OPTIMIZING COGENERATION CONFIGURATION USING CHP MODELS

Jimmy D Kumana, Energy Systems Unit, CSD

Energy Conservation and Cogeneration Symposium, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

November 2-3, 2002

====================================================================

ABSTRACT

CHP is an abbreviation for Combined Heat and Power. CHP modeling is a powerful technique
that has many of uses, the main ones being to calculate accurate energy costs under varying
process conditions, and real time optimization of the CHP operating policy. A corollary
application is to determine the optimum cogeneration system configuration. This paper
describes how CHP modeling was applied at Ju’aymah Gas Plant (JGP).

The plant currently purchases 60 MW from SEC and generates about 1.6 MM lb/h of steam.
An energy optimization study of the plant showed that approximately 10 MW of this demand
can be eliminated through conservation and power recovery measures. Several alternative CHP
scenarios were evaluated using the simulation model. It was found that the optimum CHP
strategy is to use a single 30 MW back-pressure steam turbine, and purchase the remaining
power demand of 20 MW from SEC. Using Saudi Aramco’s traditional approach to
cogeneration system sizing, the solution would have been a 93 MW GT/HRSG system,
including generation of an additional 1 MM lb/h steam.

INTRODUCTION

The senior management of Saudi Aramco identified cogeneration of steam and power as an
important strategy for cost reduction and conservation of the Kingdom’s energy resources. An
Energy Management Steering Committee (EMSC) was created in late 2001 to oversee the
company’s energy conservation and cogeneration program. The energy conservation program
is being spearheaded by CSD, and the cogeneration program by FPD. Cost savings potential
has been estimated at 25% and 35% respectively. The corporate goal is to achieve the full
savings potential over a period of 10 years, starting in 2002.

CSD undertook the first Detailed Energy Assessment study at JGP in November 2001 [Ref 1].
The study was completed in June 2002. It included a consideration of several energy
optimization techniques, including

• Heat recovery (using pinch analysis)

• Power recovery (using gas expanders)
• Power conservation (adjustable speed drives for motors)
• Optimizing the steam and power balance (using CHP simulation models)

Optimizing the steam and power balance includes modeling and analysis of alternative
cogeneration configurations. The CHP models for JGP were constructed using an Excel

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 1 of 11

spreadsheet, combined with a steam system modeling software (Pro-Steam) as an add-in. The
strategy was to create a single superstructure that included all possible design features such as

• Back-pressure steam turbines

• HP Condensing steam turbine, with extraction ports
• LP Condensing steam turbines, with inlet heating
• Steam driven absorption chiller
• Gas turbine with hot exhaust used directly in the boilers
• Gas turbine with HRSG, operating in combined cycle mode

Then each alternative was explored either individually, or in combination with others. Once
the superstructure has been created, it is possible to do a complete simulation of any scenario
within two to four hours, through the use of on/off switches that are built into the algorithm.
The model must be developed at the right level of detail. Too simple a model does not provide
the necessary fidelity and the discrimination between alternatives to make a good decision.
Too complex a model makes it unwieldy, and difficult to use by the average engineer.

There is significant precedent for the foregoing approach. The “total site” approach of Pinch
Technology has been proven to yield the optimum cogeneration system design, and is well
documented in the published literature over the last 10 years [Refs 2-10].

CASE STUDY – JU’AYMAH GAS PLANT

The Ju’aymah plant is designed to process liquid feedstocks from the upstream gas plants to
make value-added products, both for domestic use and export. The feedstocks are C2+ from
SGP/UGP, C3+ from Berri, and C4 from RTR. There are three identical fractionation trains.
Total nominal processing capacity at the present time for combined C2+ and C3+ feeds is 555
mbd. The actual average combined feed rate during the test period 5/1/2001 to 4/30/2002 was
456 mbd, with a peak of 634 mbd. Actual rates exceed nominal design rates 6.3% of the time.

JGP Feed Rates, May 01 to Apr 02

700

600

500

400
MBD

300

200

100

0
1

21

41

61

81

101

121

141

161

181

201

221

241

261

281

301

321

341

361

Day of year

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 2 of 11

Similarly total steam generation rates from all seven boilers with a combined design capacity of
3250 Klb/h were plotted to determine the frequency distribution of the load, and to correlate the
steam load versus the feed rate. The results are shown graphically in Figures 1 through 3.

JGP May 01 to Apr 02

2500

2000
Total Stm Gen, Klb/h

1500

1000

500

0
1
20

39
58

77

96
115

134
153

172

191
210

229
248

267

286
305

324
343

362
Day of year

Steam Generation vs Feed rate

2500

2000
Steam Gen, Klb/h

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Feed Rate, MBD

The steam rate correlates linearly with combined feed rate:

Steam Generation, Klb/h = 500 + 2.6 x (combined feed rate, MBD)

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 3 of 11

Similarly, the average purchased power also correlates with the feed rate:

Purchased power, MW = 5 + 0.12 x (combined feed rate, MBD)

90

80

70
Purchased Power, MW

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1
19
37
55
73
91
109
127
145
163
181

199
217
235
253
271
289
307

325
343
361
Day of Year

JGP Power Data 5/01 - 4/02

120

100

80
Avg MW

60

40

20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Feed Rate, MBD

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 4 of 11

A project to debottleneck the existing 3 trains and to add a 4th fractionation train is being
considered, and a DBSP has been prepared by FPD. The future capacity of each train is
planned to be 225 mbd, or 900 mbd total. There is a corollary project to install a 93 MW
cogeneration plant with 1 MM lb/h additional steam generation.

We can use the data presented above to estimate the required steam and power requirements of
the proposed new cogeneration system. First we have to decide which of the technological
improvements identified during the study will be implemented. Assuming that all those that
met the technical and economic feasibility criteria will be implemented, the steam balances for
the optimized 3-Mods and 4 Mods cases were obtained by simulation modeling as follows:

Table 1. Steam Balances for 3- and 4-Mod Operation

Existing 3 Mods Optimized 3 Mods Optimized 4 Mods

Basis Feed rate, MBD 555 555 900
Avg Feed Rate, MBD 456 456 740
Avg Steam Gen, Klb/h 1660 1538 2046
Avg 150# reqd, Klb/h 915 795 1060
Avg 65 # reqd, Klb/h 524 572 763

Similarly, the electrical power consumption for the plant at the future design rate of 900 mbd
was extrapolated to 74.4 MW, as shown in Table 2. The units that will actually experience an
increase in flow rate have been multiplied by 1.62 (= 900/555); the ones that will not have been
left as they are.

Table 2. Electrical Power Consumption based on 2001 Data

3 Mods 4 Mods
Feed and surge 3573 5794
Fractionation 15002 24324
Rerun 2059 3339
NG production 1559 1559
Injection/reproduction 1147 1147
Refrigeration 31230 31230
Utilities 4317 6993
Total, kw 58887 74386

There is a built-in assumption in this analysis that actual operating rates in the future will
continue to be approximately 70% of installed capacity, as this appears to be the de facto plant
operating policy in order to provide the operators with plenty of margin for error, regardless of
increased cost to the company.

The existing steam and power balance (averaged over a 1 year period, from PI data) is shown in
Figure 6. Steam generation rates calculated by the model do not agree exactly with the metered
values because the model does not account for losses, but they are close enough (within 10%)

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 5 of 11

that we can be confident of the overall economics and conclusions. The total power
requirement is 86.4 MW of which 27.5 MW is currently being cogenerated in back-pressure
steam turbines (direct drives), and the balance of 58.9 MW is purchased from SEC.

The energy conservation and power recovery projects identified by our study (for 3 Mods)
showed savings potential of approximately 10 MW in power consumption. Other projects
saved 65 Klb/h of 60 psig steam, and shifted 120 Klb/h of 160 psig steam users to 65 psig. We
have also identified high process variability (peak to average operating rates are around 1.35)
as one of the principal causes of poor energy efficiency and excessive investment in equipment
capacity. Our study has recommended process modifications that will help minimize this
variability. This, then, became our new baseline steam balance (Case 0). A number of
alternative cogeneration scenarios were evaluated by simulation, as described briefly below:

Existing: Current operations, based on 2001 average rates

Case 0: Assumes implementation of our recommended energy conservation projects totaling
11.9 MW of power savings, plus 65 Klb/h of 65 psig steam savings from heat recovery and
shifting of 120 Klb/h of 160 psig steam load to 65 psig.
Case 1: Case 0, plus a single new 30 MW extraction-type back-pressure steam turbine
generator. A new 60 psig steam header from the utilities area to the fractionation modules will
have to be installed.
Case 2: Case 1, plus a 2nd back-pressure steam turbine (9 MW) operating between 160/65
psig. This would be achieved by switching several users currently being supplied from the MP
header to the new LP header.
Case 3: Case 1, plus a new 20 MW condensing steam turbine. The extra steam flow would
come from operating the boilers at a higher rate.
Case 4: Case 1, plus a small 14 MW gas turbine, with the exhaust (containing 15% O2) being
used as preheated air to the boilers.
Case 5: Case 0, plus a new 45 MW gas turbine, with the exhaust (containing 15% O2) being
used as preheated air to the boilers.

The results for cases 0 through 5 are summarized in Table 3 above. They show very clearly
that Case 1 (30 MW back-pressure steam turbine) is the best by far, much superior to Case 5
(44 MW gas turbine). We did not attempt to simulate a 93 MW GT/HRSG scenario, as it was
sure to show even worse economic payback, especially since there is no market for the surplus
power that would be produced.

Other scenarios were also considered, eg. a condensing turbine using LP steam (saved in the
process by additional heat recovery) as the inlet, and introduction of new 15 psig steam header
for use in driving an absorption chiller. They are not presented as the economics were
extremely poor.

There is a proposal being considered by FPD to include the electrical demand of Ju’aymah
Terminal as part of the project. In that case, the design electrical loads will increase by 20 MW
for all cases, and the large gas turbine option (case 5), especially for the 4 Mods scenario,
becomes relatively more attractive. The steam and power balances obtained by simulation for
cases 1 and 5 (3 mods operation) are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 6 of 11

 Table 3: Comparison of Cogeneration Options for 3 Mod Operation

Cap cost Base

MM$ Existing Case 0 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Power consumption, MW 0 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4
Power savings n/a 0 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Existing Cogen (DD) 0 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5
New BPST - 630/65 psig 18.10 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3
New BPST - 160/65 11.54 8.7
Condensing ST - 630/0 9.00 18.6
Small GT 16.49 14.3
Big GT 38.22 44.6
Net purchase from SEC, MW 58.9 47.0 18.7 10.0 0.1 4.4 2.4

Steam Generated in boilers, Klb/h 1523.4 1453 1538.3 1518.3 1827.3 1538.4 1450.0
Fuel use in boilers, MMBtu/h 2108 2031 2012 1990 2452 2094 2150
Net Operating Costs, MM$/yr 37.20 33.63 27.08 25.07 27.53 24.74 24.88
Incremental O&M costs, MM$/yr n/a 0.00 0.71 0.93 1.18 1.07 1.12
Net Savings compared to Case 0 -3.57 0 5.84 7.62 4.92 7.82 7.63

Incremental capital over Case 0 n/a 0 18.1 29.6 27.1 34.6 38.2
Incremental Payback vs Case 0, yr n/a n/a 3.1 3.9 5.5 4.4 5.0
Incremental payback vs Case 1, yr 6.5 -9.8 8.3 11.2

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusion is that for 3 Mods operation, the optimum cogeneration system consists of a 30
MW back-pressure steam turbine, no gas turbine, and no additional steam generation.

For 4 Mods operation, the conclusion is similar, but could change if 20 MW of power
consumption at Juaymah Terminal is included as part of this project. This scenario was not
evaluated. In any case these results are at significant variance from the originally proposed 93
MW cogeneration system design.

What is the explanation for the previously proposed design being so far off the optimum?

1. The previous design basis did not account for process technology improvements in the last
20 years. Instead, it assumed exact replication of the old design.
2. The company has generally followed a philosophy to standardize the cogeneration system
to one particular configuration for all projects, because it will then presumably be familiar
to all the operators at all the plants. The one FPD has selected is a gas turbine with heat
recovery steam generator, operated in combined cycle mode. Our study has shown that the
optimum design cannot be standardized, as it varies with each particular situation.
3. The company has tended to size equipment for some for the nominal “design” case, rather
than a realistic expected operating rate. If the design rate is too far above the actual average
rate, then we are wasting capital in needlessly oversized equipment.
4. The current boiler sparing philosophy of N+2, which often translates de facto into N+3, is
extremely wasteful not only of capital, but energy as well. Most other companies,

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 7 of 11

 operating in an economically competitive environment, use N+1 or even N+0. The extra
capital cost burden to Aramco cannot be economically justified.
At present, the dominant criterion for cogeneration system selection and sizing appears to be
operator convenience rather than good economics.

We are recommending that future selection and sizing of cogeneration systems should be
determined using the approach used at JGP, viz. an energy optimization study that includes
CHP modeling. Furthermore, the author personally believes that the company would be better
off investing in upgrading the capabilities of the operating/maintenance staff than in purchasing
over-sized equipment.

REFERENCES

1. Saudi Aramco report no. SAER 5845, “Energy Conservation Opportunity Assessment
Study”, June 2002 (draft).

2. H W Klavers, J D Kumana and M A Rutkowski, “A New Method for Integrated

Process/Utility Design”, presented at AIChE National Meeting, San Francisco, Ca (Nov
1989)

3. J D Kumana, “Thermodynamically Rigorous Approach to CHP System Design”,

presented at 21st Industrial Energy Technology Conference, Houston, Tx (May 1999)

4. J D Kumana, “CHP Models for Energy Optimization”, invited paper presented at Pfizer
Process Engineering Conference, Boston, Ma (Oct 26th, 2000)

5. J D Kumana, “Use Spreadsheet-Based CHP Models to Identify and Evaluate Energy Cost
Reduction Opportunities in Industrial Plants”, Proceedings of 23rd Industrial Energy
Technology Conference, Houston, Tx (May 2001)

6. B Linnhoff et al, “User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy”,
Gulf Publishing Co, Houston (1994).

7. R Nath, J D Kumana and J F Holliday, “Optimum Dispatching of Plant Utility Systems to

Minimize Cost and Local NOx Emissions”, Proc of ASME’s Industrial Power
Conference, New Orleans, La (Mar 1992)

8. A Rudman, “Process Integration: Planning your Total Site”, Chemical Technology

Europe, (Jan/Feb 1995).

9. R Skelland and E A Petela “Optimization of Total Site Energy and Utility Systems using
Pinch Analysis Concepts”, Kemia-Kemi, Vol 20, no.4 (1993).

10. R Smith, “Chemical Process Design”, McGraw-Hill Inc, New York (1995).

Saudi Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 Page 8 of 11

 Figure 6. Simulation model output for Existing Operation

Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 page 9 of 11

 Figure 7: Simulation model output for Case 1 (recommended optimum) for 3 Fractionation Modules

Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 page 10 of 11

 Figure 8: Simulation model output for Case 5 (Gas Turbine without BPST)

Aramco Energy Symposium, Dammam, Nov 2002 page 11 of 11