Energy in Agriculture, 4 (1985) 159--177

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

159

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN NITROGEN FERTILIZER PRODUCTION

MOHINDER S. MUDAHAR and TRAVIS P. HIGNETT

International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), P.O. Box 2040, Muscle Shoals, AL 35662 (U.S.A.)
(Accepted 6 February 1985)

ABSTRACT Mudahar, M.S. and Hignett, T.P., 1985. Energy efficiency in nitrogen fertilizer production. Energy Agric., 4: 159--177. This paper deals with estimating energy consumption and potential energy savings by improving energy efficiency for production of selected nitrogen fertilizers. The paper also discusses economic importance, economic consequences, and policy implications of improving energy efficiency for nitrogen fertilizer production. Improving energy efficiency is one of the most important and viable policy options to lower nitrogen fertilizer prices. Three strategies to improve energy efficiency for nitrogen fertilizer production are discussed: (1) energy-efficient retrofits; (2) energy-efficient new processes; and (3) operational efficiency and energy management. Efficient operations and energy management are not only desirable but also an economically feasible strategy in most developing countries. The developing countries should be careful in adopting exotic energy-efficient innovations.

INTRODUCTION

Fertilizer is a major factor in expanding food output. Fertilizer production is also highly energy-intensive. This is especially the case with nitrogen (N) fertilizer, which is the most popular type in developing countries. Energy is essential to produce N fertilizer which, in turn, is essential to produce high crop yields. Energy costs comprise a major share of variable costs for producing N fertilizer and hence N fertilizer prices. In addition to large food deficits and rapid population growth, many developing countries are experiencing serious energy-related problems, including limited energy supply, high energy prices, and lack of foreign exchange to import energy. There is a need to reduce N fertilizer production costs. This will not only lower N fertilizer prices to the farmer but will also provide reasonable returns to capital investment in N fertilizer production. Improving energy efficiency for N fertilizer production is one of the most important and viable options to lower N fertilizer prices. More details on the economic and technical aspects of the relationships between energy and fertilizers and

0167-5826/85/$03.30

1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

160

their implications for public policy are available in Mudahar and Hignett (1982). The objectives of this paper are: (1) to provide a policy perspective on the N fertilizer sector; (2) to discuss the economic importance of optimizing energy efficiency; (3) to estimate energy consumption for N fertilizer production; (4) to discuss alternative approaches to improve energy efficiency; (5) to estimate potential economic benefits from improvements in energy efficiency; and (6) to discuss economic implications and policy options for developing countries.
ENERGY MEASUREMENT AND OPTIMIZATION

Energy measurement
Energy consumption estimates for fertilizer production are difficult to compare because of different measuring units and forms o f energy used in different estimates. For example, the heat of combustion of fuels m a y be stated as the 'high heating value' (HHV) or as the 'low heating value' (LHV). The HHV of methane, the principal constituent of natural gas, is 11% greater than the LHV. Engineering firms usually quote energy use in LHV, b u t fuels are priced according to the HHV. Another problem in comparing energy estimates is in conversion of thermal energy to electrical or mechanical energy. Some authors equate 1 k W h to 3413 Btu (3.6 MJ), the amount of heat that can be generated by 1 kW h (Perry, 1950, p. 40). In a modern electric power system fired with fossil or nuclear fuel, a b o u t 1 0 0 0 0 Btu (10.55 MJ) are required to generate 1 kWh. We think that the latter conversion factor is more appropriate for making energy consumption estimates because it recognizes the inefficiency in conversion of fuel energy to electric energy. A further source of confusion is the difference between 'battery-limits' energy use claimed b y the designer and the energy use in actual plant operations. 'Battery-limits' refers to a production unit, such as an ammonia plant, within prescribed boundaries and does not include auxiliary facilities that may be required to furnish the plant with feedstock, utilities and services, delivered at the boundary. The battery-limits energy use is that energy used within battery limits (however defined) when the plant is operating continuously at the rate for which it was designed. However, actual energy use may exceed specified battery-limits use, sometimes by a wide margin. In this paper we shall use the HHV energy equivalent of fuels, metric tons (t), and a fuel equivalent factor of 1 k W h = 10 000 Btu = 10.55 MJ except where otherwise mentioned. Energy consumption estimates are reported in gigajoules, abbreviated as GJ (1 GJ = 109 joules). The equivalent energy units are 1 GJ = 0.948 million Btu = 0.239 million kcal. Most of the energy consumption estimates are based on The Fertilizer Institute's (TFI's) Energy Use Surveys of a large number of fertilizer plants in actual operation in North America (TFI, 1979, 1981).

161

Energy optimization
Increasing energy efficiency beyond a certain point may be technically feasible and yet not economical or cost-effective. In other words, from the point of view of the nitrogen industry and a nation there is a need to optimize energy consumption, i.e., to make the most cost-effective use of available energy resources. Some of the factors that need to be considered in optimizing energy efficiency in nitrogen production are: (1) investment cost; (2) operating efficiency of the plant; (3) reliability of the process; and (4) complexity of the equipment. In this context, optimizing energy efficiency is the best compromise among various trade-offs involving energy saving, capital investment, and plant performance. The relative importance of these factors, however, may vary across countries depending upon the resource endowments and prices. A POLICY PERSPECTIVE ON THE NITROGEN FERTILIZER SECTOR

Economic importance of nitrogen use

During 1981/82, the total amount of N fertilizer consumed in the world was approximately 60.4 million t (FAO, 1983). Assuming that 1 t of N produces 10 t of grain, 604 million t of grain or its equivalent in other agricultural products was the direct result of using N fertilizer alone. Of this, approximately 250 million t was produced in the developing countries. Intensive farming through higher fertilizer use (energy input) produces many times more energy output, whether as food, feed, fiber or fuel.

Dominance of nitrogen fertilizer

Nitrogen dominates in fertilizer consumption, production, and trade. However, the degree of dependence on N fertilizers is relatively greater in developing countries than in developed countries. The empirical evidence, based on FAO (1983), indicates that: (1) the estimated share of N in NPK (N + P~)s + K20) consumption increased in the world from 46% in 1971/72 to 52% in 1981/82; and (2) annual growth in N consumption in developing countries has been faster than in developed countries. The most common sources of N fertilizer are urea, ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. The share of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate in world N fertilizer capacity is declining, whereas the share of urea is increasing over time. The proportionate share of urea capacity in N fertilizer capacity for developing countries (64% in 1979) is higher than for the developed countries. On the basis of the existing and projected urea production capacity, it appears that urea will continue to be the dominant source of N supply in most developing countries, especially in Asia, in the near future (Mudahar and Hignett, 1982).

162

Increasing role of developing countries

The world ammonia production capacity has increased from 51 million t (in terms of N) in 1970 to 94 million t in 1980 (Mudahar and Hignett, 1982). The share of developing countries in the total ammonia production capacity has increased from 17% in 1970 to a b o u t 27% in 1980. This share is expected to increase in the future in response to: (1) the desire of many developing countries to b e c o m e self-sufficient in ammonia production because of national security considerations; and (2) a gradual regional shift in favor of those countries that have large natural gas reserves. The net effect of these economic adjustments m a y be high-cost ammonia and N fertilizer. The high cost is primarily due to relatively high capital investments and low operating rates in developing countries. Furthermore, a larger share o f new ammonia capacity is being created in the public sector, and this shift has important implications for planning, decision-making, capital investment, operating efficiency, and pricing policy. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF OPTIMIZING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy consumption for nitrogen production

Of the total commercial energy used in the world, agricultural production uses a b o u t 3.5%, and 45% of that is used in the fertilizer sector. However, in developing countries a b o u t 68% of energy use in agriculture is attributed to fertilizer. The manufacture o f N fertilizers is highly energy intensive, approximately 9 times that of phosphates and 11 times that o f potash. This is due in part to the fact that in manufacturing ammonia, the basic material for all N fertilizers, energy is used b o t h as feedstock (about 60% of total) and as fuel (about 40% of total). During 1 9 8 1 / 8 2 the estimated energy consumption for the world fertilizer sector (including production, packaging, transport, and application) was 5589 million GJ or 5.3 X 10 is Btu. Nitrogen is by far the greatest energy consumer in the fertilizer sector. During 1 9 8 1 / 8 2 the share o f energy consumption in the world fertilizer sector was 84% for N, 10% for P205, and 6% for K~O. Nitrogen fertilizer production accounted for 91% of the energy used in manufacturing all of the fertilizers consumed in the world.

Behavior of energy prices

Energy prices have increased significantly in the last 10 years. For example, the average international prices for crude oil have increased from $3.29/ bbl (bbl, barrel ~ 159 1) in 1973 to about $34.00/bbl in 1982, a tenfold increase. Prices of other energy sources have followed similar trends. The more recent comparative prices for selected energy sources used in the N fertilizer industry for feedstock, fuel, or p o w e r are reported in Table 1. Over a period

163

o f 5 years from 1977 to 1982, the average prices have increased from 74% (lowest) for coal to 162% (highest) for natural gas. Energy prices are generally regulated in b o t h developed and developing countries. In m a n y developing countries, energy prices paid b y the N fertilizer industry are controlled and/or highly subsidized b y government. Consequently, the level and growth in energy prices m a y vary across countries. For example, in Mexico natural gas is transferred to the N fertilizer industry at less than $1.00/103 scf; on the other hand, about 70% of the U.S. ammonia industry pays at least $2.00/103 scf, and a b o u t 25% pays at least $3.50/103 scf. In the natural gas industry the standard cubic f o o t (scf) is the volume measured at 60F and 30 inches of mercury pressure (1 scf = 0.0283 m 3 if measured at the same temperature and pressure).
TABLE 1 B e h a v i o r o f average e n e r g y prices for s e l e c t e d e n e r g y sources Energy source Measuring unit Average e n e r g y price d u r i n g 1977 C r u d e oil a Coal c F u e l oil c Naphtha d N a t u r a l gas c Electricity c $/bbl b $/t $/t $/t $/103 scf e g/kWh 13.33 23.80 93.40 124.20 1.33 2.50 1982 34.00 41.30 201.60 297.80 3.49 4.95 +155 + 74 +116 +140 +162 + 98 Percent change

a S a u d i light, f.o.b. Original price d a t a were o b t a i n e d f r o m Oil a n d Gas J o u r n a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) . b b b l , barrel = 1 5 9 1. c Delivered t o electric p l a n t s in t h e U n i t e d States. F u e l oil price refers t o a n average o f fuel oils No. 4, No. 5, a n d No. 6, a n d t o p p e d c r u d e fuel oil. Original price d a t a were obt a i n e d f r o m U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y ( 1 9 8 3 ) . d E u r o p e a n s p o t price f o r b u l k s h i p m e n t s , f.o.b. Original price d a t a were o b t a i n e d f r o m E u r o p e a n C h e m i c a l News ( 1 9 8 2 ) . e 103 scf ( s t a n d a r d c u b i c f e e t ) = 28.3 m 3 ( m e a s u r e d at 6 0 F a n d 30 i n c h e s o f m e r c u r y pressure).

Impact o f energy prices on nitrogen production costs

The economic impact o f energy costs on total ammonia production costs, based on TFI (1980) surveys of a large number of ammonia plants in operation in the United States, is reported in Fig. 1. The total ammonia production costs have increased from $33.60/t in 1973 to $106.08/t in 1980. The corresponding average share o f energy costs in total ammonia production costs has been estimated to increase from 52% in 1973 to 74% in 1980. In other words, an average 1 0 0 0 / 1 7 0 0 t per day (tpd) ammonia/urea production complex consumes a b o u t 20 million GJ of energy per year, which is

164 equivalent to approximately 18 million 103 scf of natural gas. The market value o f this natural gas at $3/103 scf is about $54.0 million, which is equivalent to nearly $100/t o f urea. The average relative share of energy costs in total ammonia production costs is generally lower in developing countries than in developed countries. This is due to several factors, but the most important are: (1) high capital costs; (2) low operating rates; and (3) subsidized energy prices. On the other hand, actual energy consumption per unit of ammonia production is generally higher in developing countries because o f low operating rates and low energy efficiency as compared with the developed countries. High energy prices are eventually reflected in high N fertilizer prices and high food prices. In this context, optimizing energy efficiency in N fertilizer production provides an excellent o p p o r t u n i t y to keep N fertilizer prices low.
120 F~ ~Total [~Total (

Production Costs 106,08 Energy Costs 89.65 9760

) Energy Enerqy Costs as % of Production Pt Cost 81.02

80

53.74

40 33.60

1973

1975

1977 Year

1978

1979

1980

Fig. 1. Economic impact of energy costs on total ammonia production costs of ammonia plants in operation in the United States.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AMMONIA PRODUCTION

Energy consumption in ammonia production

A m m o n i a is the basis for nearly all commercial N fertilizers. Natural gas is the main source of both feedstock and fuel for about 80% of the world's a m m o n i a production. This percentage is likely to increase in the future because ammonia plants based on natural gas are the most energy-efficient,

165

the least complex, and the least capital-intensive, and they pose only minor pollution problems. Moreover, natural gas is often the lowest cost form of energy. Therefore, this discussion shall concentrate on natural gas-based ammonia plants. The average energy consumption for ammonia production using centrifugal compressors during 1981 has been estimated to be 45.3 GJ/t. This represents a decline of about 3.5% over energy use during 1979 which was 46.9 GJ/t. Approximately 60% of the total energy was used in the form of feedstock, 37% for heating the reformer, and the remaining 3% for other purposes as fuel or power. On a nutrient basis, the average energy use for ammonia production in plants using centrifugal compressors was 57.2 GJ/t of N in 1979 and 55.3 GJ/t of N in 1981. Historically, the energy consumption for ammonia production has declined significantly from the early 20th century to the 1980s. Energy use for ammonia synthesis based on steam reforming of natural gas is reported in Fig. 2, which has been constructed from data reported by Quartulli and Buividas (1976), Czuppon and Buividas (1979) and Mudahar and Hignett (1982). The figure shows energy use for plants that were designed or built in the year indicated and that used the most energy-efficient technology available at that time. According to these estimates, energy consumption for ammonia production (battery-limits) has declined from 62 GJ/t in the early 1940s to 35 GJ/t in the early 1980s, and is expected to be about 31 GJ/t by 1990.
80

-- -- -- Energy Use
:~ "I60-

\ 0%%% \

Z
Z

G E E ~

4o
< 545 tpd
> 545 tpd =

Theoretical Minimum (Natural Gas Feedstock)

20

23 GJ/t of N H 3 ( H H V )

0
1940 19150 19'60 Year 19170 19J80 1990

Fig. 2. E v o l u t i o n o f energy use ( f e e d s t o c k + fuel + electric p o w e r ) for a m m o n i a systhesis based o n s t e a m r e f o r m i n g o f natural gas.

166

Energy saving through retrofits

A large number of retrofits, b o t h the in-plant and add-on types, have been suggested that promise to improve energy efficiency. According to LeBlanc et al. (1982), the use of retrofits and energy-saving principles can realistically result in energy saving between 3.2 and 8.2 GJ/t of ammonia in the existing plants. For example, according to Joharapurkar (1982), the use of a purge hydrogen recovery unit alone results in energy saving of approximately 1 GJ/t of NH3 in a commercial ammonia plant in India. The primary energy-saving efforts in ammonia production from existing and new plants need to be directed toward b u t not limited to: (1) recovering heat in the reforming process; (2) improving efficiency of energy use in CO2 recovery and removal; (3) recovering and recycling H2 from the purge stream; and (4) further improvements in the ammonia synthesis process. The energy-saving retrofits in ammonia plants primarily deal with: (1) recovery o f waste heat; (2) combustion air preheat; (3) efficient CO2 removal system; (4) low pressure drop synloop; and (5) recovery of H2 from purge gas.

Energy saving in new ammonia plants

There is a general trend toward lower synthesis pressure in most lowenergy processes. The obvious advantage is that the energy for compression is lowered; thus, the compressor can be simpler, and the steam turbine which drives the compressor is exposed to less rigorous conditions. However, there are several related effects that are less favorable. For example, the extent of conversion of nitrogen and hydrogen to ammonia decreases as the pressure decreases. Figure 3 (based on data reported in IFDC, 1979) shows the effect of pressure and temperature on the tool percentage of NH3 formed at equilibrium in a stoichiometric mixture of pure H2 and N2. At 450C and 300 bar pressure the gas mixture would contain about 35% NH3. At 100 bar the equilibrium percentage of ammonia at 450C falls to about 17% and at 50 bar to a b o u t 9% (where 1 atm ~ 1 bar ~ 1 kg/cm 2 ~= 0.1 MPa are approximate equivalents, + 2%). The lower conversion per pass means that much more gas must be recycled through the catalyst chamber, ammonia recovery unit, and heat exchangers. Separation and recovery of the ammonia by condensation would require deep cooling b y refrigeration, and the energy consumed b y refrigeration would offset the saving in energy for compression. Therefore, most lowpressure processes use absorption refrigeration in which the ammonia is absorbed from the cooled gas in water. Pure ammonia is recovered by distillation with low-temperature steam that is available from the shift reaction step. As shown in Fig. 3, a high percentage of conversion theoretically could be obtained at low temperatures such as 200C even at low pressures such

167 as 50 atm. This fact has stimulated much research to find a catalyst that is active at low temperatures (200C or less). There have been some encouraging results in laboratory-scale work b u t no commercial development as yet. Present commercial catalysts are active in the range o f roughly 380--500C. Commercial development o f a low-temperature catalyst would be helpful b u t n o t an unmixed blessing. For example, if ammonia synthesis is carried o u t at 200C, the heat of reaction would have to be removed at that temperature. The usefulness of this energy in the form o f low-temperature heat may be doubtful.
I00 H 600 300 100 50 atm atm atm atm

8O

'~ z
~o

60

Z 4o
Z

2O

0
0

I00

30O
Temperatu re,C

50O

700

Fig. 3. E f f e c t o f t e m p e r a t u r e a n d pressure o n c o n v e r s i o n o f a 1 : 3 m i x t u r e o f p u r e n i t r o g e n (N~) a n d h y d r o g e n (H2) t o a m m o n i a (NH3).

Another energy-saving innovation is reduction of the steam : carbon mol ratio. For the overall reaction, including primary and secondary reforming and the shift reaction, the stoichiometric steam : carbon ratio is a b o u t 1.4. Nevertheless, most processes operate with steam : carbon ratios in the range o f 3--4 or even higher. The excess steam is condensed b y cooling the gas after the shift reaction and thus releasing energy at a low-temperature level. Some of this heat can be recovered and utilized b u t much of it is wasted in cooling water. The condensate (condensed excess steam} contains fractional percentages of ammonia, methanol, and amines. The usual m e t h o d o f purification, if required b y environmental regulations, is steam stripping, and this consumes extra energy. Thus, the use of excess steam consumes energy both in its generation and in disposal of its condensate. The main advantages of excess steam are an increase in the reaction rate,

168

a closer approach to completion of desired reactions, and suppression of undesired reactions. One undesired reaction is the deposition of carbon in the primary reformer. The carbon may coat the catalyst or the inner walls of the reformer tubes, t h e r e b y interfering with the desired reaction and giving rise to hot spots on the reformer tubes and possible t u b e failure. Possible side reactions in the shift reaction are formation of methanol or formation o f hydrocarbons b y the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. The main methods for dealing with these problems are to develop catalysts that are highly active for the desired reactions and inactive for the undesired ones. A secondary m e t h o d is to choose the o p t i m u m temperature level, particularly in the shift reaction step. Another area of energy saving is in the CO2-removal system. A wide choice of CO2 absorbents (both chemical and physical) and the methods for using them are available, each with advantages and disadvantages. Choosing the most economical system for any specific application m a y be difficult (Stokes, 1980). In conclusion, the problem o f optimization of energy use in an ammonia plant is a very complex one, and much research, development, and experience will be necessary before we can be sure that we have approached a practical minimum energy consumption. The estimated energy requirements for ammonia based on selected new energy-efficient ammonia processes are summarized in Table 2. Energy-saving features for new ammonia plants include: (1) recovery of
TABLE 2 Estimated energy requirements for ammonia production based on selected new energy efficient processes Company/Process Haldor Topsoe low-energy process Source Rudbeck (1982) Topsoe and Ekner (1982) Livingstone and Pinto (1983) Van Weenen and Tielrooy (1980a, b) Brown (1981) Nitrogen (1983) Chari (1982) Ghosal and Karkun (1982) Ghosal and Karkun (1982) Chari (1982) GJ/t NH 3 (HHV) 33.12

ICI's AMV process KTI's PARC process a Humphreys and Glasgow LEAD process Kellogg process b C-E Lummus process

31.65 37.25 33.70 34.81 33.56

C,F. Braun process Snam-Progetti scheme

32.64 33.05

a Ranges between 36.35 and 37.25 GJ/t. bMedium energy process; lower energy processes are also offered.

169 waste heat to generate high-pressure and high-temperature steam; (2) preheating of combustion air, process air, and feedstock; (3) optimization of reformer pressure; (4) efficient CO2-removal system (two-stage or physical type); (5) efficient final purification {absorption and removal of H20, NH3, CO, and N2; selective oxidation of CO; cryogenic purification); (6) pressure optimization in the synthesis section; (7) synthesis gas purification by molecular sieves and low-pressure drop in the synthesis loop; (8) purge gas recovery (low-temperature system, absorbent system, semipermeable membrane); (9) gas turbines and use of exhaust gas as combustion air; (10) lowering the steam : carbon ratio; (11) milder conditions in the primary reformer followed by removal of residual methane; and (12) ammonia separation by absorption refrigeration. However, not all these features may be used in any single ammonia process.

Energy saving through efficient operations

For a given technology and feedstock, energy consumption for ammonia production can also be lowered through improvements in operational efficiency, better management, and energy conservation. Perhaps the most urgent energy-saving option for developing countries is to increase the performance of both existing and new ammonia plants. This can be accomplished through increases in the on-stream factor and the load factor, and decreases in the shutdowns. The average performance of large centrifugal ammonia plants in different parts of the world during 1978--81 is reported in Table 3. The developing countries not only have the largest downtime {hence the lowest on-stream factor) but also a large number of shutdowns, which result in substantial wastage of energy. However, about 60% of the shutdowns and 75% of the downtime is accounted for by major equipment failure and preventive maintenance, including turnarounds. An improvement in performance of ammonia plants can result in substantial energy saving and hence an improvement in energy efficiency. According to Joharapurkar {1982), the average energy consumption for an ammonia plant in India declined from 48.5 GJ/t NH3 at 66% load factor to 40.2 GJ/t NH3 at 105% load factor, implying a decline in energy use by 8.3 GJ/t or 17%. Clearly, there is an inverse relationship between energy use and performance of ammonia plants beyond the practical minimum energy requirements. Furthermore, the larger the number of interruptions and shutdowns, the lower the energy efficiency. Improvements in plant performance not only increase energy efficiency but also lower per unit cost of production and increase ammonia production. In addition, energy use at a given level of plant performance can also be reduced through common sense measures dealing with energy conservation. This includes, among others, lighting improvements, improved general maintenance, steam trap maintenance program, and proper insulation.

170 TABLE 3 Average performance of large centrifugal ammonia plants in different parts of the world during 1978--81 a Item Average/year per plant in North America Number of plants surveyed Shutdowns Total shutdowns (number) Due to major equipment failure (%)c Due to turnarounds (%) Downtime Total downtime (days) Due to major equipment failure (%)c Due to preventive maintenance (%) Turnaround After every (months) Downtime (days) Downtime/year (days) On-stream factor (%)d 39 8.4 51 8 44.3 35 31 16.0 18.6 14.0 88 Europe Rest of the world b 24 8.7 52 8 56.6 37 40 16.0 31.0 23.0 85 25 11.1 54 9 75.1 33 49 11.3 36.0 38.0 79 World

88 9.2 52 9 55.2 35 39 14.5 27.2 23.0 85

aDerived from survey data reported in Williams and Hoehing (1983). For North America, survey data refer to 1977--81. bIncludes Brazil, India, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Taiwan, and Venezuela. CApproximately 50% of the major equipment failure is caused by failures in synthesis gas compressor and reforming unit. Synthesis gas compressor is the single most important source of major equipment failure. dThe on-stream factor for the 'best' plant was better by 10% in North America, 11% in Europe, 17% in the rest of the world, and 11% for the world as a whole.

Economics o f energy saving

Before making any changes in existing or even in new ammonia plants, which are supposedly more energy sufficient, it is extremely important to ask, 'How much energy is being saved and at what cost?' Saving energy for the sake of saving it does not provide a very strong economic justification for large capital investments. For example, in a large fertilizer complex the energy saved or surplus energy may be wasted if there is no alternative use for it in the complex, and especially if it is n o t feasible to export it. Furthermore, for countries that have large energy resources or t h a t flare a large a m o u n t of gas, there m a y be very little incentive to save energy, especially if it is achieved at large capital investment. In the long run, up to certain limits, energy-saving innovations may involve substituting capital for energy, i.e., the use of more capital and less energy. The available evidence on the implications of energy-saving innova-

171

tions on capital expenditure is rather mixed. However, many energy-saving innovations have been demonstrated in full-scale plants and have generally proven cost effective. An innovation that results in savings o f b o t h energy and capital in North America or Western Europe m a y n o t always result in similar savings in developing countries. Most innovations that promise significant energy savings at the commercial level do involve additional capital investments. However, the magnitude of additional capital investment m a y vary with the t y p e o f innovation. Furthermore, there is also need to consider the implications of energysaving innovations on trained manpower, foreign exchange, degree o f complexity, and the degree o f reliability. As mentioned previously, reliability is a very important characteristic; the most energy-efficient plant will n o t be economical unless it can be operated at high-capacity utilization. Most processes that are offered b y reputable companies are claimed to use only proven technology, b u t the technology m a y n o t have been proven in an ammonia plant.
E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N C Y IN U R E A PRODUCTION

Linkage between ammonia and urea production

The production of urea requires ammonia and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is reacted with ammonia at a high temperature (180C) and pressure (140--200 bar) to form a m m o n i u m carbamate followed b y dehydration to form urea. Carbon dioxide is a necessary raw material that is available at almost no cost only at ammonia plants. In Asia many plants are designed to convert all of the ammonia to urea. So the effect o f ammonia process innovations on urea production should be considered. Energy saving in the ammonia plant could result in excess steam which could be utilized in the urea plant. In the production o f urea b y use of the conventional methods, the a m o u n t o f CO 2 available would be slightly less than that required to convert all of the ammonia to urea, assuming that natural gas feedstock was pure methane and all o f the hydrogen was converted to ammonia. In practice there is usually enough CO s because o f higher hydrocarbons in the natural gas or incomplete utilization o f the hydrogen. Any innovation that decreases the a m o u n t o f natural gas feedstock consumed will decrease the a m o u n t o f COs formed. If there is insufficient process COs formed, additional COs can be recovered from the primary reformer stack gas b u t at additional cost.
Energy consumption in urea production

Urea production requires energy in the form of ammonia as raw material and energy for converting ammonia into urea. The average energy use for production o f prilled urea during 1979 and 1981 is estimated and reported in Table 4.

172 TABLE 4 Average energy use for production of prilled urea Energy component Energy use for prilled urea (46% N) 1979 1981

Ammonia manufacture Urea synthesis Urea prilling Total

(GJ/t of Urea) 26.97 26.05 5.53 5.30 4.07 3.73 36.57 35.08

Total

(GJ/t of N) 79.50 76.26

These estimates indicate that: (1) total energy use in urea production during 1981 has declined a b o u t 4% over 1979; and (2) approximately 75% o f total energy required to p r o d u c e urea is attributed to ammonia and the remaining 25% to urea synthesis and urea priUing. Granular urea appears to require less energy than does prilled urea partly because the pollution control problems are less difficult with the granular product. The main forms of energy used in urea production are steam and electricity, which can be generated b y any fuel, depending on the economics and availability.

Energy saving in urea production

Energy consumption in urea production can be reduced through: (1) the use of retrofits in existing plants; (2) the use of energy-saving features in new plants; and (3) improvements in operational efficiency, better management, and energy conservation. Since ammonia input accounts for a b o u t 75% of total energy use in urea production, energy-saving efforts in ammonia production will reduce energy consumption in urea production. There is also substantial r o o m for reducing process (synthesis and prilling) energy consumption for urea. The process energy can be reduced to 4.7 GJ/t o f urea, which is a b o u t one-half of current energy use. The adoption of energysaving innovation, however, would depend u p o n capital costs and reliability of new processes. It should be noted that the average energy use in converting ammonia to prilled urea is a b o u t 21 G J / t o f N, so potential savings in this process are comparable to those that m a y be made in the ammonia process. In a conventional urea reactor, an excess of ammonia is used, and the conversion efficiency for carbon dioxide is 65--70%; for ammonia it is 32--35%. The energy efficiency o f urea production can be improved through high conversion efficiency in the urea reactor and efficient recycling of unreacted ammonia and a m m o n i u m carbamate. In conjunction with application of more

173

energy-efficient ammonia technology, the total energy use can be reduced from 79.5 to about 52.0 GJ/t of N (HHV) for bulk priUed or granular urea f.o.b, factory. Any energy saving beyond this point is likely to be small and perhaps economically marginal, barring unforeseen technological breakthoughs. Two recent papers compared the energy requirements for three of the leading low-energy processes (Pagani, 1983; Dooyeweerd and Meessen, 1983): the Stamicarbon CO2-stripping process; the ACES process (Advanced Process for Cost and Energy Savings), which also uses CO2 stripping; and the IDR process {Isobaric Double Recycle), which uses stripping with both NH3 and CO2, consecutively. The three processes are compared on the common basis that the CO2 compressor is driven by an extraction turbine using high-pressure, superheated steam {120 bar, 480C) with extraction of lower pressure steam for use in the processes. The comparison also includes energy for evaporating the urea solution but does not include energy for prilling or granulation. Assuming that the high-pressure superheated steam can be generated with a fuel input of 1700 Btu/lb (3.95 GJ/t), which implies a fuel efficiency of about 80%, and that 1 kWh is equivalent to 10.6 MJ of fuel energy, the total energy consumption for the three processes ranges from 3.04 to 3.38 GJ/t of urea. We do not consider the difference in energy consumption between the three processes to be significant in view of the fact that different assumptions could lead to different conclusions. However, the energy for the synthesis step for present plants in North America averaged 5.3 GJ/t not including concentration of the urea solution. Thus any of the three processes would offer a significant saving in comparison with the present average of North America plants. Low-energy processes are also available for conversion of urea solution to granular or prilled urea; some also include pollution control. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has estimated that its modernized urea plant, in conjunction with its new curtain-granulation process, will produce granular urea with a total energy requirement of about 4.3 GJ/t of urea (Blouin, 1984). In comparison, the North American average energy consumption in 1981 was 9.0 GJ/t for prilled urea and 8.3 for granular urea. Stated in terms of GJ/t of N, energy savings in the range of 8.7-=10.0 GJ appear possible for the conversion of ammonia to urea, which is about equal to the potential savings in ammonia manufacturing per unit of N.
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROVEMENT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Potential energy savings in nitrogen production Average energy consumption, energy efficiency, and probable maximum energy saving estimates in production of selected N fertilizers are developed in Table 5. The potential energy savings for different fertilizers range be-

174

tween 25% and 35% over 1979 energy consumption estimates, and between 22% and 32% over the 1981 estimates. The opportunity for saving energy in developing countries is even larger than indicated partly because the existing energy consumption is higher in the developing countries. The weighted energy consumption for N fertilizer production has been estimated to be 69.54 GJ/t of N in 1979 and 48.42 GJ/t in the future, which implies approximately 30% saving in energy use. There do not seem to be any commercially feasible technological breakthroughs in producing N fertilizers that would result in major energy saving in the near future. Most of the energy-saving innovations involving changes and modifications would each result in only a small saving. However, the sum of numerous savings would amount to a substantial total for N fertilizer production. These marginal changes would involve large capital expenditures if incorporated in existing plants but would not necessarily increase the cost of new plants.

TABLE 5 Energy efficiency and probable maximum saving in energy use for manufacturing nitrogen fertilizers in new fertilizer plants using available technology Product N Average energy input (%) (GJ/t of N) 1979 1981 Future Probable energy savinga (%) 1979 1981 25 32 31 28 35 22 29 29 26 32 Energy efficiencya (%) 1979 75 68 69 72 65 1981 78 71 71 74 68

Ammonia Urea, prilled b A m m o n i u m nitrate, prilled c UAN solution d A m m o n i u m sulfate, synthetic e

82 46 34 30 21

57.2 79.5 73.4 67.2 60.0

55.3 76.3 71.6 65.2 58.0

42.9 54.2 50.7 48.4 39.3

aEnergy efficiency (%) is defined as average energy input in future divided by average energy input in 1979 or 1981 and multiplied by 100, and probable energy saving (%) is equal to 100 minus energy efficiency (%). bThe average energy input for granular urea has been estimated to be 76.1 and 74.8 GJ/t of N during 1979 and 1981, respectively. CThe corresponding energy input estimates for granular ammonium nitrate are 71.8 and 69.4 GJ/t of N during 1979 and 1981, respectively. dUAN solution contains urea and ammonium nitrate solutions. Energy consumption for production of UAN solution consists of ammonia energy input, energy input for urea synthesis, conversion energy for ammonia nitrate, and a very small amount of energy (0.25 G J / t of UAN product) required as process energy. The UAN solution does not need the energy that is used for prilling urea or ammonium nitrate. eThe future energy use is a weighted average (50% each) of two estimates: 46.14 GJ/t of N without any credit for H~SO, energy and no energy recovery from the reaction, and 32.50 G J / t of N assuming credit for H~SO, energy and recovery of 50% of heat of reaction.

175

Economic benefits of energy-efficiency improvement

The potential economic benefits of energy-efficiency improvement in N fertilizer production are estimated in Table 6. During 1981/82, for the world as a whole, energy saving potential in N fertilizer production has been estimated to be 1276 million GJ. This is equivalent to about 1182 109 scf o f natural gas, worth approximately $4.14 109. It will take several years before the N fertilizer industry is able to reduce energy consumption from present to future consumption estimates. However, the potential savings are large enough to justify energy research, development, and management efforts to improve energy efficiency. A lot of these savings can be realized through efficient operation of N fertilizer plants, which does not require much additional capital investment. This is not only desirable, but it also provides a viable option to keep N fertilizer prices low, especially in the developing countries.
TABLE 6 E s t i m a t e d p o t e n t i a l e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s f r o m i m p r o v e m e n t s in e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y for m a n u f a c t u r i n g n i t r o g e n fertilizers d u r i n g 1 9 8 1 / 8 2 a Region E n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n (106 G J ) A t existin~ efficiency U At improved efficiency c P o t e n t i a l e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s of imp r o v e d e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y in t e r m s o f Energy saving (106 G J ) Developed Market Economies North America Western Europe Oceania Others Developing Market Economies Africa Latin A m e r i c a N e a r East F a r East Centrally Planned Economies A s i a n CPE East E u r o p e a n d U . S . S . R . D e v e l o p e d , all D e v e l o p i n g , all World 1548 766 679 19 84 888 46 199 147 495 1767 856 911 2459 1744 4203 1078 533 473 13 59 618 32 139 102 345 1231 596 634 1712 1214 2927 470 233 206 6 25 270 14 60 45 150 536 260 277 747 530 1276 Equivalent n a t u r a l gas d (109 scf) 435 216 191 6 23 250 13 56 42 139 496 241 257 692 491 1182 Value e (109 $) 1.52 0.76 0.67 0.02 0.08 0.88 0.05 0.20 0.1 5 0.49 1.74 0.84 0.90 2.42 1.72 4.14

a l n i t i a l l y , t h e p o t e n t i a l e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s will be r e a l i z e d b y t h o s e c o u n t r i e s / r e g i o n s w h e r e n i t r o g e n fertilizers are m a n u f a c t u r e d . U l t i m a t e l y , h o w e v e r , p a r t o f t h e s e b e n e f i t s are e x p e c t e d to be t r a n s f e r r e d t o i m p o r t e r s o f n i t r o g e n fertilizers in t h e f o r m o f l o w e r prices. R e g i o n a l n i t r o g e n c o n s u m p t i o n d a t a were obtained from FAO (1983). b A v e r a g e e n e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g n i t r o g e n fertilizers h a v e b e e n e s t i m a t e d t o be 6 9 . 5 4 G J / t o f N. CAverage e n e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t s for m a n u f a c t u r i n g n i t r o g e n fertilizers in t h e f u t u r e , in n e w fertilizer p l a n t s using available t e c h n o l o g y , h a v e b e e n e s t i m a t e d to b e 4 8 . 4 2 G J / t of N. This implies p r o b a b l e m a x i m u m saving o f a b o u t 30% o v e r p r e s e n t e n e r g y i n p u t . d A s s u m i n g 1 G J = 9 2 6 scf o f n a t u r a l gas in t e r m s o f high h e a t i n g values ( H H V ) . e T h e U.S. a v e r a g e p r i c e f o r n a t u r a l gas d e l i v e r e d t o electric p l a n t s d u r i n g 1 9 8 2 was $ 3 . 5 0 per t h o u s a n d c u b i c feet. T h e n a t u r a l gas prices paid b y n e w a m m o n i a p l a n t s are a b o u t t h e s a m e .

176

Energy Efficiency and Government Policy

Improving energy efficiency in N fertilizer production involves at least three strategies, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. These strategies are: (1) installation of energy-efficient retrofits in the existing plants; (2) use of energy-efficient processes and equipment in the new plants; and (3) efficient operations, better management, and energy conservation in existing and new plants. All the three strategies are important in their own ways. The first two strategies involve additional capital investment and possibly some additional risk as compared with the strategy involving efficient operations and energy management. Furthermore, energy-substitution innovations are limited but do exist for both feedstock and fuel. Energy saving in the absence of any alternative use for saved energy does not provide economic justification for making large capital investments and/or increasing complexity. Energy-efficient modifications are not always economical and may adversely affect reliability. Careful consideration is needed to weigh potential energy savings against potential adverse economic and environmental effects. There is need to study economic costs and benefits of various energy-saving technologies. Governments must take the lead in promoting and facilitating the use of energy-efficient innovation. This can be accomplished through appropriate actions, including incentives, interventions, education, research and development, regulation, and monitoring. Developing countries that are deficient in food, fertilizer, foreign exchange, and energy must give a high priority to the design and implementation of energy-efficient fertilizer production plans. International organizations can play a vital role in facilitating the formulation and implementation of such national programs. The major criteria in selecting energy-efficient innovations for N fertilizer production should be: (1) maximization of economic benefits; (2) minimization of capital costs; (3) maximization of reliability and operational efficiency; (4) maximization of fertilizer use efficiency through efficient fertilizer products; and (5) minimization of foreign exchange needs. Energy optimization should deal with best compromise among these five criteria. The developing countries should not adopt exotic energy-efficient innovations that have not yet been proven economical and reliable commercially. This is especially true for countries with surplus energy resources and limited manpower skills to operate complex fertilizer plants. In this context, policies designed to improve energy efficiency in N fertilizer production must be evaluated carefully by maintaining both a long-term perspective and an awareness of the existing national policies, resources, requirements, and constraints.
REFERENCES Blouin, G.M., 1984. Energy requirements for high nitrogen fertilizers. Chem. Eng. Progr., 80: 40--44.

177 Brown, F.C., 1981. How L.E.A.D. reduces energy and capital costs by 10--15%. In: Fertilizer Nitrogen. British Sulphur Corp., London, pp. 39--51. Chari, K.S., 1982. Energy conservation in the production of ammonia. In: Fertilizer Industry (Annual Review), Specialized Publications, Bombay, India, pp. 85--91. Czuppon, T.A. and Buividas, L.J., 1979. Hydrogen for Ammonia Production and Economics of Alternative Feedstocks. ACS/CSJ Pacific Chemical Congress, Honolulu, HI, 1--6 April 1979, pp. 1--22. Dooyeweerd, E. and Meessen, J., 1983. Comparison of the energy consumptions of lowenergy urea technologies. Nitrogen, 143: 32--38. European Chemical News, 1982. Weekly publication by Business Press International Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, Great Britain. FAO, 1983. Fertilizer Yearbook, 1982 (and various previous issues). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Ghosal, S.R. and Karkun, K., 1982. Improvements in ammonia process technology for reduced energy consumption. Fert. News, 27(12): 47--55. IFDC, 1979. Fertilizer Manual. IFDC-R-1, International Fertilizer Development Center, IFDC, Muscle Shoals, AL. (Also available from UNIDO, Vienna, Australia.) Joharapurkar, V.R., 1982. Energy conservation in existing ammonia plants. In: FAI Seminar 1982 on Fertilizer Productivity and Advances in Technology, Part II. Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi, India, pp. III-1/1--12. LeBlanc, J.R., Moore, D.O. and Schneider, R.V., 1982. Retrofits can reduce energy consumption in ammonia manufacture for substantial savings. Oil Gas J., 80 (38): 115-118. Livingstone, J.G. and Pinto, A., 1983. New ammonia process reduces costs. Chem. Eng. Progr., 79(5): 62--66. Mudahar, M.S. and Hignett, T.P., 1982. Energy and Fertilizer: Policy Implications and Options for Developing Countries. Tech. Bull. IFDC-T-20, International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL, 241 pp. Nitrogen, 1983. Sherritt -- startup of new ammonia/urea plant. Nitrogen, 143: 16--20. Oil and Gas Journal, 1982. Weekly publication by Penwell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK. Pagani, G., 1983. IDR technology cuts to a minimum the energy consumption in urea plants, Nitrogen, 145: 35--37. Perry, J.H. (Editor), 1950. Chemical Engineer's Handbook (3rd Edition). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1942 pp. Quartulli, O.J. and Buividas, L.J., 1976. Some current and future trends in ammonia production technology. Nitrogen, 100: 60--64. Rudbeck, P., 1982. Low energy ammonia technology. J. Technol. Dev. Arab Fed. Chem. Fert. Prod., 4: 24--35. Stokes, K.J., 1980. The economics of CO2 removal systems. In: Ammonia Plant Safety, 2 2 : 1 7 8 Am. Inst. of Chem. Eng., New York, NY, pp. 178--184. TFI, 1979. Energy Use Survey 1979. The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC, 7 pp. TFI, 1980. Ammonia Production Cost Survey, year ended June 30, 1980. The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC, 7 pp. TFI, 1981. Energy Use Survey 1981. The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC, 6 pp. Topsoe, H. and Ekner, O., 1982. Advances in ammonia production technology, In: FAI Seminar 1982 on Fertilizer Productivity and Advances in Technology, Part II. Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi, India, pp. V-1/1--15. U.S. Department of Energy, 1983. Monthly Energy Review (and various previous issues). Energy Information Administration, USDOE, Washington, DC. Van Weenen, W.F. and Tielrooy, J., 1980a. Ammonia production with higher efficiency (PARC process), Nitrogen, 127: 38--43. Van Weenen, W.F. and Tielrooy, J., 1980b. New concept ammonia process with higher efficiency. Fert. Soc. Proc. 191, 24 pp. Williams, G.P. and Hoehing, W.W., 1983. Causes of ammonia plant shutdowns. Chem. Eng. Progr., 79: 11--30.