Energy Efficiency

in Steam Systems
Department Editor: Kate Torzewski

I
n today’s typical process plants, prevent-
ing steam loss and improving condensate
return are key opportunities to make a
process more energy efficient.
To be the most effective, steam gener-
ally needs to be dry (such as for process
usage), or superheated (for instance, for
use in turbines). These requirements dictate
utility-system operating procedures for
generating the highest quality steam pos-
sible, and then distributing it to the points
of use with minimal deterioration. Since
steam becomes condensate after its heat
energy is expended, strategies must be in
place to remove condensate as quickly as it
is formed, in the steam-supply portion of the
circuit and during steam usage alike.
Furthermore, superheated steam is
typically desuperheated by injecting hot
condensate into the system. As a result, ex-
cessive wetness can also occur downstream
of the desuperheating station. In either
case, if such condensate is not removed
from the steam supply, the negative impact
on the steam system can be substantial, as
seen in Table 1.
Improving condensate return. At many
plants, the operators admittedly realize that
condensate must be removed as quickly
as it is formed, but a suitable condensate
drainage or transportation system is not
in place. In such cases, the condensate is
often sewered or sent to a field drain. Some
possible outcomes of removing condensate
but not handling it effectively are outlined in
Table 2.
Condensate is traditionally removed from
steam systems by steam traps or by equip-
ment combinations involving level pots and
outlet control valves. Process situations in
which high backpressure from the down-
stream portion of the condensate-return
system tend to create a “stall.” Then, a
different system incorporating both a pump
and trap in the design is needed to drive
the condensate while also trapping the
steam; this process may be referred to as
pump-trapping or power-trapping.
Because there are at least three
condensate-drainage alternatives, it makes
more sense to think in terms of required
“condensate discharge locations” rather
than referring to condensate removal de-
vices indiscriminately as “steam traps.” This
broader mind-set helps avoid any predispo-
sition to install steam traps in applications
that need a different type of condensate
drainage solution.
Engineered separator-drains remove
condensate that is entrained in a moving
steam supply (including flash or regener-
ated steam). The result is highest quality
steam delivered for plant use. Compare that
to steam traps, which remove condensate
that has already fallen out of the steam. As
their name suggests, steam traps remove
condensate and “trap steam.” Meanwhile,
level pots can be used in certain instances
High-
temperature
fluid
Trap Trap Trap
FIGURE 1. Preferred method to drain jacketed pipe for
high-melting-point fluids, such as sulfur
FIGURE 2. Alternative, practical redesign method for ex-
isting installations to drain jacketed pipe for high-melting-
point fluids, such as sulfur (no “stall”)
High-
temperature
fluid
Trap Trap Trap
TABLE 1. RESULTS OF FAILING TO REMOVE CONDENSATE
FROM THE STEAM SUPPLY
Loss of yield: Entrained water does not carry as much heat to a process as does steam
Damage to nozzles: Entrained water erodes nozzles and can adversely affect vacuum
generation or atomization
Loss of power: Entrained water causes turbines to operate less efficiently
Increase maintenance loading; Water hammer can damage equipment such as turbine
blades and control-valve packing
Increased safety risk: Water hammer can injure personnel
Poor process control: Flooding exchanges can lead to control swings
TABLE 2. RESULTS OF REMOVING CONDENSATE,
BUT FAILING TO HANDLE IT EFFECTIVELY
Profit loss due to waste of heated and treated condensate
The extremely wasteful effect of opening bypass valves around process equipment or
turbines to prevent waterlogging or damage
A possible increase in system corrosion because too much makeup water must be
treated
where steam traps cannot meet the high cally arises when modulating steam pres-
pressure or capacity requirements. sure creates a negative pressure differential
Special situations. There can be many situa- across the condensate drain device. So-
tions in a plant where effective condensate called, Type II secondary pressure drainers
removal requires specialized drainage of the pump-trap type are used on equip-
designs. For instance, Figures 1 and 2 ment with a negative pressure differential.
show two options for condensate drainage Because wasted condensate is a valuable
from a jacketed pipe that conveys high- resource to be saved, use Type I secondary
melting-point materials, such as liquid sulfur pressure drainers of a “pump only” type to
or high-boiling hydrocarbons. recover collected condensate and power it
Other examples of specialized applica- back to the boiler.
tions include options to effectively drain
steam-supplied heat exchangers. A key References
consideration is to first determine whether 1. Risko, J., Handle Steam More Intelligently,
a stall condition exists or not; when it does, Chem. Eng., November 2006, pp. 38–43.
condensate will not drain effectively through 2. Aggarwal, S., Boost Energy Efficiency In Plant
a simple steam trap. Such a situation typi- Utilities, Chem. Eng., April 2002, pp. 70–73.