POWER CONSUMPTION

HOW TO ADDRESS POWER COST

1. Executive Summary

The cost of MWh will suffer a strong inflation in the coming years while our power
consumption is giving little signs of improvement. Across the Cement Division, our
organisation still has the wrong conviction that value creating projects aiming to
reduce power consumption are very difficult to find.

This document aims to prove that there has been several plants that have succeeded
founding value creating projects to reduce power consumption. This document aims
as well to remind what are the levers to be addressed. Some Success stories are
presented to prove that power consumption can be reduced and that the required
know-how has been captured. A systematic call to Best Practices, Reference
Documents, and existing reports is given to allow the reader, if needed, to drill down
in our Know-How.

2. Cost of MWh :

The average cement division unit cost (USD/MWh) is expected to increase

significantly in the coming years. Our assumptions on the PIP can be considered
quite optimistic if we take into account recent evolutions like in the UK, where the
cost will increase as much as 53% in 2005 since last 2004 forecast:

Cement Division expected Power Cost (PIP)

75
70
65
60
55
50 68,2
61,4 62,8
45
52,5 52,4 51,5
40 49,6 50,3 50,1
45,1
35 39,2

30
2003 2004 P 2005 P 2006 P2007
USD/MWh Cement Division USD/MWh UK USD/MWh Cement Division 2005 Budget

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 1

This trend is confirmed on our 2005 budget: + 5% vs 2004. Our power bill in 2005 will
be 50 MUSD higher than 2004 only because of the inflation of MWh unit cost.

3. Power consumption can be driven down:

The following 4 cases illustrate that power consumption can be driven down without
major investments. In all of the cases below, there has not been any significant
change in technology. In all of them, an addition of specific actions and well managed
circumstances have driven down the power consumption.

• SONADIH:

Sonadih Power Consumption Sonadih Power Cost

68,7
70,0 105,0 9 105
64,6
65,0 61,3 8,5 100
60,0 59,8
60,0 100,3 100,0 8,01
7,92
8 95
55,0
95,2 7,5 90

USD/MWh
50,0 95,0
USD/t

7
45,0 7 6,75 85
90,7 82,81
40,0 90,0 6,5 80,04 80
33,4 88,2 87,8 6,1
35,0 32,5 76,66 76,8
30,8 6 75
29,5 29,4
30,0 85,0
5,5 69,2 70
25,0
20,0 80,0 5 65
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

kwh/t clinker kwh/t finish grinding kwh/t ciment in bin USD/t power USD/MWh

-12% power consumption (-12,5 kWh/t cement) -16% in power cost (-1.26 USD/t cement)
-13% power consumption (-9 kWh/t ck) - 4% in unit cost (- 3 USD/MWh)

In the case of Sonadih, a total of 43 action plans were implemented aiming to reduce
power consumption. The actions ranged from Best Practice implementation to some
modifications on the equipment:

• Cement grinding feed chute modification

• Increased roller press speed
• Modification of raw mill classifier
• Optimisation of C3S content
• Use of bucket elevator for raw mill transport rather than pneumatic transport
• Fan speed optimisation
• ESP fan retrofitting
• Variable speed drives on pumps and fans

For details, read Sonadih Case Study by Ramesh Warke, R.S. Dwivedi, M.M. Mahajan, R.C.
Pathak And B Raghu. (doc. available in easiplus)

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 2

• WOODSTOCK:

Woodstock Power Consumption Woodstock Power Cost

95 140,0 5 4,69 45
4,59
138,0
90 4,5 40
38,22
85 135,0 4 3,75 35,31 35
133,7
80 132,5 3,5 3,26 3,24
30
28,01
3

USD/MWh
75 130,0 26,58
25

USD/t
23,66
70 2,5
90,7 20
65 84,1 125,0 2
82,2
77,9 15
60 74,2 1,5
121,8
55 120,0 120,0 1 10
60,0 58,7
57,7 5
50 52,6 54,6 0,5

45 115,0 0 0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

kwh/t clinker kwh/t finish grinding kwh/t ciment in bin USD/t power USD/MWh

-13% power consumption (-18 kWh/t cement) +41% power cost (+1.33 USD/t) despite
-18% power consumption (-16 kWh/t clinker) +60 % increase in unit cost (+15 USD/MWh)

The power reduction from 1999 can be attributed to the following initiatives:

• Proper allocation of kWh consumption in 2000 (1999 figures were not accurate)
• Quarry power reduction of 1.0 to 1.5 kwh/t as contractors now use generators to crush
some of limestone (for Woodstock and third party sales).
• Use of foundry sand was discontinued in 2003 with an estimated power reduction of 2.5
kwh/t
• Quarry now supplies 20% of the limestone with a size of less than 10 mm (rejects from
screening operations for third party sales). Estimated power reduction 1 Kwh/t.
• Installation of variable speed drives for kiln and cooler ID fans. Estimated power savings 3
kwh/t.
• Additional power savings at the raw grinding due to higher C3S target and increase use of
fly ash in the raw mix.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 3

• LE HAVRE

Le Havre Power Consumption Le Havre Power Cost

95 142,0 7,5 65
141
90 140,0
139 7 60
85 138,0
80 136 136,0 6,5 55
53,84
51,5

USD/MWh
75 134,0
133 6 50

USD/t
70 132,0 7,31
89 7,18
5,5 45
65 85 83 130,0
82 81 42,76 42,42
60 128,0 5 6,01 39,42 40
5,64
55 65 126,0
62 60
59 4,5 4,89 35
50 54 124,0
124
45 122,0 4 30
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

kwh/t clinker kwh/t finish grinding kwh/t ciment in bin USD/t power USD/MWh

- 9 % power consumption (- 8 kWh/t clinker) -23% in unit cost (-12 USD/MWh)

- 11% power consumption (-15 kWh/t ciment in bin) -32% in power cost (-2,3 USD/t)

In the case of Le Havre, a specific action plan was launched in 1996, following an
internal benchmark in Lafarge Ciments (France). A thorough power survey was
conducted and several actions were identified and implemented to reduce the power
consumption.

• replacement of Wedag’s classifier fans by more efficient fans (raw mill and finish mill)
• installation of variable frequency drives on coal mill fans (exhaust and hot gas fans)
• installation of variable frequency drives on cooler fans
• new high efficiency impeller on VT fan
• speed adjustment (diameter of pulleys) on main coal mill fan
• implementation of recommendations from mill audits.

Read “Auscultation Electrique de l’usine du Havre” févr-96 by Rafael Menéndez (doc. Available in
easiplus)

The guidelines to conduct a thorough power survey is given in annexe 1.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 4

• YOZGAT

Yozgat Power Consumption Yozgat Power Cost

90,00 124,00 8 70,2 70

7,5 63,9
65
80,00 120,00
7 60
58,3
70,00 116,00 56,8
6,5 55

USD/MWh
113

USD/t
113
60,00 90 112,00 6 49,9 50
86 111 7,58
79 81 81
5,5 7,1 45
50,00 108,00 6,6
6,43
108
106 5 40
40,00 104,00 5,31
4,5 35
42 41 39 40 41

30,00 100,00 4 30
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

kwh/t clinker kwh/t finish grinding kwh/t ciment in bin USD/t power USD/MWh

- 4 % power consumption (- 5 kWh/t ciment in bin) +15 % in power cost ( USD/t) despite
- 10 % power consumption (-9 kWh/t clinker) +20 % in unit cost ( USD/MWh)

In the case of Yozgat, a specific action plan was launched and several actions were
identified and implemented to reduce power consumption.

• Raw mill material change (new limestone quarry)

• Reduction of %CaCO3 content
• Decrease of mill inlet H2O content
• Raw mill ball charge optimisation
• Improved drying capacity
• Air in-leakage reduction
• Installation of new variable speed drive and blower on burner pipe
• Increased efficiency of cooler ESP fan
• ESP process optimisation
• Inert gas speed adjustment (pulley diameter)
• Replacement of mill-feed fuller pump by bucket elevator
• Stabilisation of KFUI
• Coal mill ball charge optimisation
• Coal mill fan speed optimisation (pulley diameter)
• Increased cosF
• Increased clinker %C3S content
• Cement mill ball charge optimisation.

For details, read “Yozgat Plant Power Consumption decrease” , presentation by Ü. Dilaver Mehter et
S. Mehter. (document available in easiplus)

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 5

4. Common key success factors.

• Fundamentals : power and energy meters in place, power invoices systematically

verified and challenged and power contracts pugnaciously managed
• Acknowledgement that power consumption can be managed and reduced.
• Senior Management commitment (BU, VP manufacturing) to support the initiative,
naming a “BU power champion” to consolidate action plans.
• Managed as a project at plant level with clear responsibilities and deadlines.
• Availability of CAPEX for positive EVA projects.
• Cross functional broad participation of engineering, quality, process, production
and maintenance teams, seeking together for power savings.
• Launched focus groups on quick-win actions.
• Any power saving action welcome. Lots of small/medium actions rather than “one
shot”.
• Communication and visibility of action plans driven by plant manager.

Read “Power Consumption Decrease ATC” (nov.-04) presentation by Gilles Rochard.

(doc. available in easiplus)

5. The “energivore” actors

The following list highlights the major energy consumers in a typical cement plant.
Although figures do not pretend to be exact, they are precise enough to give an idea
of where the efforts should be concentrated.

• Grinding (finish, raw mix and fuel mill motors). 45%

• Process Fans motors (including fans of de-dusting units) 30%
• Transport of material (belts, elevators, fuller pumps) 10%
• Utilities : Compressed air & Water 3%
Source: These figures have been computed from two exhaustive power surveys performed in Saint Pierre La Cour and Le
Havre (both have 1 dry kiln with pre-heater tower and no vertical mills nor roller presses). Different technologies and ck/c ratio
would modify this breakdown.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 6

6. Actions to reduce power consumption.

The following paragraphs are aimed to highlight main topics where specific power
consumption can be reduced. Best Practices (BP’s are available in BPKS database)
and other reference documents (usually available in easiplus database or Le Cas)
are systematically given to facilitate the reader the access to detailed Know-how on
each topic.

• Prerequisites
o Power metering and management
• Best Practice #7: Power metering requirements. Having the
means to monitor Energy consumption is a pre-requisite to allow
proper analysis. Each power bill must be verified (respect of
contract terms) and challenged against our own meters. Energy
consumption and power of each shop must be monitored and
tracked to allow contract and process optimisation.
• Best Practice #13 : Power tracking

o Reliability. Impact of reliability on specific power consumption is huge.

Downtime is the worse actor against energy consumption.
• Best Practice Maintenance #1 : Reliability Committee

• Cement / Clinker ratio

o Although it is a well known lever, it deserves to be highlighted as one of
the most important ones. If we take the division average as a reference,
a +1% increase in C/K ratio results in a power consumption reduction of
0.65 kWh/t of cement.

• Grinding
o Technology and process control
• Best Practice #3 : Ball charge level management.
• Best Practice : Ball charge optimisation
• Best Practice #5 : Ball mill performance and optimisation
• Best Practice #8 : Checking the flow of air through ball mill
• Best Practice : Elimination of scrap and coarse particles in the ball
mill circuit
• Best Practice #11 : Selecting shell liners for ball mills
• Best Practice : Sorting of grinding media
• Best Practice : When to change circumferential liners in ball mills
• Ball Mill Optimisation training module by JP Bayoux and W
Stoiber.

o “Over-Quality” (BP Cement Uniformity and Clinker reactivity)

• Best Practice #1: Optimising power consumption and cement
quality.
• Best Practice #4 : Minimizing over grinding in cement production.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 7

 • Regularity Best Practice #2 : Improvement of cement fineness
using regularity LUCIE mill control

o Grindability and clinker reactivity

• Le Cas 052.07 Increase of cement strength.

• Process Fans
o Technology and process control
• Best Practice #16 : Adjustment of speed to process needs
• Best Practice #6 : Monitoring the performance of fan systems

o Air in-leakage
• Best Practice : False air control in preheater tower.

o Pressure drops (Le cas)

• Le Cas 051.03 Low pressure drop cyclone

• Transport of Material.
o Technology (mechanical vs pneumatic)
• Best Practice: Mechanic versus Pneumatic Transportation system.
• Best Practice: Optimisation of two vessel fluid transport system.
• Utilities : Compressed air & Water
o Optimisation of de-dusting process filters
• Best Practice : Optimisation of Jet Bag Filters

o Optimisation of compressed air network

• Le Cas 59.19 Compressed air system and power savings

o Speed adjustment on water pumps

• Best Practice #16 : Adjustment of speed to process needs

• Iddle running
o Optimisation of start-up / shut-down sequences

o Iddle running while main shop is stopped

• Best Practice : Stopping equipment running without load by
remote control.

• Electrical network and its use

• Best Practice #10 : Power factor adjustment
• Best Practice #2 : Power Peak control
• Best Practice : Diagnosis and Improvement of Power supply
quality.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 8

 Appendix I

HOW TO CONDUCT A POWER SURVEY

The following guideline, is based on the Power Surveys that were primarily
conducted in all Lafarge Asland (Spain) plants in the early nineties. The procedure
was later reproduced in other Business Units as part of the actions of the Three
Years Technical Plan – Energy. Today figures prove that the actions implemented
from these surveys resulted in sustainable savings.

POWER SURVEY GUIDELINE:

• Build a team with the plant process engineer, the electrical engineer, mechanical engineer and
production manager. The team will be responsible to allocate means (human and material) to
succeed the measurement campaign.
o One electrician to perform the measurements
o One process engineer to follow the measurements and perform process measurements in
parallel (pressure drops, gas flows, temperatures, …)
o One mechanical supervisor to answer questions regarding the equipment internals (specs
and condition)
• Build a list of all motors > 75 kW (for a plant of 1 Mt capacity, for smaller plants you can go down
to all motors >35 kW). Visit all MCC and draw the list.
• Measure power consumption on all the motors (I, U, cosphi, P) and take all relevant process
parameters to understand what is the purpose of the energy consumed (theoretical power needed,
will be compared to actual power consumption)
• For grinding shops, take kwh meter readings before and after the power survey as well as
operating parameters (quality, finess, quantity, composition)
• For fans measure flow (Q) and pressure increase (DP) to evaluate the aerodynamic power
transmitted to the fluid (Q*DP) and compare to the actual electrical power. The ratio will give you
the efficiency. N= Q*DP / Power. Use the fan curve to check that the fan is working in efficient
ranges. If the efficiency is < 75%, search for:
o Less energivore technologies (high efficiency impellers, pre-giratory vanes at the inlet)
o Mechanical condition of the fan (clearance and penetration of ear and impeller)
o Speed adjustment (variable speed drives or change of diameter of the pulley)
o Position of the working point on the fan curve (is the fan adjusted for what the system is
demanding)
• Look at all pneumatic transports and compare to volumes conveyed, adding up compressors,
fuller pumps and ancillary equipement. Compute theoretical energy needed by a more efficient
system (elevator + airslide). Compute EVA of system replacement. Look at side savings such as
compressor maintenance (number of hours of the compressor might mean short term
expenditures that could be saved), as well as the impact of air in-leakeage introduced by the
pneumatic transport (i.e.: if the air is introduced before the ID fan, replacement by a mechanical
transport would increase kiln throughput)
• For each power measurement, compute the theoretical energy consumption and compare to
actuals. Build a list of possible actions to close the gap (ball mill optimisation, mechanical vs
pneumatical transport, pulley adjustment, high efficiency impellers, variable speed drives for fans
and for pumps, …). Challenge systematically what is the functional basic need vs the actual
figures.

Hint: Do not forget previous process audits: grinding systems, pyro-processing, air-in leakeage
reductions,…. They are extremely valuable sources of information. Actions that might not have
been implemented in the past, must be revisited in the new context (actual USD/MWh)

• List a summary of potential actions and its savings. For each action, detail the following:
o Short description

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 9

 o Potential impact on specific consumption (kWh/t ck or kWh/t cement)
o Potential impact on power demand (kW).
o Potential impact on manufacturing cost (USD/t)
o Potential savings in USD/year.
o Potential impact on unit cost (USD/MWh)
o First estimate of implementing the modification to achieve the potential impact

Hint: regarding power consumption, there is no “small” savings. All projects decreasing
power consumption must be welcome whatever the amount of savings is. Experience in
this area shows that a high number of small/medium actions are more likely to happen than
big projects.

• Once the list has been set, organize a meeting with all departments to brainstorm on the way to
decide a formal action plan with who does what and when.

Power consumption report/DPC/RMA 03/2005 10