1st Global Fuels Conference 2007
5-6 February, London, UK
Reviewed by Rick Morris, Global Fuels Magazine
The 1st Global Fuels Conference has successfully taken place at the Thistle Hotel, Charing Cross in London, 5-6 February. There were two days of presentations in the conference hall featuring 23 papers. A Gala Dinner with a jazz band took place in the Betjeman Room on the Monday evening. At the final count 143 delegates registered for the conference, from 30 different countries, many from outside Europe.
During the evening of Sunday, 4 February there was a cocktail reception in the exhibition area for all delegates, speakers, exhibitors and guests. In all, 12 companies exhibited at the event. Looking ahead to next year, the 2nd Global Fuels Conference and Exhibition will take place on 4-5 February 2008.
Conference first day
The conference was opened by the conference convenor, Dr Robert McCaffrey, with a short review of the reasons why alternative fuels are ‘flavour of the month’. He concluded with the Scottish aphorism: “‘Every penny saved is a penny earned’ – and you are all here to earn money!”
The opening session was a ‘Global Fuels Overview.’ The first speaker, who proved to be unhindered by a neckbrace due to a recent car crash in Mexico, was Sebastian Foot of Carbon Capital Markets. He gave a lucid description of EU Emissions Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as it related to cement manufacturers in particular. Carbon Capital Markets offers a commission-free way of trading the 2006 EU allowances. CDM provides a mechanism for firms to invest in developing countries where substantial carbon reductions can be made; 1000 projects have already started. Sebastian explained the surplus of allowances in the market which has led to prices dropping from Euro30 a tonne to less than Euro2 per tonne. He looked ahead to the changes that may occur in 2008 when Phase 2 allowances are introduced, emphasising that Phase 1 allowances cannot be carried forward. In conclusion he said that emissions trading is working – it’s better than taxes – and that the carbon market is growing.
Liz Bossley, CEO of Consilience Energy Advisory Group Ltd (CEAG), a consultancy that specialises in global energy markets, took up the theme with a forceful presentation on ‘The impact of emissions on power, gas and coal prices.’ As co-author of the recently published book ‘Climate Change and Emissions Trading: What Every Business Needs to Know’ she confidently asserted that within the next five years the Americans will take over the emissions trading market, but whether they do so within the Kyoto Agreement remains to be seen. She said that the carbon price has not been sufficiently high to encourage fuel switching and the consumer has been losing out because the price of carbon has been passed on to them. In response to a question from the floor she remarked: “There is a need to bring OPEC into the equation. At the moment they are at odds with the Kyoto Process as it is aimed at reducing oil use.”
Next to take the floor was Claude Loréa, Cembureau’s technical director, who spoke on ‘Use of alternative fuels in the European cement industry.’ She commented that Europe’s cement manufacturers were progressing rapidly in the use of alternative fuels, using twice as much in 2004 as in 2001, but there were huge differences between EU member states and some did not use alternative fuels at all: the Dutch are near to 100% use of alternative fuels. CEM II is now the most widely produced cement in Europe and is playing its part in reducing carbon emissions because production of CEM II emits less CO2. The EU is promoting the use of biomass in many sectors which means that biomass is less readily available as a fuel for the cement industry. She said there is a lot of regulation at EU level and that Cembureau is aiming for 27% usage of alternative fuels, but that to achieve this “we need no barriers to using waste fuels in the cement industry.”
George J. Venta, director of Air Emissions and Environment at the Cement Association of Canada, then provided an overview on ‘The use of alternative fuels in the Canadian and US cement industries,’ showing how alternative fuel use had increased in both countries, though to no more than about 6%. AF use in the US was gradually growing but in Canada it varied widely from province to province as a result of different provincial legislation. Quebec, for instance, is encouraging the use of alternative fuels but in other provinces it has proved hard to get licences to burn tyres. Canada has just 16 cement plants in five out of the 10 provinces, whereas, at the end of 2004, the US had 115 plants with 186 kilns in 37 out of 50 states. Canada exports about a third of its cement, primarily to the US. In conclusion he said there was enough energy in waste sources for the wide range of industries, including the cement industry, that might want to use wastes as fuel. Cement plants could reduce the amount that went to landfill but governments need to support energy-from-waste policies.
Dr Rahim Vaseghi of SICO in the UAE spoke on ‘Fuel consumption in Iranian industry now and in the future’ with particular reference to the cement industry. One problem was the smuggling of cheap fuel from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. “Because of the low price of energy nobody is considering how to use or save it.” There were actions that could be taken in terms of pricing and energy consumption. Iran, like China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Russia, South Africa and Venezuela, is subsidising its fuel. Removing subsidies could reduce the energy demand, reducing energy use in Iran by about 48%. This could also lower annual CO2 emissions by 50% to less than 1997 levels. He commented that the cement industry in Iran is wasting energy in comparison with industrialised countries and the government has no choice but to increase the price of energy. Currently petrol is around US$0.10/Euro0.07/5p a litre, while coal and gas are similarly priced.
The next overseas speaker was Vagner Maringolo of the Brazilian Portland Cement Association on ‘Use of waste-derived fuels in the Brazilian cement industry.’ Brazil has 58 plants owned by seven Brazilian cement companies and three multinationals – Cimpor, Holcim and Lafarge – and there is even one plant in the Amazon rainforest. Most cement plants are in the south-east and along the east coast. Use of waste-derived fuels started in the 1980s and the number of plants permitted to burn waste has grown – 37 plants are now co-processing. Scrap tyres are a particular problem in Brazil and have become a hazardous waste because water accumulates in them and mosquitoes breed in the water, spreading diseases such as dengue fever. The tyre industry itself must now dispose of scrap tyres at a rate set by the government and tyres are sometimes the only waste being burned in cement kilns. Brazilian cement plants are substituting waste-derived fuels for fossil fuels at rates varying from 10-40% of thermal energy consumption. Some 800,000 tonnes were burned in 2006 and tyres made up an eighth of this. The challenge in Brazil is to change the culture of waste disposal. The association is working to produce an environmentally friendly cement industry, since many plants are in urban areas. Co-processing is playing an important role in this.
Tom Lowes from the Alternative Fuels Research Department of Holcim Corporate Industrial Ecology delivered a paper jointly produced with Anne Dekeukelaere on ‘Co-processing of AFR in Holcim and its enhancement via CFD.’ After praising his boss as “the best in the business,” Tom went on to talk about the GTZ-Holcim partnership. GTZ is a German-based non-profit organisation promoting international cooperation on sustainable development. Holcim is increasing its thermal substitution rate. He outlined the nine principles of Holcim’s AFR policy which began with acting as a partner to society by offering waste management solutions and concluded with monitoring and controlling the inputs, process, products and emissions, and communicating transparently. In Vietnam Holcim is co-processing pesticides in the kiln. After an array of diagrams and graphs he spoke on Computerised Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and concluded: “CFD is a powerful tool, don’t just play with it, use it!” On this note, delegates broke for lunch.
Craig Ibbetson of Regen Fuels opened the afternoon session with ‘Optimisation of secondary fuels from waste management processes,’ a paper published in the February issue of Global Cement. He looked at the use of refuse derived fuel (RDF) and solid recovered fuel (SRF) across the EU and the industries they are used in including power generation, cement, paper, metals processing and the chemical industry. SRF must not only meet the limitations of the European Waste Incineration Directive but must also be compatible with a plant originally designed to use fossil fuels. This means restrictions on SRF in terms of particle size, the amount of plastic particles and chemical parameters such as chlorine content. In cement kilns the specifications for main burner fuel are higher than for SRF used in the calciner. He looked at the German market experience and concluded that there was some evidence of market failure in 2005 but the market was now in correction. He went on to examine the development of mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) for the treatment of waste and the importance of separating out fuels with the right calorific values for end users. He concluded that for a successful long-term solution the fuel producer (waste processor) must be able to meet the needs of the fuel user and this requires the fuel producer to become more than just a disposer of waste which has, traditionally, been the main function.
Next up was a double act from Vecoplan, with Jörg Muller giving the first half of the presentation and Boris Sassenrath drawing some conclusions. They spoke on ‘Preparation and handling of RDF.’ Jörg ran through Vecoplan’s history – starting in 1969, it now has 270 employees, a turnover of Euro70m and has sold 25,000 units in all continents. He described it as “the largest shredder manufacturer in the world.” Apart from this, Vecoplan produces bunker systems, conveying systems, screens and separation devices. He discussed fuels as varied as municipal solid waste, wood and cattle dung. Vecoplan could do all the recycling and preparation for a cement plant. Boris said German cement plants achieve 43% fuel substitution with RDF. He described how difficult materials, such as PVC which produces chlorine, could be separated out, and how screening technology could provide a final quality check. In summary he said RDF could reduce energy costs, reduce CO2 and provide an independent fuel solution.
Wilfred Zieri of A TEC Production & Services spoke on ‘Using domestic waste as alternative fuel in the cement industry.’ He looked at different clinker process technologies and then examined the composition of domestic waste which contains up to 31% water. He explained how domestic waste was prepared for fuel and then looked at the burning of waste fuel in the precalciner and the main burner. He explained the emissions that were produced, particularly with regard to the heavy metals and chlorine in typical fuels. His conclusion was: “There is enough waste in the world, there is enough calorific content in it and our aim should be to use it for the benefit of the environment.”
Stephen Davies of Panalytical opened the third session with a paper on ‘Control of environmentally-sensitive elements in alternative fuels by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry.’ The different fuel types – solid or liquid – have huge variations in their physical and chemical natures and in order to control plant emissions it is necessary to quantify the elements present in incoming fuels. The American Society for Testing and Materials has developed a standard method for analysing liquid alternative fuels by Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (EDXRF) but there is no equivalent for solid waste materials. He went on to explain how X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) could solve this problem if samples of solid wastes were turned into pressed powder briquettes. An 8g sample is mixed with 2g of wax and milled to ensure particle size is uniform. The mixture is then pressed to form the briquette. A steel ring or aluminium cup can be used to make the briquette more robust. Using certified reference materials and Panalytical’s Epsilon 5 EDXRF equipment it was possible to accurately analyse the substances present in solid alternative fuels and therefore determine likely emissions.
Barry Woodbine spoke on ‘Alternative fuel handling and storage options,’ looking particularly at the Schade and B&W part of the Aumund Group. At the Hua Yang project in Taiwan the company had built a 120m-diameter dome to store coal for a power plant. Barry showed footage of the railcar tippler which picks up and turns coal trucks through 360° to empty them. He showed tipping solutions that are designed not to produce dust and are environmentally sound and also produce cost savings. Looking at chicken litter as a fuel he described it as: “Particularly wet and unpleasant and smelly. The only thing more tricky is sewage sludge.” He said the Aumund Group offered a fully integrated service and was a one-stop-shop for bulk materials handling.
York Reichardt of Gebr. Pfeiffer gave a presentation on ‘Grinding plants for coal, lignite, anthracite and pet coke with MPS vertical roller mills.’ Touching on the risk of coal burning before it gets to the kiln, he said it was important to know what type of coal will be used in the mill. Pet coke comes in three sizes, varying from large lumps to almost dust, but the dusty version can’t be processed in a vertical roller mill. Requirements are different for lignite. He ended by saying that coal is becoming more and more popular in the steel industry worldwide.
The day finished with a bonus presentation, a video from Ciments Vicat entitled ‘Manufacturing with alternative fuels’ which looked at making alternative fuels appealing and the importance of communicating with local people.
Delegates then had the chance to make many new contacts, moving on to a drinks reception in the Global Fuels Exhibition area and then to the Betjeman Room for the Gala Dinner accompanied by a laid-back jazz band. Discussion on alternative fuels then continued long into the night in the hotel bar.
Second day
The first presentation of the day came from one of the true pioneers of the alternative fuels sector, Dirk Lechtenberg of MVW Lechtenberg, who gave a highly illustrated talk on ‘The real effects of alternative fuels in clinker production – environmental, chemical and financial effects – a project in Lebanon.’ Working with Solidere, the local body re-building Beirut’s city centre, MVW Lechtenberg is sorting the waste products that were disposed of in a disorderly way on the Beirut harbour site during the civil war. The mixture of wood, household textiles, foam and plastics, used tyres and other materials is sorted mechanically and manually. Sand is separated with drum screens to be used on road building sites. Magnetic separators extract ferrous metals. The combustible element of the waste is reduced to seed-size pieces by using three shredders. Lebanese cement plants do not yet have permits to use secondary fuels so the separated and prepared waste fuels are shipped out from the harbour to neighbouring countries. The plan is to process 120,000 cubic metres of materials and to clear an area of 60ha of land by early 2008.
Next up was a well illustrated talk on ‘System technology for the use of alternative fuels for kiln firing in the cement industry,’ by Ulrich Hock, sales manager for Beumer Maschinenfabrik. He remarked that his boss used to tell him: “Selling with Beumer is like a vacation all year!” He suggested that one of the keys to success in using AF is to select the right fuel – “About 90% of the tyre is carbon, pure carbon, and the metal is very useful in cement making. By firing tyres you don’t produce ashes or rather they are absorbed in the cement itself.” It was also, he said, important to secure a long-term supply of alternative fuel as it gave you a competitive advantage. He said using tyres as an alternative fuel could produce a return on investment within six months. Beumer recommends using whole used tyres and a video shot at a HeidelbergCement plant in Germany showed how the tyres could be handled entirely by machinery. Tyres of the wrong size are separated out using a walking floor. Water is tipped out of the tyres en route and 900 tyres an hour enter the kiln. The presentation elicited a lively session of questions from the floor and certainly provided food for thought to those who favour shredding tyres. Why waste time, energy and money on shredding when kilns can handle whole tyres?
Robert Krist, sales manager of Pfister GmbH, gave an enthusiastic presentation on ‘Pfister rotorweighfeeder technology: the multi-fuel system for dosing nearly all kinds of alternative fuels.’ Describing a rotor weighfeeder which was very sensitive and could handle different fuels he said, “It can handle up to 12 tonnes an hour of light fluffy plastic. It’s explosion-proof.” By contrast he looked at a system for dealing with coarse RDF and sewage sludge in Germany, as well as a machine that was brought in to handle impregnated sawdust in France: “This was a stinky situation and some of the workers refused to work there.” Finally he looked at animal meal (MBM) dosing into a coal feed pipe in England and concluded that fuel flexibility was important and it paid to have a system that could handle both very light and heavy fuels.
Taking up the theme, Georg Kremer of Schenck Process spoke on ‘Flexible solutions for feeding secondary fuels.’ He looked initially at unloading stations, using a variety of solutions from trailers with a walking-floor to tilting stations and a docking station with a screw bottom. When it came to controlled feeding and dosing he discussed a weighfeeder, a screw-weighfeeder and the Coriolis mass flow feeder, but his favourite piece of kit seemed to be the blow-through jet starfeeder which he said was: “tailor-made for conveying alternative fuels.” The beauty of it was that it was designed for a long life and low maintenance, with all parts readily exchangeable on-site.
Picking up on the idea of pneumatic conveying, the next speaker was Richard Ellis of Clyde Industries, speaking on ‘Pneumatic conveying and injection technologies; handling alternative fuels across industries.’ This was technology that Clyde had originally developed for use in coal-fired power stations. He described how pneumatic injection could be used to handle fuels as different as chicken offal and lump coal. Sawdust was, he said, “Awkward to handle as it packs and rat-holes.” A fuel not touched on by other contributors was crushed electrical equipment, mainly mobile phones, which were largely made of plastic but included metals such as copper, gold, silver and molybdenum that were worth recovering. Richard described how the phones were crushed and shredded to a size where they could be pneumatically conveyed for injection into various types of copper smelter where the metals could be recovered, while the calorific value of the plastic reduced the consumption of oil. Much of the research work to develop custom-made solutions for particular industries is carried out at Clyde’s R&D facility in Doncaster, UK where scale-model or full scale test rigs are built. Solutions developed for one industry can often be adapted for another.
Dirk Schmidt of Powitec Intelligent Technologies kept the audience glued to their seats as lunch approached. Using a colourful range of slides, he spoke on ‘Firing alternative fuels using image processing for burner control.’ He described himself as “A man who has been looking deep into flames for 17 years.” And so it proved. Starting from the thesis that “Only what is measured can be controlled,” he said it is possible by controlling a flame’s volume to look into it. “Flames speak a clear language,” he asserted and “flame shaping could be the answer.” Using a camera system within a kiln, digital imaging can show the flame shape and the precise point of combustion. Different fuels produce different flames and these can be seen and plotted on a computer. It is possible to see how flames change when quantities of fuel mix are changed. One such study had caused a burner manufacturer to alter his equipment to produce better results. The benefits from flame control and smooth kiln operation include reduced maintenance and repairs to refractories, reduced primary fuel consumption, increased use of alternative fuels, higher clinker quality, prolongation of kiln operation and burner life and increased emission control.
After lunch the session on combustion efficiency opened with Tahir Abas of Cinar speaking on ‘Enhancing the use of AFR through CFD.’ He looked at burning both tyre chips and whole tyres and went on to discuss NOx optimisation for an ADA kiln and optimising emission results for NOx, CO and SO2.
Sanjiv Dhanjal of FCT presented a paper on ‘Optimising fuel use: burning it smarter,’ concentrating on burner design and the problems inherent in a piece of equipment subjected to extreme heat (3000°F) as well as abrasion damage. Burner design was dependent on the type of fuel, air flows and mechanical considerations. He noted that gas had a low flame luminosity, compared with oil and coal, and gas’s heat release profile was not ideal for clinker formation. Efficient burner design could compensate for this. He looked at alternative fuels including hog sawdust fuel and went on to discuss on-line quality control and the use of X-ray diffraction to measure mineral content. FCT provides a field X-ray diffraction analyser, COSMA, that analyses minerals continuously. He concluded that a combination of COSMA and an optimised burner creates a powerful tool to optimise alternative fuel firing, while maintaining clinker quality.
Eric Hansen of Cadence Environmental Energy had flown in from Indiana and from the start it was clear that he was that rare gem, a real enthusiast who knew his kiln technology from extensive personal experience and could communicate his unrivalled knowledge with great clarity. Here was a man who delighted in adjusting and fine tuning any kiln and its variables to maximise its performance. Fittingly his topic was ‘Mixing technologies – to improve combustion performance in kilns when burning alternative fuels.’ The challenges of alternative fuels included lower flame temperatures, difficulty in metering, variable heating values and ignition difficulties. The firing of non-conventional fuels can result in loss of production, increased emissions and lower clinker quality. Rather than accept these limitations, they can be systematically addressed and Eric set about doing that. He warned of the detrimental effect of excess air on the process – something not often appreciated. The first step is to establish what the constraints are with respect to SO2, CO and NOx emissions. He advocates aggressive control of the oxygen level: maintenance of a constant oxygen level or a designated CO or SO2 should take precedence over the maintenance of a constant feed rate. Eric packed so many valuable insights into his 25-minute presentation that we can only give a brief flavour of them here. See his paper on page 24 of this issue of Global Cement magazine.
The last speaker of the day was another man with a mission, Alexander Koshi of Star Cement in the Kingdom of Bahrain. He told the story of ‘Use of micronised pet coke in the calciner of a 1Mt cement plant in the Middle East.’ In 1992 natural gas availability was restricted and the cost of fuel oil was high, so the in-house team decided to look at the feasibility of pet coke firing. Studies suggested it was possible and a pilot trial went ahead, burning 20mm pet coke in the calciner. This size proved too large and a micro mill was brought in. A number of problems occurred with coating. A Rotaflam burner was modified for use with pet coke, and as a result 83,398 tons of pet coke were used from 1992-2000 and today the plant is using 100% solid fuel. He concluded that “Innovation is the key to survival.”
Panel discussion
The conference session closed with a panel discussion chaired by Dr Rob McCaffrey. On the panel were Eric Hansen of Cadence, Professor Fred Lockwood of Imperial College, Dirk Lechtenberg of MVW Lechtenberg and Tom Lowes of Holcim. In response to a question about combustibility of alternative fuels, Prof Lockwood said: “We need to know how new fuels release their volatile content. There is little information on many of the alternative fuels.” Answering a question on the risk of explosions or spontaneous combustion when using alternative fuels, Dirk Lechtenberg commented: “The dust content of some AFs is explosive – MBM, for instance. Storage can be difficult. There can be high temperatures due to chemical reactions. There can be small explosions with the dust when processing refuse derived fuel.” He had recent experience of a lorry of RDF travelling at 80kph on the motorway when the driver realised that the fuel on board was burning. And he knew of an explosion in Germany of MBM that was badly stored. “When MBM gets wet and temperature rises to 60-70° combustion can occur.” Hasan Bobat of Tarmac said the fire brigade had told him not to put any water on burning MBM. From the floor Alexander Koshi asked: “Can we make an instrument to control or monitor the CO2? To measure the true degree of calcination?” Tom Lowes opined that “It was too complicated to do and I don’t think you’ll gain much by doing it.” And the final question was “How does the cement producer encourage micro mixing?” Eric Hansen responded: “Some way you have to get the energy into the process. It costs you to get momentum into the system.”
The formal business over, the delegates moved on to the prize-giving at the farewell drinks party. Schenck Process received the award for the best exhibition stand (they had a working model with walking-floor trailers that shifted mustard seeds and lentils). Alexander Koshi of Star Cement was awarded a special convenor’s prize for being the first delegate to correctly supply all conference materials to the organisers. Delegates had voted on their favourite presentations. In third place was the paper by Robert Krist on ‘Pfister rotorweighfeeder technology: the multi-fuel system for dosing nearly all kinds of alternative fuels.’ Second place went to Dirk Schmidt of Powitec for his paper on ‘Firing alternative fuels using image processing for burner control.’ First place and the award for best presentation went to Eric Hansen of Cadence for his tour-de-force on ‘Improving combustion performance in kilns when burning alternative fuels.
Conclusion
The results of the delegate questionnaire were closely studied by the event organisers. Delegates strongly praised the organisation of the conference, and the quality of the speaker programme. There were many positive suggestions for people and sectors that delegates would like to see at next year’s conference. Alongside this were comments such as “Good job!” and “I don’t think there was any room for improvement.” The excellent time-keeping of speakers was much appreciated and many people thought the best feature of the conference was the opportunity to make many new contacts. It was widely felt that the first such conference on alternative fuels was a considerable success. The next conference will include sessions on both biomass and on bio-fuels.
