End Fired FurnacesCosts & Benefits
|Parent Process: Melting and Refining|
|Energy Savings Potential||
Compared to cross-fired furnaces, thermal efficieny is around 10% higher (Worrell et al., 2008. p.63)
In a Croatian green soda lime plant, replacing the old melter with 150 tpd capacity and 60 m2 melting area with an end-fired melter reduced energy consumption by 25 to 30%, giving a final average energy consumption of 4 GJ/t-glass (Worrell et al., 2008. p.63).
In a UK based plant producing flint glass, replacing the old furnace with an end fired regenerative furnace and implementing a range of other measures – including enclosing doghouse, increasing and improving insulation, sealing burners, and increasing glass bath – reduced energy consumption by 12.2% (Worrell et al., 2008. p.63).
|CO2 Emission Reduction Potential|
Compared to cross-fired furnaces, investment costs are around 20% lower (Worrell et al., 2008. p.63)
In the Croatian plant, installing a new end-fired melter instead of repairing the old melter provided a payback time of one year. In addition to energy savings, improvement in total tank loads across the plant contributed to savings.
At a flint glass manufacturing facility in the UK, implemented measures costed $305 000 and produced annual savings of $507 000, giving a payback time of 7 months. Majority of the savings were connected to eliminated electric and oxygen boosting. For plants without electric and oxygen boosting, the payback time would have been 16 months (Worrell et al., 2008. p.63).
End Fired Furnaces Publications
Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the Glass Industry - An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy and Plant Managers
Prepared primarily with the US Glass Industry, this document provides information about energy efficiency measures applicable to glass manufacturing, including performance and cost benchmarks whenever possible.