UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution - February 2013 Meeting Updates

The 4th meeting in February 2013 of the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution focused on updating costs for LCP SO2, NOx, and PM abatement techniques. The agenda included results from questionnaires, investment data overview, plant characteristics, FGD LSFO investments, and more. Detailed information was provided about plant capacities, fuel usage, sulfur content, FGD investments, and thermal power. The meeting aimed to gather and analyze data for effective pollution control strategies going forward.

• UNECE Convention
• Air Pollution
• Transboundary Pollution
• Meeting Updates
• Pollution Control

naer406 Follow

Uploaded on Oct 03, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution EGTEI Methodology Work to update costs for LCP SO2, NOxand PM abatement techniques 4th meeting 5 February 2013

2. 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

3. Plant characteristics 3

4. Results from the questionnaires : plant characteristics 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 4

5. FGD LSFO investments 5

6. Results from the questionnaires for FGD FGD Plant 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 87.5 (But 95 % with input/output) Efficiency 94 96 86.4 Pollution control device Auxiliairy equipment Instrument Project definition Building and civil works Performance testing X X X X X X Not Not Not provided provided provided FGD complexity Complicated Complicated Average Complicated Space, seismic zone, winds High S, (7 sprays) 6

7. Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments FGD k /MWth y = 1841.8x-0.397 200 180 Plant B 160 140 k /MWth 120 Plant C Plant D 100 Plant A 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Thermal power MWth 7

8. Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments FGD P Inv cap 1 cap 1 ______ ______ = Inv cap2 cap 2 P in the range 0.6 to 0.7 8

9. Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments FGD k /MWth y = 7302x-0.578 200 180 Plant B 160 140 k /MWth 120 Plant D 100 Plant A 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Thermal power MWth 9

10. FGD LSFO investments collected FGD IEA data 250 CUE cost model EGTEI DATA -95 % eff. 200 EGTEI DATA -90 % eff. Investment k /MWth National lime association - high sulphur coal National lime association - low sulphur coal Plant A 150 100 Plant B 50 Plant C Plant D 0 EPA Base case 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Thermal Power MWth 10

11. FGD investments collected: cost function determination FGD 350 300 250 Investment k /MWth 200 150 y = 1350.4x-0.336 100 50 0 0 1000 2000 Thermal Power MWth 3000 4000 5000 11

12. FGD investments collected : cost function determination FGD 350 300 250 Investment k /MWth 200 150 y = 1350.4x-0.336 100 50 y = 7302x-0.578 0 0 1000 2000 Thermal Power MWth 3000 4000 5000 12

13. FGD investment function to be retained? 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? 13

14. FGD LSFO variable costs 14

15. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Wet FGD with limestone forced oxidation: SO2 + CaCO3 + H2O CaSO3. H2O + CO2 CaSO3. H2O + 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 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% t CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput 1.41 1.48 1.59 0.90 0.95 1.02 15

16. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Limestone is not pure: With 95 % purity the consumption is as follows: Efficiency of SO2 removal 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% t limestone/t SO2 Ratio Ca/Sinput 0.90 0.95 1.02 abated 1.48 1.56 1.67 Aim of the questionnaire: Check with real data consumption the levels of consumption 16

17. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Plant A Plant B Brown coal 2 96 285 Plant C Plant D Hard coal Hard coal Hard coal S content Efficiency Outlet concentration mg SO2/Nm3 Data provided t reagent/t SO2 removed Limestone purity 1.2 94 145 0.9 95 176 0.6 86.4 169 0.98 96 1.8 96 Not 1.54 96 Not provided 1.6 94 Ca/S 1.3 0.88 provided Recalculation made by the secretariat t limestone/t SO2 removed (purity taken into account Ca/S input scrubber recalculated from the factor t reagent/t SO2 removed and taking into account the purity of limestone Ca/Sinput (scrubber) 0.94 1.73 1.48 1.50 0.60 1.11 0.95 0.96 17

18. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected Efficiency of SO2 removal 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% t CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput 1.41 1.48 1.59 0.90 0.95 1.02 Data collected 0.94 1.73 1.48 1.5 PlantA : 94% Plant B : 96% Plant C : 95% Plant D : 86.4% 0.60 1.11 0.95 0.96 18

19. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Current EGTEI methodology Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected t CaCO3/t SO2 abated Plant B 1.8 Plant D 1.6 1.4 Plant C 1.2 1 Plant A 0.8 0.6 0.4 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 19

20. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Limestone Prices Purity% Prices 2012/t Plant A (Portugal) Plant B Plant C Plant D (France) 96 11 to 16 96 96 35.8 32 94 40 20

21. Variable operating costs : reagent consumption Current EGTEI methodology Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected Not 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? 21

22. Variable operating costs : water consumption FGD Efficiency annual consumption m3/t** reagent S % m3/hour Plant A 94 1.2 200 1500000 21 Plant B 96 2 51 355245 7 Plant C 95 0.9 25 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? 22 Water prices not collected

23. Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination According to chemical reaction theory, 1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O) or 1.291 t of CaSO3. H2O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained). 23

24. Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Limestone consumption 72000 49620 8400 14170 t/year 1150 t sludges + 21500 t gypsum 1.5 for gypsum Quantity of by- products produced t by- 128000 72000 92452 product/yea r Price of by- products sold Prices of by- products for waste disposal Proportion sold/total amount of by-products Ratio by- product/reagent /t by- product - 0.15 2 - /t by- product 2 0.3319 3.75 89 99.2 92.3 0 100 % 24 1.78 (1.85) 1.45 (1.5) 11.01? 1.6 (1.7)

25. Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination According to chemical reaction theory, 1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O) or 1.291 t of CaSO3. H2O (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? 25

26. Variable operating costs : electricity consumption Plant A 1256 2564 Plant B 220 632 Plant C 220 620 Plant D 600 1500 Capacity Thermal Power Operating power of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling) Operating power of other auxiliaries (absorption tower: spray headers, mist eliminator; by-products handling, slurry pumps, oxidation air compression ) Average load of these equipments MWe MWth MW 6.7 3.3 3.2 6.00 not MW 6.5 4.7 6.75 available % 0.8 98.0 2055.3 Not complete 0.05 Electricity consumption MWh/year 98850* 55650* 57375 0.05 0.0955 0.001 Cost of electricity Installed capacity of fans and auxiliaries / plant capacity /kWh 1% 3.6% 2.1 26

27. Variable operating costs : electricity consumption 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 %. The following data from IEA are proposed to be used as average values whatever the efficiencies are: Capacity of fans and auxiliaries to be used Sulphur content of coal 1 % 1.1 %/Power plant capacity 2.25 % 1.5 %/Power plant capacity Do we have to include parameters to take into account the efficiency of FGD? 27

28. Variable operating costs : wages Plant A Plant B Not provided Plant C Not provided Plant D Portugal France Labour intensity of FGD operation not man-day/yr 8.2 9.9 2.0 provided Labour cost 13.5 12.07 12.07 275 /man day 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? 28

29. Fixed operating costs Consider that some maintenance costs were covered by warranty period (4 years after PAC). The costs include labour and materials. Maintenance in 2011: 1 761 072 Cannot be specified Not provided Plant A 0.37% Plant B Plant C Plant D 1.2% 0.00% 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 29

30. FGD LSFO in case of use of liquid fuel Very few data available Proposal : 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%?) 30

31. Reagent injection and fabric filters Work in progress with some French plants Investment data would be useful if available elsewhere Investment k /MWth for lime injection in duct and FF 120 97.8 100 82.2 72.2 72.2 80 70.9 63.9 53.4 60 51.5 55.8 37.0 37.0 40 31.2 31.2 47.0 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 31 Thermal power MWth

32. ESP and fabric filters 32

33. Results from the questionnaires for ESP Ash content of coal Oulet concentra -tions Efficien- cy % Number of fields Invest- ments Plant A (Portugal) Plant B 33 99.00 4 25 6556 3951 (ESP alone) Plant C 17 98 2 150 Plant D (France) 12.5 99.8 4 20 23117 33

34. Investments Investments k /MWth 24 EGTEI 45 mg/Nm3 22 investments K /Nm36556395123117 EGTEI 20 mg/Nm3 20 ESP 30 mg/Nm3 18 ESP 20 mg/Nm3 16 ESP 10 mg/Nm3 14 ESP 5 mg/Nm3 12 FF 5 mg/Nm3 (125 C) 10 FF 5 mg/Nm3 (180 C) 8 PLANT B PLANT D 6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 MWth 34

35. Variable operating costs: electricity consumption Plant A 1256 2564 Plant B 220 632 Plant C 220 620 Plant D 600 1500 Capacity Thermal Power Capacity of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling) MWe MWth MW 4.5 3.2 6.0 not Capacity for electrodes MW 2.0 1.8 available Average load of these equipments Electricity consumption MWh/year Cost of electricity % 6400 0.001 0.0955 0.1541 /kWh 35

36. Variable operating costs: electricity consumption 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 36

37. Variable operating costs: by-products ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency Plant B Plant C Plant D Quantity of by- products produced Price of by-products sold By-products for waste disposal Proportion sold/total amount of by-products t by- 379 238 5953 9300000 product/year /t by- product /t by- product 0.035 to1.82 - 6 3.75 3.75 0 92.3 0 100 % 37

38. ESP and fabric filters data needed Obtain more recent investments with efficiency data, inlet and oulet concentration, and characteristics of the combustion plant 38

39. Proposal of agenda for the next months 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 plants Finalise costs for co combustion plants Gas turbine? 39