Capacity and Production of Major Fertiliser

Products (2009-10) in India

Energy Conservation
In
Fertiliser Capacity No. of Producti
Fertilizer Industry (million Plants on
tonnes) (million
tonnes) SSP

Best Practices & Case Studies Urea 22.2 32 21.1

NP/NPK
DAP
Urea

DAP 7.0 11 4.2

P. Chandra Mohan NP/NPK 7.1 19 8.1
DGM (Te chnical S er vice s)
India is the third largest producer of
Nagarj una Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., SSP 7.5 78 2.9 fertilisers in the world
Kakinada

1 2

Consumption of Different Feedstocks in Fertilizer Relative Energy Intensity Of Fertiliser Industry

Sector (2009-10) (Indicative Figures)

Product Avg. Total Total % of

Gas 14.0 billion NM3 Energy Production Energy Total
GCal/MT Million MT GCal X Energy of
Naphtha 1.0 million tons 106 Fertilizers
Urea 6.30 20.1 126.6 84
Fuel Oil 1.7 million tons
DAP/NP/ 2.15 11.4 24.5 16
& LSHS
NPK

In the ammonia-urea segment, production of ammonia accounts for 80%

of the total energy required for production of urea

3 4

1
Indian Ammonia Plants Brief Details Indian Urea Plants Brief Details

Vintage No. of Vintage No. of

Plants Plants
Feedstock No. of
Plants Feedstock No. of
1960s 2 Size of Plants No. of Plants
1960s 2
1970s 9 Gas 24 (MTPD) Plants Size of Plants No. of
1970s 9 Gas 23
1980s 12 Naphtha 5 (MTPD) Plants
1980s 12 Naphtha 5
1990s 10 Fuel Oil 4 < 600 4 1990s 9 Fuel Oil 4
600 to < 900 3 1000 2
Total 33 Total 33 900 to <1520 10 >1000 but 1500 7
Total 32 Total 32
1500 16 >1500 but <2620 13
2620 10
Total 33
Total 32

5 6

Energy Consumption Trends in Ammonia Plants Energy Consumption Trends in Urea Plants
(1987-88 to 2007-08) (1987-88 to 2007-08)
13.0 9.5

12.48
12.5
9.0
8.87
12.0
Energy (GCal/MT)
Energy (GCal/MT)

8.5
11.5

11.0 8.0

10.5 7.5

10.0
7.0
9.5

8.97 6.5
9.0 6.29

8.5 6.0
19 8

19 9

19 0

19 1

19 2

19 3

19 4

19 7

19 8

19 9

20 2

20 3

20 4

20 5

20 7

8
20 *
19 5

19 6

20 0

20 1

20 6

20 0

6
1
-8

-9

-9

-9

-9

-9

-0

-0

-0

-0

-8

-9

-9

-9

-9

-0

-0

-0

-0
-8

-9

-9

-9

-0

-0

-9

-9

-9

-9

-0

-0
-9

-9

-0

-0

-0

-9

-0

-0
-0
90

94

06
87

88

89

91

92

93

96

97

98

01

02

03

04

06

07

87

90

91

92

95

96

97

98

01

02

03

04

07
94

95

99

00

05

93

99

05
00
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20
19

19

19

19

19

20

20
19

19

20

1
Year 0
7 Year 8

2
 Energy Consumption of Ammonia Plants (2007-08) Energy Consumption in Urea Plants (2007-08)

14.00
16.00

15.06 12.52
15.00 12.00

14.00
10.00

13.00

Energy (GCal/MT)
Energy (GCal/MT)

8.00
12.00
Weigh ted Average 6.29

11.00 6.00

10.00 5.16
4.00

Weighted Average 8.97

9.00

2.00
8.00

7.00
7.65 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Plants
6.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Plants 9 10

Feedstock wi se Capacity and Energy Consumption in Operating BENCHMARKING WITH WORLD PLANTS
Ammonia Plants (2007-08) (Energy consum ption of Ammonia) For the year 2002-03

9.5
Feed No. of Effective Energy 9.06 9.30

stock Plants Capacity Consumption 8.65

(000 MT) (GCal/MT)
Gcal/MT

8.5

Gas 24 9646.6 8.49

Naphtha 5 1411.3 9.85
Fuel Oil 4 1386.0 11.72 7.5
Plants in IFA Gas Based All Indian Plan ts
Total 33 12299.9 8.97 Survey In dian Plants
Most ammonia plants (>90%) in the IFA surv ey are based on NG as feedstock.
Almost 40% of Indian capacity w as based on less efficient naphtha and fuel oil.
Still average energy consumption of Indian plants is comparable to the w orld
av erage. Indian gas based plants are more efficient than the w orld plants.

11 12

3
 Macro Level - Methodology
Any process/unit operation

Unavoidable
ENERGY CONSERVATION SCHEMES losses (C)

Energy input Theoretical

(A) Requirement (B)

(D)
Avoidable
losses
A=B+C +D
13 14

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AMMONIA PLANTS

Macro Level - Methodology
Steam Air
Flue Gas
Natural
Gas Process
De- Primary Secondary HT Shift LT Shif t
sulphurisation Ref ormer Gas Ref ormer Conv ertor Conv ertor

CO2 GV Solution
CO2
Stripper Absorber

CO2 to Carbon Dioxide ( CO2)

Urea Plants
Ref rigeration Process
Focus should be Sy stem Gas
To concentrate on avoidable losses
Quantify the losses
Liquid Ammonia Ammonia Sy n. Gas
Identify ways and means for reduction Product Chilling
Conv ertor Compressor
Methanator

PGR Unit Prod. H 2

15 Tail Gas as Fuel

4
 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AMMONIA PLANTS
REFORMING SECTION

l Additional
heat recovery in reformer
convection zone
e. g.
l New BFW coil in convection section
l Air pre-heater

17 18

SHIFT CONVERSION SECTION CO2 REMOVAL SYSTEM

l LTS Guard Bed with heat recovery
l HTS & LTS Converter revamp with radial
or axial-radial converter catalyst basket
Technologies Available:
l Giammarco Vetrocoke Process
l Benfield Process
l aMDEA
l Single stage to two stage regeneration
l Use of more efficient packings
l Usage Hydraulic turbine

19 20

5
 SYNTHESIS ROTARY MACHINERY

l S-50 and S-300 Converters l UsingGas Turbines to drive major

compressors.
l Gas purification
l Changing from Steam drives to Electric
Power drives
l Liquid ammonia wash of makeup synthesis gas
l Molecular Sieve drying
l Chilling of Makeup synthesis gas l Suction chilling of Compressors/Gas
Turbines
21 22

UREA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Energy Outlook
l Average energy consumption for ammonia has
been reduced from 12.48 in 1987-88 to 8.97 ENERGY CONSERVATION SCHEMES
Gcal/MT in 2007-08. AT NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS

l Average energy consumption for urea has been

reduced from 8.87 to 6.29 Gcal/MT over the RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED
same period.

l Improvement has been possible due to better

feedstock, advanced technologies,
modernisation of old plants, improved operating
and maintenance practices
23 24

6
 PSMS
&

ISO 9001:2008 BRITISH SAFETY

RCM COMPANY PROFILE
ISO 14001:2004
COUNCIL
OHSAS 18001:2007 Location : Agricultural town close to market
Raw Water : Godavari River
Natural Gas : ONGC, Cairn & RIL through GAIL
Railway : Siding connected to South Central Railway
Facilities :
l Ammonia plants, 2 X 1050 MTPD (Revamped to
1325 MTPD)
l Urea plants, 2 X 1810 MTPD ((Revamped to
2325 MTPD)
l Carbon Dioxide Recovery plant
l Water Treatment
l Cooling Tower
l Inert Gas Plant
l Boilers
l Gas Turbines
l Ammonia Storage
25 26
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

PLANTS
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limite d
Kakinada 533 003
Plant - I Plant- II
ENERGY POLICY
v Commissioning Aug 1992 Mar 1998
We strive to achieve 1% specific energy reduction ever y year in next 5 years with the
following efforts:

TECHNOLOGY 1. By applying innovative/creative ideas in operational techniques as per the

suggestions/discussions/brainstorming among Associates (Employees).

v AMMONIA : Haldor Topsoe of Denmark 2. By i mproving specific energy norm based on process evaluation, machinery
performance and condition monitoring with the help of in-house study groups and
reputed external agencies and adopting efficient measures.

v UREA : Snamprogetti of Italy 3. By de-bot tlenec king the limiting areas to improve plant reliability and availability with
the help of process licensors and engineering consultants.

4. By benchmarking with the most energy efficient plants and comparing the
v CO2 REMOVAL : Giammarco Vetrocoke of Italy provisions/facilities through survey group study, plant visits, wor kshop/conference
participation and implementing the beneficial outcome.

v CO2 Recovery : Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of 5. By firming up full NG availability for Unit-II operations through various NG suppliers
and eliminating Naphtha usage.

Date: March 25, 2005 Director & COO

Japan
27

7
 NFCL Energy Performance Ammonia Plant Energy Input

FEED STEAM
93 Ammonia Plants (Including Two H2 based plants) based on 2006 & 5.80Gcal/MT 71 . 7 %
2007 Operating Data % 0. 7 0.06Gcal/MT

Min
NFCL NFCL TOTAL 8.09 Gcal/MT
Average Max Ammonia Ammonia 100%
(Best) 2. 8
-I -II %
Specific Energy %
(Gcal/MT)
8.748 13.910 6.453 8.150 8.485 FUEL GAS 24 . 7 POWER
2.00 Gcal/MT 0.23 Gcal/MT

NFCL Complex Ammonia Energy for the Year 2009-10 is 8.093 Gcal/MT

29 30

Ammonia Plant Energy Output Energy Conservation Best Practices

Product NH3 Stack Losses Capacity utilisation

5.0 61
.8 % 0.16
% 0
2.
EG Export 0% TOTAL 34.2 % CW Loss
0.0 Three-pronged Operational
8.09 Gcal/MT 2.77
1. approach Excellence
% 5
5 %
0.
DM +LS Export Hot Surfaces
0.04 Blow-down etc Technology
0.12 upgradation

LOSSES 31 32

8
Best Practices - Capacity Utilization Best Practices - Technology Up gradation

l De-bottlenecking l Studying the feasibility and adopting the

latest technologies
l Revamping
l Conducting Benchmarking Studies and
l Reliability Improvement measures implementing the identified
improvements

33 34

Best Practices Operational Excellence Process Parameters Optimization

OPE RATING PANNEL
l Process Parameters Optimization PARAMETE RS OPE RATOR

l Specific Energy Monitoring

l Specific Consumptions Monitoring IMPLEM ENT SHIFT
THE CAHN GE INCHAR GE

l Machinery Monitoring
l Catalyst Performance Monitoring
SITE
INCHAR GE
SECTION
(MEETIN G
HEAD
WITH
HODS)

HOD

35 36

9
Specific Energy Monitoring Specific Consumptions Monitoring
Energy monitoring
Daily Complex Sp.energy calculations l Monitoring the specific consumptions
Plant wise Specific Energies
Specific consumptions per MT of Urea
Identifying & Arresting Energy drains
Specific ammonia 0.570 MT
Steam Balance
Specific CO2 381 Nm3
NG Balance
Specific Steam 0.95-1.1 MT
CO2 removal section Specific Energy
Specific Power 25-28 Kw

37 38

Machinery Monitoring Catalyst Performance Monitoring

l Equipment monitoring
l Catalyst performance
Preventive and Predictive Maintenance
Approach to Equilibrium
Boiler Efficiency calculation
Exit Analysis
Gas Turbine Efficiency calculation
Remaining life assessment
Compressor Efficiency, Power
Normalized pressure drop
calculation
Steam Turbine Efficiency, Power
calculation
39 40

10
CONCEPT Switching over to Electric Power Intensive mode Replacement of back pressure turbines with motors (Cont.)

Replacement of back pressure turbines with motors 3 nos of turbine condensate pumps were replaced.
1 MW Machine
Energy saving 58.51 Gcal/day

Driven By Cost of energy Rs.450/Gcal

Total investment Rs.11.68 Lakhs

Motor Steam Turbine
Annual savings Rs. 86.89 Lakhs
1.70 Gcal/Hr 3.90 Gcal/Hr

= 2.2 Gcal/Hr
41 42

STEAM INTENSIVE TO POWER INTENSIVE MODE STEAM INTENSIVE TO POWER MODE

If exhaust steam is
CONCEPT The following stand by motor drives taken on line and
not used efficiently turbines kept as standby.
EFFICIENCY 1.Induced draft fan of Primary Reformer Unit-I & II
2.Forced draft fan of Primary Reformer Unit-I & II
3.Boiler feed water pump of Unit-I, II & OSPP
Back pressure Motor Efficiency
Turbine Efficiency 4.GV Semi-lean & Lean solution pump of Unit-I
Appx.82 to 92%
Appx.40 to 48%

Efficiency Gain is Appx.42 to 44%

+
Gain in GT efficiency at higher load

43 44

11
CONCEPT Performance Optimization of Blowers
Installation of fluid coupling (Cont.)

Installation of fluid coupling Power saving after fluid coupling = 200 KW

= 4.13 Gcal/day
SUCTION THROTTLING NO SUCTION THROTTLING
Cost of energy = Rs.450/Gcal

Fluid
Savings per annum = Rs.6.13 Lakhs
Motor Coupling Motor

Investment = Rs.16 Lakhs

Variable speed drive

Constant speed drive (Fluid Coupling)

45 46

CONCEPT Decreasing the DP across the plant equipment CONCEPT Decreasing the DP across the plant equipment

Savings Calculations
Steam saving in Synthesis gas compressor 2.48 TPH
Increase in Steam in Process air compressor 0.1 TPH
Savings 2.38 TPH
Energy Savings 1408960 Kcals / hr
Equivalent NG Savings 160 Sm3/Hr
Savings per annum 50.2 Lakhs / Yr
Cost of the Valve & Implementation 14 Lakhs
Pay Back Period 4.0 Months

47 48

12
CONCEPT Installation of Advanced Process Controller CONCEPT Installation of Advanced Process Controller

l The significant process variables in Ammonia Plant are interlinked in a

complex manner which involve frequent human interference.

l Under constantly changing parameters, M anual control of all the

Critical parameters simultaneously is very difficult which leads the Optimum
operation to go away from optimum economical plant operation. 3.50 APC

l To achieve an optimum process control for reducing energy in

Ammonia plants, Advanced Process Control (APC) software has been
installed.

l With APC process optimization is achieved by means of an algorithm,

which determines the optimum steady-state values for the controlled
variables in accordance with economic criteria.

49 50

CONCEPT Installation of Advanced Process Controller CONCEPT Installation of Advanced Process Controller

l The APC computes on the basis of a dynamic process model and takes the l The following Cr itical par ameter s ar e dir ectly affected by APC and in tur n
necessary control steps. The aim of this control is to cause the controlled impact the ener gy consumption.
variables to follow predicted routes for optimum steady state final values.
1. Steam to Car bon r atio
2. Pr imar y r efor mer outlet temper atur e Stabilization
l The process of implementing APC involves testing the existing controllers 3. CH4 slip at secondar y r efor mer outlet
configured in DCS system using step test method and developed th e 4. H2 / N2 r atio in Synthesis Loop
controller model that is integrated with the existing DCS systemfor online 5. CH4 in Synthesis Loop
control.
l Savings Calculation:
l With APC in place, operation has become smoother due to a reduced
impact from process disturbances and the constraint in handling capability l Wi th the i nstallati on of Advanced Process Controller, the Speci fi c
of the controller. Consumpti on of Ammoni a plants has been reduced by 0.53%.
l Equi valent Energy savi ng per annum w as 33604 Gcal / Annum w hi ch i s
equi valent to Rs. 176 lakhs.
l This resulted in an ability to run the plant as per the actual instead of
running it with safer offset in an anticipation of large disturbances. The l Investment cost for the project i s Rs. 150 Lakhs
installation of APC has led to a close monitoring and control ofkey process l Payback for the project i s 10.2 months
parameters and less operational intervention.

51 52

13
 COMPLEX SPECIFIC ENERGY
CONCEPT Installation of Advanced Process Controller CONSUMPTION
For Example, The Variations in the Parameter of Steam to Carbon Ratio 6.1
6.015
is brought down Significantly With APC as Shown in the Graph Below: 6

Energy Gcal/MT Urea

Before APC Installation: After APC Installation: 5.9 5.846
5.756
5.8 5.718
5.662 5.630
5.7 5.607
5.615 5.588
5.6 5.526
5.5

5.4

5.3

5.2
Target

1
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-1

-1
01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
YEAR

53 54

Industry in Harmony with Nature

Thank You 55

14