DOE/FE-0266P Distribution Category UC-101
ComprehensiveReport tocongress Clean Coal Technology Program
Self-Scrubbing CoalTM: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air
A Project Proposed By: Custom Coals International
U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary For Fossil Energy Office of Clean Coal Technology Washington, D.C. 20585 October 1992
1.0 2.0
3.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................... INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............ 2.1 Requirement for a Report to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Evaluation and Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............ ...................................... 2.2.1 PON Objective 2.2.2 Qualification Review *....*..,.*.......*..*......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*....... 2.2.3 Preliminary Evaluation ........................... 2.2.4 Comprehensive Evaluation ............................. 2.2.5 Program Policy Factors ............................... 2.2.6 Other Considerations 2.2.7 National Environmental Policy .............................. Act (NEPA) Compliance 2.2.8 Selection .......................................... TECHNICAL FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... 3.1 Project Description 3.1.1 Project Sumnary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............. 3.1.2 Project Sponsorship and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 3.2 Self-Scrubbing Coal Technology 3.2.1 Overview of Technology Development . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.. ................................ 3.2.2 Process Description 3.2.3 Application of Technology in . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*....*...........**. Proposed Project ........................... 3.3 General Features of the Project 3.3.1 Evaluation of Developmental Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.1 Similarity of the Project to Other .......... Demonstration/Comnercial Efforts . . . . . . . . ..*.......... 3.3.1.2 Technical Feasibility ..................... 3.3.1.3 Resource Availability 3.3.2 Relationship Between Project Size and ............. Projected Scale of Commercial Facility 3.3.3 Role of the Project in Achieving Coanaercial ...................... Feasibility of the Technology 3.3.3.1 Applicability of the Data to be ................................. Generated
1 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 17 18 18 21 24 24 25 25 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.0 5.0
6.0
Identification of Features that Increase ....... the Potential for Commercialization 3.3.3.3 Comparative Merits of the Project and Projection of Future Commercial ........ Economics and Market Acceptability ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................... PROJECTMANAGEMENT............................................. ...................... 5.1 Overview of Management Organization 5.2 Identification of Respective Roles and Responsibilities ......................................... ............ 5.3 Project Implementation and Control Procedures 5.4 Key Agreements Impacting Data Rights, Patent ....................... Waivers, and Information Reporting ....... 5.5 Procedures for Commercialization of the Technology PROJECTCOST AND EVENT SCHEDULING............................... 6.1 Project Baseline Costs ................................... ....................................... 6.2 Milestone Schedule 6.3 Repayment Plan ...........................................
3.3.3.2
26
26 28 31 31 31 33 36 36 40 40 41 41
1.0 Public
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Law No. 101-121 provided (CCT) projects retrofitting, to $600 million demonstrate existing to conduct cost-shared technologies facilities. that are Clean Coal capable of end. a
Technology replacing,
or repowering
Toward that
Program Opportunity Notice (PON) was issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) in proposals to demonstrate innovative, energy January 1991. This PON solicited efficient technologies capable of being ccmmercialized in the 1990s. These technologies were to be capable of (1) achieving significant reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides from existing facilities to minimize and/or manner. In response to the PON. 33 proposals evaluation, facilities also facility. One of the nine projects Coals International to Clean Air." Scrubbing utility Coal., boilers. Coal. project plant steps. slurries, sulfur that involves will the construction be designed with plant. of a 350 tons/hr a unique run-of-mine cyclone material. blend coal circuit, including of is This selected will for funding is a project Coal.: proposed by Custom Approach of the demonstration products in nine projects control and "repowering" generating were selected technologies technologies plant capacity advanced pollution increase were received for award. that by DOE in May 1991. These projects involved pollution life After both but of the environmental (2) providing impacts, for future such as transboundary and interstate pollution, acceptable energy needs in an environmentally
can be "retrofitted" the operating
to existing
that not only reduce air and extend
(CCI) entitled project
"Self-Scrubbing provide
An Integrated Carefree
a coanaercial of the
Custom Coals Coal Cleaning as well
(CCCC) process for producing as full-scale burns
Coal. and Selfcoal-fired
The Self-Scrubbing advanced coal existing crushed,
cleaning
and new process screened. magnetite
In the cleaning in a proprietary in the coal.
and cleaned
dense-media
using ultrafine
to remove noncombustible The Carefree
up to 90% of the pyritic
Coal. produced by this
1
cleaning
process will
allow many utilities emissions
to achieve compliance requirements. fuel Coal.
with the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) sulfur Deep cleaning high organic produced. finest fraction alone, sulfur
however, cannot produce a compliance contents. Coal. In these cases, circuit is the same as Carefree
from coals with Coal. except will that additives sulfur be the
Self-Scrubbing
Self-Scrubbing
from the cleaning These additives remaining
is mixed with limestone-based thus achieving
and pelletized. removal Illinois
react during combustion to remove an additional with the clean coal, a total Lower Freeport. and will be the source
70-80% of the sulfur
of 80-90%. Three U.S. coal seams (Sewickley, No. 5), representing a range of raw coal qualities,
of the feedstock. The demonstration Pennsylvania. three sites. Pennsylvania, cleaning The product will burn plant will be constructed at a site will near Stoystown, be test burned at Seam coal. near Pittsburgh,
from the demonstration Carefree Coal. produced
plant
Duquesne Light's
570 MU Cheswick Power Station
from Sewickley
Richmond Power & Light's Richmond, Indiana, will coal, Ohio, and Centerior will during
(RPkL) 60 MWWhitewater Valley Station, Unit No. 2. in burn Self-Scrubbing Coal. produced from Illinois No. 5 Company's 200 MW Ashtabula Coal. Coal.. produced burns will be critical C-Plant in Ashtabula. Seam coal. of coal burned cleaned but this from Lower Freeport
Service
burn Self-Scrubbing these test Coal. and Self-Scrubbing generating into will coal cleaning
Data collected Carefree
to commercialization
About 38% of the bituminous in the U.S. cannot be sufficiently to meet CAAA emissions limits,
in 50-MW or larger by conventional coal can be brought This demonstration project and test The total 1994. definition, burns. project
stations
techniques
compliance
by the CC1 technology. Project activities include operations,
be conducted over 38 months.
design and engineering,
construction,
start-up,
cost
is $81,726,346.
DOE's share is $38,038.656. Operations are scheduled quarter in the first
The coto begin in of 1996.
funder is CCI, whose share is $43.687.690. The project is scheduled
for completion
2
2.0
INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUNQ 2.1 Reauirement for a ReDOrt to Conaress funds for Law the fourth "An clean Act (the coal
On October demonstration Appropriations Fiscal operation future
23, 1989. Congress made available program (CCT-IV) in Public for the Department this
101-121, and Related
Making for the "Act"). and of
of the Interior
Agencies construction.
Year Ending September 30, 1990, and for Act appropriates of such II... . . ..II 1991. "a general and to of cost-shared, existing clean coal projects facilities requiring 1,
Other
Purposes"
Among other things,
funds for the design, to demonstrate technologies request
the feasibility
commercial applications
capable of retrofitting Law 101-512 for CCT-IV by projects request for for
or repowering no later negotiations proposals." Public Of this than
On November 5, 1990, Public for proposals of make selections
was signed into effect, February no later
than eight months after
the date of the general
Law 101-121 appropriates total, $7.2 million
a total
of $600 million to
for
executing for
CCT-IV. the Small for
are required costs incurred
be reprogrammed
Business Innovative Program Direction program.
Research Program (SBIR), and 525.Omillion Funds for $567.8 million was available Public
aredesignated
by DOE in implementing
the CCT-IV
The remaining
for award under the PON. Law 101-512, report which directs
The purpose of this the Department project 2.2 selected
report
is to comply with a full
to prepare
and comprehensive
to Congress on each
for award under the CCT-IV program. and Selection PON for public Process comment on November 20, 1990. receiving The final PON was issued on January coimnents received CCT-IV solicitation a total 15, 1991,
Evaluation
DOE issued a draft
of 19 responses from the public.
and took into consideration the public received 33 proposals in responsetothe deadline.
on the draft PON. DOE by the May 17, 1991,
3
2.2.1 As stated obtain
PON Obiective 1.2, the objective cost-shared of the CCT-IV solicitation Clean Coal Technology was to to
in PON Section to
"proposals
conduct
projects
demonstrate innovative, energy efficient, that are capable of being commercialized be capable of (1) retrofitting, achieving oxides of significant nitrogen reductions and/or (2) manner." Review repowering
economically competitive technologies in the 1990s. These technologies must or replacing for existing facilities dioxide energy and/or in needs while the an of sulfur future
in the emissions providing
environmentally 2.2.2
acceptable Oualification
The PON established be considered pass Qualification."
seven Qualification The Qualification
Criteria Criteria project
and provided
that,
"in order to
in the Preliminary
Evaluation
Phase, a proposal
must successfully
were as follows: or facility must be located in
(4 (b) (cl
The proposed demonstration the United States.
The proposed demonstration with coal(s)
project
must be designed for and operated in the United a cost-share at least States. of at least 50% of
from mines located
The proposer total three project
must agree to provide project phases. must have access to, site(s) costs,
allowable
with
50% in each of the
(4 (4 (f)
The proposer
and use of,
the proposed site of the project.
and
any proposed alternate The proposed project fulfilling The proposer Plan" its
for the duration
team must be identified in the project. selected, 7.7. it
and firmly
committed to
proposed role agrees that, with if
will
submit a "Repayment
consistent
PON Section 4
(g)
The proposal must be signed by a responsible official authorized to contractually proposing organization, organization entirety. 2.2.3 Preliml‘ that a Preliminary Evaluation would be performed to the performance of the Cooperative
of bind
the the
Agreement in its
The PON provided proposals considered finance, Evaluation that
on all to be on
successfully objectives
passed the Qualification of the PONand must contain cost,
Review. sufficient
In order information
in the Comprehensive Evaluation management. technical, described 2.2.4
phase, a proposal
must be consistent
with the stated
and other areas to permit the Comprehensive to be performed.
in the solicitation
Comorehensive Evaluation Criteria Factors were divided into two major categories: feasibility Factors through of (1) the and were from the the
The Technical Demonstration likelihood existing
Evaluation Project
were used to assess the technical and (2) the Commercialization meet future and the energy cost of the proposed technology as to use of coal.
of success of the project. facilities, as well acceptable
used to assess the potential environmentally
to reduce emissions needs effectiveness
proposed technology The Cost and Finance performance potential
in comparison Evaluation
to existing criteria
technologies. the business
were used to determine
and commitment of the proposer. the Cost Estimate proposed cost. be of minimal would be evaluated Proposers after were selection. to determine advised that and that Proposers the this a were
The PON provided reasonableness determination detailed cost of
that the
w. ..will estimate
importance
to the selection..."
would be requested
cautioned that if the total project cost estimated after selection is greater to than the amount specified in the proposal, DOE would be under no obligation provide Sharing more funding Plan. 5 than had been requested in the proposer's original Cost
2.2.5
Proaram Policv
Factors program policy factors could be used would best
The PON advised proposers by the Source Selection serve program objectives:
that the following Official to select
a range of projects
that
(4 0)
The desirability a diversity
of selecting
projects
that
collectively
represent
of methods,
technical
approaches, projects
and applications. solicitation transport in emissions that of of
The desirability contribute pollutants sulfur
of selecting
in this
to near-term by producing and/or
reductions an aggregate
in transboundary net reduction
dioxide
nitrogen
oxides. projects that collectively conditions. solicitation needs fuels. strategic sites, total which and are by that the utilize a a
(4
The desirability diversity
of selecting
broad range of U.S. coals
and are in locations and climatic projects for
which represent
of EHSS, regulatory, of selecting (2) providing
(4
The desirability achieve pollution a,balance and
in this emissions
between (1) reducing acceptable
and transboundary
future
energy
environmentally
use of coal or coal-based projects options fuel that for form provide
(4
The desirability energy security provide multiple considerably requirements.
of selecting benefits fuel dependent
for remote, import-dependent resource on one for
or that energy
regions
The word "collectively,"
as used in the foregoing
program policy
factors.
was
defined to include projects selected in this solicitation and prior clean coal solicitations, as well as other ongoing demonstrations in the United States.
2.2.6 The PON stated to projects treat technologies. application projects of received
pther that.
Considerations DOEwould consider giving preference projects if, factors, or after two equal in
in making selections, in states
located This the
for which the rate-making the same as pollution could criteria
bodies of those states control breaker policy
the Clean Coal Technologies consideration evaluation
be used as a tie and the program
identical
evaluation
scores and remained essentially
value. This consideration would not be applied if, by so doing, the regional geographic distribution of the projects selected would be significantly altered. 2.2.7 As part of the National evaluation and selection process, the Clean Coal Technology
Program developed a procedure for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR 15OD-150&3), and the DOEguidelines December 15, 1987). published procedure Final in the included DOEfinal Federal Register for compliance replacing 24. with NEPA (52 FR 47662, the DOE guidelines of a publicly (DOE/EIS-0146). were This in NEPAregulations on April
1992 (57 FR 15122). issued
the publication Environmental
and consideration Impact Statement of confidential DOEuse.
available
Programmatic
November 1989, and the preparation environmental site-specific under NEPA. 2.2.8 After considering Selection the evaluation reviews for internal
preselection project
project-specific available as appropriate
DDE also prepares publicly demonstration
documents for each selected
criteria,
the program policy Official
factors,
and the nine
NEPA strategy projects
as stated
in the PON, the Source Selection the objectives
selected
as best furthering
of the CCT-IV PON. These selections a press conference.
were announced on September 12. 1991, during
3.0
TECHNICAL FEATURES
3.1 Project DescriDtion
CC1 will
demonstrate
the production
and utilization
of Carefree
Coal. and Self-
Scrubbing Coal. by constructing a processing plant and having the product clean coal test burned in utility burners. Figure 1 presents a schematic flow diagram of the project. Three Illinois), circuit, cleaning U.S. coal seams (Sewickley Seam. Greene County, will to be Pennsylvania; Wabash County, dense-media noncombustible Coal. compliance modifications Deep cleaning high finest organic fraction produced. Lower Freeport Seam, Belmont County, Ohio; and Illinois representing Carefree using a range of raw coal properties. Coal. is coal cleaned magnetite allow ultrafine will slurries, sulfur. No. 5 Seam,
the source of the feedstock. cyclone material,
in a proprietary remove The Carefree to achieve
including
up to 90% of the pyritic process requirements
produced by this or capital alone, sulfur
many utilities without
with the CAAA sulfur
emissions
major power plant
expenditures. fuel Coal. from coals with Coal. except Coal. will This additive will that additives permit ash reacts be the
however, cannot produce a compliance contents. Coal. In these circuit cases, is the same as Carefree
Self-Scrubbing
Self-Scrubbing
from the cleaning of relatively
is mixed with limestone-based of the Self-Scrubbing without precipitators. of the coal
and pelletized. the addition specifications with sulfur remaining sulfur.
The reduced ash content or overloading dioxide Overall coal electrostatic
large amounts of sorbent combustion reductions plant
exceeding boiler
(SO,) during sulfur
to remove most of the
in the range of 80-90% are achieved. will 2. be constructed ICF Kaiser for the project. Service at a site Engineers, near Inc.
The CC1 demonstration Stoystown, (Kaiser) will Pennsylvania, will provide
cleaning
as shown in Figure
the design and engineering
Test burns Company.
be conducted
by Duquesne Light,
RP&L. and Centerior
Duquesne Light's 570 MWCheswick Power Station near Pittsburgh will burn Carefree Coal. produced from Sewickley Seam coal. RP&L's 60 MWWhitewater Valley Power Station in Richmond, Indiana, will burn Self-Scrubbing Coal. produced from
8
i
9
\
IO
Illinois No. 5 coal; and Centerior's 200 MWAshtabula C-Plant will burn Self-Scrubbing Coals produced from Lower Freeport 3.1.1 Project Proposer: Project Location: Title: Projecty Self-Scrubbing Clean Air Custom Coals International Quemahoning Coal Preparation Stoystown, Technology: Pennsylvania of Somerset County A combination limestone-based Application: Type of Coal Used: Product: Project Size: Project Project Start Date: End Date: 3.1.2 Project Estimated Estimated Distribution: Sponsor: Project Cost Participant Share (%l 53.5 DOE Share 46.5 Cost: Proiect Reduction furnaces Mediumto high-sulfur and Illinois Coal 1992 1996 of Coal.:
in Ashtabula, Seam coal.
Ohio,
An Integrated
Approach to
Plant
deep cleaning
and use of
a
additive
to produce a coal that from coal-fired (Sewickley,
can be burned with
low-SO, emissions
SO, emissions
bituminous
Lower Freeport, Low-SO, Emitting 350 tons/hr Fourth First Soonsorshio quarter quarter
No. 5 Seams)
and Cost
Custom Coals International $81.726.346
11
3.2
Self-Scrubbina 3.2.1
Coal* Technoloav Oevelooment approached technology, (CQ), then Ouquesne Light the review Electric to perform of to cosponsor
Overview of Technoloav
In 1988, Genesis Research Corporation development Institute's review support of of an SO* emissions contacted (EPRI) Coal Quality the effort in control Duquesne Light CQ Inc.
which Genesis had conceived. Power Research an independent any commercial
Development Center, A favorable for partial
of the proposed technology. return
led to Duquesne Light's
ownership
technologies that might result from the work. Duquesne Light and Genesis agreed on a three-step project for validation of the technology for Duquesne Light applications. Verification magnetite. The three-step of Genesis's This effort plan included: theories on fine-coal cycloning using ultrafine facility
was conducted at CQ's demonstration-scale
using a modified Semi-continuous,
Krebs Heavy-Media Cyclone. commercial-scale testing of an integrated fine coal
sizing, desliming. heavy-media cycloning, specifically designed cycloning circuits plant, tests. Technology feasibility case studies. including submitting
and media recovery unit. using installed in CQ's demonstration clean coal for pelletizing
samples of fine
Based on promising results from the experimental work and favorable economics evaluations, Duquesne Light and Genesis formed a joint venture (Custom Coals International), discussion illustrates The initial rejection whose mission is to commercializethetechnology. The following summarizes the results from the three steps of process development and the readiness of CCI's technology for ccmmercialization. bench-scale of the pyritic tests sulfur in 2-inch cyclones achieved greater than 90%
in Sewickley
Seam coal
and greater
than 90%
12
retention potential In 1989,
of the coal's heating value. Furthermore. the coal's SO, emissions was reduced from about 8 lb/million Btu to about 2 lb/million Btu. DOE conducted a series of process optimization tests on cyclone
separations in ultrafine magnetite media. The DOE results confirmed the Genesis/Duquesne Light results. TheGenesis/Duquesne Light results also compared favorably liquids with (mixtures results obtained by Process Technology, chloride and Freon). Genesis and Duquesne Light of the technology. decided Inc. using true heavy of methylene
Based on these promising to move ahead with included testing larger
bench-scale diameter
results, validation
commercial-scale
cyclones
(6 and 10 inch).
This work as well as integrating magnetite production the testing scope. was validated of the testing at was
additional unit operations (i.e., coal sizing. desliming. and recovery. coal dewatering, and coal pelletizing) into The performance semi-commercial again performed include:
.
of
key process
steps
of the
CCCC process The majority
scale in late
1989 and mid-1990.
at CQ's facilities.
The key process steps which were validated
Preparing testing Desliming a lo-inch Separately
ultrafine
magnetite
by more efficient
methods than in earlier
the less than 15-micron, diameter classifying
high-ash
material
from the raw coal in
cyclone of the raw coal fines diameter (600 x
beneficiating
two size fractions in
100 microns cyclone
and 100 x 15 microns)
a lo-inch
dense-media
Separating and recovering coal and refuse streams Dewatering the finest
the ultrafine
magnetite
from the various
clean
size fraction
of clean coal
(100 x 15 micron)
in a
high-G centrifuge 13
An important
adjunct
to the operation
of the CCCCprocess
is the production
of
ultrafine magnetite. Since grinding magnetite to the extremely fine particle size required is very expensive, another approach was developed. The method used is first to spray-roast according a solution to the following of ferrous reaction: chloride in a restricted air environment,
2FeC1, + 2H,O + +Oa,--> Fe203 + 4HCl The fine-grained either hydrogen reactions: 3Fe,O, + H, --> 2Fe,O, + H,O 3Fe,O, + CO --> 2Fe,O, + CO, Hundreds of thousands country each year. for the bench-scale of tons of spray-roasted prepared testing hematite separate programs. are produced in this hematite can then be reduced to magnetite (CO), as indicated by reaction with
(H,) or carbon monoxide
by the following
Hazen Research Inc. and commercial-scale
samples of magnetite In both cases, the by-product from is manufactured
less than 5-micron hematite was obtained a Kerr McGee Corporation plant in Mobile, from illminite. the hematite scale tests, of CO and H,. 3.2.2 The production different integration efficiency technology novel many medium- to
Process DeSCriDtiOn
as a readily available Alabama, where titania magnetite kiln using hydrogen.
For the bench-scale to magnetite the hematite
testing.
was produced by reducing For the commercialusing a mixture reactor
in a screw reactor
was reduced in a rotary
of
Self-Scrubbing that
Coal. interact creates
involves
the
application bituminous effect,
of coals. so that to
three to The the any
technologies high-sulfur
and make the process a synergistic
applicable
eastern
and midwestern
of these
technologies
and cost-effectiveness of the combination is The three novel technologies are: applied alone.
superior
14
Advanced flowsheet classifiers
Coal
Cleaning,
which
involves the
the
application
of sulfur
a unique fine coal content
design
incorporating
use of modified, to reduce the pyritic
novel,
and heavy-media cyclones
of the coal by up to 90%. Magnetite crystalline processes ferrous Production, magnetite by reducing chloride which for hematite involves the production roasting of ultrafine heavy-media a solution of
use in the advanced coal cleaning produced by spray air involves environment. the addition coal of
in a restricted Agents, agents which to the
Sulfur-Capture sulfur-capture increased in existing Figure 3 presents
limestone-based to provide
advanced clean
product
SO, capture pulverized a block
efficiency
to as high as 70% when the coal is burned
coal boilers. flow diagram of the CCCC process. The raw coal is
first sized into an intermediate size fraction fraction (0.5 IMI x 0.105 mm) and an ultrafine microns) cleaning be two-stage, gravity
(1.5 in x 0.5 mm), a fine size size fraction (0.105 aan x 15
with the fractions being processed in separate heavy-media cyclone coal The intermediate and fine-size coal cleaning circuits will circuits. with the capability with fraction mineral pyrite will of producing a low-gravity middlings matter matrix. cleaning clean coal, a highand an intermediate-gravity and other mineral from the coal or ultrafine fraction, which contains the be
refuse,
coal particles The middlings sulfur-bearing processed
locked in the coal matrix. size to liberate will then circuits The coal
be crushed or ground to a finer coal
matter
in either
the fine
to separate
clean coal from refuse. The effect of the cleaning process is to maximize clean coal recovery while
If the composite simultaneously maximizing pyritic sulfur and ash rejection. clean coal can meet overall SO, compliance levels, then the product is ready for If the sulfur shipment as Carefree Coal.. is too high (primarily due to the organic blended with the other fractions, with enough sorbent the ultrafine content of the composite clean coal sulfur content), then before being clean coal fraction is pelletized levels. If this
to enable the clean coal to meet compliance 15
Raw Coal
R&Se (Slimes)
s
Raw Coal Sizing
Rsfuse
c
Refuse
I
I
Fine Coal Cleaning I I Middlings (optioMl) i
m
Ultra Fine Coal Cleaning
I 1
I
Sorbcnt Addition _I and Pelletization
I
Refuss ,oduct x / \ L -8 Carefree CCdTM
---
OpiO”Zil
Self-Scrubbing Coal TM
FIGURE 3. BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM SELF-SCRUBBING COALTM PRODUCTION
16
option
is taken.
then the coal without
product
is called
Self-Scrubbing
Coal..
reduced ash content amounts of sorbent overloading
of the clean coal allows exceeding precipitator
the addition
of relatively of the boiler
The large or
the ash specifications (ESP).
the electrostatic 3.2.3 A2 construct
Custom Coals will Stoystown,
a 350tons/hr
demonstration
plant
to produce Carefree Plant site near site was previously (Illinois No. 5 from be made using Coal. from Cheswick Power be tested Coal. Ashtabula
Coal. and Self-Cleaning Pennsylvania.
Coal. at the Quemahoning Coal Preparation The coal cleaning plant Two medium- to high-sulfur Coal.. tested at this coals
operated by Solar Fuels. Wabash County, Illinois, and Lower Freeport will be used to produce Self-Scrubbing Seam coal from Greene County, Seam will be combustion Coal. Station's Seam will The Self-Scrubbing Valley Lower Freeport Sewickley Station. from the C-Plant. Duquesne Light's Springdale, 1970. Cheswick Power Station has one operational of the unit
Seam coal from Belmont County. Ohio) Carefree Coal. will The Carefree No. 5 Seam will at Centerior's
Pennsylvania.
the Sewickley
at Duquesne Light's
from the Illinois No. 2 boiler, be test burned
at RP&L's Whitewater
and the Self-Scrubbing
is located unit that
along the Allegheny has been on-line
River
in The
Pennsylvania,
about 15 miles northeast is 570 MW. Valley
of downtown Pittsburgh.
Cheswick Power Station The design rating
since June
RP&L's pulverized service
coal-fired
Whitewater Valley
Station,
Unit No. 2, is located tangentially-fired boiler
in Richmond, Indiana. consuming 30 tons/hr Centerior
Whitewater of coal.
No. 2, which is rated at 60 MW, began
in May 1973 and uses a Combustion Engineering,
Service Company's Ashtabula C-Plant is located in Ashtabula, Ohio, on The C-Plant is a conventional steam boiler unit built in the 1950s. Lake Erie. Installed capacity is 200 MW, made up of 44 MWunits.
17
3.3
General Features 3.3.1 Evaluation
of the Proiect of Developmental 3.2.1, all Risk of the Self-Scrubbing Coal.
As described project however,
in Section
the aspects extents.
have been proven to varying some risks are involved. risk circuits
As with any developing
technology,
One area of potential The effect ultrafine processing
is size degradation of friable can be significant,
of the coal during particularly
processing. and are
of size degradation
coals on the loading
of the fine when there
numerous pumping and handling steps. demonstration testing are not extremely potential problems during for size degradation the intermediate fed by gravity, a pumping stage. will build is most significant The first this
Although the coals to be used in the friable, CC1 will take steps to mitigate of the facility. The potential of coal in will be without CC1 cycloning in the pumping and handling stage of dense-media size fraction
the design and layout
size range. thus separating As a result, it
clean coal from the plus 0.54~11 fraction coarsest removed from the process circuit. capacity that could result
needs to be pumped and
handled only once before contingency circuitry 15-micron degradation
is completely
into the design of the 0.54~1 by 0.105-mm and 0.105~awn by from size size fraction. amount of mechanical be addressed that equipment, which plant similar
to handle the increased
of the coarsest
The CCCCprocess depends on a substantial raises layout service. A significant challenge to demonstration a question and the of such a plant. These concerns selection of will
as to the degree of availability equipment
and maintenance has proven reliable
requirements in
by a well-designed
of this
technology
is
the complete
integration of all Genesis Classifying for durations closed-loop integrated.
of the unit operations Cyclone has been tested Other circuits equipment. dense-media 18
comprising the CCCC process. The at commercial scale in an open loop in the process cyclone circuits have operated in but the process has not been fully have operated
as long as 8 hr. with commercial-scale For example, the
independently
and operated circuits is the ability recover allows coal in the finest the
of the media recovery circuits, The key factor continuously. to separate magnetite particle sizes.
but the two have not been joined in the integration of these two and subsequently plant design the for and rinse design The demonstration optimized
the coal from the magnetite
for adequate equipment sizes and number of stages to drain 0.5~mm by 0.105~mm circuit circuit. of information available and a unique, of the coal from magnetite and subsequent recovery
separation
of the magnetite
in the 0.1054~11 by 15-micron The process plants. data is typical
to engineering and mineral
design
companies in the design of large-scale Kaiser has used this preparation coupled with and mineral information, enables equipment facilities practice plant.
coal preparation for various
processing This of
type of information
in the design of numerous coal clients the worldwide. developer design and choice and Kaiser,
the experience
of the process
sound engineering
to be used in
in the demonstration
Most of the equipment to be utilized continuous, closed-loop. equal to those proposed. used in the demonstration of equipment tested was much smaller because similar scaling The final applications efficiency, the size of the pellet Also, plant
in the demonstration
plant
has operated capacity
in
commercial circuits the physical is equal,
at water and solids or nearly equal, studies,
levels size
size of key equipment
items to be
to the physical
in closed-loop,
commercial-scale
with one exception; plant. However, in
press used to pelletize is in common use.
cleaned coal mixed with additives no problems are anticipated
than the press to be used in the demonstration equipment
up the pelletizer. set of risks possible for the demonstration problems, project and future oversulfur analyses commercial Coals. Major capture indicate
relates
to downstream combustion of the Self-Scrubbing coal handling increases uncertainty Engineering in fouling.
concerns include
and potential
that there should not be any significant strategies exist should problems arise.
problems in these areas. as indicated below:
but mitigating
19
Materials been
Handling
Problems - A low-moisture is unlikely plant to cause
coal in which the fines materials handling to control
have
pelletized
problems. the fines
However, the demonstration and moisture Uncertain contents
has the flexibility
of the clean coal. - The required sorbent addition levels
Sulfur
Capture Efficiency
and anticipated sulfur conservative analysis injection small tests. If
capture efficiencies have been determined from of pilot-scale and commercial-scale sorbent problems arise, studies sorbent indicate that that will required burn the than is can be and is levels a higher cleaning at or adding relatively ash content operation
removals can be achieved by increasing amounts of fuel with to a promoter. can tolerate if required. reduce demonstration expected additive adjusted associated and this Increased increase least impacts chemistry. stations
The power stations a coal with Coal.. Also, Finally. capture. - The rate of fouling the thus allowing
the Self-Scrubbing further
the use of higher of yield
levels,
ash and sulfur
some loss
economic penalty. low-NO, burners. enhance sulfur Deposits as existing will
the Whitewater
Power Station
equipped with
Low-NO, burners
reduce flame temperature,
Fouling
deposit
buildup
may
due to the addition of advanced physical If required,
of a sorbent, fouling coal cleaning
but these deposits as a result and sorbent
should be at on ash in both
as friable
deposits
of the favorable addition
soot blowing
frequency
can be increased costs.
to handle these problems. could be increased has a marginal and since
If necessary, at rather
the number and locations
of sootblowers
small marginal
The Cheswick Power Station it will be fitted with well-established technology.
ESP and. as part of this system. This fly will ash loading
demonstration, is a no
an SO, injection
ash conditioning not be increased,
problems are anticipated. In summary, the technical risks associated with this project are acceptable.
20
I!
3.3.1.1
tv Similari Demonstration/Commercial to be demonstrated existing
Efforts is the production emissions competing of a coal from coalare
The objective product fired that furnaces.
of the technology will result Therefore, with or without
in up to 90% reduction the principal
in sulfur
technologies
conventional coal cleaning
coal cleaningccmbinedwith
flue gas desulfurization coal cleaning.
(FGD), advanced
FGD, and FGD without
The two main separation either surface flotation is on density properties
techniques
used in conventional processes) for fine processes), flotation pyrite
coal cleaning flotation.
are based in Froth (less it in coal. in
differences (physiochemical Although effective is more efficient no boiler froth
(gravimetric used extensively for
or on differences coal separation for ash separation,
such as froth
is the only process
than 150 microns). not particularly properties surface
is effective removal
because of similarities sulfur from fine
between coal and pyrite.
Because it is a gravimetric pyritic sulfur
process,
the CCCC process Furthermore, the coal, conventional Advanced coal inorganic sulfur,
for cleaning
since the CCCCprocess can incorporate modifications FGD. cleaning that processes is, sulfur are generally cleaning
removal additives
essentially
are required,
as is necessary with
categorized
into
physical
or
chemical cleaning
processes.
Physical
processes are only able to remove with the mineral sulfur. into three general groups: pyritic matter and processes can
which is associated and organic
not bound to the organic to a certain
coal structure;
whereas chemical cleaning
degree remove both inorganic processes
Chemical coal cleaning Those that 6sulfur
can be categorized temperatures
use elevated
and pressures
to oxidize
to water-soluble use caustic
sulfur
compounds. to leach pyritic and/or organic sulfur
Those that species
chemicals
from the coal matrix.
21
Those that
use chemically physical
induced
alterations
in the pyritic
sulfur
to
enhance subsequent
beneficiation. sulfur and 40 to
These processes may remove as much as 90 to 95% of the pyritic
85% of the organic sulfur associated with coal while attaining 90% recovery of the heating value of the coal. The most promising systems under development are: TRW's Meyers Process (an iron sulfate oxidation leach). alteration of pyritic sulfur leach).
The TRW-DOEMCL Process (a molten caustic
.
Hazen Research's Magnex Process (carbonyl with subsequent physical separation). The DOE PETC Oxi-Desulfurization pressure leach). Process
(an elevated
temperature
and
None of these processes have been demonstrated are not likely chemical currently reagents chemicals neither containing environmental cleaning and toxic to be demonstrated processes gases. require within
at near commercial scale, to ten years.
and they
the next five
the use of severe operating and some of the processes treating, which and disposing are not yet
These conditions not use corrosive
being used in coal cleaning, Recovering, are activities techniques Thus, and by-products are the handling solid concerns residues.
of the process well developed; safety, and and trace metal-
for the new types of sulfur there are significant
health,
for these processes. of coal by chemical application techniques is not likely to find
In summary, the cleaning near-term (five
to ten years)
in the industry. are currently may be applied under in the is for
Numerous advanced physical coal cleaning processes development; however, the number of these processes that DOE, through its near term is limited. sponsoring bench- to demonstration-scale three of these technologies: 22
advanced coal cleaning initiatives, engineering development projects
Advanced cycloning Selective agglomeration Advanced froth flotation All three processes mineral and involve froth processes an initial particularly flotation step of fine pyrite, processes grinding the utilizes of the coal The selective coal based on density-based heptane-based to
liberate
particles, principles,
from the coal. separate
agglomeration physiochemical
whereas advanced cycloning
separation. Other potentially competing processes are Otisca's selective agglomeration process and DOE's Micro-Mag process. Because they circuits, are less likely most serious flotation While involve chemical media and more complex agglomeration,
chemical and Otisca
processing processes the
the advanced cycloning, to be commercially competition
selective successful
in the near term.
Therefore,
to the CCCCprocess should come from the advanced froth
and the Micro-Mag process. advanced froth flotation for coals systems may rival sulfur the CCCC process coals. step for in will ash be
reduction flotation content control
efficiency,
matching CCCC's pyritic
removal performance for making low-ash higher However, it
more difficult, from low-sulfur
particularly bituminous
low rank or oxidized competitor costs. or as a pretreatment cleaning
Advanced froth products sulfur
may prove to be a significant bituminous strategy. technology is similar to
coals to reduce scrubbing
is not likely SO, emission-
to compete in cases where coal
is used as the primary
The Micro-Mag ultrafine similar,
the
CCCC process
in
that
both
use
magnetite cleaning
for cleaning
coal in cyclones.
As the processes are somewhat
in DOE testing diameter inlet
efficiencies may be similar in the small-diameter cyclones used to date. However, the Micro-Mag cyclone does not use a reducedto achieve the high particle accelerations necessary for fine coal
Fairly high accelerations can be achieved in smallcleaning in a cyclone. diameter cyclones without a reduced-diameter inlet; however, this is not possible in a cyclone of the size normally used to clean coal without overloading the cyclone and reducing performance. Thus, the Micro-Mag technology 23 will require
the use of large and operating Efficient efficient increase efficient
numbers of small-diameter
cyclones,
greatly
increasing
capital
costs. at ultrafine sizes (desliming) fine-size recovery is also coal, necessary for
classification application media viscosity desliming
of dense-mediatechnologyto and make magnetite
because slimes and costly. also allows cyclones.
more difficult lo-inch diameter
The Genesis cyclone geometry that allows efficient at 15 microns with Technical inexpensive
fine coal cleaning
3.3.1.2 As discussed previously, pilot to semicommercial from previous are similar the probability The pelletizer be accomplished burning probability testing
Feasibility
all parts of this process have been demonstrated at scale; but integrated operation of all parts of the However, because of the design data available involved in the demonstration processing, plant is high. for installation this will not in in coal cleaning of the integrated and mineral
process has not been demonstrated.
and because the operations operation
to those used extensively of successful
must be scaled up from the size used previously plant, but there Also, successfully. no significant furnaces.
in the demonstration
is no reason to expect that
problems are anticipated Thus, the project
the cleaned coal in commercial of technical 3.3.1.3 success.
has a good
Resource Availability for this project over the 38-month demonstration in Section 6.1, adequate to cover necessary to the personnel
Adequate resources period. conduct the proposed project this
are available cost.
CC1 has committed funds, demonstration
as discussed
They have also dedicated program.
After removal of an existing coal cleaning plant, sufficient space will available at the Stoystown site for installation of the equipment required the demonstration. overland belt, Coal can be delivered to the site either or rail. by trucks, Electric rail. and product can be shipped by truck 24
be for or
power is
available site.
at the site. Low-sulfur fuel
and service oil will
will
be upgraded to meet the project's
needs.
Adequate water is available
from Stony Creek, the source previously be purchased for use in the thermal coal and limestone-based will be purchased Adequate facilities burn sites. Size
used at this driers. in the to
CC1 has made arrangements necessary provide quantities. storage 3.3.2 vendor and delivered
to supply
additives
Ultrafine to the site
magnetite by truck. at the test
from an outside are available
for the product Relationshio and Proiected
Between Proiect
Scale of Commercial Facility a plant rated the fuel little at 350 tons/hr is well required or about within the after
The demonstration 1.5 million commercial operation power station. tons/yr facility
project
involves
at 50% utilization. will
This size require
plant
range and could supply all plant.
by a 350-400 MW
so commercialization
or no scaleup
of the demonstration 3.3.3
Role of the Proiect Feasibilitv
in Achievina
Commercial
of the Technoloav is plant. crucial to at full This project providing achieving will commercialization scale, plant that confirm of the
The demonstration technology, operation product as it
project will
demonstrate,
commercial information
the integrated operability, to the is vital
of the cleaning quality, effort. 3.3.3.1
and process costs,
commercialization
Aoplicabilitv
of the Data to be Generated
The demonstration commercial scale, Data collection, phase and will
project will test all aspects of the cleaning technology at and the product will be burned in commercial, coal-fired units. analysis, include and reporting on-stream will be performed during coal recovery the operations and rellability, efficiencies,
equipment performance. and SO, and particulate
Data from the test burns will include boiler efficiencies The data that will be generated will emission levels. 25
be applicable valuable
directly
to
the
design facilitate
of
other
facilities
and will effort.
provide
information
which will
the commercialization of Features that Increase
3.3.3.2
Identification the Potential
for Commercialization existing that exist operators coal-burning for is switching power to lowThe for
The 1990 Clean Air plants this,
Act Amendments (CAAA) require Of the options to power plant
to reduce SO, emissions. one of the most acceptable
accomplishing
sulfur coal, providing that this can be done without unit derating. advantage of fuel switching is that it avoids the capital investment required FGD processes, inherent contents as well as the operating and waste or by-product disposal Coal. in FGD. Because Carefree and can be burned with little significant Coal. and Self-Scrubbing of the low-sulfur potential coals.
problems
have high Btu they should
or no equipment modifications,
be able to achieve Features are its efFiciency
penetration that
coal market.
of the CCCCtechnology high energy recovery and flexibility 3.3.3.3
improve its its
for commercialization pyritic sulfur. high The technology's
efficiency,
ability
to reject
and its ability
to handle lower ranked and oxidized
should give it wide appeal and applicability. Comoarative and Projection Merits of the Project
of Future Commercial
Economics and Market Acceotabilitv This it project will fuel produce in coal-fired a low-sulfur. boilers. over froth low-ash flotation coal that can be used as a separation, such as the
replacement ability
Because it uses gravimetric technologies,
has a number of advantages to remove pyrite
efficiently
and the flexibility
to handle lower rank and
oxidized coals. CCCC technology effectively,
Compared to most other gravimetric coal cleaning processes, the has the advantage of being able to clean finer size coal in a higher recovery efficiency.
resulting
The product coal offers the potential CAAA SO, emission standards without
for use in coal-fired boilers to achieve derating the unit or producing hard-to26
dispose-of are required.
by-products.
Furthermore,
few, if
any, modifications
to the boiler
Economic evaluations lower when using conventionally Carefree marketplace Coal.
indicate Carefree
that the cost of producing Coal. or Self-Scrubbing with FGD. Coal. should
electricity Coal. than
may be 5-15% when using
cleaned coal together and Self-Scrubbing
be well
received quality.
in
the
because of favorable
economics and high product
27
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS procedure, cited analysis; results 2010 if alternative, through in Section 2.2. contains three major
The NEPA compliance elements: project-specific environmental (DOE/EIS-0146). impacts compared flue The use. expected with the
a Programmatic analysis. In the to
Environmental
Impact Statement
(PEIS); a preselection. site-specific in November 1989 Emissions reach use full of the environmental These impacts were using conventional
environmental PEIS. in
and a post-selection. PEIS to the public from the derived
DOE issued the final
Regional were to
Database and Evaluation commercialization conventional
System (REDES) were used to estimate occur each technology applicable which 2010 with market. new plants 100% of its
and capture no-action
assumed continued Standards. review,
coal technologies
gas desulfurization preselection. This review
to meet New Source Performance project-specific environmental
focusing
on DOE in
environmental
issues pertinent
todecision-making,
was completed for internal
summarized the strengths
and weaknesses of each proposal
compliance with the environmental evaluation criteria in the PON. It included. to the extent possible, a discussion of alternative sites and processes reasonably of required available permits. Official to the offeror, This analysis practical mitigating for measures. and a list of the was provided the consideration
Source Selection As the final site-
in the selection
of proposals. the Participant (CCI) will submit to
element of the NEPA strategy, Information information regulations design, will
DOE the Environmental and project-specific Quality for prepared regulations provided In addition of the
Volume soecified prepared for
in the PON. This detailed with Federal activities. must prepare The purpose and site the Council on DOE
form the basis for the NEPAdocuments in compliance of implementation and operation NEPA and the
by DOE. These documents, NEPA compliance.
Environmental
must be approved before
funds can be
for detailed
construction, outlined sufficient
to the NEPArequirements to ensure that
above, the Participant technology, project,
and submit an Environmental EMP is
Monitoring
Plan (EMP) for the project.
28
environmental data are collected to provide health. safety, and environmental information for use in subsequent commercial applications of the technology. The Self-Scrubbing demonstration Scrubbing and solid demonstration plant plant Coal.. Coal. project affects two burning impacts venues: the Carefree caused the site of of the the
and the power plants The environmental fall into
Coal.
and Self-
by operation
three categories:
air emissions,
water discharge,
waste disposal. plant will use indirect thermal dryers, which eliminate fuel source oil will will the be meet
The demonstration direct burned burning to heat
of coal and particulate the thermal dryers;
or combustibles emissions from
emissions. this
Only water
vapor is vented to the atmosphere from the process. regulations. When producing pelletized generate little Self-Scrubbing fugitive Coal.. the fine handling. coal
Low-sulfur
(less
than 150 microns) and transport.
is
with limestone
and binders. dust during
Therefore,
the Self-Scrubbing storage,
Coal. will
Wastewater from the plant will with no discharge issue concerns nonhazardous site. With regard to the power plant solid
be clarified
in thickeners
and reused in the plant
of wastewater solid
to the environment. Coal cleaning waste will
waste disposal.
The major environmental plant waste is classified to a permitted disposal
by EPA. Plant
be trucked
operations,
due to the deep cleaning of dolomite,
associated are
with Self-Scrubbing
Coal. and the minor addition
SO, emissions
No detrimental environmental impacts due to the use of considerably reduced. Self-Scrubbing Coal. are anticipated from coal handling, storage, or transport. Since the Self-Scrubbing Coal. fines are pelletized. less fugitive dust will be There will be no need to increase coal stockpile generated at the power plant. requirements; therefore, there will be no increase in surface water runoff or treatment.
29
The ash from Carefree
Coal. is very similartothe
ash from the base coal,
except
for a reduced iron content due to pyrite removal. In addition to a lower iron content, the ash from Self-Scrubbing Coal. has higher calcium and magnesium contents, significant burning because of the added dolomite. change in handling in the quantity Coal. reduction Carefree These changes in ash composition or disposal practices. There will should be a Coal.. of cause no significant
of ash which needs to be disposed of when Self-Scrubbing
and a small decrease when burning decreases the concentration
Advanced coal
cleaning
of many trace
elements
environmental concern, such as antimony, arsenic. chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel, resulting in reduced emissions of air toxics. The level of particulate emissions is not expected to decrease compared to burning the base coal.
30
5.0
BOJECT MAN5.1 Qverview of Hanaaement Oraanization will be managed by a CC1 Project with DOE for matters matters, Manager. This individual will be
The project the principal Cooperative responsible Project project. 5.2
contact Agreement
regarding the administration of the Officer is between CC1 and DOE. The DOE Contracting and the DOEContracting for technical liaison Officer's Technical of the and monitoring
for all contract
Officer
(TPO) is responsible
Identification
of Resoective
Roles and Resoonsibilities
DOE shall Officer
be responsible is
for monitoring
all
aspects of the project Agreement. for all matters
and granting to the
or denying approvals Cooperative
required
by the Cooperative representative
The DOE Contracting related
DOE's authorized Agreement. Officer all which may: of
The DOE Contracting representative "Technical
.
will
appoint matters
a TPO who will and will
be the
authorized to issue
for
technical
have the authority
Advice"
Suggest shifting of certain Work.
redirection lines
the
Cooperative which assist
Agreement
effort,
recommend a
of work emphasis between work areas or tasks, of inquiry in accomplishing
or suggest pursuit the Statement of
Approve all
technical
reports,
plans,
and items of technical Participant to the
information the
required to be delivered Cooperative Agreement.
by the
DOE under
The DOE TPO does not have the authority
to issue technical
advice which:
31
Constitutes Work.
an assignment
of additional
work outside
the Statement
of
In any manner causes an increase or the time required
or decrease
in the total
estimated Agreement.
cost
for performance conditions,
of the Cooperative or specifications
Changes any of the terms, Agreement. Interferes conditions All technical with the
of the Cooperative
Participant's
right
to
perform
the
terms
and
of the Cooperative advice shall
Agreement. by the DOE TPO.
be issued in writing
Particioant The following Coal. project organizations from conceptual will interact effectively to meet the intent of the
PON and to assure timely
and cost-effective
implementation
of the Self-Scrubbing
design to start-up (CCI) (RP&L)
and operation:
Custom Coals International Duquesne Light . Centerior Company Richmond Power & Light Energy Inc. CQ. Inc. 032) ICF Kaiser Engineers CC1 will will be primarily
(Kaiser) for reporting to and interfacing with DOE. CC1
responsible for all
be responsible project be limited
phases of the project. will include. but not
The overall necessarily
approach of the above Participants to the following: manager will three project 32 be responsible phases. to
A single Participants
project
DOE and all
project
for all
Custom Coals will other organizations, will
be the primary
liaison
between the Government and all 4, Project Organization. Coal. at its Cheswick
as shown in Figure conduct a test
Duquesne Light Power Station.
burn of Carefree
RP&L will conduct a test Valley Unit No. 2. Centerior Centerior
.
burn of Self-Scrubbing
Coal.
at its
Whitewater
Energy will Service
conduct
a test
burn of Self-Scrubbing C-Plant.
Coal.
at
Company's Ashtabula
Kaiser will construction for Monitoring CQ will testing conducting Valley Unit responsible 5.3 Proiect
be responsible for the design, procurement, permitting, and Kaiser will also be responsible of the demonstration plant. the Environmental as part Informaticn Volume and the Environment Plan required of the NEPA process. demonstration for plant test operating planning will monitoring. and and be
assembling
be subcontracted staff. No.
to provide also tests
It
2.
will
be responsible Ashtabula reports C-Plant.
the combustion for preparation Imolementation
at the Cheswick Station,
the Whitewater
and the
CQ staff
of test
and environmental
and Control
Procedures Agreement is divided into four
All
work to be performed These phases are: Project
under the Cooperative
phases.
Phase IA: Phase 18: Phase II: Phase III:
Definition
(6 months) (6 months)
Design and Engineering Construction Operations (16 months) (16 months)
Phase II overlaps Phase 18 by 6 months. encompasses 38 months.
As shown in Figure
5. the total
project
33
0
34
35
Three budget periods obligate Throughout prepared 5.4 the
will
be established. to cover its of this project,
Consistent reports
with P.L. 101-512, DOEwill dealing with the technical, will be
funds sufficient course
share of the cost for each budget period. monitoring aspects of the project
management, cost,
and environmental to DOE.
by CC1 and provided
Kev Aareements Imoactina Information Reoortinq in respect
Data Riahts.
Patent
Waivers.
and
The key agreements
to patents
and data are: giving rights. the Government the right all technical data first to
Standard data provisions have delivered
are included. unlimited
and use, with
produced in the performance Proprietary data, with certain
of the Agreement. exclusions, may be required rights to be delivered data
to the Government. and non-proprietary the project Rights if
The Government has obtained data sufficient to allow withdraws. and background
to proprietary
the Government to complete
the Participant patents
in background
data of CC1 and all
of its
subcontractors CC1 will
are included
to assure commercialization and non-proprietary, and the public.
of the technology. available to the
make such data,
as is applicable interested
U.S. DOE, U.S. EPA, other 5.5 Procedures
agencies,
for Connnercialization
of the Technoloqy that that short
CC1 has defined its priority market as the market for clean coal products will be sold to the domestic electric utility industry to facilitate industry's compliance with the provisions of the CAAA. Virtually all current efforts are concentrated time frame during which utilities on this market because of the relatively must define their compliance strategies.
of CCI's
36
The available 250 million million plants million into
market tons/yr
for
CC1 products
is
believed
to
be in
the that
order is,
of
of the one billion This would require 10 years.
tons/yr
expected to be used by utilities. market, 25-50
CC1 plans to obtain tons/yr. tons/yr, over the next
a 10 to 20% share of the available
CC1 to commission lo-20 2.5 million ton/yr However, the market could expand beyond 50 market penetration or because of expansion
either
through better
other market areas. concentrate These include: Fuels--Two major impediments to large-scale and low oil that compared prices. The ability fuels large, application of this a low-ash initially on the domestic market for clean coal for opportunities exist for the CCCC
While CC1 will electric utilities, technology.
.
a number of other important
Coal/Water technology as part Also, it
have been lack of a commercial method for producing of the CCCC process is calculated Btu, overcomes the first coal/water to $3.00/million of these 8tu but will for
coal feedstock
to clean coal to l-2% ash impediments. at $1.50at about take some oil can be delivered probably
$2.00/million $20/barrel. time to develop.
The market is potentially
Overseas Markets--A exist new clean air these standards
large
market
for
the CC1 technology and it
is believed is likely
to that
in overseas markets. standards will parallel
The European Community is expected the next few years, may exist those of the United States. serious air quality Eastern Bloc nations Coal. technology
to adopt
during
A large market problems. The should make the
for the application
of the technology
in the former Eastern Bloc
countries, which have particularly shortage of capital in the former less capital gas scrubbers.
.
intensive
Self-Scrubbing
preferable
to flue
Industrial smaller. identify
Markets--Large but significant, themselves
industrial market for
customers will clean coal. Coal.
probably
constitute will becomes more
a
These customers technology
as the Self-Scrubbing
37
widely with uniform.
known and accepted. local emissions customized stoker
Important coal.
factors
will
be the need to comply ability to deliver
standards
and the CCCCprocess's
CC1 has developed a detailed, of Self-Scrubbing model to predict characteristics. If Phase 1 yields positive Coal..
three-phasetestprogramtospeed for a particular
ccsmiercialization station based on coal
Phase 1 is an economic study which uses a computer
the cost of compliance
results,
Phase 2 will
follow
with
a pilot-scale
combustion evaluation of either a Carefree Coal. or a Self-Scrubbing Coal.. depending on coal properties and station requirements. The selected coal will be cleaned major boiler and a boiler performed. Phase 3 of the test pilot plant program involves sufficient production for a field of Self-Scrubbing combustion test. (CQDC). its marketing Coal. in a to CCI's specifications evaluation at CQ. using The coal will a boiler then be shipped to a test burn, be model will manufacturer's performance combustion laboratory for a pilot-scale performance
in quantities
The coal will
be produced at CQ's Coal Quality In order to achieve primarily utility its longer
Development Center term sales goal,
CC1 is organizing
to accomplish
high-level
sales and marketing
to the 25 to 50 electric The elements
companies considered
to be its
prime customer candidates.
of the plan are to: Perform a study of the marketplace effectively information Establish with use Self-Scrubbing on each potential contact to identify Coal. customer. customer, and follow up each contact and utility to plants that could
establish
background
with each potential sales calls.
appropriate
38
Describe CCI's products into the test process provide the customer Coal. Self-Scrubbing compatibility
.
to each customer and contract with them to enter described above. Completion of the test will with data to conduct an economic study supporting option and to support boiler. the Coal. with the customer's
as a low cost compliance
of Self-Scrubbing a long-term
Devise and negotiate
supply arrangement.
39
6.0
PROJECTCOST AND EVENT SCHEDULING 6.1 Project estimated Baseline cost Costs for this project is $81.726.346. project The Participant's are as follows:
The total
share and the Government's
share in the costs of this Dollar Share ($1
Percent Share %
Pre-Award Government Participant Phase IA Government Participant Phase IB Government Participant Phase II Government Participant Phase III Government Participant Total Project 38,038,656 43,687,690 46.5 53.5 7,850,017 13,454.831 36.8 63.2 20.058.437 20,058.437 50 50 8.783,827 8,783.828 50 50 390,594 346,375 i:
1.000,000
l.ODO.000 z:
Government Participant
Budget Period 1 will include Pre-Award and Phase IA; Budget Period 2 will include Phase III. Phase IB and Phase II; and Budget period 3 will beginning of each budget period, DOE will obligate funds sufficient share of expenses for that budget period.
include
At the to pay its
40
The project
will
be co-funded
by DOE and CCI. as follows:
BF!l
DOE $1.346.375
cc1
TOTAL 6.2 The overall Mlestone project
$1.390.594
$2.736.969 Schedule will
E2 $28,842,264 $28.842.265
$57.684.529
Bp3 $ 7.850.017 $13.454.831
$21.304.848
Total $38,038,656 $43.687.690
$81.726.346
be completed
in 38 months. 5.
The project
schedule,
by
phase and activity,
is shown in Figure
Phase IA, project definition, will last 6 months. Phase IB. which involves design and engineering, will continue for 6 months. Phase II, construction. will last a total will of 16 months and overlap last 16 months. Phase IB by 6 months. Phase III. operations, 6.3
Reoavment Plan policy to recover an amount up to the Government's has agreed to repay the Government which is consistent with the model
In response to DOE's stated contribution in accordance to the project, with
the Participant
the Repayment Agreement,
repayment agreement in the CCT-IV PON.
41