TOPPING CYCLE COGENERATION WITH POST-COMBUSTION FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE FURNACES

THE PARTICULAR CASE OF A METALURGICAL HEAT TREATMENT FURNACE

J.B.
* Ribeiro

and V.

** Ferreira

ADAI Associao para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinmica Industrial, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Lus Reis Santos, Plo II, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
* jose.baranda@dem.uc.pt; **vit.ferreira@gmail.com

1. Abstract
This paper describes a series of "what if" scenarios analyzed on an hourly basis using the average energy consumption values comparing them in terms of cost vs. benefit for a metallurgical plant. The scenario that was shown to be as the most advantageous, assumed not only the change from propane to natural gas, but also the implementation of a gas microturbine as part of a cogeneration topping-cycle scheme, producing electricity and using the flue gas energy to decrease the thermal needs of two furnaces. However, since the average operating temperature ranges from 850 - 950 C and the turbine's flue gas temperature is only of about 300C, a postcombustion using natural gas is used. This is made by using the relatively rich in O2 flue gas in detriment of atmospheric air for the combustion. Since there is no need to heat it from its ambient temperature to the temperature at which the flue gas is expelled from the microturbine, savings on fuel are accomplished. As this procedure only makes use of part of the total outlet gas flow, the remaining gas is used to completely replace the electric needs for a set of baths and air dryers, through the use of a heat exchanger with a thermal fluid best suited for the temperature range in question. The flue gas produced in the post-combustion scheme, would in turn be used for the direct insertion to the following - inline furnaces, which hold inferior thermal needs, hence satisfying their requirements in about 40%. The cogeneration scheme proposed on the best scenario, would alone be responsible for annual savings over 20.200, a reduction in primary energy consumption (in toe) of 8,5%, and about 50,5 avoided tons of CO2 per year.

3. Hypothetical scenarios description of the continuous heat treatment sector

Scenario 0 Current setting (with thermal needs provided by propane gas)
Main energy consumers: 2 quenching/cement furnaces: 98,95 kWh each 2 tempering furnaces: 20 kWh each 2 baths/dryers: 10 kWh electrical each Propane cost: 0,079875 /kWh; Electricity cost: 0,08288 /kWh

Energy cost: 20.7 /h

Scenario 1 Current setting (with thermal needs provided by natural gas)

Main energy consumers: 2 quenching/cement furnaces: 98,95 kWh each 2 tempering furnaces: 20 kWh each 2 baths/dryers: 10 kWh electrical each Natural gas cost: 0,0321468 /kWh; Electricity cost: 0,08288 /kWh

Energy cost: 9.3 /h

2. Listing of the plants main thermal consumers

Thermal energy is consumed in this plant on the following equipments: The continuous heat treatment section, which comprises two parallel lines of production, each made of a high temperature furnace that operates at an average temperature of about 900C (1652F), called the quenching/cement furnace, a degrease/passivation bath that operates at around 50C (122F), electrically heated, a air dryer which operates at around 130C (266F), also electrically heated, and at the end of the continuous heat treatment line, a lower temperature furnace used for the tempering of steel, that works at around 200C (392F). Two small rotating furnaces, each equipped with one burner, also used to quench/cement steel parts that usually require an extra percentage of carbon and as such, require propane gas to produce the extra carbon. Four space heaters that usually only work in the coldest months of the year. Although the energy consumption (in toe/year) of this metallurgical plant is of about 70% electrical and 30% thermal in the form of propane gas, in terms of cost (in /year), the scale is much more even, which indicates a higher price per kWh of thermal energy consumed. This can be viewed as good news, as it helps to justify future investments on the adoption of energy efficiency measures, and also due to the fact that quite a few measures can easily be applied "inhouse" as they require not much more expertise and equipment than that the plant personnel, usually, already possess.

Scenario 2 Flue gas reuse into low temperature tempering furnaces (natural gas)
Main energy consumers: 2 quenching/cement furnaces: 98,95 kWh each 2 tempering furnaces: 12 kWh each 2 baths/dryers: 10 kWh electrical each Natural gas cost: 0,0321468 /kWh; Electricity cost: 0,08288 /kWh Main energy savings: 2 tempering furnaces: 8 kWh each

Energy cost: 8.8 /h

Savings of 5.6 % (regarding scenario 1)

Scenario 3 Flue gas reuse to low temperature temperating furnaces + Capstone C30 microturbine (natural gas)
Main energy consumers: 2 quenching/cement furnaces: 90,7 kWh each 2 tempering furnaces: 12 kWh each Capstone C30 microturbine: 127 kWh Natural gas cost: 0,0321468 /kWh; Electricity avoided cost: 0,08288 /kWh Main energy savings: 2 Baths/Dryers: 10 kWh each Electricity generated by Capstone C30: 30 kWh 2 Tempering furnaces: 8 kWh each

Energy cost: 6.54 /h

Savings of 29.75 % (regarding scenario 1)

Scenario 4 Flue gas reuse to low temperature temperating furnaces + Capstone C65 (natural gas)
Continuous heat treatment zone flow diagram

Main energy consumers: 2 quenching/cement furnaces: 89,58 kWh each 2 tempering furnaces: 0 kWh each Capstone C30 microturbine: 247 kWh Natural gas cost: 0,0321468 /kWh; Electricity avoided cost: 0,08288 /kWh Main energy savings: 2 Baths/Dryers: 10 kWh each Electricity generated by Capstone C30: 65 kWh 2 Tempering furnaces: 20 kWh each

Energy cost: 6.65 /h

Savings of 28.52 % (regarding scenario 1)

4. Conclusions
Due to the increasingly high costs associated with the energy intensive industrial processes and the demands given by recent law decrees that regulate the amount of pollutants, also stipulating a yearly decrease in primary energy on most industries, good opportunities are being established for companies to invest their time and money in tackling their energy requirements in a much more efficient manner. This is starting to reveal itself not only as an opportunity to differentiate themselves from the remaining competitors but, at the same time, to lead a more environmentally safe business, cutting what can most times be identified as, unnecessary energy costs that only serve to increase the pricing of their finished products. With the objective of helping a metallurgical plant to cut energy costs, work was made aiming to pinpoint mainly thermal wastes in their production lines, identifying firstly the major consumers, then suggesting a set of measures that would be responsible for the improvement of their energy intensity index in about 12% (toe/ton of finished goods) and a reduction in productive costs from the current 159 to about 93 (/ton of finished goods). The results of the proposed measures are as follows.

Key figures of Scenario 3

Proposed measure
1. Burners regulation to inferior excess air percentage 2. Change from propane to natural gas 3. Flue gas use for direct insertion to the tempering furnaces 4. Adoption of proposed scenario number 3 5. Adoption of proposed scenario number 4

Gross savings (/year) 3.919 86.322 2.562 20.206 17.407

Avoided CO2 (ton/year) -11,43 1,47 -16,83 -76,72 -16,45

Saved toe (toe/year) -4,3 -2,36 -6,9 -50,43 -39,62

Savings of about 41% on gas and electricity bills Decrease from 159 to 93 of energy/ton of finished goods Decrease of about 119 ton of CO2/year Decrease of about 12% in toe/year