DOE/FE-0085 CCTl87 PC 79798
Comprehensive Report Clean Coal Technology
To Congress Program
LIMB Demonstration
Project
Extension
A Project Proposed By Babcock and Wilcox Company
April
1987
U.S. Department
of Energy
Office of Fossil Energy Washington, D.C. 20545
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKtiROtiND 2.1 2.2 Re uirement for Report to Congress. Eva uation and Selection Process 9
:
3.0 TECHNICALFEATURES 3.1 3.2 3.3 Project Des,cri tion 3.1.1 Projec 7 Summary 1 1 1 3.1.2 Pro ect Sponsorship and Cost LIMB and c oolstde Processes 3.2.1 Overview of Process Development’ 3.2.2 Process Descri tion General Featuresof t Re Project : : : 3.3.1 Evaluation of Develo mental Risk 3.3.1.1 Similarity of Preject to Other oF,monstration and Commercial tfforfs. 3.3.1.2 Technical Feesibiiity : : : 3.3.1.3 Resource Availability Relationshi Between Project Size and 3.3.2 Proiected tale of Commercial Facilitv Role of the Pro’ect in Achieving Comtiercial 3.3.3 Feasibility oi i t ll e Technolog 3.3.3.1 A plIiec;alhty of the & ata tb Be’ . 2 3.3.3.2 Id:: tification of Features ihatlncrease Potential for Commercialization 3.3.3.3 Comparative Merits of Project and Projection of Future Commercial Economics and Market Acceptability
$ 30 30 30 32 35 zi % 45 :i
f
4.0 5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS PROJECTMANAGEMENT .
6.0
PROJECT COST AND EVENT SCHEDULING 6.1 6.2 6.3 Project Baseline Costs Milestone Schedule Recoupment Plan .
50
.
.
.
i
1 .O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY86 Appropriations $400 million demonstration Coal projects following to support facilities
Act, P.L. 99-190, the construction
included
approximately of The Clean having the
and operation
using Clean Coal Technologies. of technologies
cover a broad spectrum in common:
things
(1) all are intended acceptable manner; level.
to increase the use and (2) all are
of coal in an environmentally ready to be proven
at the demonstration
In response
to the resulting were received
Program in April
Opportunity 1986. After technologies,
Notice (PON), fiftyevaluation, nine in
one proposals projects,
representing
seven different
were selected (CCT)
July 1986 for funding Program.
under the Clean Coal Technology
One of the nine projects proposal Injection coalsand to extend Multistage
selected
was the Babcock demonstration
& Wilcox
(B&W)
an EPA funded
of the Limestone
Burner (LIMB) process using three additional sorbents. This project also includes sorbent a
four additional
demonstration are injected
of the Coolside downstream
process, in which
and water
of the boiler.
The LIMB process claims to achieve a 50% to 60% SOx reduction injecting dry sorbent into the boiler at a point above the burners.
by
The sorbent
then travels through
the boiler
and is removed
along
1
with fly ash in the existing electrostatic precipitator
particulate
removal
equipment,
either
an
(ESP) or a baghouse.
In the Coolside
process, dry sorbent
is injected
into the flue gas after in this Also, to
the boiler and before process, to enhance a chemical further expected additive
the ESP. The gas is also humidified both ESP performance
and SOx absorption. water it is
will be dissolved
in the humidification
improve
SOx absorption.
Because of these benefits, equipment
that humidification Coolside
will be part of most, if not is also of SOx in
all, commercial collected
applications.
The spent sorbent
with the fly ash as in the LIMB Process. Reduction
the 50% to 80% range is expected.
Both demonstrations burners for control
will utilize
the same low NOx (nitrogen which can replace
oxide)
of NOx. These burners, control
conventional the combustion reactions balance complete
burners,
NOx by injecting
the coal and part of
air together
so that the first of the combustion deficient environment. The
takes place in an oxygen of the combustion the combustion
air is introduced process.
in a second stage to fully combustion process
This staged
has been found
to reduce NOx emissions
by 50% to 60%
The LIMB and Coolside conventional expected
processes both
provide
an alternative
to Both are
wet Flue Gas Desulfurization less expensive
(FGD) processes.
to be substantially
than wet FGD, and their less. These factors are very
space requirements important in retrofit
are also substantially applications.
2
This demonstration Edgewater 105 megawatt present Plant
project in Lorain,
will be conducted Ohio (See Figures which
at the Ohio Edison 1 and 2) on a unit. The
electric
(MWe) project
boiler,
is a commercial
EPA sponsored
will test only one coal and sorbent The DOE project will demonstrate to and high
combination
for the LIMB process. multiple
the LIMB process with show the general
coal and sorbent
combinations
applicability
of the process using medium will also demonstrate
sulfur coal. The DOE project process using high sulfur Coolside
the Coolside
coal on a commercial
scale. Until now, the
process has been demonstrated
only at the 0.1 MW and
1 MW scale.
This project
will be performed
over a forty-three during
month
period
and
will use LIMB equipment A new Coolside sorbent
installed injection
the EPA sponsored humidification DOE project
project. will be cost is
system with The total
added as a part of this DOE project. $19,404,940. Ohio The co-funders
are DOE ($7,597,026),
the State of Coal the use of
($7,227,914), (Consol) facility
B&W ($3,355,000), ($1,225,000).
and the Consolidation
Company
Ohio Edison will provide
its Edgewater
as the host site.
3
4
5
The ongoing both schedule other.
EPA project
and the DOE project
are intertwined
in
and equipment,
and each is dependent
upon the of all
The EPA project
will be providing
design and installation design. equipment. required The DOE
the LIMB equipment project
and much of the Coolside most of the Coolside of the equipment
will be providing
Design, for the
procurement, DOE project shortly October anticipated Completion
and installation
will be accomplished
to allow testing testing
to commence to start in is
after the EPA tests.
Coolside
is scheduled
1988 and will take four months. to start in February of the project
DOE LIMB testing
1989 and last fourteen for December
months. 1990.
is scheduled
2.0 INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
The domestic role in meeting
coal resources current effort
of the United energy
States play an important needs. During the past 15 improved
and future
years, considerable coal combustion, efficient
has been directed and utilization options.
to developing
conversion, energy
processes to provide
and economic permit
These technology of environmental acceptability
developments
the attainment utilization
as well as the efficient
of coal resources.
2.1 Requirement
for Report
to Conqress
In December Technology Appropriations
1985, Congress (CCT) Program
made funds available
for a Clean Coal
in Public Law No. 99-190, An Act Making of Interior 30,1986, “...for and Related and for Other of conducting and Agencies
for the Department September funds
for the Fiscal Year Ending Purposes. cost-shared operation commercial to conduct million This Act provided
the purpose
Clean Coal Technology of facilities applications to demonstrate
projects
for the construction for future
the feasibility
of such technology...”
and authorized
DOE $400
the CCT program. available
Public Law No. 99-190 provided until expended, available; of which (2) an additional
‘I... to remain
$100,000,000 $150,000,000
shall be immediately shall be available $150,000,000 However, authority
beginning
October
1, 1986; and
(3) an additional October amount 1,1987.” of budget
shall be available Section
beginning each
325 of the Act reduced
by 0.6 percent
so that these amounts
7
became999.4 respectively,
million, for a total
$149.1 million,
and $149.1 million,
of $397.6 million.
In addition,
in the conference
report
accompanying DOE to prepare
Public Law a comprehensive to be funded 1986 and was Received in had
No. 99-190, the conferees report on the proposals The report
directed received,
after the projects in August
been selected. titled
was submitted
“Comprehensive
Report to Congress
on Proposals
Response to the Clean Coal Technology Notice,” solicitation CCT projects, provides DOE/FE-0070. Specifically,
Program
Opportunity the proposals for
the report
outlines
process implemented summarizes
by DOE for receiving proposals
the project
that were received,
information
on the technologies
that were the focus of the to the
CCT program, solicitation.
and reviews specific
issues and topics related
Public Law No. 99-190 directed comprehensive award directive report
DOE to prepare
a full and to receive an of this &
to Congress
on any project
under the CCT program. and contains
This report
is in fulfillment
a comprehensive
description
of the Babcock
Wilcox LIMB Demonstration
Project Extension.
2.2 Evaluation
and Selection
Process
DOE issued a Program
Opportunity
Notice (PON) on February cost-shared CCT
17,
1986, to solicit proposals demonstrations. Fifty-one
for conducting proposals
were received.
All proposals
8
were required identified proposal proposals
to meet preliminary
evaluation
requirements if each
in the PON. An evaluation met those preliminary
was made to determine requirements
evalu~ation
and those
that did not were rejected.
Of those proposals evaluations
remaining
in the competition, Technical
separate Proposal, The PON greater and that
were made for each offeror’s Proposal, Proposal
Business and Management provided importance that the Technical
and Cost Proposal. was of significantly Proposal
than the Business and Management however,
the Cost Proposal was minimal; equal, the Cost Proposal
everything
else being
was very important.
The Technical categories. projected different
Evaluation
Criteria
were divided
into two major addressed the
The first, “Commercialization commercialization from the proposed
Factors,”
of the proposed demonstration
technology. project
This was
itself and dealt
with all of the other ization process.
steps and factors
involved
in the commercialallowed health, for safety, and and the
The subcriteria of the projected impacts
in this section environmental,
consideration socioeconomic economics proposed
(EHSS); the potential
marketability
of the technology; technology
and the plan to commercialize to the demonstration
subsequent
project.
9
The second major category, recognized represents operation project
“Demonstration
Project Factors,” project scale of
the fact that the proposed the critical step between and commercial readiness,
demonstration “pre-demonstration”
and dealt with the proposed Project Factors” allowed and
itself.
Subcriteria
in “Demonstration readiness
for consideration appropriateness site-related technical of Work.
of technical
for scale- up; adequacy project;
of the demonstration
the EHSS and other of the
aspects; approach
and the reasonableness and quality
and adequacy
and completeness
of the Statement
The Business and Management the business and management
Proposal
was evaluated potential
to determine of the offeror,
performance
and was used as an aid in determining the technical evaluated reasonable, project requirements
the offeror’s
understanding was and
of
of the PON. The Cost Proposal the proposed the probable
to assess whether and to determine
cost was appropriate cost of the proposed
to the Government. of the proposer’s with the proposed of the PON.
The Cost Proposal approach Statement
was also used to assess the project, and the in
the validity accordance requirements
to completing of Work
Consideration factors:
was also given to the following
program
policy
10
a)
The desirability represent applications;
of selecting
for support
a group
of projects or
that
a diversity
of methods,
technical
approaches,
b)
The desirability would
of selecting
for support cross section
a group
of projects
that
ensure that a broad
of the U.S. coal resource and
base is utilized,
both now and in the future;
d
The desirability represent
of selecting between
for support
a group
of projects
that
a balance
the goals of expanding impacts.
the use of
coal and minimizing
environmental
An overall
strategy
for compliance
with the National for the CCT Program
Environmental consistent with
Policy Act (NEPA) was developed the Council guidelines on Environmental for compliance with
Quality
NEPA regulations
and the DOE both
NEPA. This strategy environmental
includes impact
programmatic considerations,
and project-specific during
and subsequent
to the selection
process.
In light of the tight the confidentiality DOE established environmental decision-making were required environmental
schedule
imposed
by Public Law No. 99-190 and PON process,
requirements alternative factors
of the competitive
procedures
to ensure that and integrated into the Offerors
were fully evaluated
process to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities. to submit both programmatic
and project-specific part of their proposal.
data and analyses as a discrete
11
This strategy preparation
has three
major elements.
The first involves environmental impact and supple-
of a comparative
programmatic provided
analysis, based on information mented by DOE, as necessary. environmental programmatic
by the offerors
This environmental consequences
analysis ensures and
that relevant reasonable process.
of the CCT Program
alternatives involves review.
are evaluated preparation The third documents
in the selection of a preselection
The second element environmental
project-specific for preparation selected
element
provides
by DOE of site-specific assistance
for each project
for financial
under the PON.
No funds from the CCT Program construction, element addition, operation, and/or
will be provided dismantlement
for detailed until the third completed.
design,
of the NEPA process has been successfully each Cooperative Monitoring Agreement entered
In an
into will require
Environmental technology-specific disseminated.
Plan to ensure that significant data are collected and
site- and
environmental
After
considering
the evaluation
criteria,
the program
policy factors,
and the NEPAstrategy, Wilcox, Alliance,
the proposal
submitted
by Babcock and selected for award.
Ohio, was one of the proposals
12
3.0 TECHNICAL FEATURES
3.1 Project Description
The Babcock control
&Wilcox
project for retrofit
will develop applications.
acid rain precursor The first part of the Limestone is currently Injection conducting Multia
technologies
DOE project
is an extension
of an ongoing &Wilcox
stage Burner program. full-scale demonstration boiler
Babcock
of the LIMB technology co-sponsored
on a 105 MWe wall-
fired utility Environmental objectives reductions
in a project
by the U.S. The
Protection
Agency
(EPA) and the State of Ohio.
of this project
are to demonstrate
NOx and SO, emissions cost of at least Depending on
on the order of 50% to 60% at a capital (kW) less than wet SO, scrubbers. wet scrubbers testing
$100 per kilowatt
unit size and site characteristics,
generally
cost about
$200 to $300 per kW. The EPA sponsored using one sorbent CCT program through
will be conducted planned for the
and one coal. The B&W project the applicability using different
will broaden testing
of the LIMB technology types of coal and sorbents.
additional
The second part of the Babcock Consol “Coolside” sorbent boiler. injection
&Wilcox
project
is to evaluate
the dry of the
process for SO, control. and humidification demonstration
This process involves downstream a side-by-side of
technology will provide
The proposed with
comparison
LIMB technology. retrofit
The near term application boilers. The “Coolside”
LIMB is for low-cost process is largely
to existing
boiler
independent,
since the sorbent
is injected
13
downstream high-sulfur
of the boiler. This may be particularly
beneficial for
coals, for which the necessary amount of in-furnace of boiler of hardware
sorbent injection could cause some degradation performance.
Overall, the process requires a minimum
and has a low capital cost. An SO, reduction range is anticipated using this technology uncontrolled
in the 50% to 80%
with 3% sulfur coal, when coal-fired boilers. The technologies is
compared to conventional potential commercialization
of these retrofit
enhanced by their low capital cost in comparison technologies.
with competing
14
3.1.1
Project Summary LIMB Demonstration Babcock &Wilcox Ohio Edison’s Edgewater Plant Lorain, Ohio - Lorain County Flue Gas Cleanup - LIMB and Coolside Duct Injection Utility Boilers; New or Retrofit; Coal Fired Project Extension
Project Title: Proposer: Project Location:
Technology:
Application: Types of Coal Used : Product: Project Size: Project Start Date: Project End Date: 3.1.2
Medium to High Sulfur Bituminous Steam or Electricity 105 MWe May 1987 December 1990
Project Sponsorship and Cost Babcock &Wilcox U. 5. Department of Energy State of Ohio Babcock &Wilcox Consolidation Coal Company $19.404.940 Participant Share (%I 60.9
15
Project Sponsor: Proposed Co-Funders:
Proposed Project Cost: Proposed Cost Distribution:
DOE Share (%) 39.1
3.2 LIMB and Coolside Processes
3.2.1
Overview of Process Development
LIMB is an EPA developed
process, and B&W’s work on this furnace
sorbent injection process started at their Alliance Research Center in the late 1960’s. This program, culminated consisting of over 400 tests, at the TVA Shawnee
in a commercial scale installation
Station in Paducah, Kentucky. satisfactory.
Results were not completely
Because of the concern over SO2 emissions and the need for relatively inexpensive SO2 removal systems that could be retrofitted to many existing units, B&W continued injection. studying dry sorbent
A recent pilot scale test program produced a data base a better understanding of the conditions and
that provided
parameters that would produce satisfactory injection.
results from dry sorbent
Another part of LIMB, the low NOx burner, is the result of a separate development program carried out by B&W in conjunction Edison Company. with
Southern California
Initial work was done with gas
and oil fired burners and led to excellent results for NOx control. When coal was burned, NOx control required additional development because of some special flame quality requirements. successful and resulted in a low NOx, These efforts were ultimately coal fired burner.
16
These two components demonstration,
of LIMB, now ready for commercial in an EPA-sponsored test
have been combined
program to be completed
by July 1988. The DOE project will extend coal and sorbent combinations, and
those tests to include multiple
will include tests of the Coolside process.
Work on the Coolside process was started in the laboratory and has been developed from the laboratory scale through
in 1983 1 MW of
field tests. Consol’s Coolside test program included evaluation
various sorbents and additives to enhance sorbent efficiency, and also development of improved sorbents. Laboratory and field test
programs have enabled the Coolside process to capture up to 80% of the SO2 formed by combustion of sulfur bearing fuels.
Since flue gas humidification performance, humidification
enhances both SO2 removal and ESP will be part of the Coolside installation. the optimum degree of on a
Extensive work was done to determine humidification.
Field tests of humidification
were conducted
3000 to 4000 actual cubic feet per minute flue gas slipstream from a coal fired industrial boiler at DuPont’s Martinsville, W.Va., plant. available
These tests showed that humidification
using commercially
nozzles is feasible on a commercial scale.
17
3.2.2
Process Description
LIMB is a low capital cost technology
for retrofit
to existing boilers
that will provide 50% to 60% SO2 removal.
It combines the injection
of dry sorbents into the boiler for direct capture of SO2 from the combustion combustion pulverization, gases with the use of low NOx burners in which staged is utilized for NOx control. transportation, injection, Sorbent injection and distribution requires the of a suitable
reagent into the combustion the collection
gases at the proper location, and then From a hardware
of the reacted solids downstream.
perspective, sorbent injection is simpler than either a wet scrubber or a spray dryer FGD system. In the Coolside process, dry sorbent is injected into the duct after the flue gas leaves the boiler. The flue gas is then humidified and ESPperformance. with a water spray to enhance SO2 absorption
The demonstration installation
testing of the LIMB process has been designed for in Ohio Edison’s Edgewater Unit No. 4,
and operation
Boiler No. 13. This design is applicable to many other utility boilers being considered for SOx/NOx abatement retrofit technology. The
LIMB injection system consists of three subsystems installed upstream of the boiler to provide sorbent injection, These are: (1) the sorbent handling, (2) the transport injection system. as shown in Figure 3. and storage system, and
preparation
and feed system, and (3) the distribution
ia
19
The sorbent handling,
preparation,
and storage system will prepare,
store, and supply sorbent for the process. Sorbent can be delivered in bulk and, depending on the sorbent used, delivered as coarse state suitable for pneumatic hydrated lime, which is
material or in a dry pulverized conveying. In a commercial
plant retrofit,
lime reacted with water, would be delivered and mechanically conveyed to storage. This sorbent would then be stored in a bin,
from which it would be fed to the sorbent delivery system and pneumatically injected into the boiler. and feed system is to provide a
The objective of the sorbent transport controlled
feed rate of sorbent to the injection ports in the boiler. for each injection location, as determined
This system is duplicated
on a site- specific basis. The Ohio Edison test boiler has already been modified with sorbent injection ports installed under the present
EPA contract.
Material will be conveyed in a dense phase from the
bottom of the feed silo to a vertical pickup station, from which it will be conveyed in dilute phase to distributors. Each distributor will
convey the solids and air mixture into the injection lines. Air used in transport of the sorbent will be supplied by a compressor and dried
in an air dryer. At the boiler, the distribution desired penetration and injection system will give the A
and dispersion of sorbent into the boiler.
booster air fan will provide the air necessary for the desired penetration and dispersion. Alternatively, lances that have higher air velocity could be used in larger units to minimize the air required for injection of the sorbent.
20
Additional
sootblowers
will probably
be required in a commercial in the
boiler to deal with the effects of higher solids concentrations furnace gases as a result of sorbent injection. of additional sootblowers will be dependent
The type and number on the particular boiler of
being retrofitted
and on the slagging and fouling characteristics
the coal being burned.
To meet the NOx emissions reduction LIMB process, low NOx pulverized-coal commercial boiler retrofit.
goal of 50% to 60% in the burners are required for a low NOx
Babcock &Wilcox developed
burners that are generally compatible be easily retrofitted
with utility boilers and should operating units. B&W
to a number of currently
low NOx burners have been selected and installed in the test boiler at the Edgewater Plant under the present EPA contract.
As shown in Figure 4, the Coolside process as conceived for a commercial application humidification, involves hydrated lime injection, flue gas and an additive to the humidification downstream water for
injection into the ductwork
of the boiler at a point
where the flue gas is relatively cool (about 3OOOF).The additive is injected to enhance the sulfur removal effectiveness of the sorbent. to a
In a commercial plant, lime would be delivered and mechanically conveyed to a storage bin. From there it would be transported feed bin that supplies a hydrator from the hydrator injection into the flue gas duct. system. The hydrated
lime product
system is stored in a bin before pneumatic
21
m
i>
22
An additive such as soda ash or sodium hydroxide SO2 absorption.
is used to enhance conveyed
It would be delivered and pneumatically
to a wet storage system. Flue gas humidification additive solution will be combined
water and the and mixed with
before injection,
an in-line mixer. This stream would then be injected into the flue gas duct (humidifier) downstream of the hydrated lime injection point.
In this project, the humidifier equipment
design will include not only the such as the water pump, air
necessary for humidification,
compressors, humidifier modifications.
lances, and nozzles, but also the duct include removal of an unused and
The duct modifications
ESPand installation
of a new bypass duct. The humidification
Coolside sorbent injection equipment
will be installed in the bypass
duct. This duct can be isolated from the main boiler duct by valves to allow the boiler to operate normally while work is being done on the test equipment.
3.3 General Features of the Proiect
3.3.1
Evaluation of Developmental
Risk
As with any new or emerging technology, involved with its continued development
there is an element of risk and scale-up. However, the for one case on a
LIMB process has already been demonstrated
commercial scale, and the Coolside process has been demonstrated at the 1 MW size. Both processes are the results of development programs that started with initial bench scale research and
23
proceeded through
pilot plant work and small scale demonstrations.
This project will provide:
0
the final technical demonstration
needed for the processes
0
needed data on the processes’ effect on the boiler and ancilliary equipment
0
applicable economic, technical, and environmental necessary to support commercialization decisions
data
After reviewing
the results of the development
programs for both
LIMB and Coolside and the information
supplied by both EPA and
B&W, an acceptable risk factor has been assigned to both processes. Both processes will result in increased solids loading, affecting ESPand ash handling boiler fouling equipment. the
The LIMB system may be subject to
and boiler tube erosion; however, this is considered to
be a low risk. Coolside may be subject to duct wall solids buildup and condensation moderate risk. in the ESPand/or stack; this is considered to be a
3.3.1.1
Similaritv of Proiect to Other Demonstration Commercial Efforts
and
The LIMB and Coolside processes are better developed and ready for demonstration as compared to the other dry sorbent injection
24
processes. LIMB and Coolside are relatively inexpensive technologies, are easily retrofittable to many existing boilers, and are ready for commercial demonstration.
The present technologies Addition
similar to Coolside are the Dravo Hydrate (HALT) Process, the Bechtel Confined if
at Low Temperature
Zone Dispersion (CZD) Process, the General Electric In-Duct-Spray Drying (IDS) Process, and the EPA E-SOX Process. These processes, utilized in conjunction and NOx reductions.
with low NOx burners, can provide both SO, All are in various stages of development.
The HALT process is most like Coolside in that dry sorbent injection and humidification take place between the boiler and ESP. Both the
CZD and IDS process inject a sorbent slurry into the duct downstream of the boiler. technique The difference between CZD and IDS is in the specific
used to atomize the slurry. The E-SOx process sprays slurry of the ESPas a reactor.
into the ESPand, in effect, uses a portion
The distinguishing
characteristics
of the Coolside process are the use of a before project sorbent
of flue gas humidification dry sorbent (hydrated the humidification.
by water spraying and the injection of the air preheater
lime) downstream
The EPA sponsored LIMB humidification but only with in-furnace
will also use flue gas humidification injection. calcination and sulfation
The major mechanism for SO, removal by LIMB is sorbent in the boiler. The Coolside technology through different engineering specifics,
achieves the same sulfation
25
therefore significantly
the potential different.
applicability
of the Coolside technology
is
The DOE Coolside and LIMB testing is a natural extension of the EPA LIMB and humidification project. Because the LIMB and humidificaplant, it will be very
tion systems will be in place at the Edgewater cost-effective
to combine the Coolside and LIMB extension testing The Coolside technology can be easily demon-
into one program.
strated by installing sorbent injection ports directly upstream of the humidification system. The DOE LIMB extension testing is an of the EPA LIMB program will be
expansion rather than a duplication because a wide variation studied.
in coal and sorbent properties
3.3.1.2
Technical Feasibility
The LIMB process utilizes low NOx burners and furnace sorbent injection. Work on the low NOx burners started thirty years ago, and these burners are now considered to be fully commercial technology.
Work on sorbent injection started approximately
twenty years ago.
Early work involved over four hundred pilot scale tests using over 100 sorbents to evaluate SOx absorption conditions. deposition followed and ash properties under various operating This work was by The effects of the sorbents and additives on ash were also studied. by tests on a commercial scale using a limestone sorbent.
These were run at the TVA Shawnee Station and were followed
26
additional
pilot scale tests to evaluate various arrangements
for
sorbent injection.
This EPA sponsored LIMB project was expanded to demonstrate gas humidification, which enhances ESPperformance.
flue
The extensive
experience with the various components indicates that this process is technically
of the LIMB process feasible and the risk is low.
The Coolside process was developed Consol starting with laboratory
by the Coal Research Division of
work that was done in 1983. This
process has also been tested extensively at the 1 MW scale. Like the LIMB process, various sorbents and operating evaluated. conditions have been
Much progress has also been made on flue gas for the Coolside process, both to enhance SO, Commercial scale
humidification
removal and to enhance ESPperformance. humidification
tests are now being carried out by B&W as part of the
EPA sponsored LIMB tests at the proposed site for this project.
This background with the on-going
of laboratory
and small scale field tests, coupled tests, is sufficient feasible. to indicate
LIMB humidification
that the Coolside process is also technically moderate technical risk exists, particularly solids buildup and condensation.
However, a
in the area of duct wall
27
3.3.1.3
Resource Availability
B&W and the other co-funders
have committed
adequate funds, as
discussed in Section 6.1, to cover the Participants share of the proposed project cost. They have also dedicated to conduct the demonstration program. sufficient personnel
Ohio-Edison
personnel will
continue to operate the boiler, since it is a boiler that they normally have in operation. Additional personnel will be needed only to and
collect data and to operate and maintain the humidification sorbent handling equipment. Coal feed and solid wastes will
continue to be handled by regular plant personnel.
Key factors in the use of the Edgewater site for the demonstration plant were:
o
The Edgewater facility is a currently operating generation plant. costs of operating a boiler, refurbishing
electric power
This helps to keep project costs down since the an old boiler, or building
a new one are not incurred.
o
The Edgewater facility is currently undergoing demonstrate the basic LIMB technology of additional
retrofit
to
under the EPA contract. is necessary for the
Only a minimum construction demonstration.
modification
DOE LIMB extension demonstration.
The bulk of additional
in the DOE project will be for the Coolside
28
o
Required
materials,
resources,
and utilities
(e.g., coal, lime and available.
other sorbents,
and cooling
water)
are readily
o
The site already including
has waste product
handling
capabilities, and a disposal system
a holding
pond for waste water
for solid waste.
o
The electrostatic extra particulate
precipitator collection
is conservatively capability during
designed,
giving
to ensure that emission
levels will not be exceeded
testing.
o
The site of the proposed within its boundaries
facility
does not border aquatic facility
on or contain habitats. industrial
any sensitive
or terrestrial
Because the site of the proposed complex, Therefore, facility no environmentally environmentally
is an existing resources
sensitive
are present.
safe operation
of the proposed
is expected.
o
The facility availability the project, minimized.
is in an economically is high.
depressed stimulus
area where
labor by be
Some economic
may be provided delays should
and the risk of project
construction
29
3.3.2
Relationship Commercial
Between Facility
Project Size and Proiected
Scale of
The 105 MWe Edgewater Further needed. number change scale-up However, of sorbent
plant is considered
to be commercial
scale.
of the system from this would distribution
100 MWe to 600 MWe may be an increase in
more likely require systems rather size. No further
than a significant demonstration boilers. work Since the
in system component
will be required demonstration
to apply this technology will be conducted
to larger
at the commercial Remaining
scale, it will not data needs
be necessary to collect data for scale-up. include characterization
of system operation
and performance.
3.3.3
Role of the Project in Achievinq the Technoloqy
Commercial
Feasibility
of
3.3.3.1
Applicability
of the Data to Be Generated
To produce demonstration collection equipment
accurate
and reliable
performance
data, the and data
will use a full range of instrumentation All instrumentation
techniques.
and data acquisition A B&W earlier
will be in place from the EPA LIMB program. Diagnostic System 14O~:‘was installed
Boiler Performance
under the EPA project information:
and will be used to gather
the following
30
o 0 o o o o o
Furnace absorption Convective
and cleanliness
surface cleanliness rates
Slag deposition Sootblower
effectiveness
Gas temperatures Gas velocities Heat rate deviations
The demonstration including
will produce
data on process operability, ESP performance, and used to
load following
capability,
desulfurization engineer processes. applied stations teristics available other
performance. commercial
These results can be readily applications
of the LIMB and Coolside can be directly coal utility
The process performance
data obtained high sulfur
to a large population
of existing
because the demonstration represent typical furnace,
design and host site characboiler, and coolside conditions
in many stations.
Radian Corporation
is a subcontractor
to B&W on this project
and solid
will be used on-site to monitor and liquid samples for analysis.
flue gas composition
and collect
Radian will set up a Continuous CO, CO,, 0,, SO,, manual gas analysis
Emissions Monitoring NOx, hydrocarbons, and particulate
(CEM) System to measure etc. They will also perform This information, operating
sampling.
along
with data from to
the System 140’” and routine characterize the operation
data, will be sufficient of the boiler tested.
and performance combination
and LIMB
system on each coal and sorbent
31
The analytical removal
results will provide
the basis for evaluating
SO2 The
performance,
ESP efficiency, and continuous
and process controllability. gas analyses will produce This confirmation the accuracy
EPA analysis methods independent
data on SO, removal analytical
performance.
by two different reliability
techniques data. balance
will enhance Furthermore, calculations
and
of the demonstration material
gas and solids on sulfur and sor-
analyses will allow
bent species important
for data reliability
evaluations.
Based on the SO, removal will be determined proposed economic situations.
and operability
results, process economics Since the
for the Coolside
and LIMB processes.
demonstration
is of commercial applicable
scale, the resulting to other utility
analysis will be directly
3.3.3.2
Identification
of Features That Increase Potential
for
Commercialization
The current
energy
policy of the United and industrial
States includes
the expanded the goals and to control is
use of coal in utility increased
applications. with
However,
use of coal must not conflict development resulting
environmental technology
thus requires the pollutants the problem portions
of cost-effective from coal combustion.
Of major concern United States and
of acid rain in the Northeastern
of Canada.
32
The reduction
of NOx and SO2 emissions
from fossil fuel fired boilers
has been a major objective boiler and burner demonstrated
of the DOE, the EPA, and all of the major for many years. This is efforts that have been and Research has NOx and SO2 low NOx
manufacturers
by a number
of concurrent lower
are being conducted been sponsored control burners. sorbent regarded
to develop
NOx burners.
to evaluate
the potential
for combined sorbents
by the injection More recently, injection, where
of calcium-based efforts
through
have concentrated environment SO2 control.
on upper furnace is generally
the thermal
as more conducive
to effective
Sorbent during control
injection
into the furnace
was the subject effort
of extensive to develop
study SO2 In
the mid-1960’s technologies
as part of the overall capable of achieving obtained
a goal of 90% removal. with many of the wet flue low performance
comparison
to the efficiencies
gas desulfurization of the dry injection operational
(FGD) processes, the relatively techniques, coupled
with some boiler cessation of work in
difficulties,
led to almost complete
this technology interest
area for a number commensurate with
of years. In the mid-1970’s, with advances in NOx control cost SO2
was rekindled coupled
technology
an emerging
potential
for lower
emission control.
LIMB encompasses using limestone thought reduced
the potential
simultaneous
NOx and SO2 control It was originally were
injection
with a low NOx burner. under which the capture
that the conditions might also enhance
NOx emissions
of sulfur species with
33
calcium-based sorbents
sorbents.
As a result, developmental was again undertaken,
work
using dry
for SO2 control to the point scale.
and the technology at a
has advanced commercial
that it is now ready for demonstration
Unlike LIMB, the Coolside downstream performance plant’s of the boiler. is avoided. removal
equipment Therefore, However,
is installed
in the ductwork on the boiler the
adverse impact
for both LIMB and Coolside, equipment
particulate
and ash handling to handle
may have to
be expanded
or upgraded
the increased
solids loading.
Both LIMB and Coolside equipment, transport
systems consist of commercially pumps, nozzles,
available
such as blowers, systems, all of which
and pneumatic reliable equipment to the boiler equipment is is
are well proven,
items that can be readily required installed
installed.
Some modification The Coolside
for the LIMB injection in the ductwork
system.
that channels
the flue gas from the boiler
to the ESP.
Therefore, power
neither
technology
requires
extensive
modification if
to the
plant and will be aided in commercialization, are successful, by offering:
demonstrations
o
Significant at a capital
reductions
in emission
levels of sulfur
oxides achieved full
cost of at least $lOO/kW systems.
less than conventional
scale wet scrubbing
34
o
A system that will maintain steam production
boiler
reliability,
operability,
and
performance
after retrofit.
It is the objective Coolside
of this project
to fully establish offer
that the LIMB and alternatives to
clean coal technologies utilities for overall
cost-effective control.
the electric
sulfur dioxide
3.3.3.3
Comparative Commercial
Merits of Proiect and Projection Economics and Market
of Future
Acceptability
The LIMB process and Coolside completed,
process, once this project of the sorbent
is
will be the most developed
injection
processes and will be fully commercial.
An additional opportunity
attractive presented
feature
of this project
is the unique for both and
because much of the equipment testing
processes is already economically equipment, the increased carried
in place; therefore, out. In addition,
can be efficiently
the ESP, ash handling with the boiler can handle
and water demand
systems associated without modification.
The Coolside technology from existing boiler units. desulfurization technology
and LIMB technologies options for utilities
are intended
to provide
that want
to reduce SO2 emissions Standards (NSPS))
(pre - New Source Performance Existing technology includes
wet flue gas The need for new processes are
and lime spray dryer processes. development
arises because the existing
35
high in capital expensive present. expected
cost, which
makes their application scenarios
particularly could is
under certain Retrofit,
that new regulations
using the new LIMB and Coolside
technologies, as the existing
to result in the same level of SO2 reduction however at a significantly reduced
technologies,
cost. This is true by low equipment
because these new technologies costs and minimal
are characterized
space requirements.
An economic
comparison
of wet flue gas desulfurization
with the
LIMB and Coolside 300 MWe level. Coolside
technologies
was made at the 105 MWe and costs for LIMB and
For both sizes, the capital
are approximately Annual
50% less than wet flue gas costs of LIMB with humidification, and respectively,
desulfurization. Coolside,
are expected
to be about
29% and 32% lower, at the 105 MWe level.
than wet flue gas desulfurization
The marketplace implement extensive
(the electric
utility
companies)
is expected large capital
to outlays,
technology
that does not require or extreme
plant modifications
operational
difficulties. plant without Operation
LIMB technology displacing other
can be incorporated equipment or requiring
into the existing
new real estate.
of the plant will not be significantly
affected.
The Coolside flexibility, nology
process concept
has been well received advantages.
because of its tech-
simplicity, demonstration
and economic
The significant of the humidification
issue is the operability
36
unit, which especially engineers, are expected program
is the key to the process and its economic in capital cost. Based on discussions the utility
advantages, design
with utilities,
and process vendors, to adopt
and industrial
coal users
the Coolside
process if the demonstration
achieves its goals.
The drive toward acceptance
lower
capital
cost is evidenced
by the rapid States and of level of and the
of spray dryer technology injection relative in Europe.
in the United The potential
boiler sorbent SO2 control, boiler
for a higher
to other
low capital
cost technologies,
independence desirable.
of the Coolside
process, make this technology
particularly
37
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The PON requires Participant specified
that,
upon award to submit
of financial
assistance,
the information
will be required in Appendix
the environmental
J of the PON. This detailed
site- and projectNEPA Such in full
specific information documents
will be used as the basis for site-specific by DOE for the selected considered, project.
to be prepared
NEPA documents compliance
shall be prepared,
and published and in
with the requirements decision
of 40 CFR 1500-1508 to proceed beyond
advance of a go/no-go design. detailed
preliminary for until
Federal funds from the CCT Program design, construction, operation
will not be provided dismantlement
and/or completed.
the NEPA process has been successfully
38
5.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
5.1 Overview
of Manaqement
Orqanization
The DOE will monitor and the Contracting Participant
the project Officer’s
through
the Contracting Representative
Officer
Technical
(COTR). The who
will manage
this project
through
a Project Manager, personnel will be
will be assisted by a team of technical from several organizations. established in an overview
and managerial committee
An advisory role.
A multi-organization project. In addition
team headed
by B&W will be involved other members Major sub-
in this of the
to Babcock and Wilcox,
team are Consol and the Ohio Edison Company. contractors are Stone and Webster Engineers,
Radian Corporation,
and the Coal Research Division
of Consol.
5.2 Identification
of Respective
Roles and Responsibilities
The DOE shall be responsible and for granting or denying Officer related
for monitoring approvals
all aspects of the project by this Agreement. representative Agreement. of the
required
The DOE Contracting DOE for all matters
is the authorized to the Cooperative
39
The DOE Contracting Technical
Officer
will appoint
a Contracting
Officer’s
Representative
(COTR) who is the authorized matters may: and has the authority to issue
representative “Technical
for all technical which
Direction”
0
Suggest
redirection a shifting
of the Cooperative of work emphasis
Agreement between
effort, work areas or assist
recommend
tasks, and suggest in accomplishing
pursuit
of certain
lines of inquiry,
which
the Statement
of Work.
0
Approve required
those technical to be delivered Agreement.
reports
and technical
information
by the Participant
to the DOE under this
Cooperative
The DOE COTR does not have the authority direction which:
to issue any technical
0
Constitutes Statement
an assignment of Work.
of additional
work
outside
the
0
In any manner estimated Cooperative
causes an increase or decrease
in the total of the
cost, or the time required Agreement.
for performance
0
Changes
any of the terms, conditions, Agreement.
or specifications
of the
Cooperative
40
o
Interferes conditions
with the Participant’s of the Cooperative
right to perform Agreement.
the terms and
All technical
directions
shall be issued in writing
by the DOE COTR.
Participant
As shown participate
in Figure 5, three divisions in the LIMB Demonstration
of Babcock
&Wilcox
will
Project Extension:
o o o
Contract Domestic
Research Division Fossil Operations
(CRD) (DFO) Division (R&DD)
Research and Development
B&W’s R&DD and their other research under the sponsorship contractual performance matters.
operating
divisions
perform
contract for all
of CRD, which
is responsible
DFO will have prime project.
responsibility
for technical
of the proposed
The CRD Contract related
Manager
is responsible and is the prime Officer.
for all contractual contact between
matters B&W
to this Agreement
and the DOE Contracting
41
Propel Managrr TechnIcsI Manager I
1
STONE & WEBSTER Project Manager
1 I
I
FIGURE 5.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
NO 13646
42
The B&W Project Manager maker in all matters preparation, manufacturing, and reporting technical interaction central point finances, quality dealing
(from
DFO) is the responsible including
decision proposal
with the project,
administration, control,
engineering, start-up,
procurement, field testing,
installation, to assuring in a timely
to DOE. In addition obligations organization, between
that B&W meets its manner through is the on the
performance of a matrix of contact matters
the Project Manager
B&W and the DOE Project Office
all technical
dealing Manager
with the project on all day-to-day
and will be assisted by technical activities.
the B&W Technical
The CRD Contract Manager.
Manager
acts as a direct extension is to coordinate
of the Project on a day-to-day with B&W the
His primary
responsibility of project schedule.
basis the transmittal agreed contact related upon project
information
in accordance
He will act as the normal Officer
for liaison with the DOE Contracting to the project.
on most matters
The Contract commercial authorization. team through
Manager matters
will handle
the majority
of the contract Project Manager
that arise that do not require issues will be disseminated engineers.
Technical the project
to the project
Project review the project.
meetings
will be held regularly will provide of the project concerning
throughout
the life of
These meetings
senior level management and will provide requiring their
with input to the concepts background information
matters
43
and cost-effective
manner, bringing
to the table the demonstrated technologies.
expertise to engineer and construct these retrofit
The raw sorbent availability
is sufficient
to handle current and haulage of lime would
projected Coolside requirements.
Additional
be required, but existing rail and truck capacity should be adequate. The solid waste produced will increase, resulting tonnage of waste to be disposed of. in an increase in the
For the proposed technologies, accommodated
manufacturing
of equipment
can be
because of the large overcapacity
that currently
exists within the industry. requirements facilities.
There are no unusual fabrication
that would preclude the use of existing manufacturing components makes LIMB and
The nature of the individual very compatible
Coolside technologies environmental
with existing power plant and methods.
equipment
manufacturing
A demonstrated
success in commercializing
these new technologies
is expected to support the belief that a new broad market will open up for U.S. manufacturers. favorable through The American public will benefit through
electricity costs; the American mining industry will benefit a broader market for high-sulfur coal and lime; and the
electric utilities will benefit by having access to a lower cost, simplified operations technology option.
49
6.0 PROJECTCOST AND EVENT SCHEDULING 6.1 Project Baseline Costs The total estimated cost for this project is $19,404,940. For budget
purposes, Phase II has been divided into Phases IIA and IIB. The Participant cash contribution and the Government share in the costs
of this project are as follows: Dollar Share 6) PHASE I Government Participant PHASE IIA Government Participant PHASE IIB Government Participant PHASE Ill Government Participant TOTAL PROJECT Government Participant 7,597,026 11,807,914 39.1 60.9 3,928,109 7,448,005 34.5 65.5 1,932,339 1,932,715 50.0 50.0 1,403,661 1,403,800 50.0 50.0 332,917 1,023,394 24.5 75.5 Percent Share (%I
50
Cash contributions
will be made by the co-funders as follows:
DOE: State of Ohio: B&W: Consol: TOTAL
$ 7,597,026 7,227,914 3,355,ooo 1,225,OOO B 19,404,940
At the beginning
of each Phase, DOE will obligate sufficient
funds to
pay its share of the expenses for that phase. Payments to the Participant will be made on a monthly basis to cover actual costs dictate a need
incurred and invoiced. Project schedule requirements to fund Phases I and Ila concurrently.
6.2 Milestone Schedule Coolside testing, including process optimization and the long term
test program, will begin in the nineteenth last for four months. upon completion fourteen months.
month of the project and
The LIMB test program will start immediately
of the Coolside tests. LIMB tests will last for The final Coolside test report will be prepared at month, and the final LIMB test report is month.
the end of the twenty-fourth due at the end of the forty-third
In addition, are identified
other required reporting
has been fully described and The critical project tasks
scheduled in the Cooperative
Agreement.
and scheduled as shown in Figure 6.
51
II
:j I I t
52
6.3 Recoupment
Plan
In response to the stated policy of the DOE to recover an amount up to the Government’s contribution to the project, the Participant in accordance with the has
agreed to repay the Government Recoupment/Repayment Agreement.
Plan included in the Cooperative
53