Successfully reported this slideshow.

Economic Analysis Of Advanced Ultra Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power

4,547 views

Published on

Presented at EPRI\'s 6th Annual Conference on Advances in Materials for Fossil Power Plants

  • Be the first to comment

Economic Analysis Of Advanced Ultra Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power

  1. 1. Economic Analysis of Advanced Ultra- supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plants Dr. Jeffrey N. Phillips Senior Program Manager John Wheeldon Technical Executive 6th Int’l Conference on Advances in Materials for Fossil Power Plants August 31, 2010
  2. 2. Acknowledgements • This analysis was paid for by EPRI’s CoalFleet for Tomorrow® program. • EPRI would like to thank its CoalFleet members for their support of this project • CoalFleet member include more than 50 organizations including power generators, coal companies, technology suppliers and government energy R&D units located on 6 continents © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
  3. 3. Outline • Background for EPRI’s UltraGen concept • Design Premises for Case Study • Case Study Results • Implications for Future Research © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3
  4. 4. What Is the UltraGen Initiative? • A program to advance pulverized coal technology to achieve near-zero emissions and cost-effective CO2 capture and storage – Conceived by EPRI’s CoalFleet for Tomorrow program in 2007 • This objective cannot be achieved with a single project; thus, a series of demonstration projects were proposed that advance the technology progressively – UltraGen I, II, and III, with a component test facility, ComTes- 1400 – Staged approach manages technical and financial risk © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4
  5. 5. UltraGen I Stack 800 MW Electricity 75% Gas Flow 850 MW USC Ultra-Clean 1110°F+ (600°C+) Emission Ferritic alloys Controls 39% HHV 1 million tons of CO2 0.03 lb/MBtu (before capture) Demonstration Demonstration per year to SOX , NOX Post-Comb. PRB Coal pipeline for 25% CO CO22 Capture (or low-S, low-Cl 90% Hg storage or EOR Gas Flow Unit (90% alternate) Capture capture) Use today’s best technology for the boiler, steam turbine and emission controls while demonstrating CO2 Capture & Storage at large scale © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5
  6. 6. UltraGen II (NZE) 600-MW Stack Electricity 0–50% 650–700 MW Gas Flow Advanced USC Ultra-Clean 1290°F (700°C) Nickel- base alloys Emission Controls 42– 44% HHV 0.03 lb/MBtu Up to 3.8 million tons (before capture) Commercial SO X, NOX CO2 per year to Post-Comb. PRB Coal >90% Hg 50–100% CO2 Capture pipeline for (or low-S, low-Cl Capture Gas Flow Unit (90% storage or EOR alternate) capture) Boiler & Steam Turbine similar to European AD 700 design with CO2 emissions comparable to a Natural Gas Combined Cycle © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6
  7. 7. UltraGen III (NZE) 600 MW Stack Electricity Could use oxy- 630–670 MW combustion Advanced USC boiler or post- 1400°F (760°C) Ultra-Clean combustion Nickel-base alloys Emission capture Controls 45–48% HHV 0.01 lb/MBtu ~3.5 million tons (before capture) Commercial SOX , NOX of CO2 per year to PRB Coal CO2 Capture pipeline for 100% >90% Hg Unit (90% (or low-S, low-Cl Gas Flow storage or EOR capture) alternate) Capture Boiler & Steam Turbine Design Takes Full Advantage of On-going US DOE/OCDO Advanced Materials Program © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 7
  8. 8. Purpose of the Study • Wanted to understand the economics of the UltraGen II concept – Would it make sense to build a coal plant in the US with a 700ºC steam cycle? – Would the increased cost of the high temperature materials be offset by the reduction in fuel use? © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 8
  9. 9. Design Basis for Study • Analyzed the cost and performance of four new coal power plants – Each with progressively higher steam conditions • All cases based on 750 MW PC • WorleyParsons designed BOP and environmental controls, Doosan Babcock designed the boiler, and Siemens provided steam turbine design data • State-of-the-art emission controls for SOx, NOx, PM and Hg • No CO2 capture equipment © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 9
  10. 10. Design Coal – Powder River Basin Ultimate Analysis, %wt • Carbon 48.18 • Hydrogen 3.31 • Nitrogen 0.70 • Chlorine 0.01 • Sulfur 0.37 • Oxygen 11.87 • Ash 5.32 • Moisture 30.24 Delivered cost = $1.71/GJ © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 10
  11. 11. Air Emission Control Systems and Targets SOx Controls • Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) – 30 mg/Nm3 (0.03 lb/MMBtu) NOx Controls • Low NOx burners with Over-Fired Air (OFA) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit – 30 mg/Nm3 (0.03 lb/MMBtu) Particulate Matter (PM) Controls • Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) and Wet FGD – PM2.5 13 mg/Nm3 (0.013 lb/MMBtu) – PM10 10 mg/Nm3 (0.01 lb/MMBtu) Mercury Controls • CaBr2 injection into furnace to promote oxidation across the SCR followed by co-capture in the wet FGD – 90% mercury removal © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 11
  12. 12. Design Steam Conditions for Case Study Sub-critical Supercritical Current USC Advanced- USC Superheat 541 ºC 582 ºC 604 ºC 680 ºC Temperature Superheat 179 bar 262 bar 276 bar 352 bar Pressure Reheat 541 ºC 582 ºC 604 ºC 700 ºC Temperature Reheat 35.9 bar 57.9 bar 65.5 bar 73.5 bar pressure © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 12
  13. 13. Materials Used in Advanced-USC Boiler Material Pressure bar Steam temp, °C Inconel 740 363.0 to 364.0 657 to 682 Final superheater Inconel 617 364.0 to 364.7 627 to 657 Secondary superheater Inconel 617 366.1 to 371.3 546 to 657 TP 347H Primary superheater T91 371.3 to 376.8 502 to 557 T12 – T23 Inconel 617 666 to 702 Final reheater 76.9 to 77.9 TP 310H 607 to 666 TP 347H 77.6 to 77.9 543 to 610 Primary reheater TP 310H 76.9 to 78.3 482 to 543 T92 78.3 to 78.6 416 to 482 Furnace walls T23 368.5 to 376.8 316 to 482 Economizer SA 210C 376.8 to 392.0 260 to 343 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 13
  14. 14. High-Energy Piping Wall Thicknesses Main Steam ID = 9.8 inches or 24.0 cm Reheat ID = 18.4 inches or 46.7 cm 617 CCA617 230 740 263 45/22 45/22 57/22 52/25 50/20 Ni/Cr ratios 102 127 102 255 171 Creep rupture stress, psi stress, 105 psi Lowest-cost design uses 740 for both superheat and hot reheat lines © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 14
  15. 15. Performance Results from Case Study Sub-critical Supercritical Current Advanced- USC USC Thermal efficiency, %(HHV) 36.2 38.5 39.2 less 15% 42.7 coal than Net heat rate, Btu/kWh (HHV) 9,430 8,860 8,700 sub-critical 7,990 Coal feed rate, kg/hr 384,000 361,000 355,000 326,000 Flue gas mass flow, kg/hr 3,420,000 3,151,000 3,098,000 2,827,000 Volume at boiler outlet, actual 66,700 61,400 60,400 55,100 m3/min 15% less NOX and SO2, kg/MWh 0.127 0.121 CO2 0.118 than 0.109 sub-critical PM2.5, kg/MWh 0.0535 0.0508 0.0499 0.0458 CO2, kg/MWh 900 851 836 763 Advanced USC will have smaller coal handling, cooling water & emission control systems © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 15
  16. 16. Economics – US Coal Price  Quantity Sub- Super- 1100 700 760 critical critical USC A-USC A-USC Lower fuel Coal Cost, $/GJ 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 costs do Main Steam Temperature, °C 541 582 604 680 (3) not offset 732 (4) Main Steam Pressure, bar 179 262 276 352 higher 352 capital cost Efficiency, % HHV 35.5 38.5 39.2 42.7 44.7 LCOE, $/MWh (1) 54.3 53.3 53.7 55.3 55.3 (2) CO2, kg/MWh from plant 900 851 836 763 729 CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Subcritical Baseline -12.5 -6.0 5.7 4.6 CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Supercritical - Baseline 20.0 21.1 14.8 Relative CO2 emissions vs Subcritical 100 94.5 92.9 84.8 81.0 (See background slides for footnote details) EPRI Report 1015699 NETL Baseline Studies showed current CCS technology has CO2 avoided costs of ~$50-70/ton – A-USC technology may achieve CO2 reductions at 1/3rd that cost © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 16
  17. 17. Economics at 2 x US Coal Price  Quantity Sub- Super- 1100 700 760 critical critical USC A-USC A-USC Coal Cost, $/GJ 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 Main Steam Temperature, °C 541 582 604 680 (3) 732 (4) Main Steam Pressure, bar 179 262 276 352 352 Efficiency, % HHV 35.5 38.5 39.2 42.7 44.7 LCOE, $/MWh (1) 71.0 69.2 69.4 69.7 69.7 CO2, kg/MWh from plant 900 851 836 763 729 CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Subcritical Baseline -36.7 -25.0 -9.5 -7.6 CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Supercritical - Baseline 13.3 5.7 4.1 Relative CO2 emissions vs Subcritical 100 94.5 92.9 84.8 81.0 EPRI Report 1015699 Advanced USC designs are more competitive in locations with higher priced coal © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 17
  18. 18. Impact of Carbon Capture on Cost of Electricity Higher PC Efficiency = Less Impact 150% Pittsburgh #8 PRB COE Relative to Non-CCS Case 140% DOE Target of 35% Increase 130% Increase in Levelized Cost of Electricity due to CCS is Significantly Decreased with Increased Efficiency 120% EPRI Report 1011402 110% 30 35 40 45 50 Efficiency of PC plant without CO2 capture, % (HHV) No costs included for transportation and storage – that would magnify the impact of improved efficiency © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 18
  19. 19. Other Points to Consider • Capital costs were based on prices in 2007 • Raw materials for 740 alloy assumed to cost $39/kg which was average price in 2007 – But price fluctuated between $27 and $50/kg during 2007!!! – Nickel price is now around $22/kg • Cost to fabricate heavy wall pipe from 740 was assumed to be $22/kg (excludes cost of materials) – twice that of ferritic steel pipe – Estimate, not based on vendor quotes • Labor to install nickel alloy pipe estimated to be 3 times that of ferritic steel pipe © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 19
  20. 20. Summary • Economic analysis showed that for US coal prices and 2007 construction costs the fuel savings of a 700ºC USC would not offset the increased cost of using nickel alloy material – Piping fabrication & installation costs need better quantification • However, the increase in levelized cost of electricity was modest (4% higher than a 582ºC SCPC) while the CO2 emission reductions were significant (10% less than SCPC) • The reduction in CO2 emissions from building an advanced USC compared to a 582ºC SCPC comes at a cost of circa $20/ton of avoided CO2 – far less than the cost of capturing and storing CO2. © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 20
  21. 21. Background slides © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 21
  22. 22. Background for Slide 5 (COE table) • Source: Engineering and Economic Evaluation of 1300F Series Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plants: Phase 1. EPRI Report 1015699, Palo Alto, CA: September 2008. • Footnotes: 1. Mid-2007 dollars, 30-year book life, carrying charge = 0.121, capacity factor = 85%, no CO2 emissions cost 2. LCOE assumed to be same as for 1290°F design 3. EPRI study reduced main steam temperature because of turbine material limitations. 60 Hz operation imposes more stress than European 50 Hz operation. DOE program expects to identify how this limitation can be lifted to raise efficiency by 0.7% points. 4. Conditions chosen to match current US DOE/OCDO Consortium designs with 1350°F main steam and 1400°F reheat © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 22
  23. 23. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 23

×