White Paper

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric

There is more to evaluating different vendors’ RTO proposals than selecting the low
bidder. It is important to know a few things in order to effectively compare one
vendor’s RTO proposal with another. While one vendor may appear to be the low bidder
in up front capital equipment expenditures, they may end up being the most expensive
when looking at the life cycle cost of the equipment.

There are two components to consider when determining RTO utility consumption and
operating cost:
1. Fuel usage (natural gas or other) to fire the burner
2. Electricity cost to power the fan

Sales proposals usually do not give you the proper information to make an accurate cost
comparison. Here’s how to debunk the sales rhetoric regarding RTO operating costs
and evaluate the true life cycle cost of your purchase:

Fuel Usage
The laws of physics always prevail in a fuel (gas) usage comparison. Assuming that all
variables are the same in each operating scenario (inlet temperature, airflow, solvent
load, solvent calorific value, operating temperature and thermal efficiency of the RTO);
one vendor’s RTO isn’t much different from any other with respect to gas consumption.

Electricity Cost
Electrical costs can vary greatly. From vendor to vendor, there can be a whopping 250%
difference in electricity consumption. In the case of a 16,000 SCFM RTO running two
shifts per day, this amounts to over $23,000 per year difference in operating cost.

This paper details how to calculate fuel and electrical consumption to understand the
true operating cost for an RTO. In order to begin, we must first talk about nominal
versus actual thermal efficiency.

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 1 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
Thermal Efficiency – Nominal vs. Actual

Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) are rated in nominal thermal efficiency, often
referred to as Total Energy Recovery (TER), and typically expressed as a percentage such
as 95% TER. Understanding thermal efficiency, and how it relates to natural gas
operating cost, is critical to properly evaluating the true operating expense and overall
life cycle cost of a proposed RTO.

In the sales proposal, the RTO is rated on its nominal thermal efficiency, which is the
thermal efficiency of the regenerative heat exchanger as if it were a standalone device.
However, the heat exchanger is not a standalone device and, in reality, many factors
affect it during operation. These factors or ‘losses’ must be taken into account when
calculating the actual thermal efficiency and how it relates to fuel usage.

When there is sufficient VOC Btu content from the process to overcome the standard 5%
exchanger loss and the radiation heat lost through the shell and no air infiltration, the
RTO is said to have a balanced mass flow and the nominal thermal efficiency is achieved.

This is the only time nominal equals actual. When we consider all losses, the difference
in fuel gas usage between nominal and actual can be a factor of 1.8 to 1.9.

Nominal Efficiency
Example: A 95% TER, 16,000 SCFM RTO with no VOC fuel content from the process will
require 268 SCFM of combustion air premixed with 21 SCFM of natural gas (based on
13:1 air fuel mixture) to maintain 1500°F.

To calculate nominal thermal efficiency:

Combustion chamber temp – exhaust temp process flow + combustion air flow + gas flow
TER = X
Combustion chamber temp – process (inlet) temp flow in

Combustion chamber temperature = 1500°F

Exhaust temperature = 171°F
Process (inlet) temperature = 70°F
Process flow = 16,000 SCFM
Combustion air flow = 268 SCFM
Gas flow = 21 SCFM

1500°F - 171°F 16,000 SCFM + 268 SCFM + 21 SCFM

TER = X = .9462 or nominal 95%
1500°F - 70°F 16,000 SCFM

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 2 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
A Look at Losses

Heat Exchanger Loss

The heat exchanger recovers 95% of the heat energy, and so it could be said to lose 5%
of that energy.

To calculate that 5% loss in Btu/h for our example:

process flow x 1.08 Btu/h/°F/SCFM x (combustion temp-inlet temp) x exchanger efficiency loss

Process Flow = 16000 SCFM

Combustion Temp = 1500°F
Process Inlet Temp = 70°F
Regenerative exchanger efficiency loss = 5% (0.05)

16000 SCFM x 1.08 Btu/h/°F/SCFM x (1500°F -70°F) x 0.05 = 1,235,520 Btu/h

Fuel Efficiency Loss

Natural gas is purchased with a gross heating value of 1,000 Btu/cu. ft. However,
usable heat or net heating value, after accounting for energy discharged through the
stack as water vapor, is 870 Btu/cu. ft. At a stack discharge of 171° F with 0% excess
air, 13% of gas Btu content will be lost by way of 10% conversion to H20 + Co2, and
approximately 3% additional gas required to heat the combustion air.

To calculate additional fuel required to compensate for the fuel efficiency loss of 13% for
our example:
Net fuel usage
- Net fuel usage = Fuel efficiency loss
Fuel efficiency

Net fuel usage =

5% exchanger loss + Heat radiation loss + Mass unbalance loss

1,235,520 Btu/h + 225,000 Btu/h* + 494,208 Btu/h* = 1,954,728 Btu/h

Fuel efficiency = 100%-13% = 87% (0.87)
*Heat radiation loss and mass unbalance loss calculations are shown in the next
two sections.

1,954,728 Btu/h
- 1,954,728 Btu/h = 292,086 Btu/h
0.87

Mass Unbalance
An obvious, but often overlooked infiltration source is the burner. When there is
insufficient fuel content in the process stream to maintain the combustion chamber
temperature, the burner must fire.

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 3 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
In an RTO, fuel (natural gas) is supplied to the burner with 13 SCFM of combustion air
per cu. ft. of natural gas input (30% excess air) at 1500°F for combustion to occur. The
addition of combustion air unbalances the mass flow and reduces the thermal heat
exchange efficiency by about 2%, to about 93%. This small unbalance will increase
overall fuel usage depending on the amount of excess combustion air used.

To calculate mass unbalance loss using our example:

1. Convert nominal fuel usage to (gas volume) SCFH by dividing the Btu/h fuel usage by
the Btu content per cu. ft. of fuel (natural gas = 1,000 Btu/cu. ft.).

Nominal fuel use Btu/h

= cu. ft./h (SCFH)
1,000 Btu/cu. ft.

Nominal fuel use = 1,235,520 Btu/h

1,235,520 Btu/h
= 1,236 SCFH
1,000 Btu/cu. ft.

2. Calculate the combustion air requirement based on the percent of excess air supplied
to the burner.

SCFH (of gas) x air to fuel ratio

= SCFM combustion air
60 min./h

SCFH (of gas) = 1,236

Air to fuel ratio = 13:1 (30% excess air)

1,236 SCFH x (13/1)

= 268 SCFM
60 min./h

3. Find the mass unbalance loss:

Process flow
1 - = Mass unbalance loss
(process flow + combustion air flow)

Process flow = 16,000 SCFM

Combustion air flow = 268 SCFM

16,000 SCFM
1 - = .0165 or 2%
(16,000 SCFM + 268 SCFM)

4. Finally, find the mass unbalance loss in Btu/h for our example:

Process flow x 1.08 Btu/h/°F/SCFM x (combustion temperature – inlet temperature) x % mass unbalance

16,000 SCFM x 1.08 Btu/h/°F/SCFM x (1500°F – 70°F) x .02 = 494,208 Btu/h

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 4 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
Heat Radiation Loss
Heat radiation loss from the outside surface of the RTO can vary depending on overall
surface area, angle of the surface, insulation type and thickness and wind velocity.
Typically, staying within the OSHA requirement of no outside surface temperature
greater than 140°F yields an average hourly loss of 125 Btu/sq. ft.

If an average 16,000 SCFM, 2-chamber RTO yields a surface area of 1800 sq. ft., the
estimated heat loss is 225,000 Btu/h.

Surface area x Average hourly loss = Estimated heat radiation loss

1800 sq. ft. x 125 Btu/sq. ft./h = 225,000 Btu/h

Thus, at 6,000 h/year and $7/million Btu (mmBtu) the loss equals $9,450/year.

Estimated heat loss Annual cost of

X Fuel cost X Annual hours of operation =
1,000,000 heat radiation loss

225,000 Btu/h
X $7.00/mmBtu X 6,000 h/yr = $9450.00
1,000,000

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 5 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
Now that we have identified the heating requirements, we can compare nominal vs.
actual fuel consumption for our example:

Nominal fuel usage for the 16,000 SCFM RTO:

RTO:

Exchanger loss 1,235,520 Btu/h

Heat radiation loss NA
Mass unbalance loss NA
Fuel efficiency loss NA
Nominal fuel usage 1,235,520 Btu/h

Actual fuel usage for the 16,000 SCFM RTO:

RTO:

Exchanger loss 1,235, 520 Btu/h

Heat radiation loss 225,000 Btu/h
Mass unbalance loss 494,208 Btu/h
Fuel efficiency loss 292,086 Btu/h
Actual fuel usage 2,246,814 Btu/h

From this example, we can clearly see that actual fuel consumption is nearly double the
nominal fuel usage calculated. Having determined the actual fuel usage, we are now
able to calculate the actual thermal efficiency.

OVERALL RTO ACTUAL THERMAL EFFICIENCY:

Btu/h @ 100% efficiency loss – actual fuel usage

= Actual thermal efficiency
100% efficiency loss

24,710,400 Btu/h** - 2,246,814 Btu/h

= .9091 or 91%
24,710,400 Btu/h

**
Heat Exchanger Loss
= Btu/h at 100% Efficiency
5%

1,235,520 Btu/h
= 24,710,400 Btu/h
0.05

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 6 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
Electrical Power Consumption
As stated earlier, there can be a whopping 250% difference in electricity consumption
among RTOs. Buyers should look at the amount of electricity required to power the fan
in order to weigh the electricity use differences among vendors’ RTOs.

In many sales proposals, fan horsepower use is not converted to dollar per year
operating expense by the vendor, and therefore is easily overlooked when comparing
cost of operation. To yield artificially low operating costs, only fuel usage (which we
have shown is roughly the same for each vendor) is spelled out. This ‘oversight’ is
generally attributed to improving what we call Price Page Economics, but does little to
help the client truly evaluate the proposal.

Why can electrical consumption vary as much as 250% from vendor to vendor? The
answer lies in the sizing of the RTO and heat recovery media selected.

To appear very competitive, the low bidder will usually use smaller recovery chambers
with heat recovery media that impede the flow of air through the chambers. The
chamber sizing coupled with the type of media may cost less and generate the desired
heat recovery, but create a large pressure drop, which in turn requires up to 1/3 more
horsepower to run the RTO’s fan. More horsepower requires more electricity, resulting
in higher operating costs.

This means that an initial $25,000 in capital cost ‘savings’ gained by selecting the low
bidder can turn into $467,523 in excess electricity costs over the 20-year life
expectancy of the RTO. Thus, if you spend the extra $25,000 to purchase the more
energy efficient RTO, you nearly make up for that initial expense in operating costs over
the first year alone!

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 7 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
How to Calculate Electricity Cost

What follows is a formula to calculate electricity operating cost comparison between

vendor quotes:

Step 1: Determine the fan motor brake horsepower difference

Step 2: Calculate the kilowatt hours

brake horsepower differential X 746 watts per Bhp

÷ fan motor efficiency = kWh
1000

Step 3: Calculate the annual cost based RTO operating hours

kW x kWh cost x annual RTO operating hours = annual electricity cost

Sample
Sample Electricity Cost Calculation
Fan horsepower: Vendor 1 = 75 Bhp Vendor 2 = 125 Bhp
Fan motor efficiency: 90% (0.90)
RTO operation: two 8-hour shifts per day, 5 days per week = 4160 annual hours
kWh cost = 13.56¢ average cost industrial sector in New England as of February 2009

Step 1: Brake horsepower differential:

125 Bhp – 75 Bhp = 50 Bhp differential

Step 2: Kilowatts:

50 Bhp X 746 watts

÷ 0.90 = 41.44 kW
1000

Step 3: Annual cost differential:

41.44 kW x $0.1356 per kWh x 4160 hours = $23,376 per year

$467,523 over the 20-year lifecycle of the RTO

As you can see, while it can take some effort to accurately compare RTO operating
costs, the potential long-term savings far outweigh the savings on initial investment.
Protect your company’s bottom line by understanding the overall expenses including
operating costs for the life of your RTO along with the initial capital investment. These
cost comparisons will help you to obtain the information you need before purchasing
your next RTO.

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 8 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
Cycle Therm’s Answer: Cell Stone® Ultra
Ultra

Cycle Therm’s answer to reducing electricity

consumption while still maintaining Price Page
Economics is to use our patented, ultra low
pressure drop, random packed heat recovery
media known as Cell Stone® Ultra.

Random packed Cell Stone® saw its first

commercial use in a conventional regenerative
thermal oxidizer in 1997. Other than tinkering a
bit with the air to media ratio, the patented
product remains the same today.

Cell Stone® is an extremely efficient heat transfer media because of its uniquely
configured high open area and thick individual piece structure. Unlike higher density
saddles requiring huge pressure drops and thin walled structured medias, that require
short time cycles, Cell Stone® Ultra makes efficient use of its stored heat, allowing
elongated six-minute time cycles, removing only a small amount of the media’s stored
heat after each RTO cycle. This residual heat is more than adequate to generate stable
95% heat recovery.

Here are some advantages of Cell Stone® Ultra:

Impervious to thermal shock- unlike structured media, random packing allows
the media freedom of movement to expand and contract during heating and
cooling. This means the system may be brought up to temperature as fast as the
burner system will allow without thermal degradation of the media.

Unlike structured media, it is random packed, thus eliminating the labor
necessary to place each individual piece (or remove it).

Unlike structured media, it affords the turbulence necessary to assist with VOC
destruction, thus improving destruction efficiency.

On an equal air/media ratio it requires ½ the volume of conventional saddles to
obtain 95% nominal heat recovery efficiency.

Unlike structured media with three-minute timing cycles, cycle times can be
extended to as long as six minutes. This achieves a 50% reduction in VOC spikes
while maintaining 95% thermal efficiency.

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 9 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC
About Cycle Therm
Therm
Cycle Therm is an international leader in the design, fabrication and installation of
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTOs). The RTO we bring to market today is the
culmination of over 30 years of design experience focused on a single product.

In addition, Cycle Therm provides turnkey installation services, repair and refurbishment
and is a distributor of Cell Stone® heat recovery media and tower packing.

For More Information

Visit our website at www.cycletherm.com to use our exclusive RTO Operating Cost
Calculator and learn more about Cell Stone® ULTRA heat recovery media.

Retail electricity prices can be obtained from the Energy Information Administration,
which is part of the Department of Energy, website at www.eia.doe.gov.

Contact Information

CycleTherm
CycleTherm LLC

Phone: 570-839-8836
Fax: 570-839-8837
Web: www.cycletherm.com

Debunking RTO Operating Cost Sales Rhetoric Page 10 of 10

© 2007 Cycle Therm LLC