May-June 2010

Turbine Tech

Many companies and organizations are searching for cleaner, more reliable, more efficient, and affordable energy.

Article Tools

Create a Link to this Article

Photo: Solar Turbines

Additional Article Content

By Lori Lovely

Comments


However, the need to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the cost and energy consumption of thermal oxidizers presents important challenges. VOCs are emitted mainly in the form of contaminated air exhausted from various processes. Major sources include the petrochemical industry, wood products industry, electronics, metal refining, and the automotive paint industry. Approximately 33 million tons of VOCs are discharged annually by industrialized nations around the world.

The most common way to destroy VOCs is through high temperatures to oxidize the compounds into carbon dioxide and water. Thermal oxidation consists of heating the contaminated air stream (typically to 1,400–1,800°F) and ensuring a residence time inside the reaction vessel of 1.2 seconds.

CHP systems may offer alternative VOC destruction options. According to Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., several industry contacts have emphasized that a CHP system that also serves as a VOC oxidizer would benefit the industry and enhance the acceptance of CHP.

The SGT-300 combustion turbine offered by Siemens is a “mature product used heavily at universities,” states Bob Jones, sales manager for industrial power generators. “Its unique feature is the concept of using a standard unit for VOC destruction. It uses tried and true technology for two roles: onsite power and VOC mitigation—without modification.”

VOC-laden air is collected and fed to the turbine air intake and is combusted in a standard proprietary Dry Low Emissions combustion system. The system destroys VOCs and simultaneously produces electrical energy and thermal energy: CHP. Exhaust heat can be used for direct heating or to produce steam, hot water, or hot oil using a heat recovery steam generator.

VOCs are a byproduct of contaminated air, Jones explains, and are thus destructive to a furnace. By burning them in the turbine, they give energy back that can be sold to the grid or used steam for heating or other processes. “You get your money back, and the exhaust is clean,” summarizes Jones.

The SGT-300 provides 96% destruction efficiency, he continues, pointing out that legislation requires 90–95% efficiency. The industry standard for NOx and CO emissions for a gas turbine generator is 25 ppmvd (Parts Per Million, Volumetric Dry). Siemens’ system achieves guaranteed figures down to 10 ppmvd. “Its primary purpose is to meet VOC requirements,” says Jones. Surplus thermal energy for the facility and electricity for internal use or sale to the grid is a benefit that provides flexibility and helps with return on investment (ROI).

At a comparative initial cost, its long-term cost is more attractive because of the ROI, claims Julia Brown, product manager for SGT-300. Spatial demands are not an issue. “It needs less room than the thermal oxidizer—but you need both.” She estimates a 15 x 90’ footprint. “For an existing plant, it’s something to consider; for a new plant, it’s simple to plan for.”

Other benefits include reduction of NOx emissions, more efficient use of energy resources, increased reliability, reduced operations and maintenance costs, and built-in redundancy. “Backup is always available with the thermal oxidizer,” elaborates Jones. In addition, it can operate below 90% during maintenance periods. “This gives you coverage; it’s running all the time. If you have a money-making process, you lose money when it’s down.”

In fact, he says, the turbine is available over 97% of the time year-round, because if it goes down, the plant closes—sometimes for days to do maintenance and another two days to get it back up to temperature. The SGT-300 gets up to temperature quickly. “It keeps the plant running. If you can’t destroy the VOCs, you must close the plant.”

Routine maintenance is minimal: an annual boroscope inspection; a minor overhaul of the hot section every three years; a main turbine change at six years. Designed for a broad window of capability, it can run on multiple fuels—gas or liquid (natural gas, diesel, landfill gas) or energy content fuels (landfill gas)—without changing hardware. The standard unit will even run on future fuels. “No other unit has the same attributes,” claims Jones.

The key, Brown says, is applying known technology, not new technology. In a 2009 VOCGEN CHP market overview, Steven Sexton writes: “CHP, or cogeneration, has been around in one form or another for more than 100 years; it is proven, not speculative. Despite this proven track record, CHP remains underutilized and is one of the most compelling sources of energy efficiency that could, with even modest investments, move the Nation strongly toward greater energy security and a cleaner environment.”

Advertisement

Sexton estimates that if the US achieves 20% of generation capacity from CHP by 2030, it would reduce CO2 emissions more than 800 million metric tons per year, the equivalent of taking more than half of the current passenger vehicles in the US off the road, and could save an estimated 5.3 quadrillion Btu of fuel annually, the equivalent of nearly half the total energy currently consumed by US households—not to mention the technical jobs it would create.

Jones considers Siemens’ system an EPA-CHP partnership to promote CHP technology for VOC destruction. “We’re promoting CHP as a concept, but penetration is slow. It’s not always embraced. There has been no commercialization until now.”


Author's Bio: Lori Lovely is a freelance writer based in Indianapolis, IN.

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

Be the first to tell us what you think!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Distributed Energy Email Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Distributed Energy email newsletter!