Cement industries in Satna

Cost, Efficiency and Environment

Impact

NEERAJ BHALERAO
M.Tech, Industrial Safety Engineering, Department of Fire
technology, IPS Academy Indore.

Prof. Dr. S.N VERMA

Professor, Department of Fire Technology, IPS Academy Indore.
 Abstract
Major technological improvements in process, design
and equipment systems of cement plants took place
during last three decades. This paper analyze some of
the technological improvements in a cement industry,
cost saving methods and its impact on environment.
The analysis was done by testing the hypothesis.
Hypothesis testing was done by one way ANOVA
(Analysis of Variance) method and results found that
there is a significant impact on efficiency and
environment. Our findings suggest that the industry
should constantly work towards improvements and
invest in energy saving methods.
 INTRODUCTION
 Indian cement industry is one of the highly energy
intensive industry and the 2nd largest producer of cement
in the world with a total installed capacity of 277.46
MTPA as on September 2017.

 It is also third largest consumer of coal in the country

after power and steel industry. It needs both electrical
and thermal energy for its operations.

 . Cement plants have various energy intensive

divisions such as quarrying raw materials, crushing raw
material, grinding of raw material, dry mixing and
blending, preheater, rotary kiln, clinker cooler, finish
grinding etc.
 It is a blessing that the effort in reducing harmful
emission co-benefits the energy efficiency and also the
improvements in increasing efficiency causes reductions
in harmful emissions.

 Therefore we will use the above study in context of the

Indian Cement Industry and focus on quantifying the
measures for the energy efficiency improvement and
reduction in harmful emissions.

 On the basis of basis of literature review the

hypothesis was developed and tested by one way ANOVA
(Analysis of Variance) method for hypothesis testing and
the results were carried out.
 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND SAVINGS

An example
Taking examples from a cement plant of 6000 TPD capacity, the
energy consumption breakup is done.
Thermal specific energy consumption is 3382 Kcal/KWh.
Electrical energy consumption (up to clinkerisation) is 29.24 KWh/Ton
of clinker.
Electrical energy consumption (cement grinding) is 28-34 KWh/Ton of
clinker.

Changes done in cement mill:-

Pregrinding
Hydraulic roller crusher
Grinding media optimization
Minimizing pressure drop
Idle running minimization
Mill internal water supply
Tripping material high temperature
Energy consumption and changes due to the above
implementations :

Previous running Now running Mill 1 Now running Mill 2

(KWh) (KWh) (KWh)
Mill main motor 2500 2300 2250
Separator fan 450 400 380
HRC 700 400 350
Auxiliaries 600 550 500
Total 4250 3650 3480

PPC Mill 1 = 110 TPH = 3650/110 = 33.18 KWh/TPPC

Mill 2 = 115 TPH = 3480/115 = 30.26 KWh/TPPC

OPC Mill 1 = 65 TPH = 3650/65 = 56.15 KWh/TOPC

Mill 2 = 65 TPH = 3480/65 = 53.53 KWh/TOPC
if the running hour of the mill 1 of PPC is
24hrs then the total production of the day
would be 110 X 24 = 2640 Tons, the
energy saved would be 2640 X 33.18 =
87,595.2. This when calculated with 6/-
per unit would give us the saving of
Rs 5, 25,571.2 /- Per day.
Using low NOx burners
Replacement of cooler (grate cooler) gives a direct
cost saving by reducing heat consumption by 5% around
37 to 38 Kcal. Means a saving of Rs 40-45 per ton of
clinker.
Grinding media optimization by enhancing the surface
area of grinding balls.
Reducing pressure drops in ducts by specific power
consumption saves 2 units per ton of clinker.
Low pressure drop cyclone.
Monochamber mill converted in cement mill.
Use of VRM instead of ball mill for cement grinding.
Controlling the running load. Maximum feed and
maximum running hour for better efficiency.
 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

According to the above observations it is

observed that the changes made in process or
system or equipments bring a significant
change/reduction in the power consumption.
There are a lot of energy intensive divisions in
a cement plant from quarrying to cement
grinding and packing and this kind of changes
throughout the plant causes significant
savings. Therefore this analysis posits the
Hypothesis about relation between the change
and energy saving
It is a factor response model which tests the hypothesis
that the means of the two groups are equal. The one
way analysis of variance is used to determine whether
there are any significant differences between the means
of these groups.
Hypothesis (H1): Energy consumption per ton of clinker
production at 750 rpm speed of fan motor is less than
that of 1000 rpm fan motor.

Null hypothesis (H0): Energy consumption per ton of

clinker production at 750 rpm speed of fan motor is
equal/not less than to that of 1000 rpm speed of fan
motor.

H0 = μX1 = μX2
1. Alpha value to be set for the experiment i.e. α = 0.05

2. To begin the calculation we need to calculate the degree of freedom ( df )

dfBetween = k-1 ;
Where k is the number of conditions (Numerator)

dfWithin = N-k ;
Where N is the total number of observations (Denominator)

dftotal = dfBetween + dfWithin ;

According to the frequency distribution curve the F critical value is 3.92 at
(1, 120) at alpha level 0.05.

3. Calculation of sum of square deviations from the mean ( SS )

4. Now when we get the means of the two groups we can now calculate sum of
square deviation

5. Calculate variance between and variance within

6. Calculation of F statistics.

Then we will compare the calculated F value with the

tabulated F value. If the calculated F value is less than
tabulated F value, accept the Null hypothesis. And if the
calculated F value is more than the tabulated F value,
we reject the Null hypothesis and accept the alternate
hypothesis.
 RESULT

The calculated F value i.e. 542.62 is found to be higher than the

tabulated F value i.e. 3.92. Hence we reject the Null hypothesis and
accept the alternate hypothesis.
 CONCLUSION
1. As per the ANOVA analysis the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% confidence
level and it has been established beyond doubt that the energy consumption is
distinctly less for the change in speed of RABH fan motor.

2. The saving in energy indirectly reflects low production of CO2 in the

environment.

3. The small step improvement throughout the plant can help in significant
energy saving and impact on environment

60 18
50 16
14
40
12
30 Frequency
10
frequency
20 bin limit 8
bin limit
10 6
4
0
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
 REFERENCES
1. Zhang, S., Ren, H., Zhou, W., Yu, Y., & Chen, C. (2018). Assessing air pollution abatement co-benefits of energy
efficiency improvement in cement industry: A city level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 761–771.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.293

2. Morrow, W. R., Hasanbeigi, A., Sathaye, J., & Xu, T. (2014). Assessment of energy efficiency improvement and CO2
emission reduction potentials in India’s cement and iron & steel industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 131–
141. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.022

3. Zhang, S., Worrell, E., & Crijns-Graus, W. (2015). Cutting air Pollution by Improving Energy Efficiency of China’s
Cement Industry. Energy Procedia, 83, 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.191

4. Madlool, N. A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Kamalisarvestani, M. (2013). An overview of energy savings measures for
cement industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 18–29. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.046

5. S.P. Deolalkar. Designing Green Cement Plants (book)

6 E. De Lena, M. Spinelli, M. C. Romano (2018) CO2 capture in cement plants by “Tail-End” Calcium Looping process.
Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 186–193 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610218303394

7. Pérez-Calvo, J.-F., Sutter, D., Gazzani, M., & Mazzotti, M. (2017). Application of a Chilled Ammonia-based Process for
CO 2 Capture to Cement Plants. Energy Procedia, 114, 6197–6205. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1757

8. Summerbell, D. L., Barlow, C. Y., & Cullen, J. M. (2016). Potential reduction of carbon emissions by performance
improvement: A cement industry case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1327–1339.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.155

9. Ultratech BEE presentation NCJW.

http://knowledgeplatform.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/KEP_Presentation_NCJW.pdf
 REFERENCES

10. Dr. Alex Jankovic, Dr. Walter Valery, Mesto Mineral Process Technology, Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia.

11. Technical EIA Guidance Manual for Cement Industry.

12. Fellaou, S., Harnoune, A., Seghra, M. A., & Bounahmidi, T. (2018). Statistical modeling and optimization of the
combustion efficiency in cement kiln precalciner. Energy, 155, 351–359. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.181

13. Atmaca, A., & Yumrutaş, R. (2014). Analysis of the parameters affecting energy consumption of a rotary kiln in
cement industry. Applied Thermal Engineering, 66(1-2), 435–444. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.02.03

14. Altun, O. (2018). Energy and cement quality optimization of a cement grinding circuit. Advanced Powder
Technology, 29(7), 1713–1723. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2018.04.006

15. Mathisen, A., Skinnemoen, M. M., & Nord, L. O. (2014). Evaluating CO2 Capture Technologies for Retrofit in
Cement Plant. Energy Procedia, 63, 6484–6491. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.684

16 Huang, Y.-H., Chang, Y.-L., & Fleiter, T. (2016). A critical analysis of energy efficiency improvement potentials in
Taiwan’s cement industry. Energy Policy, 96, 14–26. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.025

17. Herrera, B., Amell, A., Chejne, F., Cacua, K., Manrique, R., Henao, W., & Vallejo, G. (2017). Use of thermal energy
and analysis of barriers to the implementation of thermal efficiency measures in cement production: Exploratory
study in Colombia. Energy, 140, 1047–1058. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.041

18 Tesema, G., & Worrell, E. (2015). Energy efficiency improvement potentials for the cement industry in Ethiopia.
Energy, 93, 2042–2052. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.057
THANK YOU