egtei – expert group on techno-economic issuestftei.citepa.org/images/files/2013-02-05/2-e… ·...
TRANSCRIPT
EGTEI MethodologyWork to update costs for LCP
SO2, NOx and PM abatement techniques
4th meeting 5 February 2013
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Agenda Results from the questionnaires (consumption figures, etc.),
Overview / Comparison Investment Data Questionnaire – EGTEI Functions & Co,
Still missing information / Data to be verified,
Presentation of the Excel tool (how it works, aim, etc.),
Work to be done in the next few months from the technical secretariat (biomass, excel-tool developments, ...),
Next meeting.
2
Plant characteristics
3
Results from the questionnaires : plant characteristics
4
Four questionnaires received with information completed in most of the cases
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Portugal Not provided Not provided France
Capacity MWe 1256 220 220 600
Capacity MWth 2467 632 620 1500
Number of units 4 x 314 MWe 1 1 1
Operating hours 7500 7000 1326 5500
Fuel used Hard coal Brown coal Hard coal Hard coal
Sulphur content of fuel % 1.2 2 0.9 0.6
FGD LSFO investments
5
Results from the questionnaires for FGD
6
FGDPlant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Investment FGD (LSFO) k€/MWth
77.922(2008/2009)
104.704 (1998)
80.042 (2001)
66.666 (1998)
Investment k€ 2010/MWth 77.922 175.056 111.811 111.407
Efficiency 94 96
87.5(But 95 %
with input/output)
86.4
Pollution control deviceAuxiliairy equipmentInstrument
XXX Not
providedNot
providedNot
providedProject definitionBuilding and civil worksPerformance testing
XXX
FGD complexity Complicated Complicated Average Complicated
Space, seismic zone,
winds
High S, (7 sprays)
Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments
7
FGD
Plant A
Plant B
Plant C Plant D
y = 1841.8x-0.397
020406080
100120140160180200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
k€/M
Wth
Thermal power MWth
k€/MWth
Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments
8
FGD
Inv cap 1 cap 1______ ______
Inv cap2 cap 2
=
P
P in the range 0.6 to 0.7
9
FGD
Plant A
Plant B
Plant D
y = 7302x-0.578
020406080
100120140160180200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
k€/M
Wth
Thermal power MWth
k€/MWth
Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments
FGD LSFO investments collected
10
FGD
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Inve
stm
ent k
€/M
Wth
Thermal Power MWth
IEA data
CUE cost model
EGTEI DATA - 95 % eff.
EGTEI DATA - 90 % eff.
National lime association -high sulphur coalNational lime association -low sulphur coalPlant A
Plant B
Plant C
Plant D
EPA Base case
FGD investments collected: cost function determination
11
FGD
y = 1350.4x-0.336
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Inve
stm
ent k
€/M
Wth
Thermal Power MWth
FGD investments collected : cost function determination
12
FGD
y = 1350.4x-0.336
y = 7302x-0.578
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Inve
stm
ent k
€/M
Wth
Thermal Power MWth
FGD investment function to be retained?
13
Not enough data do define cost function able to distinguish the efficiency of the FGD
What function to select? Is it too early to select?
Do we try to collect other investments?
Can we have a better representation if we try to define two or more ranges of capacity?
The retrofit factor was 30 % in the current EGTEI methodology. The current data collected do not enable the definition of the retrofit factor. Do we continue with 30 % by default?
FGD LSFO variable costs
14
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
15
Wet FGD with limestone forced oxidation:
SO2 + CaCO3 + ½ H2O CaSO3. ½H2O + CO2
CaSO3.½ H2O + ½ O2 + 1.5 H2O CaSO4.2H2O
1 mole CaCO3 abates 1 mole SO2. In terms of mass, the ratio Ca/S = 1, accounts to CaCO3 consumption of 1.5625 t CaCO3/t SO2
Current EGTEI methodology:Efficiency of SO2
removal ηt CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput
85.0% 1.41 0.9090.0% 1.48 0.9595.0% 1.59 1.02
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
16
Limestone is not pure:
With 95 % purity the consumption is as follows:
Efficiency of SO2
removal ηt limestone/t SO2
abatedRatio Ca/Sinput
85.0% 1.48 0.9090.0% 1.56 0.9595.0% 1.67 1.02
Aim of the questionnaire: Check with real data consumption the levels of consumption
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
17
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Hard coal Brown coal Hard coal Hard coal
S content 1.2 2 0.9 0.6Efficiency 94 96 95 86.4Outlet concentration mg SO2/Nm3 145 285 176 169Data providedt reagent/t SO2 removed 0.98 1.8 1.54 1.6Limestone purity 96 96 96 94
Ca/S 1.3 Not provided
Not provided 0.88
Recalculation made by the secretariatt limestone/t SO2 removed (purity taken into account 0.94 1.73 1.48 1.50
Ca/S input scrubber recalculated from the factor t reagent/t SO2 removed and taking into account the purity of limestoneCa/Sinput (scrubber) 0.60 1.11 0.95 0.96
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
18
Efficiency of SO2
removal ηt CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput
85.0% 1.41 0.9090.0% 1.48 0.9595.0% 1.59 1.02
Data collectedPlant A : 94% 0.94 0.60Plant B : 96% 1.73 1.11Plant C : 95% 1.48 0.95
Plant D : 86.4% 1.5 0.96
Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected
84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98%0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t CaCO3/t SO2 abated
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
19
Current EGTEI methodology
Plant DPlant B
Plant C
Plant A
Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
20
Limestone Prices
Purity% Prices € 2012/tPlant A
(Portugal) 96 11 to 16
Plant B 96 35.8Plant C 96 32Plant D (France) 94 40
Variable operating costs : reagent consumption
21
Current EGTEI methodologyCurrent EGTEI methodology compared to data collectedNot enough data to establish other assumptions than those of the current EGTEI methodology
Conclusion:
Keep the current EGTEI parameters but consider the purity of limestone which is on average 95 %
Do you agree ?
Still to be obtained : percentage of S retained in ash?
Variable operating costs : water consumption
22
FGD Efficiency S % m3/hour annual
consumptionm3/t**reagent
Plant A 94 1.2 200 1500000 21
Plant B 96 2 51 355245 7
Plant C 95 0.9 25 à 60 66300* 8*
Plant D 86.4 0.62 61 334700 24
*Calculated by the secretariat based on 50 m3/h** Calculated by the secretariat to try to derive parameter easily usable in cost functions
What to conclude? Opposite figures? Can the perimeter used by the 4 plants, be different?
Water prices not collected
Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination
23
According to chemical reaction theory,
1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O)
or 1.291 t of CaSO3.½H2O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained).
Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination
24
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Limestone consumption t/year 72000 49620 8400 14170
Quantity of by-products produced
t by-product/yea
r128000 72000 92452
1150 t sludges + 21500 t gypsum
Price of by-products sold
€/t by-product - 0.15 à 2 - 1.5 for
gypsumPrices of by-products for waste disposal
€/t by-product 2 0.3319 3.75 89
Proportion sold/total amount of by-products
% 99.2 92.3 0 100
Ratio by-product/reagent 1.78 (1.85) 1.45 (1.5) 11.01? 1.6 (1.7)
Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination
25
According to chemical reaction theory,
1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O)
or 1.291 t of CaSO3.½H2O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained).
It is proposed to keep the by-product production linked to the chemical theory.
What proportion of gypsum and liquid wastes? Example of plant D (about 5%)
Do you agree?
Variable operating costs : electricity consumption
26
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant DCapacity MWe 1256 220 220 600Thermal Power MWth 2564 632 620 1500Operating power of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling)
MW 6.7 3.3 3.2 6.00
Operating power of other auxiliaries (absorption tower: spray headers, mist eliminator; by-products handling, slurry pumps, oxidation air compression…)
MW 6.5 4.7 not available 6.75
Average load of these equipments % 0.8 98.0
Electricity consumption MWh/year 98850* 55650*2055.3
Not complete
57375
Cost of electricity €/kWh 0.05 0.0955 0.05 0.001Installed capacity of fans and auxiliaries / plant capacity
1% 3.6% 2.1
Variable operating costs : electricity consumption
27
Data provided assume full use of the capacity of fans and auxiliaries during the operating hours. In plant D real consumption has been provided corresponding to a load of 80 %.
Sulphur content of coal Capacity of fans and auxiliaries to be used
1 % 1.1 %/Power plant capacity
2.25 % 1.5 %/Power plant capacity
The following data from IEA are proposed to be used as average values whatever the efficiencies are:
Do we have to include parameters to take into account the efficiency of FGD?
Variable operating costs : wages
28
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Portugal Not provided
Not provided France
Labour intensity of FGD operation man-day/yr 8.2 9.9 2.0 not
provided
Labour cost €/man day 13.5 12.07 12.07 275
Plants B and C have the same capacity but very different labour intensity.There is no direct relation with the size of the plant. The labour costs provided by Plants A to C are probably expressed per hour as they appear very low compared to plant D. For validation : do we finally include wages in fixed operating costs?If not, what labour intensity do we consider? Is it constant whatever the size of the plant?
Fixed operating costs
29
Plant A 0.37%
Consider that some maintenance costs were covered by warranty period (4 years after PAC). The costs include labour and materials.
Plant B 1.2% Maintenance in 2011: 1 761 072 €Plant C Cannot be specifiedPlant D 0.00% Not provided
To be validated: do we continue with 4 % including labour cost?
4% seems to be too much, even when wages are included in the fixed cost
FGD LSFO in case of use of liquid fuel
30
Very few data availableProposal : estimate investments using investments for coal plant and relative flue gas ratio (as in the current EGTEI methology)(coal : 358 m3/GJ at 6 % and 289 m3/GJ at 3%?)
Reagent injection and fabric filters
31
53.4
47.0
63.951.5
72.272.2
31.231.237.037.055.8
97.8
70.982.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Thermal power MWth
Investment k€/MWth for lime injection in duct and FF
Work in progress with some French plantsInvestment data would be useful if available elsewhere
ESP and fabric filters
32
33
Ash content of coal
Efficien-cy %
Number of fields
Oulet concentra
-tions
Invest-ments
Plant A (Portugal)
Plant B 33 99.00 4 25 6556
Plant C 17 98 2 150 3951 (ESP alone)
Plant D (France) 12.5 99.8 4 20 23117
Results from the questionnaires for ESP
Investments
34
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
inve
stm
ents
K€/
Nm
3655
639
5123
117
MWth
Investments k€/MWth
EGTEI 45 mg/Nm3
EGTEI 20 mg/Nm3
ESP 30 mg/Nm3
ESP 20 mg/Nm3
ESP 10 mg/Nm3
ESP 5 mg/Nm3
FF 5 mg/Nm3 (125°C)
FF 5 mg/Nm3 (180°C)
PLANT B
PLANT D
Variable operating costs: electricity consumption
35
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant DCapacity MWe 1256 220 220 600Thermal Power MWth 2564 632 620 1500Capacity of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling)
MW 4.5 3.2 6.0
Capacity for electrodes MW 2.0 not available 1.8
Average load of these equipments %
Electricity consumption MWh/year 6400Cost of electricity €/kWh 0.0955 0.1541 0.001
Variable operating costs: electricity consumption
36
ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency
What is the electricity consumption per MWth for different efficiency or ELVs to be obtained (10, 20, 30 or 50 mg/Nm3)? For coal and heavy fuel oil?
1.2 MW/MWth max for 20 mg/Nm3 ELV for coal
ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency
Variable operating costs: by-products
37
ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency
Plant B Plant C Plant D
Quantity of by-products produced
t by-product/year 379 238 5953 9300000
Price of by-products sold
€/t by-product 0.035 to1.82 - 6
By-products for waste disposal
€/t by-product 3.75 3.75 0
Proportion sold/total amount of by-products % 92.3 0 100
ESP and fabric filters data needed
38
Obtain more recent investments with efficiency data, inlet and oulet concentration, and characteristics of the combustion plant
Proposal of agenda for the next months
39
For mid/end June : finalise FGD LSFO, FF, ESP, SCR, SNCR and LNB for coal plants and liquid fuel plants
For October : finalise FGD by dry injection and FF, for coal plants and fuel plantsFinalise costs for co combustion plants Gas turbine?