committee, but line
Energy manager accountable to energy committee representing all
Energy management fully integrated into management structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------
consumption authority or influence management and authority are unclear
users, chaired by a member of the managing board
Clear delegation of responsibility for energy consumption
2.5Motivation No contact with users Informal contacts between
engineer and a few usersContact with major users through ad-hoc committee chaired by senior department manager
Energy committee used as main channel together with direct contact with major users
Formal and informal channels of communication regularly exploited by energy manager and energy staff at all levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -----------------------------------------------------------
2.5Information Systems
No information system. No accounting for energy consumption
Cost reporting based on Invoice data. Engineer compiles reports for internal use within technical department
Monitoring and targeting reports based on supply meter data. Energy unit has ad-hoc involvement in budget setting
M&T reports for individual premises based on sub-metering, but savings not reported effectively to users
Comprehensive system sets targets, monitors consumption, identified faults, quantifies savings and provides budget tracking
1.5Marketing No promotion of energy
efficiencyInformal contacts used to promote energy efficiency
Some ad-hoc staff awareness training
Programme of staff awareness and regular
Marketing the value of energy efficiency and the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
efficiency promote energy efficiency awareness training awareness and regular publicity campaigns
energy efficiency and the performance of energy management both within and outside the organisation
1.5Investment No investment in
increasing energy efficiency on site
Only low cost measures taken
Investment using short-term payback criteria only
Same payback criteria employed as for all other investment
Positive discrimination in favour of "green" schemes with detailed investment appraisal of all new-build and refurbishment
---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Interviews with stakeholders provided inputs to assessments• Results highlight strengths and weaknesses
and refurbishment opportunities.
4.3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Results highlight strengths and weaknesses• Estimated $700k/yr savings potential lost through existing practices• Client BT benchmark index reduced from 180% to 135% from 2007 to 2010
1324 May 2011
Benchmarking in the Chemicals SectorBenchmarking in the Chemicals SectorConclusionsConclusions• Benchmarking is a powerful tool to
Tell us how well we are doingTell us how much more we can doTell us how much more we can do
• Benchmarking can be applied to energy management as well as technical performance
Energy management practices drive best practice performance
• Benchmarking against Best Technology allowsTargets to be setTargets to be setGaps to be identifiedEnergy strategy to be developed with quantifiable and achievable benefits
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1424 May 2011
