AFRICA REVIEW - CIATitle: AFRICA REVIEW Subject: AFRICA REVIEW Keywords
NADB RGVSG Project Review
description
Transcript of NADB RGVSG Project Review
January 27, 2003
NADB RGVSG Project ReviewNADB RGVSG Project Review
Summary Presentation
San Antonio, Texas
January 27, 2003
January 27, 2003
Introducing Pollutech’s TeamIntroducing Pollutech’s Team
Richard Laughton– Project Director– NADB Compliance– BECC Step 2– Compliance Issues– Risk Assessment– Reporting
Greg Brown– Project Manager– Technical Analysis– Financial Review– Regulatory Permits– Project Feasibility– Reporting
January 27, 2003
Project Project DescriptionDescription
The project is a clean energy and air quality improvement project as defined under the BECC/NADB mandate expansion.
The project sponsor is the sugar cooperative identified as the “Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.” (RGVSG).
FOR MORE INFO...
http://www.pollutechinternational.com/jobs/nadb/
January 27, 2003
RGVSG FacilityRGVSG Facility
The project is located 2½ miles west of Santa Rosa, Texas (Hidalgo County) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on Highway 107.
January 27, 2003
Project GoalsProject Goals
Review proposed system improvements in terms of capacity and operative compatibility with existing facility and expected performance, primarily focussing on equipment related to the co-generation from bagasse, air quality improvements, water and energy savings, and potential waste reduction.
Review and validate proposed technical, financial, operational, and environmental claims, costs associated with system improvements, and electricity sales.
January 27, 2003
Technical ViabilityTechnical Viability
basic systems processes and technologies; O&M experience and requirements; technical specifications and design; energy production and sales estimates; proposed environmental efficiencies; cost savings, emissions credits, and environmental improvement-related credits
January 27, 2003
Project Project TechnologyTechnology
Upgrades to bagasse handling system;
New higher efficiency boiler; and
New (rebuilt) turbine generator.
January 27, 2003
Project Project ResourcesResources
NADB Project Manager RGVSG Management Team TCEQ Industry and Approvals Staff Schaffer & Associates, LLP Turner Collie & Braden Inc. Pollutech International Limited
January 27, 2003
Review Review ProceduresProcedures
Background document review;Site inspection and interviews;Consultants reports and inquires;Regulatory analysis; andTechnical and financial analysis.
FOR MORE INFO...
1) Pollutech Technical Review Report
2) Executive Summary Report
January 27, 2003
Project TimelineProject Timeline
Pollutech Report January 23, 2003 TCB BECC Step 2 February 3, 2003 BECC Approval March 20, 2003 NADB Approval June 2003 Bagasse upgrade September 2004 Boiler and GenSet April 2005
0102030405060708090
100
2003Q1
2003Q2
2003Q3
2003Q4
2004 2005
January 27, 2003
Key ConcernsKey Concerns
Reduction in air emissionsChange to net power exporterCompliance with BECC Step IITechnically viable and sustainableFits in with RGVSG long term plans
January 27, 2003
The Detailed AnalysisThe Detailed Analysis
Review Existing Process Analyze Proposed Upgrade Projected Power Capacities Project Air Emissions The Financial Analysis
January 27, 2003
Key FactorsKey Factors
Sugar Policy (WTO and Farm Bill) Weather Conditions Supply of Irrigation Water Environmental Limits (air
permits) Grower co-operation and
education Plant Production Capabilities
January 27, 2003
Process FlowsheetProcess Flowsheet
January 27, 2003
Proposed Plant UpgradesProposed Plant Upgrades
Schaffer Stage 1– Production plant upgrades– Plant increase to 20,000 tcd
Schaffer Stage 2– Bagasse handling upgrades– Power plant upgrade (boiler & turbine)
January 27, 2003
Proposed Plant UpgradesProposed Plant Upgrades
As a result of other restrictions on the plant capacity increase (i.e. production quotas, growers capabilities, financing capabilities) there is no immediate plan to increase the production capabilities through the Phase 1 expansion.
However, the positive economic and environmental benefits of the proposed Phase 2 expansion do warrant those tasks being undertaken at this time.
January 27, 2003
Proposed Stage 2 Plant UpgradesProposed Stage 2 Plant Upgrades
Bagasse Handling Upgrades– conversion of all bagasse conveyors to fully
automated (PLC controlled) belt conveyors (for an increased capacity to handle 20,000 tcd)
– expansion and upgrade of the bagasse storage building
– conversion of the boiler building (height and length) to handle the modified bagasse conveyor system and to allow for the new boiler #5
January 27, 2003
Proposed Stage 2 Plant UpgradesProposed Stage 2 Plant Upgrades
Power Plant Upgrade (Boiler & Turbine)– installation of a new high efficiency boiler (#5)
with corresponding reduction in the use of the existing boilers (#’s 1,2,3,4)
– new condensate storage tank;– rebuilt 6,000 KW turbine generator to replace
one of existing 2,500 KW turbine generators
January 27, 2003
Power ProductionPower Production
January 27, 2003
Proposed OperationProposed Operation
Plant Operation Old Boilers
(% capacity)
New Boilers
(% capacity)
10,000 tcd 34 90
13,500 tcd 67 90
15,000 tcd 85 90
January 27, 2003
Proposed Power CapacitiesProposed Power Capacities
Power Analysis
MW Produced
MW Purchased
MW
Sold
MW
Used
Current 4.3 1.7 0.0 6.0
10,000 tcd 9.6 0.0 5.0 4.6
13,500 tcd 11.8 0.0 4.2 7.6
15,000 tcd 14.0 0.0 9.0 5.0
January 27, 2003
Air EmissionsAir Emissions
January 27, 2003
Projected Air EmissionsProjected Air Emissions
Emission Analysis
CO tons/year
NOx tons/year
PM
tons/year
VOC tons/year
Current 2,458 482 385 157
10,000 tcd 1,320 439 198 79
13,000 tcd 2,191 609 335 134
15,000 tcd 2,564 682 393 158
January 27, 2003
Allowable v. Actual EmissionsAllowable v. Actual Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Allowable Emissions Actual 2001 - 2002Emissions
Air
Em
issi
on
s (T
on
s p
er
Ye
ar)
CO
SO2
TSP
NOx
VOC
January 27, 2003
Projected Air EmissionsProjected Air Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Actual 2001 -2002
Emissions
ProjectedEmissions at
10,000 tcd
ProjectedEmissions at
13,500 tcd
ProjectedEmissions at
15,000 tcd
Air
Em
iss
ion
s (
To
ns
pe
r Y
ea
r)
CO
SO2
TSP
NOx
VOC
January 27, 2003
Financial Analysis - Project CostsFinancial Analysis - Project Costs
Financial
Analysis
Bagasse Handling
Boiler Turbine Generator
TOTAL PROJECT
Project Cost (10% contingency)
$6,422,532 $13,986,117 $3,986,117 $23,826,937
January 27, 2003
Financial Analysis - Cost Financial Analysis - Cost SavingsSavings
Component Bagasse Handling Boiler & Turbine
Conveyor Operation $112,478
Bagasse Storage $135,000
Boiler Maintenance $841,000
Electricity $312,120
Natural Gas $250,000
Excess Power ________ $450,000
TOTAL $247,478 $1,853,120
January 27, 2003
Financial Analysis - Payback PeriodFinancial Analysis - Payback Period
Cost Component
Bagasse Handling
Boiler & Turbine
Total Project
Total
Cost
$6,422,532 $17,384,405 $23,826,937
Annual Cost Savings
$247,478 $1,853,120 $2,100,598
Payback Period
26.0 Years 9.4 Years 11.3 Years
January 27, 2003
Plant Environmental ProgramsPlant Environmental Programs
TCEQ Site Assistance Visit (P2SAV)Emerald Consultants Compliance AuditEPA Pilot EMS ProgramRoutine Regulatory Compliance
January 27, 2003
Air Quality ImprovementsAir Quality Improvements
- 42% at 10,000 tcd - 0.6% at 13,500 tcd + 9.0% at 15,000 tcd
January 27, 2003
Water Quality IssuesWater Quality Issues
100% RecycleHigh EvaporationStormwater PlanOn-Site WWTP
January 27, 2003
Other Environmental IssuesOther Environmental Issues
Solid WasteChemical WasteTRI (no reports)EMS (in process)
January 27, 2003
Emission Reduction CreditsEmission Reduction Credits
ERCDERCsPPA Options
January 27, 2003
General Project ValidationGeneral Project Validation
Is the plant proposing to use production and power generation technology that would be used by a prudent owner of a similar facility?
Is the pollution abatement equipment that is proposed BACT-EA?
January 27, 2003
General Project ValidationGeneral Project Validation
Will the upgraded facility be able to produce more power?
Will the total air emissions from the upgraded facility be significantly less than the existing?
January 27, 2003
General Project ValidationGeneral Project Validation
Will the project result in a reduction in the environmental impacts related to water supply and discharge?
Has it been demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts on the neighbouring community?
January 27, 2003
Air Emission SummaryAir Emission Summary
Immediate and significant 42% decrease in component and total air emissions at 10,000 tcd.
Reduced air emissions from outside power producers.
January 27, 2003
Power Production SummaryPower Production Summary
Currently a net importer of power at approximately 1.7 MW
Will become a net exporter of power at 5 MW (plus 1.7 MW benefit)
January 27, 2003
Compliance with BECC Step 2Compliance with BECC Step 2
general; human health and environment; technical feasibility; financial feasibility; project management; community participation; and sustainable development.
January 27, 2003
BECC Guiding PrinciplesBECC Guiding Principles
• Principle 1. The project is centered on energy conservation and the economic needs of the region.
• Principle 2. The rights of the cooperative members and surrounding communities to adequately raise their standard of living and develop their properties are recognized and underlie the reasons for undertaking the project.
January 27, 2003
BECC Guiding PrinciplesBECC Guiding Principles
• Principle 3. Environmental protection is integral to the project with the promotion of renewable energy sources and the significant reduction in air pollutant loadings during operation.
• Principle 4. Stakeholders have been involved and have had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. This not only includes the cooperative members and surrounding residents, but also local, regional, state and federal agencies with statutory interest and standing in the issues at hand.
January 27, 2003
BECC II – Community ImpactBECC II – Community Impact
Air emissions from the RGVSG will be reduced while allowing the mill to continue to compete in an aggressive international market, while at the same time allowing for increased energy production (electricity) from the waste biomass (bagasse).
January 27, 2003
BECC II – Project AlternativesBECC II – Project Alternatives
The “do nothing” alternative means no improvement in air quality and a less competitive industrial operation.
More advanced alternatives might provide additional environmental improvement (i.e. better emissions control technology, more efficient energy production methods) but are deemed not to be economically viable at this time.
January 27, 2003
BECC II – Financial FeasibilityBECC II – Financial Feasibility
The annual cost savings associated with reduced operating costs, reduced natural gas costs, and excess power sales are calculated to be approximately $2,100,000 per year. These cost savings account for 8.8% of the total project costs.
January 27, 2003
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
Can this project achieve what is projected in terms of current and future plant operation, or are there some undermining limitations that may increase the risk?
If the plant can go ahead with the upgrade to the operation with a manageable level of risk in operations, are we sure that the project they are proposing is technically sound?
January 27, 2003
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
Can we confirm that all the local, state and federal environmental regulations will be met? What are the risks and impacts of occasional infractions?
Does the plant have the capability to operate and maintain the upgraded facility, so as to minimize or eliminate any risk of plant upsets that could affect either plant profitability or environmental emissions?
January 27, 2003
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
Does the project result in long term sustainability for the local area, giving due consideration to all of the issues required in the BECC Step II evaluation?
RISK = [Likelihood x Impact]
Likelihood = could it happen?Impact = what if it happens?
January 27, 2003
Cane ProductionCane Production
43,000 acres in production Yields of 45 tons cane per acre Peak generation of 2,000,000 tons cane
per year Weather and irrigation are critical
MODERATE RISK
January 27, 2003
Sugar PoliciesSugar Policies
Current quota of 144,000 tons sugar Storage of shortfalls Current pricing in the $0.21 range Farm Bill expires in 2007-2008 Mexican and Canadian Issues
MODERATE RISK
January 27, 2003
Production ExpansionProduction Expansion
Satisfactory for the next 5 years Anticipate 10,000 tcd over 150 days Immediate cost savings in operation Future growth in Stage 2 upgrades
LOW RISK
January 27, 2003
Plant ProfitabilityPlant Profitability
Reduction in power costs Reduction in labour & equipment costs Payback period of 11.3 years
EXTEMELY POSITIVE
January 27, 2003
Technology EvaluationTechnology Evaluation
Experience of Schaffer & Associates Relying on “proven technologies” Manufacturer guarantees Proven operation and maintenance
LIMITED RISK
January 27, 2003
Regulatory IssuesRegulatory Issues
Immediate reduction in air emissions Ongoing program for cane burning No concerns with water discharge Moving to EMS in 2003
LIMITED RISK
January 27, 2003
Environmental SustainabilityEnvironmental Sustainability
Direct benefit to the local communityPlant can remain competitiveTruly a “win win” situation
January 27, 2003
For Further InformationFor Further Information
Pollutech International Limited
768 Westgate Road
Oakville, Ontario CANADA
Tel: 1-905-847-0065
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.pollutech.com