Generating Electricity with Your Steam System: Keys to Long Term Savings

1. Generating Electricity with Your Steam System: Keys to Long Term Savings May 19th, 2010 Industrial Energy Technology Conference Bill Bullock / Andrew Downing – Turbosteam

2. How Most Power Is Generated

3. Generating Power With Your Steam System

4. Rewards Risks Electricity Savings Lower Emissions Improved Operating Characteristics (Power Factor, Reliability) Releases electrical infrastructure capacity Completion Risk – Installation Done Correctly Performance Risk – Turbine Maintains Performance Over Economic Life Operating Risk – Turbine Maintenance

5. Quantifying the Opportunity There is a Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) in place There is an opportunity or need to install new boilers There is a desire to increase energy efficiency

6. Design Considerations • Pressure and temperature conditions – factoring in losses from steam piping design • Design the turbine to what the pressure will be at inlet, not what it leaves the boiler • 10 psig difference at inlet can mean $30,000 or more a year in electric savings • Minimize distance from high pressure header to the inlet of turbine

7. Design Considerations • Verify that you have dry and saturated steam. Moisture in steam can destroy your investment • 98% quality steam can impact power output by 10% costing you thousands in savings and tens of thousands in repairs • Water chemistry is vital to the protection against corrosion

8. Design Considerations • Install a reliably accurate steam flow meter at the proposed tie in for the steam turbine. Measure your annual steam flow. • Measure the pressure and temperature at location, don’t assume anything • Chose the low cost, best impact equipment Actual steam passing through PRV, not out of boiler Use reliable pressure and temperature transmitters such as Spirax Sarco or Rosemount Recorded Steam flow for 8,760 hours to get an accurate historical trend

9. Selecting Steam Turbine Use a systematic approach to turbine sizing to provide the optimal economic solution Steam Load Design for peak? Max kW, penalized on turndown 25,000 20,000 Design for max annual kWh? 15,000 lbs/hr 10,000 Design for baseload? Max capital utilization High $/kW 5,000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 15 minute increments There is no universal optimum: depends upon capital cost, system operating profiles, energy rates and financial objectives.

10. Selecting Steam Turbine • Choose a turbine that is going to give you optimal turn down efficiency • Match your annual steam flow to the window of operation • Understand what happens below and above your turbines performance curve • Installing automatic handvalves are recommended for steam flows that vary hourly or even daily

11. Determine your Savings Perform an analysis of a before and after based on your historical steam flow

12. Case Study – Delmonte The Del Monte Foods plant is a former tomato processing plant that currently packages fruit. • The system consisted of two separate single stage turbines coupled to a dual shafted induction motor • Steam flow demand changed based on process requirements. This option gave the lowest cost, highest turn down efficiency. • Winter steam flow falls off significantly and summer steam flow increases as the harvest season approaches

13. Case Study – Delmonte Turbine Designs • First turbine designed for a smaller inlet flow to capture more low end steam • Second turbine designed for a higher steam flow to maximize kWh production • Both turbines couple to a single generator

14. Case Study – Delmonte Snap shot of savings Calculations • First look at steam flows shows a generation of 2,459,664 kWh • Customer did not have boiler installed yet, this was part of an expansion. Steam flows were assumed based on historical data from previous years.

15. Case Study – Delmonte Environmental impact of onsite generation (Based on EPA eGRID 2007 Data) • By reducing their purchase of electricity by 2,500 MWh per year, this project reduces : • NOx by 552 lbs annually • SO2 by 340 lbs annually • CO2 by 612 tons annually • This is environmentally equivalent to the annual CO2 released by approximately 146 cars annually

16. Case Study – Delmonte Key’s to their success • They realized they had a potential to generate on site electricity and reduce the annual energy cost • A detailed analysis of the potential generation opportunity was completed • Installation and integration of the system was completed by a qualified engineering firm • Operators were trained in the successful operation of the unit

17. Case Study – Calgon Carbon The Calgon Carbon Plant produces a wide variety of activated carbons, with more than 100 types of granular, powdered and pelletized product • The system consisted of a single stage turbine coupled to a reduction gear and generator • A 22% increase in electricity rates prompted a look at ways to reduce energy costs • The steam plant operates a waste heat boiler that produces ~ 50,000 lbs/hr of steam for ~ 8,400 hours per year.

18. Case Study – Calgon Carbon Snap shot of savings Calculations • Calgon Carbon installed flow meters to measure hourly steam flow for an accurate generation model • Taking into account enthalpy lost through the turbine, calculations were made for make up steam • Annual generation at ~ 5,422 MWh’s, saving more than $300,000

19. Case Study – Calgon Carbon Environmental impact of onsite generation (Based on EPA eGRID 2007 Data) • By reducing their purchase of electricity by 5,422 MWh per year, this project reduces : • NOx by 5 tons annually • SO2 by 8 tons annually • CO2 by 3,014 tons annually • This is environmentally equivalent to the annual CO2 absorption by approximately 362 acres of trees

20. Case Study – Calgon Carbon Key’s to their success • Electricity rates were increasing, and being proactive, they found a solution to offset their purchased energy • Installation of measurement equipment to accurately measure steam flow for 12 months • The staff was motivated to constantly seek out and identify cost saving opportunities, to protect sales margins against increasing competition from China and from cost of operation increases

21. QUESTIONS