Spec blog

The Technology & Process behind Cellulosic Ethanol Production: Part 2

2009-11-11 11:16:31

Qteros, a start-up from UMass Amherst is on the forefront of the cellulosic ethanol industry. Their mission is to develop efficient and cost effective ways to make ethanol from waste products, and they have already broken ground on their demonstration scale facility. Qteros success comes, not only from their Q microbe (see Qteros website for detailed explanation as to how this process works), but also from their growth plan that allowed them to scale up production at progressively higher levels, while accurately predicting their costs.

The Technology Behind Cellulosic Ethanol:

Qteros’ primary focus when it comes to cellulosic ethanol production is on the Q Microbe, a super-bug microorganism that consumes plant and tree waste and converts these waste products into clean transportation fuel relatively simply. Traditional approaches to cellulosic biomass require intensive pretreatments using enzymes that break down the biomass into simple sugars. These enzymes and pretreatment are the largest cost contributor to cellulosic ethanol production. The Q Microbe, however, breaks down a wide variety of plant materials including corn residues, cane bagasse, woody biomass and cellulose waste, and produces ethanol from its own enzymes. This process reduces overall process time, saves money in pretreatment and eliminates the need to produce ethanol from essential food resources.

How SPEC Helped Qteros Scale Up Production:

• Designed scale up from laboratory bench scale to pilot process

• Created equipment ordering process parallel to laboratory development/design

• Continuously revised floor plans to meet projected requirements for Qteros new program and facility

• Helped vet potential buildings to evaluate what would be the best fit for their unique requirements

To receive a more detailed overview of the project visit: http://www.spec-eng.com/projects/qteros.php

Will Cellulosic Ethanol Replace Gasoline? Part I: The Facts

2009-11-09 12:38:14

Recent reports from Sandia National Laboratories and General Motors have estimated that by 2030, alternative energy and biofuels in the U.S will replace one-third of annual gasoline consumption. One of the clean technology forerunners contributing to this reduction is cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is already being produced on a commercial scale by several companies across the U.S. and is already commercially viable:

Benefits of Cellulosic Ethanol:

Fewer steps used to break down waste product means more conversion potential for fermentable components
No impact on essential food resources (unlike corn-based ethanol production)
Produced from agricultural waste products/non-food sources (switchgrass and wood chips)
Reduction in air pollution (traditional gas production can radiate roughly 75-80% more CO2 emissions)
Reduction in green house gases (traditional reformulated gas production can emit roughly 80% more green house gases)
Reduction in fine particle emissions (traditional gasoline production can discharge roughly 50% more fine particle emissions)

Part II: We'll outline an up and coming cellulosic ethanol producer, Qteros, and why their technology is making cellulosic ethanol an attractive fuel alternative.

SPEC Process Engineering: Thoughts on a Better Project Approach

2009-11-06 13:35:04

If you’ve been in the industrial or facilities side of the world for a while, you’re probably familiar with the headache that starts about the time you find out you have an expansion or maintenance project coming up. You don’t have time to make sure the engineers and architect coordinate their work or to babysit the subcontractors while they’re working on site. More frustrating is that even if you wanted to hire someone to manage your project, most of the big industry players wouldn’t look twice at your “small” (read: under $20 million) project.

All that being said, it doesn’t mean engineers haven’t figured out ways to solve some of these problems. Based on the experiences of engineers and clients, the following ideas have emerged as good rules of thumb for managing your process engineering project.

Find an engineering firm that has your project’s key disciplines in-house, including mechanical, electrical, controls, and process engineering. Some firms even have an architecture department that specializes in damage limiting and industrial construction.
Make sure your contract designates a single point of responsibility for ALL areas of a project, all the way from design, permitting, procurement, construction, to start up. This helps ensure you’re not left holding the bag with subcontractors, etc. after the job is finished.
You can often “expedite” a project by using preliminary design drawings to specify and order long lead equipment, start early permitting, and work with local authorities to ensure there are no surprises down the road, all before the final construction drawing set is complete.
Use a firm that employs their own site superintendents and site engineers who can work with the subcontractors to make sure equipment is handled and installed correctly and who can work out any design issues as they occur.
Write your contract to include performance, rather than mechanical completion; this will ensure that your plant is running according to your specifications by the time the job is complete.

Steve Freitas on a long term client

2008-10-28 11:15:17

“We just want you to provide a P&ID for our new process. Please provide accompanying line sizing and pipe specifications. Also, please provide instrumentation specifications and purchasing for all automated instruments, as well as updated programming and control system modifications. We will take care of equipment purchasing, as well as the piping and electrical contracts.”-Waters Corporation, a long term client.

More often than not, multiple smaller projects take the forefront at your facility on a year-to-year basis. Some of these your staff can probably handle on their own. And if you’re like most manufacturers, you typically have to handle the normal production duties while juggling new capital projects and improvements. Your budget may be strained as well. This is when some companies choose to divide the scope and responsibility where it makes sense to bring in an outside firm like SPEC.

Many of our projects with Waters Corporation are like the one described above. Although, SPEC specializes in design/build services, we are more than willing to provide a portion of the services “a la carte” if the situation seems appropriate. Since 2002, SPEC has helped Waters with new single reactor systems, utility upgrades, control system improvements, instrumentation upgrades, and updating plant documentation to meet OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations, all in partial engineering and/or construction roles suited to support the budget or technical needs of Waters personnel.

In addition to the many smaller projects, SPEC has also provided services for large turnkey projects, including:

A new, two story 9,000 ft² building addition creating a separate powder handling and manufacturing process suite.
Installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) system upgrading the facility to zero emissions.
Installation of new stainless steel process reactors and filter presses, designed for 3x scale up of an existing manufacturing line. Upgrade of the existing manual process providing semi-automatic functions through DCS control.

HVAC System Design in Pre-existing Spaces

2008-10-15 17:07:58

Designing an HVAC system to meet the requirements of a Class 1000/Class 100 pharmaceutical manufacturing clean room is not a simple task under the best circumstances. I was asked to design this system for a clean room that was being converted from existing building space and therefore had ceiling space that was already congested with ductwork and piping that served other areas of the building.

I addressed this issue by completing detailed field documentation beforehand. This allowed me to then design new ductwork that would fit in the existing space with all the existing ductwork and piping.

DCS Selection, Distributed Control Systems

2008-09-24 15:51:55

Why would you choose one brand/model of DCS over another. At SPEC we have used, (for various reasons)

Emerson DeltaV, with and without S88 Batch
ABB 800XA, batch
Siemens PCS7, non-batch

(All the flagship products of leading companies)

They each have their advantages and disadvantages:

Price -

Due to the competitive nature of the industry, pricing varies widely. In the last project we bid, ~ 120 I/O points with 2 workstations. The budget pricing was $18,000 for PCS7 and $25,000 for DeltaV. (without I/O).

This may look like a big difference, but when a good configuration engineer cost 4K to 6K per week, the ease of use and speed of configuration becomes significantly more important than the initial cost of hardware and software licenses.

Ease of Use for Configuration Engineer-

By far, DeltaV is the easiest system to configure. There are fewer options, fewer menus and check boxes. One of the best features, is the control module templates.

A control module is a pre-set subroutine which is configured for a specific function. Examples of control modules:

Analog Input with scaling, alarming, and trending (historical collection)
Digital Input with alarming, latching, logging, and time delay.
PID Loop

With the control module setup, and engineer can setup a typical analog input point, define ranges, alarm levels, and historical collection (example: every 10 seconds).

Then whenever a new AI is required, this is dragged out of the library, just change name, assign I/O, reset alarm limits and you are done.

ABB has similar functions, and can even can wrap together the control code with the associated graphic object, but it is more difficult to do.

Siemens PCS7 has control module library, but CM’s are copy/paste, and not instantiated. To learn more about this “instantiation” see: http://www.specsoft-pfs.com/Brewery%20Automation%20Model.pdf

Ease of Use for Client-

As with ease for a configuration engineer, DeltaV has the fewest options and simplest menus. For a refinery, or very large plant with sophisticated operators, it probably won’t make a difference. SPEC sometimes installs the first control system a client has in their plant.

Choosing Used vs. New Process Equipment, Part 2

2008-09-09 09:14:13

To help you determine if used equipment is right for your budget and process, here are some important items which need to be considered.

1. How important is the equipment to your process?

For example, if you are planning a biofuel manufacturing facility and the key component to the process is the fermentation vessel, purchasing a used pressure vessel and mixer may not be wise, especially if you are not planning on modifying the equipment but are installing it as is. It will be hard to find the exact component on the used market to suit your process needs and it may not work to your satisfaction.

2. Warranty - Most used equipment comes without any warranty.

The fact that it is used makes it more likely that it can and will breakdown. If you do not have a well trained maintenance staff on hand, it may be difficult to make these repairs quickly without factory assistance. Again, if the equipment is important or the heart of your process this can lead to extended downtime, additional costs and loss of revenue.

3. ASME stamped pressure vessels - It will be hard to find the exact vessel to meet your process needs.

More than likely you will need to add or change the nozzles on the vessel meaning you will need to make certified ASME vessel repairs. This will certainly add cost and time to the project and could uncover hidden problems with the equipment (see comments in table from part 1).

4. Process vessels with mixers - The mixer needs to be the right type and horsepower to suit your process.

Because the mixer is a key piece of mechanical equipment, you may want to consider factory refurbishment. Mixer refurbishment can run from $3,000 to $17,000. If you replace or modify the power of the mixer on an ASME vessel, the nozzle loads on the vessel must be addressed as well.

Danvers, MA Explosion, Ventilation Analysis

2008-09-05 15:41:08

The large explosion that occurred at the Danvers, MA, CAI, Inc. manufacturing facility in November of 2006 was investigated by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Several key issues were highlighted in the investigation report (2007-03-I-MA), one of them being the safe handling of flammable liquids.

Section 5 of the report refers to the Model Fire Codes, including NFPA 30 for Flammable and Combustible Liquids. This report states that “This code allows for flammable liquids in unsealed containers to be heated indoors as long as adequate exhaust ventilation is provided to prevent flammable vapor accumulation within the building.”

Although SPEC agrees with the above statement, as the explosion clearly shows, proper design of a facility is necessary to effectively coordinate “adequate” ventilation with standby power and electrical area classification. Ventilation design needs to account for several factors:

· Air change rates or cfm/sq ft

· Dead zones within the space

· High and low exhaust locations

· Pressure differentials between rooms of different uses to avoid vapor flow to unclassified areas

One approach that SPEC has used in the past is to install LEL monitors in the exhaust ducts to detect high concentrations of explosive vapor. Based on the specific requirements, the high LEL can trip a fire alarm, increase air flow to make the area safe, automatically cut power to any electrical devices in the room or all of the above.

Although the Board concluded that CAI was a grandfathered facility and did not need to apply NFPA, a walk-through of the facility by a trained HVAC/Mechanical Engineer would have quickly revealed that simple changes to the ventilation system could have prevented the explosion.

What you should expect from your equipment /instrument vendor

2008-09-04 10:50:52

At SPEC process engineering we buy a lot of parts, pieces and specialty equipment.

Over the years we have found some reps/distributors to provide not only good prices, but also thorough documentation.

A high quality vendor should be able to provide the following WITH QUOTE:

1. Cut Sheet, in PDF format

2. Autocad Drawing of Equipment

3. Link to Website with Full instruction manual

4. Price with actual delivery (not “standard quoted delivery”).

5. Price with Delivery, Full model number.

All in an easy to read format. No scans. We like to directly cut text from the PDF quote and paste it directly into our purchase order system.

With the documents listed above, almost all of our turnover documents are supplied with the quote. We don’t have to chase down the manuals and scan them later.

Does your vendor provide this type of documentation to you with a quote?

If not, find another vendor. The few $ you may save on the purchase will easily be eaten up by engineering time to collect the documents for validation and turnover.

If you would like a referral to our favorite vendors, just drop us a note.

Choosing Used vs. New Process Equipment, Part 1

2008-09-04 10:39:01

What, if any, is the real benefit of buying used equipment for your project? Many people believe that they can save money by buying used equipment for their capital projects, and depending on the age and condition of the equipment they can save between 50% and 75% of the original cost.

However, sometimes used equipment can cost the same or even more than new after repairs, modifications, etc. are made to have the equipment function properly. And there are often a lot of hidden costs.

The following table contains real information from a project in which used equipment was bought to save money on a project.

	USED 1,000 gal. Tank w/ Mixer 316L SS (30 to 50 psig) jacketed	USED 2,000 gal. Tank w/ Mixer 316L SS (30 to 50 psig) jacketed	NEW 1,500 gallon Tank w/ Mixer 304L SS (50 psig/FV) jacketed	Comments
Base Cost	$ 8,500.00	$ 32,500.00	$ 52,379.00
Agitator Repair/Mods	$ 14,802.00	$ 9,515.00		Replace motor (XP), replace seal, refurbish drive, replace housing on 1 (Both 15 HP)
Vessel Repair/Mods	$ 13,080.00	$ 12,450.00		New nozzles to suit process, fix previous repairs not ASME certified, recertify, modify supports for load cells/platform
Other	$ 4,200.00			1,000 gal. jacket filled with debris (bees nests and dirt). Cost to hire professional cleaning company. Does not include time spent by Site and Mechanical Contractors
Totals	$ 40,582.00	$ 54,465.00	$ 52,379.00

As you can see, the 1,000 gallon vessel with mixer was purchased at a low cost of only $8,500 but the additional costs at the end of the project added up to over $32,000, for a total cost of approximately $40,000. More importantly, the used 2,000 gallon vessel with mixer, after repairs and modifications, actually cost more than the new 1,500 gallon vessel with mixer. The key when considering used equipment is to make sure you understand the extent of the repairs and modifications that will need to be made, as well as the possibility of other unforeseen, additional costs that could significantly impact your budget.

New Blog Launched for SPEC Process Engineering & Construction

2008-09-04 10:24:06

SPEC Process Engineering & Construction would like to announce the launch of our new blog. Contributors will include all of SPEC's engineers from disciplines including process, mechanical, chemical, electrical, and controls. Topics will include useful tips as well as solutions and lessons learned from specific projects. We hope that our wide range of experiences will provide a helpful resource to our readers and we look forward to your comments and questions.

SPEC Process Engineering & Construction