chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Simultaneous optimization of CO2 emissions reduction strategies for effective carbon control in the process industries
Mona Gharaie a,, Nan Zhang a, Megan Jobson a, Robin Smith a, M. Hassan Panjeshahi b
a

Centre for Process Integration, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, The Mill, Sackville Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK b Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada

a b s t r a c t
Concerns about global warming have led governments to regulate CO2 emissions, including through emissions caps, trading and penalties, thus creating economic incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. This paper presents a mathematical model based on a MINLP formulation to address the problem of CO2 emissions from large-scale sites in the process industries. The proposed approach considers the interactions between process units, associated heat exchanger networks and the site utility system. The CO2 emissions reduction strategies considered include retrot of heat exchanger networks (HENs), operational optimization of the utility system and fuel switching. The mathematical model captures interactions between the HEN and the utility system; the optimization explores these interactions systematically within a superstructure of CO2 reduction options. The optimization objective is to determine suitable CO2 -mitigation options for a given emissions reduction target and available capital for investment, taking carbon trading issues into account. The proposed approach is applied to a published industrial case study; the results demonstrate the applicability of the approach to nding cost-effective solutions for CO2 emissions reduction. Results show that the best solution CO2 emissions reduction is affected by carbon trading. Therefore, opportunities to sell CO2 allowances, if practically achievable, play an important role in the process economics. 2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: CO2 emissions reduction; HEN retrot; Utility system; Fuel switching; Mathematical optimization; Carbon trading

1.

Introduction

Global energy demand has progressively increased (AEO, 2012). Conventional fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas continue to be the dominant sources of primary energy in the world economy (Jolley, 2009). However, utilization of such fuels continues to increase global warming by generating signicant amounts of carbon oxide emissions. Growing concerns about global warming have led environment agencies to set regulations to control CO2 emissions. In this respect, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme for CO2 emissions was introduced to set regulations in the energy sector and energy-intensive industries to comply with the Kyoto commitments. These regulations typically impose a limit on carbon

emissions released by industrial sites, which set emissions limits or caps and may imply emissions reduction targets. If emissions limits are exceeded, economic penalties are applied. The cost of carbon emissions can be a driving force for industries to reduce CO2 emissions. The Emissions Trading Scheme of the European Union, in spite of its shortcomings (including low costs of emission allowances at the timing of preparing this manuscript) is helping to abate CO2 emissions using economic drivers (Venmans, 2012). The process industry sector is a signicant emitter of CO2 (EC, 2010) that is covered by the EU trading scheme (EC, 2013). Production sites in the process industries typically comprise one or more process plant complexes and a central utility system serving the site by supplying some of its heating needs

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 161 3064390. E-mail address: mona.gharaie@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk (M. Gharaie). Received 4 October 2012; Received in revised form 4 June 2013; Accepted 5 June 2013 0263-8762/$ see front matter 2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.06.006

1484

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

and power requirements. The plant and utility system interact with each other through energy ows. Fuel combustion on the site is typically a dominant source of CO2 emissions from the site. Changes to process plants and the site utility system may be effective to reduce site CO2 emissions. These changes can affect the overall site performance as they inuence energy balances of the site. Therefore, when studying emissions reduction for a site, interactions between plants and the utility system should be considered. Furthermore, for a given CO2 emissions target, decision-making about the need for and extent of CO2 emissions reduction will be inuenced by the economic impact of carbon trading, relative to costs associated with reducing emissions from the plant. It is thus important to address carbon trading when exploring emissions reduction possibilities for a process site. Considerable research has been devoted over the last decade to address issues related to CO2 emissions from the electric power industry. For example, Ezhova and Sudareva (2009) studied various methods for removing CO2 from ue gas emitted by thermal power stations. They explored the operational performance of absorption methods using MEA and separation of CO2 emissions from ue gas using membranes. Gnanapragasam et al. (2009) considered the reduction of CO2 emissions for an integrated gasication combined cycle power generation system and performed sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of gasication operational parameters on net CO2 emissions. While some studies aimed at improving performance of CO2 removal systems, graphical procedures based on pinch analysis for CO2 emissions targeting have also been developed. Early work on CO2 pinch analysis (Tan and Foo, 2007) was extended by Crilly and Zhelev (2008) by including time constraints and energy power demand forecasting. Atkins et al. (2010) improved the concept of CO2 pinch analysis and proposed a retrot procedure for increased power demand in the electricity sector. Furthermore, CO2 capture and storage strategies have been widely studied to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants (e.g. Lucquiaud and Gibbins, 2011; Moullec, 2013). However, little attention has been paid to emissions reduction in the process industries. Moreover, researchers that studied emissions reduction in the process industries have mainly focussed on the emissions released from individual unit operations of a site, from processes and from the utility system, rather than from the system as a whole. In this respect, energy management using process integration techniques has been applied to improve the energy efciency of process plants incorporating heat exchanger networks (HENs). These approaches have typically considered the operation and retrot of existing HENs and site utility systems. Tiew et al. (2011) developed a mathematical method to address improving the energy efciency of a crude preheat train, considering fuel switching, to reduce CO2 emissions. Smith et al. (2010) developed a methodology for HEN retrot allowing the user to constrain the number of modications of the HEN. Gharaie et al. (2011) developed a graphical procedure to combine HEN retrot options for CO2 emissions reduction. Energy management includes strategies such as HEN retrot and modifying energy ows through the utility system (i.e. changing the amounts of the various fuels combusted, the pathways through which steam ows through components of the utility system, and the ow rates of steam through the utility system, also known as operational optimization of the utility system). The main objective of energy management techniques is to conserve energy, to reduce the

consumption of fuels, and to minimize the generation of waste heat. While energy management techniques have been extensively developed and applied to industrial sites for increasing energy efciency, interactions between site components have not been systematically addressed. In parallel with studies for energy management in process plants, increasing environmental concerns about CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect have resulted in a focus on reduction of CO2 emissions and hence have led to economic incentives, such as the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme. Little research has considered how to design or retrot process sites for low carbon emissions. It makes sense for both costs and savings to be simultaneously and systematically evaluated during technoeconomic analysis of energy efciency improvement projects. Energy management techniques may be able to reduce CO2 emissions from a site; furthermore, using cleaner fuels, known as fuel switching, presents an additional strategy for mitigation of CO2 emissions. A thorough review of the literature indicates that there is a need for design methods to identify opportunities to reduce carbon emissions and to evaluate the associated costs. This work presents a retrot design approach, based on the construction of a superstructure to reduce CO2 emissions from a site by assessing trade-offs between the cost of retrot and CO2 emissions penalties. Previously, a retrot strategy for achieving energy savings for site-wide mitigation of CO2 emissions has been developed, using a conceptual-graphical approach (Gharaie et al., 2012). The graphical approach helps to develop insights and facilitates user interaction, but due to the manual and sequential computational procedure, the quality of solution depends on the knowledge of the designer. This work aims to overcome some of the limitations of the graphical approach, by developing a mathematical formulation and an associated optimization approach to nd optimal combinations of emissions reduction strategies. The design method is applied to a case study (based on published data for a petroleum renery) to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach.

2.

Methodology

A mathematical model is developed to represent the process site and its energy ows; the model is applied in a Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming (MINLP) optimization problem. The proposed methodology considers carbon trading, fuel costs and investment costs in the optimization. A superstructure representing a broad range of strategies for reducing CO2 emissions is developed; HEN retrot, operational optimization of the utility system and fuel switching are included as options. The proposed MINLP model is implemented in GAMS software (General Algebraic Modeling System; Rosenthal, 2012) to nd the most cost-effective combinations of emissions reduction strategies. As demonstrated in previous publications, non-linear functions are required to create realistic mathematical descriptions of HENs and their associated retrot, as well as to represent and optimize site utility system (Oji, 2012; Liew et al., 2013). Such nonlinearity leads to complex GAMS models that may be hard to converge. To overcome this complexity, the problem is decomposed in this work. The retrot of the HEN is modeled separately, and the utility system is simulated and optimized independently. External software routines are developed; their results are delivered to a GAMS model.

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1485

Fig. 1 Mathematical model calculation strategy. The design is thus carried out in two main steps. The rst step constructs a superstructure by extracting relevant results from the external routines and converting these to inputs for GAMS, applying some intermediate calculations. The results obtained from the external modules are then used to build the feasible solution space in GAMS. The second step of the proposed methodology is to search for optima in the solution space. Fig. 1 represents the overall calculation strategy, where each of the rectangular boxes represents the more detailed calculations described below. processes. Therefore, SA optimization is employed to optimize both changes to continuous variables (e.g. adding area to an existing exchanger) and discrete options (structural modications, e.g. adding an exchanger). For a retrot study, as the extent of energy saving increases, the capital investment required increases correspondingly. Various retrot options, having different degrees of heat recovery, may be generated; their performance, in terms of energy savings and additional capital investment required, may be computed. Simulated annealing is used to generate heat recovery options and evaluate them; the SA optimizer then identies the most attractive options. The optimization is carried out for a given level of heat recovery and solved subject to given economic parameters and congurational constraints (Gharaie et al., 2012). SPRINT software is used to carry out this optimization; the optimized retrot solutions are represented in a HEN retrot model that correlates energy savings, reduction in CO2 emissions and capital investment. The corresponding model for illustrating the HEN retrot options are presented through Eqs. (1)(5). The investment capital for the selected unit i within site P is represented by ICi . The summation of the cost of the possible selected retrot options from process units is ICp , where i I and I is dened as the set of process units p that can be considered for HEN retrot: ICp =
iI

2.1.

Step I: construction of superstructure

In this step, the maximum reduction in CO2 emissions that can be achieved by means of each method and through combining options is determined. To construct the solution space, each strategy is rst modeled in terms of the CO2 emissions reduction and the associated cost. Considering the interactions between the site units, the feasible solution space is then determined by applying boundaries which are dened through the analysis of stand-alone and combined emissions reduction strategies.

2.1.1. Modeling of CO2 emissions reduction strategies 2.1.1.1. Retrot of HEN. To develop a mathematical model for
retrot method with the objective of controlling CO2 emissions in a site, retrot options for increasing heat recovery in the HEN of each process are rst introduced. The potential for saving energy through heat integration depends on the design of existing heat recovery systems in a given plant. In this study, modications for the retrot of the HEN are applied to reduce energy consumption, while making effective use of existing assets. These modications include structural changes, as well as increasing the heat transfer area in existing exchangers (without changing the streams between which heat is exchanged) to increase heat recovery by the HEN. Structural changes to the HEN include installation of a new heat exchanger, re-piping an existing heat exchanger, resequencing an existing heat exchanger, and splitting a stream within the existing network. To assess options for modifying the HEN, the network pinch method (Asante and Zhu, 1997; Smith et al., 2010), as implemented in SPRINT software in Fortran programming language; the network pinch method optimizes the HEN while taking capitalenergy trade-offs into account. For HEN optimization, it is important to use an optimization technique which can deal with non-linear modeling as well as structural changes of the owsheet when the nding optimal solution. Simulated Annealing (SA) optimization method is a robust searching method which has proven to be an effective mathematical procedure for optimizing chemical

ICi

p P, i I

(1)

The investment cost for HEN retrot of each process unit i is dened in terms of CO2 emissions reduction: ICi = f ( MCO2 )HR.i i I (2)

The investment cost correlation for each process unit is regressed from capital cost data for the corresponding CO2 emissions reduction ( MCO2 )HR obtained from retrot studies. Energy savings achieved through HEN retrot are related to CO2 emissions reduction (Eqs. (3) and (4)). The energy savings are calculated using the unit energy price and the reduction in demand for each utility. ESp =
iI

ESi

p P, i I

(3)

and ESi = f ( MCO2 )HR.i i I (4)

where ESi is the reduction in energy cost through heat recovery (HR) in process unit i. The maximum and minimum reductions in CO2 emissions achievable from HEN retrot of each process

1486

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

unit i provide boundary conditions. In general, the minimum feasible reduction in emissions from retrot of a HEN is zero.
Min MCO ,HR,i
2

for the reduction in CO2 emissions, after HEN optimization (Eq. (6)): 0
Min MCO ,HR,i
2

M, that can be achieved

MCO2 ,HR,i

Max MCO ,HR,i

2

i I

(5)

i I

(6)

Emissions reductions achieved from each unit i cannot Max exceed the upper bound, represented by MCO . ,HR,i
2

2.1.1.2. Utility system operational optimization. Fuel is burnt

in the boilers of a site utility system and steam is generated by heat recovery. The steam is used both to satisfy the heat requirements of the site and to generate power for the site. In operational optimization of a utility system, degrees of freedom in the utility system are exploited to improve its performance (e.g. increased power generation, reduced fuel consumption, reduced operating cost and reduced costs associated with carbon emissions) while satisfying the heat demand of the process. This work considers the operational optimization of the utility system; structural modications, which are likely to require downtime and investment, are excluded because shutting the system down would impact on the productivity of the whole site. Utility systems in process sites typically have degrees of freedom for operational optimization. These degrees of freedom relate to the paths through which steam ow within the utility system. The utility system is optimized using Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming (MINLP) in STAR software to minimize operating costs, while considering trade-offs between power generation and fuel consumption. Steam ows through process units, including steam turbines and let-down valves, are redistributed to minimize the total operating cost of the utility system. The objective function of the optimization takes into account both costs (of fuel and of CO2 emissions) and the value of power generated. Process cooling requirements are considered indirectly in this analysis: water for process cooling requires power for pumping; air cooling requires power for fans or blowers; most commonly, sub-ambient cooling is provided by compression refrigeration cycles, which also require power. Power required to provide cooling is typically generated in the site utility system or imported from the electrical grid. Thus changes to the process or utility system that affect cooling requirements and the associated CO2 emissions are also accommodated during the optimization of the utility system. The performance of the utility system is inuenced by the heat and power demand of the site. Therefore, changing the process heat demand by HEN retrot affects the operational performance of the site utility system that generates and distributes stream required by downstream processes. To account for interactions between the process and the utility system, utility system optimization is carried out. Alternatively, utility optimization can be performed independently to the retrotting of process HENs. Note that process heating requirements may also be supplied by local furnaces which do not interact directly with the utility system. In the case of a HEN which is served by the central utility system, the energy savings and the corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions are taken to be those associated with the optimized utility system. Utility system operational optimization can improve the performance of the utility system, i.e. can reduce fuel consumption and thus CO2 emissions. Therefore, optimizing utility system operation (without taking into account HEN retrot) can provide a meaningful lower bound

2.1.1.3. Fuel switching. The amount of CO2 emitted due to combustion of fuel is related to the carbon content of the fuel. In fuel switching, it is proposed to replace an existing fuel with a fuel with a lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio, in order to satisfy a given heat duty. For each fuel-red local furnace or boiler corresponding to unit i, fuel switching may be employed, either partially and fully. The CO2 emissions reduction achieved through fuel switching is given by:
MCO2 ,ij = f (Qfuel,i,j , , j , NHVj ) i I, j J (7)

The heat load supplied by fuel j of unit i (where j belongs to J, the set of all available cleaner fuels on site) is dened by Qfuel,i,j . The net heating value of fuel j (on a mass basis) is represented by NHVj . The mass percentage of carbon in the fuel and the ratio of the molar masses of carbon dioxide and carbon [CO2 /C] are indicated by j and respectively. For example, Eq. (8) calculates the reduction in CO2 emissions through fuel switching (Eq. (7)) in unit i from coal (C) to natural gas (NG).

MCO2 ,ij = (Qfuel,i,C )

j

C j () = (Qfuel,i,C NHVj
NG

NG C NHVC NHVNG

i I, j J

(8)

Cost models for fuel switching relate fuel price and the extent of fuel switching (partial or total) to the overall operating costs of the site. If the fuel substituted is more expensive than the existing fuel, depending on the extra cost of the cleaner fuel, an economic trade-off may exist between the reduction in CO2 emissions and the cost of cleaner fuels. In some cases, based on the target reduction in CO2 emissions and the cost of cleaner fuels, partial fuel switching may be more benecial than total fuel switching. The additional fuel cost for unit i, after fuel switching from fuel j to fuel k, i.e. (FSijk ), is: FSijk = (Mfuel,ij Cfuel,ij )
kK

(Mfuel,ik Cfuel.ik ) i I, j J, k K (9)

where Mfuel,ij is the ow rate of existing fuel j burning in unit i with the unit fuel price of Cfuel,ij ; j belongs to J, the set of fuels currently burnt on site; Mfuel,ik presents the ow rate of switched fuel k in unit i with the unit fuel price of Cfuel,ik ; k belongs to K, the set of cleaner fuels available on site for fuel switching. Fuel switching may be selected as a stand-alone emissions reduction strategy or may be combined with HEN retrot, where the amount of heat recovery is a degree of freedom, and with utility system optimization. After exploring the emissions reduction strategies in each unit and addressing the interactions between site components with a view to emissions reduction, the superstructure is then constructed by dening the solution space and the related boundaries for each unit. To construct the solution space in

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1487

in which the heating requirement is supplied by the central utility system. For such a HEN, the selection of each process unit in combination with utility system optimization (UO) for emissions reduction is represented by a binary variable, Zi which will have value of 1 if the HEN retrot option for unit i is selected along with utility system optimization. A value of 0 indicates that the optimization of the utility system is performed without HEN retrot; in this case, stand-alone utility system operational optimization is carried out without change to process heat loads. ESi = f ( MCO2 ,HR,i , Zi ) i I, Z {0, 1} MCO2 ,HR,i =
Min Zi MHR,i

(10) (11) (12)

MCO2 ,UO Zi MCO2 ,HR,i

i I, Z {0, 1}
Max MHR,i Zi

i I, Z {0, 1}

Fig. 2 Method for evaluating combined emissions reduction strategies in individual process unit. respect of the CO2 emissions reduction strategies, HEN retrot options are generated using simulated annealing for each process HEN. The operation of the utility system is optimized repeatedly, for each HEN retrot option. Finally, fuel switching for each combination of modications is modeled, considering both partial and complete switching modes. The overall strategy for building the superstructure of a combined set of emissions reduction options for each process unit is shown in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, the construction of a superstructure combining CO2 emissions reduction strategies starts by building the solution space for each process unit. The solution space is dened in terms of the cost of employing individual CO2 emissions reduction strategies to all possible combinations of emissions reduction strategies. For each process unit and for every level of heat recovery in the HEN, operational optimization of the utility system and fuel switching (for local furnaces and utility system boilers) are considered. Depending on whether the heat demand of each HEN is met by local furnaces or the central utility system, the model establishes boundaries of the solution space for any combination of emissions reduction strategies. Consider an individual HEN

The heating requirement of a process HEN is supplied either by a central utility system or by a local furnace. In order to dene the possible combinations of fuel switching with HEN retrot, the cost solution space is bounded by four correlations. Two correlations consider energy savings from HEN retrot without fuel switching and with total Min Max fuel switching (f ( MCO2 )fs,i and f ( MCO2 )fs,i ). The other two correlations relate to fuel switching at minimum and maxiMin mum degrees of heat recovery in the HEN (f ( MCO2 )HR,i and f ( MCO2 )HR,i ). These boundaries are dened by Eqs. (13) and (14). The bounded space within the dened limits includes a range of combinations of partial fuel switching followed by partial heat recovery in the HEN. f ( MCO2 )fs,i f ( MCO2 )HR,i
Min Min Max

(ES + FS)i f ( MCO2 )fs,i

Max

i I i I

(13)

(ES + FS)i f ( MCO2 )HR,i

Max

(14)

2.1.2.

Representing CO2 trading in the superstructure

CO2 trading is represented in the mathematical model by a cost correlation or trading line, which involves terms of CO2 penalty (emissions purchase or tax) and credit. In this study, CO2 emissions are taken to have a constant cost or value per

Fuel Switching of Local Furnace, Utility Boiler Heat Recovery of Heat Exchanger Network

Selection of CO2 Emissions Reduction strategy

Heat Recovery of Heat Exchanger Network Heat Recovery of Heat Exchanger Network Heat Recovery of Heat Exchanger Network Operational Optimization of Utility System Operational Optimization of Utility System

Fuel Switching of Local Furnace, Utility Boiler Operational Optimization of Utility System Operational Optimization of Utility System Fuel Switching of Local Furnace, Utility Boiler Fuel Switching of Local Furnace, Utility Boiler

Fig. 3 Superstructure of options for reducing CO2 emissions.

1488

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

Table 1 Total site process energy demand. Process

PLAT FCCU VBU CDU/VDU DHT NHT KHT

Hot utility demand (kW)

20,772 1880 7109 59,750 610 8630 1293.26

Electricity demand (kW)

9472 657 737 5239 257 1128 510

emissions trading savings, within the constraints of available capital.

Obj.Func. = Max.
iI

ESi +
i I,j J

FSij +
iI

CCi
iI

CTi (16)

Subject to unit of CO2 . Hence the unit cost of CO2 has the same value for emissions reduction below and above the target. If the CO2 emissions exceed the target value, CO2 costs will be incurred at the CO2 trading prices. The carbon emissions trading savings (CTRp ) are expressed in terms of carbon credit, CCi (a saving) or tax, CTi (a cost) for each process unit i; there is a linear relationship between CO2 emissions and savings: CTRp =
iI iI

ICi Investment Cost i I

(17)

In Eq. (16), depending on the price and quantity of replaced fuel, the fuel savings term can have a negative or positive value. If the available capital investment is xed, maximizing energy savings will minimize the payback time (PTp ). Min. PTp =
iI

CCi
iI

CTi =
iI

( MCO2 )i +

i I

(15)

ICi
iI

ESi + iI

FSij + i I,j J

CCi

iI

CTi

(18)

The correlation for the trading line is dened in terms of the reduction in CO2 emissions ( MCO2 ,i ) where is the slope of the trading line calculated based on the current emissions costs of the site divided by the CO2 emissions reduction target and is the intercept which is the current cost or tax to be paid by the site. It is clear that if the emissions reduction target were met, the carbon trading cost would be zero.

2.2.

Step II: search for optima in solution space

Fig. 3 represents the superstructure of options, including individual and combined CO2 emissions reduction strategies. Having built the superstructure, the second step of the proposed approach is to search for the optima in the solution space. The optimization problem is: For a given capital budget and CO2 emissions reduction target, which option or combination of options (i.e. HEN retrot, operational optimization of the utility system, fuel switching and carbon trading) will have the highest savings while meeting the process heating demand of a total site? The objective is to maximize the overall savings from the project, including the energy savings, fuel savings and

The optimization problem includes non-linear equations representing the economic performance of HEN retrot options and the utility system operation. The optimizer selects the set of emissions reduction options with the lowest energy costs, according to the emissions target, while trying to meet the available investment constraints. Depending on the complexity and size of the HEN, the SA optimization can be quite a time-consuming procedure, due to the stepwise calculation of the overall model; the GAMS optimization, using the CPLEX solver, reduces the computational time signicantly. The constraints in the GAMS model can be easily modied to incorporate new sets of data. The optimization approach is applied to an industrial case study for illustrative purposes.

3.

Case study

A 100,000 bpd (660 m3 /h) oil renery is employed for demonstration of the approach (Gharaie et al., 2012). The process stream data (Fraser and Gillespie, 1992) include heat transfer areas for existing exchanger units; HEN congurations

Table 2 Site fuel data. Fuel type

Heavy fuel oil Coal Natural gas

Net caloric value (kJ/kg)

41,000 29,000 52,200

Unit fuel cost ($/t)

284.7 40.5 341

Carbon content (mass%)

86.8 70 74

Table 3 Fuel consumption and related CO2 emissions. Site component

Utility system Process units

Fuel type
Coal Heavy S

Supplied processes
FCCU and PLAT PLAT VBU CDU/VDU DHT NHT KHT

Fuel consumption (kt/y)

102.94 16.03 6.24 52.46 0.59 7.57 1.13 186.98

Fuel cost (106 $/y)

4.17 4.56 1.77 14.93 0.17 2.16 0.32 28.08

CO2 generation (kt/y)

264.47 51.07 19.88 167.13 1.88 24.14 3.62 523.19

Total site

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1489

Table 4 Selected HEN retrot options. Process unit Heat recovery level (%) Investment cost (106 $) Energy saving cost (k$/y) Central utility system
2.3 3.4 4.4 5.9 7.5 9.4 11.3 12.6 20.2 29.3 34.2 39.2 51.6 62.6 72.2 85.3 100 3.3 5.1 6.9 8.2 8.8 9.4 1.2 2.5 3.7 4.8 5.6 6.6 7.7 8.7 9.6 9.8 18.1 22.1 34.4 43.3 50.4 59.6 73.8 84.6 100 1.7 5.2 8.4 10.3 16.0 22.0 24.4 30.8 36.1 42.0 45.5 1.3 7.2 11.1 14.9 17.5 22.6 26.5 30.4 36.1 0.38 0.60 0.75 1.05 1.76 2.04 2.69 3.37 0.21 0.41 0.48 0.56 0.92 1.31 1.60 2.02 2.42 0.27 0.44 0.66 0.81 1 1.05 0.78 1.83 2.26 3.58 4.14 5.03 5.96 7.34 9.12 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.32 0.47 0.72 0.92 1.14 0.07 0.12 0.23 0.33 0.47 0.76 1.31 1.57 2.28 2.80 3.30 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.40 0.49 0.65 0.82 3.92 5.8 7.57 9.01 9.92 10.47 10.79 10.97 6.78 9.82 11.47 13.16 17.32 21 24.2 28.61 33.53 68.05 104.06 143.84 168.06 182.32 195.14 217.82 441.84 652.16 842.53 99.75 1144.90 1339.71 1521.71 1666.63 17.39 31.88 39.11 60.79 76.48 89.12 105.44 130.60 149.63 176.80 42.86 129.16 211.16 258.61 400.51 550.97 610.69 771.51 904.23 1052.15 1139.38 4.97 27.03 41.52 56.02 65.59 86.00 99.49 113.98 135.35

CO2 emissions reduction (%)

Local utility
74.11 103.09 132.07 190.05 260.27 347.22 434.17 497.20 1.61 2.33 3.02 3.91 4.80 5.76 6.68 7.32 1.56 2.26 2.64 3.03 3.99 4.84 5.58 6.60 7.74 0.66 1.00 1.39 1.62 1.76 1.88 2.10 4.26 6.29 8.13 9.45 11.05 12.93 14.68 16.08 0.18 0.34 0.42 0.64 0.81 0.94 1.12 1.39 1.59 1.88 0.41 1.25 2.04 2.50 3.86 5.32 5.89 7.45 8.73 10.15 11.00 0.05 0.26 0.40 0.54 0.63 0.82 0.96 1.10 1.31

PLAT

FCCU

VBU

CDU

DHT

NHT

KHT

1490

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

Table 5 Summary of CO2 emissions reduction strategies employed in each scenario. Scenario Investment limit (106 $) Strategy
I 5 HR FS

Site component PLAT

1.9% 100% LF 5.3% 100% LF 10.3% 100% LF 16.5% 100% LF

FCCU
0% 0% UB 0% 0% UB 5.8% 0% UB 10.1% 0% UB

VBU
2.9% 100% LF 5.7% 100% LF 7.8% 100% LF 9.3% 100% LF

CDU
3.1% 100% LF 6.1% 100% LF 8.4% 100% LF 9.6% 100% LF

DHT
28.1% 90.6% LF 44.3% 90.6% LF 56.8% 90.6% LF 65.1% 90.7% LF

NHT
37.3% 100% LF 45.5% 100% LF 45.5% 100% LF 45.5% 100% LF

KHT
10.1% 100% LF 17.1% 100% LF 21.4% 100% LF 20.2% 100% LF

Utility system optimization

II

10

HR FS

III

15

HR FS

VI

20

HR FS

HR: heat recovery; FS: fuel switching; LF: fuel switching on local furnace; UB: fuel switching on utility system boilers. Change in heat demand and fuel switching for each unit relative to base case.

Table 6 Optimum CO2 emissions reduction and economic evaluation of each scenario. Scenario
I II III VI

Total CO2 emissions reduction (kt/y)

118.03 125.29 131.10 135.31

Savings (106 $/y)

2.14 3.11 3.85 4.53

Fuel savings (106 $/y)

1.32 1.27 1.23 1.20

CO2 trading cost (106 $/y)

0.21 0.35 0.46 0.54

Payback time (y)

1.36 2.11 2.70 3.19

Scenarios refer to investment limits I: $5106 , II: $10106 , III: 15106 , IV: $20106 .

and the utility system conguration are given in Appendices AD. The renery comprises seven process units, a Platformer (or reformer) (PLAT), a Fluidised Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), a Visbreaker (i.e. a thermal cracking unit) (VBU), Crude and Vacuum Distillation Units (CDU/VDU), a Diesel Hydrotreater (DHT), a Naphtha Hydrotreater (NHT) and a Kerosene Hydrotreater (KHT). The process stream data, the existing heat transfer areas for exchanger networks and the HEN grid diagrams are presented in the appendices. The process heating requirement of the FCCU is supplied by Medium Pressure (MP) steam from the central utility system. The PLAT unit utilizes multiple levels of hot utility. Part of the PLAT unit heating requirement (2.51 MW) is supplied by MP steam from the central utility

system and 18.26 MW of the demand is satised by a local furnace. The heating requirements of the CDU/VDU, VBU, NHT, DHT and KHT are met by local furnaces. The site power demand is 18 MW. The site process demands are presented in Table 1. The utility system generates 16.63 MW of power for the process units. The remaining power demand of the site is satised by importing electricity. The site can import up to 25 MW of power at the price of 0.04$/kWh and it is licensed to export up to 10 MW of power at the price of 0.03$/kWh. The site fuel data are specied in Table 2. Based on the estimation of the energy requirements of individual process units and the utility system operational performance, the site energy systems are simulated in SPRINT

Table 7 Results of sensitivity analysis: payback time for various CO2 emissions reduction targets and investment limits. Payback time (y) Time interval CO2 emissions trading price ($/t CO2 ) Scenario 10%
I II III VI 0.99 1.63 2.15 2.60

20052007 24.13

20072009 6.07 CO2 emissions reduction target (%)

20092011 16.86

20%
1.34 2.07 2.64 3.11

30%
2.03 2.83 3.41 3.90

10%
2.08 3.11 3.20

20%
2.22 3.33 3.38

30%
2.40 3.59 3.63

10%
1.09 1.78 2.34 2.81

20%
1.36 2.13 2.72 3.22

30%
1.81 2.64 3.26 3.76

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1491

and STAR software. From the energy balance over the site, the fuel requirements and corresponding CO2 emissions are determined; these are shown in Table 3: CO2 emissions are 5.32105 t/y in the existing site. Because the heating and cooling demand of the FCCU and part of the PLAT process demand are supplied by the central utility system, the utility system model assesses CO2 emissions generation associated with these heating and cooling demands. It is supposed that environmental regulations require CO2 emissions to be reduced by 20%, i.e. by 106.4 kt/y. The CO2 trading cost is taken to be 19.05$/t of CO2 (European Energy Exchange, May 2012). Natural gas is available for fuel switching on site.

4.

Results and discussion

The steps to construct the superstructure are followed. First HEN retrot is carried out for each unit. Table 4 summarizes some HEN retrot options for each process unit and the corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions, depending on the extent of heat recovery. The HEN capital cost is estimated using the approach presented by Smith et al. (2010). The installation and maintenance costs associated with the structural changes are taken to be 30% of the capital cost (Guthrie, 1969). After constructing the superstructure of potential solution strategies, the problem is optimized for four available investment limits (four scenarios, where the maximum investment is $5 million, $10 million, $15 million and $20 million) to investigate the effect of available capital on the optimal solution. Table 5 shows a selection of the CO2 emissions reduction strategies for each scenario. The change in heat demand and fuel switching for each unit is presented, expressed as a percentage of the base case scenario. Appendix D presents a schematic of the optimized utility system for the scenario with an investment limit of $5 million (Fig. D2). Table 6 presents the reduction in CO2 emissions, reduction in total energy cost, CO2 trading value and payback time achieved for each scenario. Although the cleaner fuel (natural gas) is more expensive per unit mass than the current fuel, as shown in Table 2, the net caloric value of natural gas is higher than that of heavy fuel oil, so the cost per unit of energy content is lower. Table 6 shows fuel cost savings arising from fuel switching in local furnaces. However, the utility system boilers use coal as fuel and both natural gas and heavy fuel oil are more than four times as expensive as coal per unit of energy content. Therefore the optimizer does not identify any benecial fuel switching in the utility system. As can be seen from the optimization results in Table 6, the reduction in CO2 emissions exceeds the target (106.4 kt/y) in every case. That is, meeting the CO2 emissions reduction target is not necessarily the most cost-effective solution. In all cases, the optimizer nds solutions that are economic, in the sense that costs of supplying heat are reduced and CO2 trading costs are negative. The simple payback time increases as the investment increases. The economics of the problem are highly affected by the CO2 trading cost, which changes with time. In order to investigate the effect of the emissions reduction target and CO2 trading price on the solution and payback time, a

sensitivity analysis is carried out. The CO2 trading price is taken from EEX published data (EEX, 2012) for the six years from 2005 to 2011. The trading price is averaged over three years for three different three-year intervals and converted to US$ using the average exchange rate during the period of interest; the trading prices are $24.1/t, $6.1/t and $16.9/t for the three successive time periods. Results of the sensitivity analysis, in terms of simple payback time, are presented in Table 7. Table 7 shows that, as before, for a given trading price, the payback period increases as either the emissions reduction target increases or as the investment increases. For a given investment limit and emissions reduction target, the payback period decreases as the trading price increases, demonstrating the importance of the revenue from carbon credits in the process economics. No economic solutions were found by the optimizer in Scenario I when the trading price was at its lowest value. The results in Table 7 clearly indicate that the CO2 trading cost has a signicant effect on the payback time at lower CO2 emissions reduction targets. Therefore, at lower CO2 prices, it is most cost effective to have low reduction of CO2 emissions.

5.

Conclusions

This work considers how CO2 emissions from a process site can be most economically reduced. Options considered for reducing emissions include reducing heat demand by increasing heat recovery within process heat exchanger networks, optimizing the operation of the utility system and switching fuels to those with a lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio. Options for trading CO2 buying or selling CO2 allowances are also considered. Mathematical models relate these options to their operating and capital costs and to their associated CO2 emissions. A step-wise optimization approach is presented; in the proposed approach, various strategies for reducing emissions are rst modeled and then the modeling results are passed to the optimization step. The optimization selects a combination of strategies to reduce CO2 emissions in the most economic way, taking into account capital investment limits and CO2 trading options. A case study demonstrates that the MINLP formulation is effective for selecting CO2 emissions reduction options. Results show that the level of CO2 emissions reduction identied by the optimization is highly dependent on CO2 emissions trading prices. A sensitivity analysis shows that when less capital is available for investment, or when the carbon trading price is high, greater savings can be achieved, with lower simple payback times. Opportunities to sell CO2 allowances play an important role in the process economics. Optimization results illustrate that, for higher CO2 emissions reduction targets, fuel switching is the dominant strategy selected, in the case that the cleaner fuel is also cheaper per unit of energy content. In the proposed formulation, the complexity of the problem of selecting from a wide range of options for reducing CO2 emissions is very effectively addressed. By modeling and analysing many options before initiating the optimization, the problem is greatly simplied. Therefore, the computational effort for optimization is relatively low. Future work aims to extend the approach to consider further strategies for reducing CO2 emissions, including mitigation strategies such as CO2 capture.

1492

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

Appendix A. Process stream data

Process unit Stream TSupply ( C) TTraget ( C) Heat capacity ow rate (kW/ C) 45.23 108.78 18.32 72.28 88.64 53.52 33.54 10.81 324.11 30.50 124.92 258.76 252.88 116.95 75.10 95.14 14.91 72.24 303.71 58.8 144.92 152.68 69.66 221.88 430.19 257.14 136.28 2059.83 780.08 6664.68 374.66 1852.71 374.66 7109.05 376.53 779.95 6666.45 418.73 NHT Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Hot 5 Cold 6 Cold 7 Cold 8 Cold 9 328.3 67.2 101.7 168.9 253.9 39.1 33.9 175.6 168.9 33.9 50 61.7 88.3 146.1 325 130.3 183.5 171.1 57.47 191.08 108.79 27.52 45.55 57.85 44.25 589.63 1208.13 KHT DHT PLAT Process unit Stream TSupply ( C) TTraget ( C) Heat capacity ow rate (kW/ C) 67.38 3.81 26.09 63.17 24.57 15.11 39.78 0.73 75.55 7.90 4.77 1.77 7.67 76.12 195.26 20.37 2506.29 106.92 38.98 94.09 106.52 114.06 86.37 14.88 3.81 45.55 47.55 81.70 1208.13 44.25 31.90 5.03 0.17 26.79 31.01

Hot 1 Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Hot 5 FCCU Hot 6 Hot 7 Hot 8 Hot 9 Hot 10 Cold 11 Cold 12 Cold 13 Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Hot 5 CDU/VDU Hot 6 Hot 7 Hot 8 Hot 9 Hot 10 Cold 12 Cold 13 Cold 14 Cold 15 Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 VBU Hot 5 Hot 6 Cold 7 Cold 8 Cold 9 Cold 10 Cold 11 165.5 282 274 164 327 363 327 204 140.9 144.5 74 143 94 172.5 260 309 333.4 116.8 272 210 146 50.5 189 26 261.7 338.2 26 135.6 255 353.3 198.9 171.1 198.9 327.8 158.3 126.7 126.7 126.7 100 196.5 97.5 87 261 246 165 104 88 51 295 164 125 67.6 189.8 269.5 189.4 49.7 210 79.8 18.2 18.2 26.1 261.7 356.5 409.8 96.1 30 176.1 198.9 171.1 75 171.1 457.8 160 176.7 176.7 146.3 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Hot 5 Hot 6 Hot 7 Hot 8 Hot 9 Hot 10 Hot 11 Hot 12 Hot 13 Cold 14 Cold 15 Cold 16 Cold 17 Cold 18 Cold 19 Cold 20 Cold 21 Cold 22 Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Cold 5 Cold 6 Cold 7 Cold 8 Hot 1 Hot 2 Hot 3 Hot 4 Cold 5

503.9 366.1 366.1 303.3 76.7 232.2 79.4 112 67.2 157.2 43.3 92 107 66.1 232.2 36.7 112 157.2 92 370.6 452.8 480.6 327.8 256.7 127.2 253.9 241.9 221.1 168.9 83.9 312.8 205 136.1 176.7 157.8

366.1 178.9 253.9 36.7 26.7 112.2 32.2 23.9 27.2 32.2 26.3 65 32.2 370.6 247.2 125.6 112.8 163.9 97.2 495.6 497.2 496.1 256.7 30 24.4 146.1 245.6 308.9 171.1 130.3 205 30 27.2 33.3 310

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1493

Appendix B. Distribution of existing heat exchanger heat load and area.

Process unit

Heat exchanger ID

Existing heat exchange area (m2 ) 6 269.6 13 84 1247 247 51.2 15.8 354 420.5 275.5 79.5 323.5 165.9 200.5 762.1 198 103 553.7 130.2 314.5 60 4.2 357.1 59 71.5 10 50.6 68.1 105.7 241.1 174.4 94 15.6 130.5 10 90.2 103.4 12 153.4 0.66 31 73.1 31.3 18.3

Heat load (kW)

Process unit

Heat exchanger ID

Existing heat exchange area (m2 ) 187.2 25.1 234 214.2 103.9 551.8 83.6 107.1 40.2 90.4 20.7 99.1 289.6 50 308.4 113.4 10.4 53.9 28.2 177.8 57.6 22.8 97.7 7.6 228 28.8 68.7 32.1 37.8 4.8 182 16.5 146.8 77.9 68.3 3.6 347.7 76.4 22.6 632.2 821.9 346.7 85.6

Heat load (kW)

6 hot utility 7

558.40 3755.20 236.70 924.37 18,830.10 6514.17 1517 307.13 5480.16 4604.32 3823.85 1205.93 5753.70 4847.75 2175.49 13,916.50 1566.63 3051.67 4931.54 1539.14 7109.02 779.95 317.79 6346.89 374.66 309.33 44.93 2059.69 1498.45 374.66 11,761.30 4729.37 1767.92 573.79 9285.24 441.00 2927.75 3137.43 271.67 4187.06 26.67 716.37 1755.64 692.98 530.75

FCCU

1 2 hot utility 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 30 31 32 33 cold utility 34 cold utility 35 cold utility 36 cold utility 37 cold utility 38 cold utility

1926.62 1880.00 3988.69 2408.28 1509.40 8484.26 469.90 812.86 1861.39 1440.40 486.22 2616.30 949.83 815.79 1090.34 1409.43 149.46 1158.68 643.16 491.51 138.33 60.80 785.45 117.46 2355.19 331.47 225.44 91.34 360.26 53.88 1615.40 152.03 1295.84 570.83 3010.45 266.45 13,174.60 2368.59 160.50 40,779.90 18,411.70 3521.20 915.43 PLAT VBU

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 cold utility 20 21 cold utility 22 23 cold utility 24 cold utility 25 cold utility 1 hot utility 2 3 cold utility 4 5 6 7 8 cold utility 9 cold utility 10 1 hot utility 2 hot utility 3 hot utility 4 cold utility 5 6 7 8 9 10

CDU/VDU1 2 hot utility 3 hot utility 4 5

11 12 13 14 15

1494

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

Process unit

Heat exchanger ID

Existing heat exchange area (m2 ) 32.8 70.8 53.4 4.4 27.5 22.8 38.3 107.8 108.7 0.61 2.1 69.2 15.5 4.9 48.5 130.1 1 60.4 369.8 6.4 61.5 37.6 18.5 72.3 3.9 51.2 3.6 9.8 53.1 87.1

Heat load (kW)

Process unit

Heat exchanger ID

Existing heat exchange area (m2 ) 199.1 0.6 21.2 0.5 121.7 0.3 3.3 168.4 4.9 41.5 6.8 55.4 30.6 7.5 65.6 12.4 35.3 76.2 79.4 17.6 44.5 2.2 24.3 131.6 35.1 6.3 137.6 15.3 101.5

Heat load (kW)

16 17 18 19 20 21 hot utility 22 hot utility 23 24 cold utility 25 cold utility 26 cold utility 27 cold utility 28 cold utility 29 cold utility 30 cold utility 31 cold utility 32 cold utility DHT 1 2 3 4 hot utility 5 6 7 8 9 10 cold utility 11 cold utility 12 cold utility KHT 1 hot utility

321.81 1451.66 450.52 43.16 159.52 701.94 1811.60 1929.40 3687.10 45.35 65.02 1877.60 506.79 81.14 1228.39 3022.21 47.87 622.29 5941.18 100.00 610.00 175.90 654.43 1803.15 200.16 1953.19 356.59 292.17 2719.28 1293.26 NHT

2 3 cold utility 4 cold utility 5 cold utility 6 cold utility 7 8 1 hot utility 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 cold utility 19 cold utility 20 cold utility 21 cold utility 22 cold utility

3374.26 61.61 830.62 19.38 3842.83 3.00 50.00 8630.00 394.77 2756.70 272.47 1506.35 1553.55 126.34 1104.20 574.68 454.615 3861.86 1849.48 483.51 960.63 121.23 1455.90 2011.31 1741.82 368.84 6200.05 598.33 3286.51

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1495

Appendix C. Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger networks

Figs. C1C7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 4 5 32 7 11 12 8 16 19 13 18 26 25 22 24 13 9 12 3 6 17 15 14 23 26 21 20 29 30 31 1 5 4 12 19 25 32 38 27 11 3 10 18 7 16 11 9 8 13 6 15 23 14 21 29 20 22 27 33

28

34 35

17 24 30 31 36 37

10

28

Fig. C1 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (FCCU).

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

22

Fig. C2 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (CDU/VDU).

1496

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 5 6 4 2 3 7

9 10 7 10 8 9 10

2 3 5 4 6 7

11

Fig. C3 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (VBU).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

5 6 9 7 8 12 11 15 10 13 19 18 14 17 23 24 30 25 27 26 31 16 20 28 29 32 4 5 6 8 11 10 9 13 14 17 23 7 14 15 16 16 15 18 17 18 19 1 2 3 20 19 20 21 22

22 21 12

Fig. C4 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (PLAT).

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

1497

1 2 3 4

2 6 3 5 5 4 2 1 6 7 9 3 1 7 9 10 12 11

8 1 2 3 5 6 8 7 8 4 1

2 8

3 4 5 6

Fig. C6 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (KHT).

Fig. C5 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (DHT).

1 2 3 4 5 8 14 2 3 6 9 11 18 12 15

16 20 22 17 21 19

5 1

4 4

7 7

10 9 10 11

13 13

17 12

15

3 8 6

14

16

7 8 9

Fig. C7 Grid diagram of existing heat exchanger network (NHT).

Appendix D. Conguration of the utility system

Figs. D1 and D2

B1 30 t/h

B2 30 t/h 35 t/h

B3

B4 20 t/h

Coal

Coa l HP, 40 bar

Coa l

Coa l

0.2 t/ h

T1 2.52 MW MP, 10 bar

T2 2.53 MW

T3 4.55 MW

FCCU 3.27 t/ h PLAT 4.38 t/h

0.1 t/ h T4 2.37 MW LP, 4 ba r Dea era tor T5 4.64 MW Cond ensing Ma in, 1 bar

Fig. D1 Modeling the base case utility system in STAR.

1498

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 14831498

B1 35 t/h

B2 0 t/h 42.34 t/h

B3

B4 30 t/ h

Coa l

Coal HP, 40 bar

Coal

Coa l

T1 0 MW MP, 10 ba r

T2 7.89 MW

T3 0 MW

T1 2.52 MW

FCCU 3.27 t/h PLAT 4.03 t/h

T4 4.10 MW LP, 4 bar Deaerator 100 t/h

T5 0 MW

Condensing Main, 1 ba r
Fig. D2 Optimized utility system.

References
US Energy Information Administration, 2012. Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035. US Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Asante, N.D.K., Zhu, X.X., 1997. An automated and interactive approach for heat exchanger network retrot. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 75, 349360. Atkins, M.J., Morrison, A.S., Walmsley, R.W., 2010. Carbon emission pinch analysis (CEPA) for emission reduction in the New Zealand electricity sector. Appl. Energy 87, 982987. Crilly, D., Zhelev, T., 2008. Emissions targeting and planning: an application of CO2 emissions pinch analysis (CEPA) to the Irish electricity generation sector. Energy 33, 14981507. EC, 2010. EU energy in gures 2010: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sector, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ publications/doc/statistics/ext greenhouse gas emissions by sector.pdf(Accessed 24.05.13). EC, 2013. European commission: climate action: policies: The EU emissions trading scheme, www.ec.europa.eu/ clima/policies/ets/index en.htm (Accessed 24.05.13). European Energy Exchange, 2012. EU emission allowance, www.eex.com/en/ (Accessed 10.05.2012). Ezhova, N.N., Sudareva, S.V., 2009. Modern method for removing carbon dioxide from ue gases emitted by thermal power stations. Therm. Eng. 56, 1521. Fraser, D.M., Gillespie, N.E., 1992. The application of pinch technology to retrot energy integration of an entire oil renery. Trans. IChemE, Part A 70, 394406. Gharaie, M., Kim, J.K., Panjeshahi, M.H., Smith, R., 2011. Retrot design method for co2 emission reduction. In: Proceedings of the IASTED Int. Conf. Environ. Manag. & Eng, pp. 133138. Gharaie, M., Jobson, M., Panjeshahi, M.H., Zhang, N., 2012. Energy management strategies for process site CO2 emissions reduction. In: 22nd European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, London, pp. 352356. Gnanapragasam, N., Reddy, B., Rosen, M., 2009. Reducing CO2 emissions for an IGCC power generation system: effect of

variations in gasier and system operating conditions. Energy Convers. Manage. 50, 19151923. Guthrie, K.M., 1969. Capital cost estimating. Chem. Eng. 76, 114. Jolley, A., 2009. The supply of fossil fuels. In: Climate Change Working Paper No. 9. Liew, P.Y., Alawi, S.R.V., Varbaniv, P.S., Manan, Z.A., Kleme s, J.J., 2013. Centralised utility system planning for a total site heat integration network. Comut. Chem. Eng., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.02.007 Lucquiaud, M., Gibbins, J., 2011. Steam cycle options for the retrot of coal and gas power plants with postcombustion capture. Energy Procedia 4, 18121819. Moullec, Y.L., 2013. Conceptual study of a high efciency coal-red power plant with CO2 capture using a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Energy 49, 3246. Oji, S., 2012. Case study online energy management and optimisation of utility generation assets on industrial sites. Comput. Aid Chem. Eng. 30, 337341. Rosenthal, R.E., 2012. GAMS A User Guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC. Smith, R., Jobson, M., Chen, L., 2010. Recent development in the retrot of heat exchanger networks. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 22812289. SPRINT Software Version 2.7, 2011. Centre for Process Integration, University of Manchester, UK. STAR Software Version 2.7, 2011. Centre for Process Integration, University of Manchester, UK. Tan, R.R., Foo, D.C.Y., 2007. Pinch Analysis Approach To Carbon-Constrained Energy Sector Planning. Energy 32, 14221429. Tiew, B.J., Shuhaimi, M., Haslenda, H., 2011. CO2 emissions reduction targeting for existing plant through heat exchanger network retrot and fuel switching with MINLP. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, 4th Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization, pp. 17. Venmans, F., 2012. A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 54935510.