Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Greenhouse Gas Reductions
By: Aivars E. Krumins, ABB Lummus Global
Presented at: 10th Ethylene Seminar

La Jolla, California
April 15 – 17, 2002
PUB-ETH-014
Presented by Greenhouse Gas
Aivars E. Krumins Reductions
ABB Lummus Global
© ABB Lummus Global - 1 -
10th Ethylene Seminar -
Confidential Information
This presentation contains confidential information.
No part may be duplicated nor disclosed to others without the
prior written consent of ABB Lummus Global.
PUB-ETH-014 Page 2 of 29
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reductions
Petrochemical Industry Setting Aggressive Targets for

GHG Reductions
Technology based GHG Reductions are possible
10% with Gas Turbine/Heater Integration
7% with Steam cracker/OCU Integration for Constant C3-
12% by applying all new technology concepts introduced
© ABB Lummus Global - 2
It is not unusual to see headlines like the one behind me about global warming.
The public, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all react and put pressure
on governments on industry to take action.
Governments then initiate regulations which industry must meet.
The petrochemical industry is concerned with its neighbors and its shareholders
and wants to have balanced playing field.
Most are taking a proactive strategy that will minimize the costs for meeting any
new requirements.
Agenda
Agenda
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

GHG reduction solutions
Gas turbine/cracking heaters integration
Steam cracker/OCU integration
In this presentation, I will give an overview on GHG emissions complementing

what has already been presented by BP in their paper.
The presentation will discuss two options for GHG reduction.
The first is to revisit GT Integration with cracking heaters and how the current
environment may affect your decision.
The second option is to look at steam cracker/olefins conversion integration.

Earlier, it was noted that this option resulted in energy savings. We will discuss
this in more detail here.
Overview
Kyoto Protocol
‘97 Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions

to 1990 levels by 2000
to at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 & 2012
Everyone is well familiar with or has at least heard about the Kyoto Protocol.
It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2000 and to reduce
to at least 5% below 1990 levels between the commitment period of 2008 to
2012.
Overview
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Carbon Dioxide - CO2

Methane Gas - CH4 (21x CO2)
Nitrous Oxide - N2O (310x CO2)
Hydroflourocarbons - HFCs (140x - 11,700x CO2)
Perfluorcarbons - PFCs (6,500x - 9,200x CO2)
Sulfur hexafluoride - SF6 (23,900x CO2)
What are green house gas (GHG) emissions?
GHG emissions refer to Global Warming Potential (GWP), which identifies a

compound’s effectiveness at trapping heat over a 100-year period relative to
CO2.
CO2, methane, and N2O are both natural and anthropogenic

(human-created) occurring. Fluorocarbons are strictly anthropogenic.
The five compounds contributing to GHG emissions, in addition to CO2, are:
• Methane - typically associated with gas flaring/venting in oil & gas exploration.
• Nitrous oxide - not necessarily the NOx that we in the ethylene industry think
of, but N2O that is associated with nitric acid plants for fertilizer production.
• Finally, there are the three fluorocarbons listed above.
As you can see, the CO2 equivalency increases dramatically with each
subsequent compound listed.
Overview
Kyoto GHG country reductions
0%
-8%
-6%
-7%
-6%
+8%
The reduction requested is a minimum of 5% below 1990 levels between the

commitment period 2008 to 2012 globally.
The ongoing debate regarding the Kyoto Protocol by countries and industry is
that the requirement severely impacts the developed countries and not
necessarily the developing countries.
The map represents the only regions that have commitments within the Kyoto
Protocol.
Depending on a company’s overall GHG picture, this can become a very

challenging goal.
Let me discuss briefly what is taking place in the European Union and in the
United States.
Overview
EU council directive 96/61/EC
Applicability
New Installations/major modifications from October 31, 1999
All existing facilities from October 2007
Activities Covered:
Emissions to Air
Emissions to Water
Solid Wastes Disposal
Efficient Use of Energy
Conservation of Feedstocks
Noise Generation
Decommissioning and Return of Land to a “Satisfactory State”

Accident Prevention
Ref: “Facing Up to the Challenge of Zero Emissions”. R. W. Matthews (BP

Chemicals). Presented at Y2000 EPC Meeting in Atlanta, GA.
At the 2000 EPC meeting in Atlanta, Roger Matthews of BP gave a good

overview of the situation in Europe.
The EU has been very active in pushing GHG emissions reduction and has
already enacted legislation, the EU Council Directive 96/61/EC, which applies to
all new installations/major modifications from October, 1999 and must be
incorporated into all facilities by October, 2007.
The activities covered included not only emissions to air and water and solid
wastes disposal, but also efficient use of energy, conservation of feedstocks,
noise generation, decommissioning and return of land to a “Satisfactory State”
and accident prevention.
Overview
U. S. Global Climate Change Policy
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the

U. S. Economy by 18% in the Next 10 Years.
Reduce GHG Emission Intensity 18% Over the Next
Decade
190
no improvement (183 tons in 2002)
MT C equivalent/106 US$ GDP,
180
current efforts
(14%)
2001 dollars
170 national goal

(18% decline to
151 tons in 2012)
160
150
140
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Yr
Ref: U. S. Global Climate Change Policy Final Report. February 14, 2002
Everyone is well aware that the United States has not agreed to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol. However, the USA did not withdraw from the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (1992) which calls for action.
Very recently, the Bush administration announced the US Global Climate

Change Policy where it has committed to reduce GHG intensity of the US
Economy by 18% over the next 10 years, (that is by 2012).
The policy objective is to slow the growth of GHG emissions while sustaining the
economic growth needed to finance investment in new, clean energy
technologies.
Overview
US olefins industry GHG contribution
US Study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

80% of GHG emissions from CO2
40% of GHG emissions due to fossil fuels from manufacturing
industry
20% of manufacturing industry energy consumed by chemical
industry
50% of chemical industry energy consumed by
ethylene producers
ammonia producers
chlorine producers
CONCLUSION: Ethylene industry is small percentage

overall, however, it has high visibility

Ref: “Energy Use in the Chemical Process Industry.” E. Worrell, D. Phylipsen,

D. Einstein, N. Martin (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). Workshop
Proceedings on Carbon Reduction Technology Opportunities for CPI. March,
1999.
If you assume that the ethylene producers are 1/3 of the chemical industry
energy consumers, the figures above work out that the olefins industry
contributes 1% of CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels.
Overview
EU olefins industry contribution
European crackers typical energy efficiency

3600 to 4800 kcal/kg of High Valued Chemicals
[Equivalent] 0.7 to 1.3 t CO2/t HV Chemicals
Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

November, 2000.
The Lower Olefins Shadow Group was appointed by the EEPC to provide plant
data on energy consumption. The survey results were based on 42 out of 59
crackers in Western Europe.
This information was part of the BREF = BAT Reference Document, which is to
be issued by the European Commission.
Overall the typical energy efficiency in Europe was 15 to 20 GJ/t of HV chemicals

and 0.7 to 1.3 t CO2/t HV chemicals.
Many of you are participants in the annual surveys by Solomon Associates,

which defines HV chemicals as high purity hydrogen, ethylene, propylene,
butadiene, and benzene production.
Overview
Energy Consumption of Crackers

Overview
12 (MMkcal / t Ethylene)
10
Number of Plants
0
<6 .0 6.0-6 .5 6.5 -6.9 6.9-7 .4 7.4 -7.9 7.9-8 .4 8.4 -8.8 8 .8 -9.6 >9.6

November, 2000.
The survey indicated that referencing energy consumption to tons of ethylene

resulted in quite a wide range in energy consumption, as this does not distinguish
between gas crackers and liquid crackers.
Overview
Energy Consumption of Crackers

Overview
(MMkcal / t H.V. Chemicals)
10
8
Number of Plants
0
<3.6 3.6-3.8 3.8-4.1 4.1-4.3 4.3-4.5 4.5-4.8 >4.8


November, 2000.
Using HV chemicals limits this range.
Overview
Emission of Crackers
Overview
14 (t CO2 / t Ethylene)
12
Number of Plant s
10
8
6
4
2
0
<1.5 1.5-1. 8 1.8-2. 1 2.1-2. 4 2.4-2.7 >2.7


November, 2000.
A similar effect is seen with the emissions summaries as you have a skewed
distribution at the lower end.
Overview
Emission of Crackers
Overview
16 (t CO2 / t H.V. Chemicals)
14
12
Nu mn er of Pl an ts
10
8
6
4
2
0
<0.7 0.7-0.85 0.85-1.0 1.0-1.15 1.15-1.3 >1.30

November, 2000.
When you define them in terms of HV chemicals, you get a traditional bell shape
curve.
Overview
Worldwide
petrochemical industry reaction
Look to exceed Kyoto requirements

Atofina - achieved 40% reduction in GHGs by 2000
BP - 10% below 1990 levels by 2010
ExxonMobil - 37% energy reduction between 1973 and 1998
and anticipate another 15% savings in the coming years
Shell - on target to achieve 11% below 1990 by 2002
The petrochemical industry is not sitting idly by waiting to see what governments
are going to do.
References:
“Environmental Report - 2000”. Atofina - a large contribution has been in the

fluorocarbon area.
www.bp.com/climate change policy BP - was already discussed before
Remarks by Rene Dahan, Director/Exec VP for ExxonMobil Corp at Oil-Money

Conference, London, October 31, 2001.
“People, Planet & Profits - The Shell Report”. 2000
Overview
Petrochemical industry objective
To identify technologies and practices that can positively

affect energy efficiency and GHG emissions
Examples
Repair leaking valves, flare gas recovery systems
Reduce flaring & venting in oil & gas exploration
Energy savings studies
New catalysts for N2O reduction
Emissions trading
Agenda
Agenda
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

GHG reduction solutions
GHG GHG reduction
Solutions
opportunities in olefins units

GHG Gas turbine/cracking heaters
Solutions
integration
Super High Pressure Steam
CRACKING
HEATERS
Fuel Supply
Combustion Air 500°C

Compressor Distribution Header
Electrical
Generator
Turbine
Ambient
Air
Fuel
GAS TURBINE SYSTEM

Solutions
integration
Gas Turbine
Case No Gas Turbine Integration
Gas Turbine Power, MW 0 46
Fuel Fired, MM kcal/h

Heaters 670 645
Gas Turbine 0 113
Total 670 759
SHP Steam Production, t/h 460 534
Specific Energy Consumption

kcal/kg C2- 5060 4400
Annual Operation Cost Savings Base 11.9

@ $20 / MM kcal
Investment MM$ Base 42

Simple Payout years Base 3.5

This slide summarizes gas turbine/cracking heater integration for a large cracker.
As has historically been the case, gas turbine integration typically has a good
payout.
Solutions
integration
CO2 emissions comparison
Gas Turbine
Case No Gas Turbine Integration
Cracker, t/h CO2 Base +19.5
Power plant, t/h CO2 Base -24.7
Boiler SHP Steam, t/h CO2 Base -13.0
Net, t/h CO2 Base -18.2
CO2 Credits, million$/yr

@$20/t CO2 Base 2.9
Revised Payout, years Base 2.8

The net affect of considering the potential value of reduced CO2 emissions is a
reduction in the payout time by 0.7 years based on a $20/t value for CO2.
The basis for the CO2 valuation is taken from Shell’s 2000 Report “People,
Planet & Profits”. In this report Shell indicates that they are using CO2 valuation
as part of their investment decisions - $5/t for projects prior to 2010 and $20/t for
post 2010 projects.
Solutions
integration
Highest overall plant efficiency

Lowest Overall GHG Emissions
Valuation of CO2 can impact project economics
Lummus GT/Heater Integration is characterized by
Experience since early seventies
In operation in 11 Lummus plants
Flexible to operate with/without GT exhaust
Control philosophy to handle operation any upset conditions
Reliability with high on-stream operating factor, 99+%
The growing issue of GHG emissions is already forcing companies to view

energy savings projects differently. Historically, the plants built in the 1980s were
driven by high, or rather, anticipated high energy costs.
In the 1990s, the cost of energy didn’t justify energy savings features, so a little
energy was sacrificed in the interest of reducing costs.
What we are seeing currently is that energy savings is coming back into vogue.
This is partially due by the recent rise in energy costs, but is driven even more by
new Climate Change Policies and related regulations.
What has been shown in the previous slides is that the Gas Turbine/Cracking
Heater Integration will yield the highest overall plant efficiency resulting in the
lowest overall GHG emissions. In other studies, not shown here, integrating the
gas turbine with a cracking heater improves the specific energy by 550 kcal/kg
C2- relative to a gas turbine integrated with a boiler.
Lummus has the most experience of any contractor in gas turbine integration.
This results in a very reliable, flexible and safe operation.
GHG
Solutions Olefins conversion technology
Ethylene
Pretreatment
Pretreatment Preheat
Preheat OCT
OCT
Butylene
Product
Product
Fractionation
Fractionation
Ethylene/Butylene Gasoline
Recycle
Propylene Product
Purges
We will now examine the energy efficiency improvement as it pertains to steam

cracker/olefins conversion integration.
GHG
Solutions Steam cracker/OCU Integration
Constant propylene production
Steam Cracker Steam Cracker
Alone with OCU
Propylene to Ethylene Ratio 0.67 0.67
Material Balance Impact, kTA

Naphtha Feed Consumption 2104 2072 98%
Ethylene Production 680 680
Propylene Production 460 460
Benzene Production 141 212 150%
Remaining Pygas Production 445 270 60%
Energy Consumption, kcal/kg C2- 6015 5549 92%
Operating Margin Impact MM$/yr

Gross Margin 383 394
Energy Cost 78 72
Net Margin 305 322 106%

The theme of this conference has been to introduce you to our new technology
developments. A lot has already been discussed with regards to improvements
in gross and net margins and reductions in investment costs.
As has been mentioned before, the energy saving benefit is not intuitively
obvious when you initially compare the steam cracker/OCU integration with a
standalone steam cracker for a maximum propylene operation.
GHG
Higher severity cracking reduces energy consumption
while maintaining propylene production
less plant throughput
lower compressor horsepower
Lower fresh feed consumption
30% of propylene is produced by metathesis not thermal
cracking
Fuel fired reduced by 8%
Heater feed drops by 12%
GHG
CO2 emissions impact
Steam Cracker Steam Cracker
Alone with OCU
Ethylene Plant & OCU Only
Energy Consumption,
kcal/kg HVCs 3285 2928
CO2 Emissions, t CO2/t HVCs 0.72 0.64
Petrochemical Complex (ISBL Units)
CO2 Emissions, kTA 1026 951

CO2 Value, MM$/yr

@ $ 5/t CO2 Base 0.38

@$ 20/t CO2 Base 1.50
The slide references the energy consumption in terms of high valued chemicals
(HVCs) as is used in the Solomon Associates surveys for ethylene plants.
The CO2 emissions calculated above considers not only the ethylene plant, but
the olefins conversion unit, pygas hydrogenation unit and the aromatics
extraction unit.
If you only consider the ethylene plant and OCU unit energy consumption, the
specific energy is 2928 kcal/kg HVCs which is within 7% of an Energy Efficiency
Index (EEI) of 100.
GHG
Solutions Conclusions
GT/cracking heater integration is the most efficient

approach for a PC complex
Global CO2 reduction of 146 kTA (10%)
Potential CO2 credits of $2.9 million/yr
OCU - not just about propylene
Most efficient olefins cracker possible - 2928 kcal/kg HVCs
CO2 reduction of 75 kTA (7%) for a 680 kTA cracker ISBL Units
Potential CO2 credits of $1.5 million/yr
Gas turbine integration with a cracking heater should be considered as part of

any petrochemical complex overall energy balance.
The OCU/steam cracker integration for constant ethylene production will yield
one of the most energy efficient ethylene plants in the world.
If companies intend to act proactively to climate change issues, then CO2

valuation needs to be part of any economic analysis.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse Gas Reductions

By: Aivars E. Krumins, ABB Lummus Global

Presented at: 10th Ethylene Seminar

 Petrochemical Industry Setting Aggressive Targets for

Governments then initiate regulations which industry must meet.

 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

In this presentation, I will give an overview on GHG emissions complementing

The presentation will discuss two options for GHG reduction.

The second option is to look at steam cracker/olefins conversion integration.

 ‘97 Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions

 Carbon Dioxide - CO2

What are green house gas (GHG) emissions?

GHG emissions refer to Global Warming Potential (GWP), which identifies a

CO2, methane, and N2O are both natural and anthropogenic

The five compounds contributing to GHG emissions, in addition to CO2, are:

• Finally, there are the three fluorocarbons listed above.

The reduction requested is a minimum of 5% below 1990 levels between the

Depending on a company’s overall GHG picture, this can become a very

Decommissioning and Return of Land to a “Satisfactory State”

Ref: “Facing Up to the Challenge of Zero Emissions”. R. W. Matthews (BP

At the 2000 EPC meeting in Atlanta, Roger Matthews of BP gave a good

 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the

170 national goal

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Very recently, the Bush administration announced the US Global Climate

 US Study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

CONCLUSION: Ethylene industry is small percentage

overall, however, it has high visibility

Ref: “Energy Use in the Chemical Process Industry.” E. Worrell, D. Phylipsen,

 European crackers typical energy efficiency

Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

Overall the typical energy efficiency in Europe was 15 to 20 GJ/t of HV chemicals

Many of you are participants in the annual surveys by Solomon Associates,

Energy Consumption of Crackers

Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

The survey indicated that referencing energy consumption to tons of ethylene

Energy Consumption of Crackers

<3.6 3.6-3.8 3.8-4.1 4.1-4.3 4.3-4.5 4.5-4.8 >4.8

Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

Using HV chemicals limits this range.

<1.5 1.5-1. 8 1.8-2. 1 2.1-2. 4 2.4-2.7 >2.7

Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

Ref: Lower Olefins Process BREF, Crackers Energy Consumption Survey.

 Look to exceed Kyoto requirements

“Environmental Report - 2000”. Atofina - a large contribution has been in the

www.bp.com/climate change policy BP - was already discussed before

Remarks by Rene Dahan, Director/Exec VP for ExxonMobil Corp at Oil-Money

“People, Planet & Profits - The Shell Report”. 2000

 To identify technologies and practices that can positively

 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

 Gas turbine/cracking heaters integration

Combustion Air 500°C

GAS TURBINE SYSTEM

Gas Turbine Power, MW 0 46

Fuel Fired, MM kcal/h

SHP Steam Production, t/h 460 534

Specific Energy Consumption

Annual Operation Cost Savings Base 11.9

Investment MM$ Base 42

Simple Payout years Base 3.5

Cracker, t/h CO2 Base +19.5

Power plant, t/h CO2 Base -24.7

Boiler SHP Steam, t/h CO2 Base -13.0

Net, t/h CO2 Base -18.2

Petrochemical Industry Setting Aggressive Targets for

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

‘97 Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions

Carbon Dioxide - CO2

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the

US Study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

European crackers typical energy efficiency

Look to exceed Kyoto requirements

To identify technologies and practices that can positively

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Overview

Gas turbine/cracking heaters integration

Highest overall plant efficiency

GT/cracking heater integration is the most efficient