# Presentation: 107993

## Energy-Efficient Kiln for BrickmakingSeptember 17, 2003

**Donald J. Aumann, PE**PIER Buildings Program

## Introduction

- Presenting on behalf of Clint Lowell from Energy Commission Efficiency Division
- Don did the report in 1999 while working as a consultant*...coincidence that I joined CEC*
- CEC project connection from administering US Department of Energy funds
- No new information since 1999 report

## Outline

- Background
- Old kiln technology
- New kiln technology
- Startup issues
- Results—business and technical

## Background

**Pacific Clay Plant**
*Located about 100 km east of Los Angeles*
*Existing since late 1800s*
*Extensive production of bricks, pavers, & pots*

## Background

**Used 1950s vintage kilns**
**Increased product demand in early 1990s***...need to increase production capacity*

## Old Kiln Technology

- Large mass of bricks on each kiln car (2 meters high)
- High-refractory kiln cars
- Relatively low heat transfer rate

## Search for New Kiln

- International search
- Pick US technology from Swindell Dressler (www.swindelldressler.com)
- Pacific Clay was 2nd installation(1st was in Australia)

## Initial Project Cost

- 	*	**	*

| $3.2 Million | Kiln, including cars, site preparation, and construction |
| --- | --- |
| $4.1 Million | Associated production and handling equipment (e.g. extrusion) |
| $7.3 Million | Total |

## Project Schedule

_***Activity***__***	***__***	***__***	***__***Planned***__***	***__***	***__***Actual    ***__***.***__***   ***_
- Begin design 		July 1995		July 1995
- Construction complete	Sept. 1996		April 1996
- Extend TK-4			none			Dec. 1996
- Proper TK-4 operation	 Jan. 1997 		Dec 1996

## Construction/Start-Up Issues

- County zoning/regulations change...Raise plant 0.6 meters...Improve fire protection...Increased cost $0.5 million to $7.8 million
- 35% initial production loss rate...Expected 1–2% loss rate...Cool-down zone too short...Extend kiln 7 meters 

- immediately achieve 1–2% loss rate

## Start-Up Labor Issues

- New production line is more sophisticated/automated...4-hour backlog requires continuous operation(old kilns had 2.6 day backlog)...Continuous full-staffing required...Continuous supervision required
- Labor summary...Old plant required two low-skilled crews...New plant requires four high-skilled crews

## Technical Performance

_***Characteristic***__***	***__***	***__***	***__***Old***__***	***__***New***__***	***__***Improvement***_
- Production capacity (tons/year)		30,000	60,000	       100%
- Burner rating (106 Btu/hr)		29	25.9	       Na
- Production loss (%)			10	5	       50%
- Firing plus drying time (hours)		96	48	       50%
-       Exact duration depends on product requirements, with approximately 50% of the time for drying.
- Preheat time (cold start, hours)		96	24	       75%

## Energy/Emissions

_***Characteristic***__***	***__***	***__***	***__***Old***__***	***__***New***__***	***__***Improvement***_
- Natural gas use	(therms/ton)		67.3	43.6	     35%
- Electricity use (kWh/lb brick)		0.0426	0.0448	     -5%
- NOx emissions (lb/106 Btu gas)		0.056 	0.062 	     -11%		lb./ton brick		0.377	0.270	     28%
- (NOx for “oxidizing” firing)

## Operating Cost Comparison

*Cost Component**	**Pre-TK-4**	** Post TK-4* *	** Savings* *	**	**	**$/ton**	**	**$/ton**	*
- Gas Cost		17.51		11.34		35.2%
- Electricity Cost	7.76		8.17		-5.3%
- Labor Cost		12.81		14.03		-9.5%
- Maintenance Cost	13.02		9.61		26.2%
*Total**	**	**	**51.10**	**	**43.15**	**	**15.6%**	*

## Suggestions for Future Plants

**Adopt Different Production Layout**
- Use more kiln cars
- Include increased kiln car storage
- Provide 2-day backlog 		***Lower labor costs from  ******	******	******using only two crews***

## Summary

**Vice President Allen  ****   Cunningham**
*“**Installing this new kiln is like having children...when you’re done, you’re glad you did it.”*
*“**Yes, we’d do it again!”*