I'd buy another one if it was DIESEL

[95_GSX]

I would trade my FJC in immediately if I could get a 4 or 6-Cyl Turbo Diesel. I personally would rather see both the 4 and the 6 be a in-line configuration. No do not ask me how they are going to fit the in-line 6 under the hood. I think a 4-cyl would probably be more than adequate. I would also like to see a solid front axle put under it while they are up there messing around with the motor.

[95_GSX]

jayman previously said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. In what context are you referring to water? If you are referring to the refinery process, the extensive hydrotreating that ULSD now requires is a massive consumer of process water within the refinery.

There are additional consumables in the form of rare earth catalysts. These require regular "blowdown" for cleaning, another consumer of process water. Replacement is necessary every year or two, depending on source crude sulfur content

I am a unit operator in a sour crude refinery. I currently work on the Hydrotreating unit. The production of ULSD doesn't use much water really. We inject water into the process to clean/remove salts that are deposited inside heat exchangers. But the amount of water injected compared to BBLS of product is really VERY minimal. The process isn't a huge consumer of water. The removal of sulfur is done with chemisty by adding Hydrogen to the feed and running it through a catalyst bed. Also a catalyst is regenerated or replaced, it isn't "blown down". Regen doesn't consume water either. Not lecturing, I am just trying to get the correct information out there.

On another note: The cost to oil companies in upgrades to their process units in order to produce ULSD was very high and required extremely large capital investments. This is part of the reason you see the prices on diesel you do, they have to get that investment back. Thank your local tree hugging hippie and government official for those ULSD requirements.

[jayman]

95_GSX previously said:

The production of ULSD doesn't use much water really.

Correct. Overall, for an older refinery with minimal improvements, the requirement of process - treated - water to crude is approximately 1:1. The consumption is referred to as steam generation, desalting operation, cooling tower water makeup and blowdown, etc, and as more and more water loops can be closed and recycled, the net water use declines

Refineries differ in design. Older refineries, typical of the North American market, have the most process water consumption due to just older, less efficient designs. Modern designs use far less net process water. Let's use around 130,000 bpd, that is a good size facility.

Eg, a refinery made in the last 20 years will use about 8 million litres of process water per day. As the crude input is around 130,000 bpd, that works out to 20,670,000 litres per day crude consumption. A new refinery with all modern digital process bus control, the process water consumption will trend to under 4 million litres per day.

A lot more can be done to recycle from residuum. Membrane technology can be used to recover and recycle process water

95_GSX previously said:

We inject water into the process to clean/remove salts that are deposited inside heat exchangers.

Water/chemicals are also used in the desalter. It's difficult to keep hx clean, especially plate hx. It's a major PITA to take apart a plate hx to clean it, but that must be done

Boiler operations are an important part of the overall refinery process. Steam is needed for many parts especially the dist. tower

95_GSX previously said:

The removal of sulfur is done with chemisty by adding Hydrogen to the feed and running it through a catalyst bed.

Hydrodesulfurisation and ring opening requires mostly proprietary catalyst blends. Historically, straight zeolite in a suitable shape for maximum surface area was used.

With cleaning issues, efficiency requirements, and the desire for extended operation between cleaning, different combinations of noble metals are used. For example, cobalt, molybdenum, vanadium, and nickel.

Cleaning is a process of reducing the spent catalyst with hydrogen, you can also use CO to remove iron and nickel carbonyls. Nitric acid can be used, along with various alkaline leaching. There are advantages and disadvantages to each process.

Engineering work is done constantly to determine the best type of catalyst and cleaning cycle. It's very much a work in process. As the price of crude goes up, there is strong initiative to increase efficiency in this area

95_GSX previously said:

Also a catalyst is regenerated or replaced, it isn't "blown down".

Poorly worded on my part. Work is busy lately, I don't have much time to spend on the forum. I was intending to refer to boiler blowdown and cooling tower blowdown

Consumption of rare earth metals can be a major expense for a refinery

95_GSX previously said:

On another note: The cost to oil companies in upgrades to their process units in order to produce ULSD was very high and required extremely large capital investments. This is part of the reason you see the prices on diesel you do, they have to get that investment back. Thank your local tree hugging hippie and government official for those ULSD requirements.

What I find interesting is that the hippie tree huggers mandated ULSD in the EU market before the North American market. However, due to different tax structures, diesel fuel is usually cheaper than regular unleaded. That explains why upwards of 45% of the EU passenger car fleet is diesel

Just curious if your facility still has a lot of 5-15 psi pneumatic control, or 4-20 mA analog PID loop control? In the mid 80's I was with Honeywell and we put in quite a few TDC 3000 DCS's, especially overseas.

By the late 1990's a lot of clients were specing Siemens Simatic PCS 7 systems. Digital neworked loop control has many efficiency advantages

Most of my work in the past 6 years has been overseas with new facilities, putting in Foundation FieldBus digital control network, primarily in new facilities. For example, the SECCO facility near Shanghai, was a two year project from greenfield to complete

The SECCO is like a lot of refineries built in the past 5 years. It can go from cold start to inspec in one shift

[95_GSX]

When looking at the refining process as a whole, yes there is a lot of water consumption in refining processes. I was specifically looking at only a DHDS unit. The desalter is part of the Crude unit and they also operate our 3 main plant boilers as well. We have a Sour Water Stripper to recycle and treat process water. I am new to refining and have only been in the industry about 5 months so it sounds like you have quite a bit more industry experience than myself. Currently my only experience is in Hydroprocessing which encompasses about 10 units in our refinery. Our hydroprocessing units use almost exclusively shell and tube Hx's so they aren't as big of a PITA to clean/maintain.

Our refinery was opened in the 1940's and is relatively small compared to the refineries on the coast. We only run about 54K BBLS a day of crude.

Yes catalyst is extremely expensive due to the nature of the metals required to produce them. Most people don't know what you were talking about in your reply and I was only trying to clarify a little from your earlier post. Our company deffinetly tries to get every cent they can before a catalyst is regened or replaced (as they should, thats why they pay engineers).

Yes we constantly blowdown steam generation and condensate systems.

We currently use a TDC 3000 system but the company is looking at upgrading to something else but I am not sure what. I believe our controls are callibrated at 4-12psi but it may be a 5-15psi set up. We are running old technology and old equipment. But from coldstart we can be inspec usually in 2-3 shifts barring anything major doesn't go wrong.

Don't get me wrong oil companies are making money on their ULSD upgrades. I was just pointing out that one of the reasons you see diesel prices where they are today is because of the upgrades/expansions companies had to buy in order to produce the fuel.

I think I covered most of your questions.

[jayman]

95_GSX previously said:

I was specifically looking at only a DHDS unit.

Correct the unit or incremental process water is a fraction of the entire process. Fug-DHDS can be tricky to properly engineer.

95_GSX previously said:

We have a Sour Water Stripper to recycle and treat process water.

As part of the overall plant water recycle system, this has allowed enormous process water makeup savings. For example, a BP refinery in Sydney was able to reduce its process water makeup demand by almost 40% by extensive use of strippers and membranes.

95_GSX previously said:

Our hydroprocessing units use almost exclusively shell and tube Hx's so they aren't as big of a PITA to clean/maintain.

Somewhat lower efficiency but much easier to maintain. A problem with acid flushing plate hx is you can knock loose too much scale and crap at once, which tends to plug the entire plate. Imagine a herringbone pattern, that is how most plate hx look like inside.

95_GSX previously said:

Yes catalyst is extremely expensive due to the nature of the metals required to produce them.

DOE and DARPA are doing lab and field testing on advanced new catalyst materials and design, eg unique micro-surface treatment to further enhance resistance to sulfur, increase regen periods, increase lifespan, etc. I doubt smaller refineries could justify these catalysts once they are released, they promise to be very expensive

95_GSX previously said:

Most people don't know what you were talking about in your reply and I was only trying to clarify a little from your earlier post.

Clarity isn't my strongest trait, it didn't help that I was rushed to reply. Will try to do a better job in the future

95_GSX previously said:

We currently use a TDC 3000 system but the company is looking at upgrading to something else but I am not sure what.

I've had very good field results with Emerson DeltaV Plantweb. Emerson makes direct plug-compatible cables that allow you to reuse the existing backplane Honeywell PIU.

I'm going to guess your control room has a minimum of two Universal Stations on the Honeywell LCN. Your US's have the flat membrane "keyboard" with the Engineer keyboard hidden below the white cover. The touchscreen uses an LED array that can be difficult to keep working in a dusty environment

You probably have a History Module, Application Module, and Hiway Gateway to talk to the PIU. The LCN is a standard - way back then it was a standard - Token Ring network. If you're running an ancient Honeywell OS like 210.M1, there is a scary system command called LCN Reconnect. Touch that box, and every node on your network will isolate itself. Please do not touch that box on the screen!

The PIU probably has Honeywell Multifunction Controller II cards. This was actually a very good system for the time, IMHO better than the Bailey INFI-90. Your problem now is that Honeywell dropped official support a long time ago, and the supply of good condition boards and cards is drying up

Emerson allows you to replace the entire US console with their DeltaV, which uses COTS PC's. You can keep the 4-20 mA field equipment (RTD's, ORP's, etc) in addition to the on/off like motor starters. Emerson has a custom cable that plugs into the PIU MC II card to download the Honeywell database, which is automatically converted to DeltaV

Emerson makes a solution called DeltaV Connect for Honeywell, it allows you to keep parts of your LCN and even US, to work side-by-side with the new system. You can keep the Honeywell PIU termination and wiring/backplane, but toss the MC II cardcage and substitute the new DeltaV Carrier. Emerson makes the FlexConnect that has a custom cable that plugs right into the existing Honeywell backplane

Once you convert over to DeltaV, your engineers can use COntrol Studio to setup. This is far easier than using the Honeywell DEB/PED. You can even keep TDC 3000 emulation, so the screens look like they do right now: black background with simple graphics.

Obvious that you won't have advanced digital network features available with Foundation FieldBus: automatic device recognition and commissioning, advanced device health status (Temp, valve "stiction" detection, fuzzy control, etc).

95_GSX previously said:

I believe our controls are callibrated at 4-12psi but it may be a 5-15psi set up.

The max span is 5-15 psi for pneumatic control, and 4-20 mA for a discrete analog loop, like an RTD

95_GSX previously said:

We are running old technology and old equipment. But from coldstart we can be inspec usually in 2-3 shifts barring anything major doesn't go wrong.

That's pretty good for an older facility

I enjoy discussing these issues with somebody who is also involved in the industry. Don't be shy about asking questions

[bandi]

95_GSX previously said:

...I think a 4-cyl would probably be more than adequate. I would also think they should also put a solid front axle under it while they are up there messing around with the motor.

and the convertable version added with the diesel and SFA... :drool:...

[Michael1]

95_GSX previously said:

I think a 4-cyl would probably be more than adequate.

I'd rather see a V6 diesel, that had similar performance to the gasoline engine. It would be smoother that a 4-cyl, too.

Michael

[Dissident]

I'll take an I6 turbodiesel plz

[lehencountry]

yes, I am missing my Diesel too. I´ve had the Prado-Diesel and Montero-Diesel in the last 7 years, both with chip-tuning and close to 200 HP.
I miss the permanent power (Kraft) when touching the gaspedal.
The AT on Dieselengine did not switch that often, as Diesel has more Torque when falling back with RPM. Especially and even with a small trailor the FJ is feeling not so easy.
the Reason I changed to FJ, I can drive cheaper due to LPG-Conversion.
On the other Hand, late Diesel-Engines are not so reliable anymore and very costly to repair.
regards from Bavaria

1 liter Diesel or Gas today $ 1.10
1 liter LPG gas $ 0.56

[5150 Cruiser]

95_GSX previously said:

I think a 4-cyl would probably be more than adequate. :

I seriously doubt that. I recently got to drive an imported Mistubishi pickup with a 4cyl turbo diesel and ican tell you that it was very under powered. 122hp,and 276 or so pdft.of torque. This thing was slow. 0-60 took around 15 seconds. NOt the kind of accelleration numbers i want when trying to get on the freeway, or anywhere for that matter. Good news is that gas mileage once up to speed was exellent! Around 30MPG or better. To bad this thing ideled like a peter built and was as loud as one too. And not that cool, "turbo whistle loud", more like a "clanking, this thing could fall apart at any time loud." No wonder they never imported these to the U.S.

lehencountry previously said:

the Reason I changed to FJ, I can drive cheaper due to LPG-Conversion.
On the other Hand, late Diesel-Engines are not so reliable anymore and very costly to repair.
regards from Bavaria

1 liter Diesel or Gas today $ 1.10
1 liter LPG gas $ 0.56

Ya, Diesels arn't what they used to be. You used to be able to fix one with some vise grips, and a pipe wrench! Now adays, you have no choice but to take it iinto to a dealer cause companies like Ford require the cab to be removed for nealry any hick-up the engine has. Dumb design.