By James Turner, executive director, Process Technology
This article is the first in a two-part series about improving the energy efficiency of industrial projects. Stay tuned for the next article on key items to consider when developing project designs to maximize the return on investment.
Energy efficiency. It is something most people examine when it comes to buying refrigerators, washing machines and other items for home use, but consumers aren’t the only ones paying more attention to energy efficiency metrics. As industrial facilities like refineries and chemical plants seek to reduce carbon emissions, energy efficiency is a key focus area.
Of the four primary ways that an industrial facility can decarbonize–energy efficiency, electrification, use of low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture–energy efficiency projects are typically the quickest to implement and have the highest relative return on investment.
As a global technical services company that performs engineering, procurement, construction, Fluor has helped clients achieve optimum energy efficiency on projects for decades. While there is no silver bullet, a highly efficient design typically reduces project energy requirements by 10% to 30%.
But facilities often miss out on substantial cost savings and improved energy efficiency by falling into several traps when designing projects.
Only considering capital costs
Often, a more energy-efficient design may have a higher initial capital cost. However, energy-efficient designs typically have lower operating costs. Projects should consider all factors to determine the true life-cycle cost including construction and operations, of a design. Historically, many projects have only considered the lowest capital cost. This approach overlooks many energy efficiency opportunities and results in missed cost savings over the life of a facility.
Not considering if there might be a better way
Sometimes there may be opposition to changing procedures to improve operations and reduce energy consumption because of familiarity with current operations and processes. Potential proposed new ways of doing things should undergo rigorous scrutiny, and safety should never be compromised. But using the excuse that it is because the way something has always been done likely should not be the reason why consideration of new ideas is omitted.
I am reminded of a story of a manager that took over managing a military base. The outgoing manager told him to assign a soldier to guard a bench. The incoming manager asked why, and the outgoing manager replied, “I don’t know; the general told me to, so I did.” After tracking down the general, who had retired, the reason for guarding the bench was discovered–wet paint after painting the bench several years ago.
This is of course a humorous anecdote, but sometimes procedures continue to be followed long after the initial reason is no longer applicable and at the expense of improved operations and energy efficiency.
Engage an engineer that understands the objectives that a client is trying to achieve and that can design with those objectives at the forefront. With this information, the team can begin asking good questions and explore how changing a process, using an entirely different approach or simply using a small improvement can improve energy consumption.
Not understanding fuel and steam balances
Industrial facilities have numerous processing units with each one playing a key role in the facility’s manufacturing capabilities. To effectively determine a processing unit and facility’s energy intensity, the amount of steam, condensate, fuel and electricity consumed in operations should be appropriately balanced with what is generated from operations. A key first step in implementing an energy optimization program is understanding what you have, especially for existing facilities.
Many facilities produce light hydrocarbons in their processes that end up in a fuel gas system. If complete energy optimization is achieved, then the facility could produce more fuel gas than it consumes and end up out of balance. An out-of-balance system can lead to flaring, increased emissions and potential permit violations. If this is the case, then teams can investigate ways to recover heavier hydrocarbons and hydrogen from the fuel system or modify units to operate differently that would create revenue opportunities based on product values and enable energy efficiency opportunities that would otherwise not be feasible.
While common traps, these potential challenges can be avoided and mitigated. By working with a firm that understands these challenges and how to avoid them, a plan can be developed that considers a facility’s current energy status and the best ways to improve decarbonization and energy efficiency at a site.
Stay tuned for the second installment of this series that will share three ways to maximize the return on investment on energy efficiency projects.