Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Preliminary Cost and Performance Preliminary Cost and Performance Models for Mercury ControlModels for Mercury ControlModels for Mercury Control Models for Mercury Control at Coalat Coal--Fired Power PlantsFired Power Plants
Michael B. Berkenpas and Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public PolicyCenter for Energy and Environmental Studies
Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Gerst A. Gibbon and Dennis N. SmithNational Energy Technology Laboratory
United States Department of EnergyPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
August 21, 2001
The Integrated EnvironmentalThe Integrated EnvironmentalControl Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)
Objecti esObjecti esObjectivesObjectives
A reliable and easy-to-use model for alternative coal-fired power plant designs to estimate thecoal-fired power plant designs to estimate the
PerformanceEnvironmental emissionsEnvironmental emissionsCost
A i t t d f k f iAn integrated framework for comparing alternative options on a systematic basis, including the effects of uncertaintyincluding the effects of uncertainty
IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach
Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization
IECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process Technologies
CoalCleaning
CombustionControls
Flue Gas Cleanup & Waste Managementg g
SO2ParticulateMercuryNO SO2Removal
ParticulateRemoval
MercuryRemoval
NOxRemovalNOx
Rem.
CombinedSOx/NOxRemoval
AdvancedParticulateRemoval
Process Performance ModelsProcess Performance ModelsProcess Performance ModelsProcess Performance Models
Employ detailed mass and energy balancesEmpirical relationships and models used forEmpirical relationships and models used for complex process chemistryCalculate component and system mass flowsCalculate component and system mass flows, energy flows, and efficiencyCalculate multi-media environmental emissionsCalculate multi media environmental emissionsApproximately 10-20 performance parameters for each process technologyp gy
IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach
Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization
Process Cost ModelsProcess Cost ModelsProcess Cost ModelsProcess Cost Models
Direct cost models for each major process area (typically 5-10 areas per technology)E li i li k f d lExplicit links to process performance modelsCalculate total capital costCalculate fixed and variable operating costsCalculate annualized cost of electricityApproximately 20-30 cost parameters for each process technology
IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach
Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization
IECM Soft are CapabilitiesIECM Soft are CapabilitiesIECM Software CapabilitiesIECM Software Capabilities
PowerPowerPlantPlantM d lM d l
Fuel PropertiesFuel PropertiesHeating ValueHeating ValueCompositionComposition
Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessP fP fModelModel
G hi lG hi l
CompositionCompositionDelivered CostDelivered Cost
Plant DesignPlant Design
PerformancePerformance
GraphicalGraphicalUserUser
InterfaceInterface
Furnace TypeFurnace TypeEmission ControlsEmission ControlsSolid Waste MgmtSolid Waste MgmtChemical InputsChemical Inputs
EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEmissionsEmissions
SessionSession& Fuel& Fuel
Chemical InputsChemical Inputs
Cost DataCost DataO&M CostsO&M Costs
Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessC tC t& Fuel& Fuel
DatabasesDatabasesO& CostsO& CostsCapital CostsCapital CostsFinancial FactorsFinancial Factors
CostsCosts
IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach
Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS t A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization
Integrated Technology CostIntegrated Technology Cost
IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach
Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization
Probabilistic Soft are CapabilitProbabilistic Soft are CapabilitProbabilistic Software CapabilityProbabilistic Software Capability
Quantify the effects of uncertainty in performance, emissions and costSpecify input parameter values as distribution functions, as well as conventional single valuesDisplay cumulative distribution functions, yielding confidence intervals for uncertain results
Probabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights Gained
What is the cost (or cost savings) of a particular control strategy?Which control strategy is most suitable for a given plant?Which parameters contribute most to the overall uncertainty? What are the potential payoffs of targeted research to reduce key uncertainties?
Example of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic Resultab
ility
0.8
1.0
Deterministic
ve P
rob
ProbabilisticResult0 4
0.6
0.8 DeterministicResult
80% ProbabilityInterval
mul
ativ Result
0.2
0.480%
ConfidenceInterval
Cum
Total Capital Requirement ($/kW)1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
0.0
Total Capital Requirement ($/kW)
Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM
ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon InjectionWi h Fl G H idifi iWith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example
M ltiM lti Poll tant InteractionsPoll tant InteractionsMultiMulti--Pollutant InteractionsPollutant Interactions
CriteriaPM Hazardous HgAir
PollutantsSO2
NOx
AirPollutants
HgHClH2SO4
Technologies Effecting Technologies Effecting Merc r EmissionsMerc r EmissionsMercury EmissionsMercury Emissions
Elemental MercuryOxidized Mercury
Effect on Mercury EmissionsPower Plant Configuration
Some decreaseSome decreaseElectrostatic Precipitator
Decrease (highly coal specific)Conv. Coal Cleaning
Some decreaseSome decreaseFabric Filter
Some decreaseSome decreaseElectrostatic Precipitator
Limited decreaseSome decreaseSpray Dryer/Fabric Filter
No EffectDecreaseWet SO2 Scrubber
Decrease (based on pilot-scale studies)Carbon Adsorption System
Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM
ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example
Baseline Remo al EfficiencBaseline Remo al EfficiencBaseline Removal EfficiencyBaseline Removal Efficiency
FurnaceEmission
Emissionout
ESPEmissionin
ηfurnace
Emissionout ηESP
Emissionin
( )( )in
outin
EmissionEmissionEmission
EfficiencyRemovalMercury−
×=100(η)
Mercury in CoalMercury in Coal--Fired Power PlantsFired Power Plants(1999 ICR D )(1999 ICR D )(1999 ICR Data)(1999 ICR Data)
P t M di RParameter Median Range (min – max)
Mercury content in coalBituminous 0.12 ppm 0.01 – 0.45Subbituminous
Lignite0.10 ppm0.22 ppm
0.02 – 0.360.02 – 0.42
Oxidized Mercury at EconomizerBituminous 70% 7 - 100Subbituminous & Lignite 25% 3 - 88
Baseline removal in particulate collectorsBoiler (total)Cold-side ESP (total)
7%31%
0 - 100 - 87( )
Spray Dryer & Fabric Filter (total) 39% 0 - 100
Mercury removed in wet FGDElementalOxidized
0%100%Oxidized 100%
Elemental Mercury Oxidized in an SCR 35%
IECM Merc r Remo alIECM Merc r Remo alIECM Mercury RemovalIECM Mercury Removal
Technology Baseline Mercury Removal (%)
Bituminous Subbit Lignite
ESP 31.0 31.0 31.0
SCR + ESP 31 0 31 0 31 0SCR + ESP 31.0 31.0 31.0
ESP + FGD 79.3 48.3 48.3
SCR + ESP + FGD 96.2 54.3 54.3
SD + FF 39.0 39.0 39.0
SCR + SD + FF 39.0 39.0 39.0
Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM
ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example
Performance ParametersPerformance ParametersAffecting Merc r ControlAffecting Merc r ControlAffecting Mercury ControlAffecting Mercury Control
Baseline Mercury RemovalFuel Parameters
Sulfur ContentSulfur ContentMoisture ContentAsh Properties
Other ParametersSO3 Emission FactorFlue Gas Exit TemperatureFlue Gas Exit Temperature Approach to Acid Saturation TemperatureOxidation of SO2 to SO3 (SCR)2 3 ( )
Water & Carbon Injection ModuleWater & Carbon Injection Module
Activated Carbon InjectionActivated Carbon Injection(Pilot Studies, Bituminous Coal, ESP)(Pilot Studies, Bituminous Coal, ESP)
80
100
%)
225 F
60
80
emov
al (%
275 F
250 F
20
40
ercu
ry R
e
0
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Me
Activated Carbon Added (lb/Macfm)
Water & Carbon InjectionWater & Carbon InjectionCapital CostCapital CostCapital CostCapital Cost
Plant Facilities Cost (Process Areas)
Spray Cooling Water
Indirect CostsGeneral Facilities CapitalEng’r & Home Office FeesSpray Cooling Water
Sorbent InjectionSorbent RecycleAdditional Ductwork
Eng r & Home Office FeesProject ContingencyProcess ContingencyRoyalty Feesdditional uctwo k
Sorbent DisposalCEMS UpgradePulse-Jet Fabric Filter
Pre-Production CostsMisc. Capital CostInventory Capital
Total Capital Required (TCR)
Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM
ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example
Case St d Performance Inp tsCase St d Performance Inp tsCase Study Performance InputsCase Study Performance Inputs
Coal Parameters Value Other Parameters Value
Heating value (Btu/lb) 14,220 Gross Plant Size (MW) 500g ( ) , ( )
Sulfur content (%) 0.6 Steam Cycle HR (Btu/kWh) 7880
Ash content (%) 3.8 APH Exit Temperature (F) 300
Moisture content (%) 2 2 Percent of SO as SO (%) 0 8Moisture content (%) 2.2 Percent of SOx as SO3 (%) 0.8
Mercury Removal (%) 90
Effect of Water Injection on Effect of Water Injection on Acti ated Carbon Injection Req iredActi ated Carbon Injection Req iredActivated Carbon Injection RequiredActivated Carbon Injection Required
70
80
cfm
)
50
60
on (l
b/M
ac
30
40
bon
Inje
cti
10
20
Car
b
0
ACI Only + Water Inj.
Carbon Injection Required (Deterministic)Carbon Injection Required (Deterministic)j q ( )j q ( )(18F Approach to Sat., 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(18F Approach to Sat., 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)
70
80
acfm
)
40
50
60
ctio
n (lb
/Ma
ESP Only
ESP + FGD
20
30
0
Car
bon
Inje
c
SCR + ESP + FGD
SCR+ SCR
0
10
Eastern Eastern Wyoming North Dakota
C + SCR+ SCR
Bituminous (Low Sulfur)
Bituminous (High Sulfur)
PRB Lignite
Total Revenue Required (Deterministic)Total Revenue Required (Deterministic)q ( )q ( )(Low(Low--S Appalachian Bit. Coal, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)S Appalachian Bit. Coal, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)
12
h)
96% Mercury
ESP Only ESP + FGD
8
10
st ($
/MW
h
SCRFGD
MercuryRemoval
2
4
6
eliz
ed C
os FGDCarbon Inj.ESP
0
2
Leve
CarbonI j
CarbonWaterI j+ SCR+ Water+ SCR+ Inj. Inj.Inj. SCR Inj. SCR
Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)j q ( y)j q ( y)(ESP Only, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(ESP Only, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)
y ded
area
s
0.8
1.0
Prob
abili
ty
betw
een
shad
0.6
Cum
ulat
ive
nce
inte
rval
b
0.4 Mean: 1.9312.5 percentile: 0.544
Median (50th percentile): 1.943C
95%
con
fiden
0.0
0.2( p )
97.5 percentile: 3.379
9
Carbon Injected (ton/hr)0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)j q ( y)j q ( y)(ESP+FGD+SCR, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(ESP+FGD+SCR, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)
y ded
area
s
0.8
1.0
Prob
abili
ty
betw
een
shad
0.6
Cum
ulat
ive
nce
inte
rval
b
0.4
Base case uncertaintyH h i l h iC
95%
con
fiden
0.0
0.2 Hypthetical research uncertainty
9
Carbon Injected (ton/hr)0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
Concl sionsConcl sionsConclusionsConclusions
IECM integrates Mercury removal to the existing suite of modelsIECM captures multi-pollutant interactionsCost of adding mercury control is dependent on plant configuration, flue gas temperature and fuelUncertainty can be reduced by better quantifying baseline removal and carbon injection rates
Preliminar IECM User Gro pPreliminar IECM User Gro pPreliminary IECM User GroupPreliminary IECM User Group
ABB Power Plant ControlAmerican Electric Power Consol, Inc.
National Power Plc.Niksa Energy AssociatesPacific Corp.,
Energy & Env. Research Corp.Exportech Company, Inc.FirstEnergy Corp.
pPennsylvania Electric AssociationPotomac Electric Power Co.Savvy Engineeringgy p
FLS Miljo A/SFoster Wheeler Development Corp.Lehigh University
y g gSierra Pacific Power Co.Southern Company Services, Inc.Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.g y
Lower Colorado River AuthorityMcDermott Technology, Inc.Mitsui Babcock Energy LTD.
g g pTampa Electric Co.University of California, BerkeleyUS Environmental Protection Agencygy g y
IECM Software and Documentation IECM Software and Documentation A ailabilit :A ailabilit : N !N !Availability: Availability: Now!Now!
Web Access:ftp://ftp.netl.doe.gov/pub/IECM/iecmpage.htm
Technical Support:[email protected]