Merry Christmas to all

As this month is already nearly gone - and the first half spent traveling - I wish to say only to all of you, your associates and families, the very best of a wonderful holiday.  When the new year starts, I have plenty to tell you but that will be my first New Year's Resolution.  And since I fall flat on these promises every year, I intend to keep this one so stay tuned.

Celebrating Thanksgiving

In a departure from the usual, I'll scoot away from my normal business and talk a little about Thanksgiving.  Although most Americans associate this holiday with the early Pilgrims in New England, Thanksgiving is celebrated throughout the world in some fashion.

For example, our wonderful neighbors to the north celebrate their Thanksgiving in October.  In 1957, the Canadian Parliament proclaimed:

"A Day of General Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the bountiful harvest with which Canada has been blessed – to be observed on the 2nd Monday in October."

I had the very good fortune of hosting a visitor from Korea yesterday who told me about their Thanksgiving, a wonderful three-day holiday celebrated about the time of the autumnal equinox.

For me, I am blessed to have my 85 year old mother coming to visit me from Greensboro, NC and with her visit, make her wonderful creamed onions, a New England tradition.  So to all of you out there, my best wishes for a wonderful holiday full of bounty and family.

MACT Update Rev. 1

MACT update

In my posting of September 15, I gave an update on the boiler MACT rules from the EPA.  Among the salient points were 1) October 24^th was the “final” date, and 2) that the ABMA (and by extension us at E-Tech) supported these changes.  Because of a House of Representative initiative early in October, a monkey wrench has been thrown into the mix.  The United States EPA announced on October 24^th that it was not going to propose revised air pollution standards for boilers on October 31 as previously planned but instead would issue, by November 30, a proposed rule.  This would impact area source boilers (the bulk of what most of us see; those that are smaller than 100mm btu/hr), major source boilers, and solid waste incinerators.  From my earlier blog, the major source boiler leg of this trio hade been on hold.  What happens next?  It’s anyone’s guess but stay in touch for more information.

News from the ABMA

As I mentioned in the section above, the ABMA has taken a proactive role in the MACT debate and who better, when you think of it?  One of the slams against the EPA from the Republican side of the House has been that all of these new regulations will add to the deficit and take away from jobs.  Politics aside, I’m not one for having to choose between my job and my health (or for others, their safety).  So we should all ask the question as to who knows best on what might be possible under MACT: the boiler companies?; or Congressmen pandering to special interests? 

The ABMA will be putting out a couple of ads in a variety of familiar magazines in our industry (Power Engineering magazine, Power magazine, Engineered Systems magazine and others) offering advice and counsel on this topic.  In addition a special web site will be set up – it’s not up yet – to answer questions relating to this important issue.  For those interested, the site will be Boiler MACT Facts from the ABMA.  I cannot tell you when it may be up and running.

I am putting a link to these ads on the E-Tech web site if you wish to look at them.   I do believe you’ll find them to be interesting and informative.

ABMA Boiler MACT ads

There are two of them and they're listed under "downloads".

To finish, here’s my blog quote of the day.  As Thanksgiving is right around the corner, it seems appropriate we honor that day.

Our rural ancestors, with little blest,
Patient of labour when the end was rest,
Indulged the day that housed their annual grain,
With feasts, and off'rings, and a thankful strain.

~Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

Don't Overspend When Buying an Economizer

Don’t Overspend When Buying an Economizer

Most of us know that economizers save you money by recycling heat that would otherwise be wasted up the stack.  Typical fuel savings range from 3-8%.  But economizers come in many different shapes and sizes and are manufactured by a wide variety of companies that have their own ideas as to specific design features.  On the E-Tech website, there is a white paper that will guide you through what makes sense (and CENTS) in economizer designs.  Here is a link:

E-Tech White Paper on Choosing an Economizer

But beyond the nuts and bolts discussion detailed in the white paper are other plain sense ideas that apply to all economizer selection criteria, even if an E-Tech design is not your first choice.

1.        Gas side pressure drop (a function of velocity) plays a large role in determining the size and cost of an economizer: the more pressure drop that can be taken through the vessel, the less expensive the cost.  This particular variable has perhaps the highest impact on the size and price of the unit.

2.       In determining the size and shape of an economizer, one must also consider the entire boiler setting.  Buying the least expensive economizer may cost you more in the long run when taking into account support steel and transitions.  Think about the whole package before making a decision.

3.       Fin pitch will have a large bearing on the cost of an economizer so follow good engineering practices to resolve this issue.  Here are a few guidelines to follow:

a.       Serrated finning, generally used with clean-burning fuels, is less expensive than solid fins.

b.      Carbon steel fins are much less expensive than stainless.  Not only that, but the conductivity of stainless fins is less than one-half that of its carbon counterpart.  Unless there is a chance of condensation of moisture in the gas stream, use carbon steel fins.

c.       Fin pitch recommendations:

                                                               i.      Coal/Wood, two fins/inch or less

                                                             ii.      #6 Fuel oil, three fins/inch

                                                            iii.      #2 or #4 Fuel oil up to 4.5 fins/inch.  Serrated is acceptable

                                                           iv.      Natural gas, hydrogen, butane, 6 fins/inch or more, serrated.  Note that with this fuel, sootblowers should not be necessary.

4.       Tube material.  You’ve already spent money on an expensive deaerator.  Why waste additional dollars paying for stainless tubing?  Not only is the cost of stainless tubes significantly higher, it is also not allowed under Section I of the ASME Code.  Your boiler is stamped to Section I.  Make sure the economizer is too.

5.       Along the same lines, unless you have a condensing economizer (or very hot flue gases), there is no good reason not to have carbon steel inner casing.  Spending money on a stainless steel casing offers no benefit for a higher cost.

6.       There is a valid difference of opinion as to whether an economizer needs removable end panels to facilitate tube removal should that become necessary.  Those who say “no”, argue that it’s just as easy to torch off the end casing as it is to remove all the bolts.  This is a matter of personal preference so pick your side and stick to it.

7.       Don’t oversize your economizer!  If you have a 500 HP boiler that never, ever will run more than 300 HP, then buy a smaller unit, one designed for 300 HP.  Remember, though, that once you choose this path, you’re pretty much committed to it.

8.       Finally, on smaller boilers, a cylindrical design is a great cost cutter as there are usually no transitions needed.  Much is made of the circular design not being repairable which is true in many cases.  However the circular design has far fewer tube welds and a much better frequency of repair record than rectangular designs.

To finish, here’s my blog quote of the day.  I’ve always been intrigued by the sayings of Confucius and I found one that’s perfect.

He who will not economize, will have to agonize.  ~ Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC)

The Skinny on Boiler Emissions

Emissions

Because of all the political dialogue, as a population, we tend to have heard about emissions in one form or another.  With my recent blogs on Boiler MACT regulations, I thought it would make a good article to talk about the types of emissions we see in our industry and what can be done to do away with emissions or mitigate their effects.  Although my slant as an employee of E-Tech, Inc. is to offer solutions to emission issues, boiler economizers such as we design and manufacture, can only moderate these pollutants to a certain degree.  Furthermore, my knowledge base is limited to our products to an extent.  Boiler manufacturers have more impact on this and therefore, more smarts.

At E-Tech, my company, we concern ourselves primarily with:

·         Nitrogen compounds (NO_X)

·         Sulfur Oxides (SO_X)

·         Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s)

Certainly there are other things to worry about such as particulates but that is not within the scope of this blog.

NITROGEN COUPONDS (NO_X)

NO_X is a generic term for nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and is formed from the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen during the combustion process.  NO_X is not to be confused with nitrous oxide (laughing gas, for example).   Although this discussion is related to boilers, NO_X is produced from any combustion process, particularly from automobiles.  NO_X Pollution from cars, trucks, planes, etc., can be particularly high in areas of high motor vehicle activity and around densly populated parts of the country. 

While it is true that NO_X can encourage the formation of acid rain, it is not the main reason we look at reducing them.  It is because of the effects on the production of ozone that we endeavor to lower this pollutant.  To reduce NO_X a variety of methods have been introduced over the years, and as time has gone on, improvements have been made.  Here, in no order, are several.

·         Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) – In this method, ammonia is injected in the boiler exhaust gases with a catalyst that allows the ammonia to reduce the NO_X

·         Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) – This is been around for a while and is an effective means of reducing emissions on smaller boilers (30,000 PPH or less is a good range).  In essence FGR involves recirculating cooler exhaust gases back into the combustion process to lower the temperature.

·         Burner Modifications – Fifteen years ago or more, burners having NO_X levels of 30-50 PPM were considered pretty cutting edge.   Since then, some of the ultra-low NO_X burners offer as low as 5 PPM

·         Efficiency – Finally, this is where E-Tech comes in.  By adding heat recovery equipment to the boiler, the firing rate for any given output is reduced, thereby lowering emissions.

SULFUR COMPOUNDS (SO_X)

I remember years ago when I first heard about acid rain.  It was in New England where I was born and it was having an impact on the lakes and trees of the area.  Although I didn’t understand it at that time, I remember there were certain parts of the country – the rust belt (before it got rusty) – that were blamed for the phenomenon.  While acid rain has been around for centuries the issue became more urgent in the 1970s and 1980s in the US.  Many laws have been promulgated through Congress and the EPA to help turn back the clock to cleaner times.  One of the biggest culprits in acid rain is sulfur.  Even though sulfur compounds can be naturally formed (volcanoes, etc.), much is produced by man through the burning of sulfur-laden fuels such as coal and heavy oil.

As a large portion of our nation’s utilities produce electricity through the burning of coal, the industry has done much to reduce its pollution footprint.  Many coal-burning plants use flue gas desulfurization, a process by which 95% or more of the SO₂ will be removed.  In addition, as natural gas has become more plentiful and less costly, it is being used more and more; its future looks bright not only in the boiler market but also for fleets of cars and trucks.

Although I wish I could plug economizers here, there’s not much an economizer can do except lower the firing rate of the boiler.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)

VOCs are compounds with high vapor pressures and low water solubility.  They are comprised mainly of carbon and hydrogen.  Many VOCs are dangerous to both human health and the environment and may include both manmade as well as naturally occurring elements.  E-Tech has worked with many companies involved in the design and manufacturing of thermal oxidizers, one method of destroying hazardous pollutants.

My blog quote for the day is about autumn, my favorite time of year.

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.  ~ Albert Camus

Useful Formulas

For the readers of my last two blogs who slogged through the boring subject matter of government regulations, I hope to move along to something less sterile as well as being more helpful.  In our business, we get so used to calculating various formulas in our day-to-day work that we somehow lose sight of the fact not everyone involved knows the intricacies of our field.  Earlier this week through my LinkedIn connection someone asked about calculating paybacks.  I gave an answer and found that this led to more questions so I hope a few simple equations here will be helpful to all.

First, how do we calculate heat recovery in an economizer?

Q=(m) (Cp) (Tin-Tout)

Where:

Q = heat recovered (Btu/hr)

m = mass flow rate of flue gas (lb/hr)

Cp = Specific heat of the flue gas (Btu/Hr °F)

T = temperature of the flue gas (°F)

Example:

50,000 PPH Boiler with 54,000 PPH flue gas

2,916,000 Btu/hr = (54,000 PPH)(.27)(500-300)

Note that this holds true for both the water-side as well as the gas side.

Another way to calculate Q is:

Q= (U) (A) (LMTD)

Where:

Q= Heat recovered (Btu/hr)

U= Heat Transfer Coefficient (Btu/hr • ft²)

A= Effective Surface Area (sq. ft) 

LMTD = Log Mean Temperature Difference across the heating surface

Note in this formula the most efficient way to lower the amount of surface area is by increasing the heat transfer coefficient. 

Next, how do we calculate fuel savings?

S=(Fuel) (Q) (H) / (E) (1,000,000)

Where:

S = Savings $/yr

Fuel = cost of fuel in $/MMBtu

Q = heat recovered Btu/hr

H = hours of annual operation

E = Boiler efficiency w/o economizer

Example:

$142,155= ($6) (2,916,000 Btu) (6500) / (.8) (1,000,000)

My blog quote for the day is about our mortality, something especially poignant as I grow older.

Eternity is really long, especially near the end. ~ Woody Allen

MACT Update

ABMA – American Boiler Manufacturers Association

E-Tech has, for the past two years, had the good fortune to be a member of the ABMA.  From its website, the Association proclaims, “these pages are designed to not only serve the membership of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association -- the best of the boiler industry! -- they are intended, as well, to inform the public about the boiler and combustion equipment industry, its interests, its concerns and its cutting-edge, state-of-the-art technology.”

In my last blog, I gave an update on the boiler MACT and its potential impact on our industry.  The ABMA and its constituent members have had a vested interest in the promulgation of these regulations and, by extension, their implementation.  Having its location near Washington, D.C., the organization is in close contact with the decisions being made and the observance of the politics in trying to push this legislation through.  I needn’t remind anyone of the current fiasco in Washington.  I can say this without offending one side or another as most of us agree that the political standstill there is unhealthy to the future of our nation.  In his jobs creation speech, Obama stated that he was not going to let the economic crisis in our country ask our citizens to choose between their jobs and their safety while rolling back rules designed to protect our health.  These remarks indicate the Presidents backing of the November 16 deadline for the enforcement of MACT to limit boiler room emissions.

To that, on September 8, a top agency official told a congressional panel on September 8^TH that USEPA neither needs nor wants an additional 15 months to issue emissions standards for boilers and incinerators.  As you would expect, some members of Congress have objected to these issues to the point of wanting to get rid of the EPA.  It’s not the purpose of my blog to support or oppose this as I have sworn to be apolitical in these matters.  However, the stance of the ABMA in particular and by extension, its membership, is (and I quote from the ABMA president and CEO) that “blocking the ICI-BMACT rules impedes job-creation in the boiler, combustion equipment and emissions controls industry!” 

I suspect that those of us in our lines of business, whether it be mechanical contractors, manufacturers’ representatives, consulting engineers and the like have a vested interest in seeing this move forward.  The House is expected to vote on the package of bills the week of October 3^rd. 

For those interested in looking into the great work done by the ABMA, follow this link: ABMA Site

 Last, I have been admonished for not having included in last week’s blog my usual closing words of wisdom so I offer two from Thomas Jefferson. 

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

MACT

 

MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology

The purpose of this article is to bring to light an EPA issue soon to be enacted that will impact many boiler room operations heretofore unaffected by environmental regulations.  Although it’s not possible to cover all of it within the scope of this blog, I will attempt to give you some overview of the program as well as resources that you may find helpful in determining what you may need to do; however, it is most important that you check the links I’ll provide to understand fully how this may impact you. 

Overview:

In March of 2011, the EPA published three final air emission standards that will reduce emissions from:

·         Boilers and process heaters at large sources of air toxics (“major sources”)

·         Boilers at small sources of air toxics (“area sources”)

·         Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (“CISWI”)

As the “major sources” component of this trio is on hold, it is important to realize that the “area sources” aspect is not!  And to make matters worse, these laws will apply to a large number of entities that operate boilers which prior to now have never been associated with air quality regulations.  With that in mind, I will concentrate on the “area sources” only.

Who is not affected by this rule?

·         The rule doesn’t apply to boilers that burn only gaseous fuels (examples are: natural gas, process gas, landfill gas, refinery gas, biogas, hydrogen) or solid waste.  For boilers that occasionally fire a liquid fuel during gas curtailment or supply emergencies or for periodic testing (not to exceed 48 hours per year), these are still considered gas-fired.

·         Hot water heaters with a capacity of nor more than 120 US gallons and pressures not exceeding 160 PSIG, and all controls necessary so as not to exceed a temperature of 210° F.

·         Waste heat boilers (HRSG) that recover traditionally unused energy and convert it to usable heat.

·         Research and development boilers

·         Hazard waste boilers

Am I subject to this rule?

You are subject to the Boilers Area Source NESHAP (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) if you own or operate an industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler that is located at, or is part of, a facility that is classified as an area source of hazardous air pollutions (HAP).

When do I need to comply?

This is fairly general and the full notification requirements should be verified through the EPA. 

Initial notification of applicability:

·         September 17, 2011, if startup was before May 20, 2011.

·         September 17, 2011 or within 120 days after startup of a new source, whichever is later.

Initial notification of compliance status:

·         Existing sources subject to tune-up work practices – July 19, 2012

·         Existing sources subject to emission limits – July 19, 2014

·         Existing sources subject to energy assessment – July 19, 2014

Resources

·         Policies and Guidance:  http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil

·         Civil Penalty Policies:  http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/penalty

·         Enforcement Response Policies:  http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/erp

·         FY2012 National Program Manager Guidance:  http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/FY12_OECA_NPM_Gdnce.pdf

·         Area Source Implementation Guidance:  http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/areasource.pdf

·         E-Tech web site: E-Tech Downloads 

 

Rules of the Game

Now that the introductory blog #1 is a thing of the past, it is time to get down to the work of informing while at the same time trying to be interesting.  So while I try to figure out what this blog should be, I will let you know what it’s not.

First, it’s not going to be political.  I am told that my political beliefs are vastly different and certainly inferior to everyone else’s.  So you won’t see any of my opinions whether they come from left field or from right field.  Matters that are political such as emissions, efficiency standards, global warming and the like will be dealt with factually and only as they apply to our business and the effects they have on us.  Furthermore, so that I don’t alienate readers, I intend to offer both sides of these issues if available.

Second, I’m a golfer so I foreswear to lay off any metaphors about sports in general and golf in particular.  For any blogger, this should be par for the course.

Third, though I am happily employed at E-Tech, this blog will not be one constant advertising blurb.  The idea here is to serve an audience of people interested in our field without forcing a steady diet of marketing mush.  On the other hand, don’t expect links to my competitors either!

Fourth, I realize that everyone has very little time these days because we are all busy with the work at hand.  So don’t worry about seeing this blog updated with new information to the point of tedium.  Right now, I’ll shoot for a frequency of semi-monthly or better. 

Finally, since I hope to entertain dialogue on issues so that all topics may be aired, discussed and answered, I will try to stay out of conversations unless they’re directed straight at me.  I only ask that you follow generally along with rule one: let us avoid politics ruling our discussions.  No yelling and screaming (or should I say, “NO YELLING AND SCREAMING”).

And lest I forget the purpose of this blog being to inform, in our haste to emphasize fuel savings in terms of dollars, there is always an associated benefit for the environment when we burn less fuel.  Here’s an example of that.

Pollutants avoided by energy recovery

Pounds of	Per kwh of electricity	Per MM/btus of Natural Gas	Per MM/Btus of Coal	Per MM/Btus of #6 oil (1% Sulfur)
CO2	1.48	115	200	170
SO2	0.016	0.0005	2.67	0.95
NOx	0.007	0.39	1.12	0.48

6 to 10 trees would have to be planted to offset each ton of CO2 saved.

As I look for any way to escape from this miserable heat Oklahoma (and other areas of the Midwest are experiencing), I leave you with a bit of wisdom, something I hope to impart with each post I do.

The purest treasure mortal times can afford is a spotless reputation. -William Shakespeare

How Do I Measure Efficiency

How Do We Measure Efficiency?

As you read this I will be on the briny sailing from New York City.  Having grown up around this wonderful city and taken for granted the Statue of Liberty so many times (I visited the monument only once in all those years), I have always wanted to sail past the Statue on my way somewhere and that time has finally arrived.  I’ll glance out at this wonderful symbol of America’s freedom with a deep respect for all those who have preceded me.

When I first got into this business lo these many years ago, boilers were not as efficient as they are now.  To add to that, there were still many boilers firing coal and heavy oils and because of the high sulfur contents of these fuels, flue gas exit temperatures from an economizer were relatively limited.  The old literature I remember when I first started spoke of efficiency gains from 5-8%.  Using the old rule of thumb that each 40 degree drop in exit gas temperature equaled one percent gain in efficiency you can see that boiler exhaust temperatures were quite hot back then.  Now we look more at 3-5% gains, this despite the fact that the predominant fuel being fired on package boilers is now clean-burning natural gas.

With the advent of natural gas also came the ability to squeeze out additional heat recovery through grabbing extra BTU’s available with condensing economizers.  For more detail see the following link: Condensing Economizer White Paper

 This was particularly true in the middle of the last decade when gas prices shot up to $14.00/dekatherm and higher.  With the vagaries of heat transfer, as latent heat is recovered, the rule of thumb of a 40 degree drop in gas temperature being equivalent to one percent efficiency gain goes away.  Jamie Tighe put together for me the following graph that illustrates this better than I can write it.

Note that as the gas temperature goes down from 300 to 135 degrees F., the slope of the curve is consistent but at approximately 135 degrees F., the water dew point is reached and true condensation occurs and the curve flattens out.

I do hope this is helpful to all of you.

And finally, my saying for this blog is vacation related:

We hit the sunny beaches where we occupy ourselves keeping the sun off our skin, the saltwater off our bodies, and the sand out of our belongings.  ~Erma Bombeck

Can We Talk?

I know, I know. Heat recovery is not among the usual topics for casual chat, but I’m going to assume that you’re here because you either know something about the subject or want to know something about it. Great. That’ll work for me.

So let me start by introducing myself: Bob Hanson, sales manager for E-Tech Engineering. I’ve been in the heat recovery business in one way or another for more than 32 years and, putting modesty aside for the moment, I have walked around the heat recovery block more than a few times (albeit slower with each passing year!).

Over the years I’ve worked with all of the OEM boiler companies and I’m a card-carrying member of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, or ABMA.

I’m proud to have built a lot of long-term relationships within the industry and I’m always pleased to serve as a “go-to” guy for anyone who has a question about heat transfer or heat recovery equipment. If a question should come up that I can’t readily answer (it does happen, I admit), I’m in the fortunate position of being able to walk down the hall and get that answer from some of the brightest and most resourceful engineering brains in the business.

Now something more about those guys and the work they do. Custom-designed heat transfer equipment and economizers. That sums it right up, with the operative compound modifier right at the front: custom-designed.

We sort of invented a word to describe what we do at E-Tech: Greengineering. Because we tailor our designs to a client’s very specific heat recovery goals and specifications, we’re able to provide them with solutions that achieve the greatest efficiency possible for their boiler system. The result is not only maximized fuel efficiency, but also minimized emissions.

I’m not just saying that. E-Tech General Manager and Chief Engineer Jamie Tighe actually went so far as to invent an entirely new heat transfer unit — the ThermoCharger — to meet the precise needs of one particular client.

The ThermoCharger worked so well for that client that we’ve applied for a patent on it and have added it to our full lineup of heat recovery solutions. And it is a full lineup. As far as I know, we’ve never met a boiler system that we couldn’t maximize for more efficient fuel consumption with one or more of our economizer designs.

I’ll be talking a lot about fuel efficiency in this blog, and the government actions at every level that are bound to push this industry to ever-cleaner, ever more efficient solutions. I’ll be talking about those solutions, too. Not just ours, but those industry-wide.

I hope you’ll stick with me for the discussion and chime in with your comments. I already know what I think. I want to know what you think, too.

So please check in regularly, and we’ll talk.