Preliminary Cost and Performance Models for Mercury

Preliminary Cost and Performance Preliminary Cost and Performance Models for Mercury ControlModels for Mercury ControlModels for Mercury Control Models for Mercury Control at Coalat Coal--Fired Power PlantsFired Power Plants

Michael B. Berkenpas and Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public PolicyCenter for Energy and Environmental Studies

Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

Gerst A. Gibbon and Dennis N. SmithNational Energy Technology Laboratory

United States Department of EnergyPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

August 21, 2001

The Integrated EnvironmentalThe Integrated EnvironmentalControl Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)Control Model (IECM)

Objecti esObjecti esObjectivesObjectives

A reliable and easy-to-use model for alternative coal-fired power plant designs to estimate thecoal-fired power plant designs to estimate the

PerformanceEnvironmental emissionsEnvironmental emissionsCost

A i t t d f k f iAn integrated framework for comparing alternative options on a systematic basis, including the effects of uncertaintyincluding the effects of uncertainty

IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach

Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization

IECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process TechnologiesIECM Process Technologies

CoalCleaning

CombustionControls

Flue Gas Cleanup & Waste Managementg g

SO2ParticulateMercuryNO SO2Removal

ParticulateRemoval

MercuryRemoval

NOxRemovalNOx

Rem.

CombinedSOx/NOxRemoval

AdvancedParticulateRemoval

Process Performance ModelsProcess Performance ModelsProcess Performance ModelsProcess Performance Models

Employ detailed mass and energy balancesEmpirical relationships and models used forEmpirical relationships and models used for complex process chemistryCalculate component and system mass flowsCalculate component and system mass flows, energy flows, and efficiencyCalculate multi-media environmental emissionsCalculate multi media environmental emissionsApproximately 10-20 performance parameters for each process technologyp gy

IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach

Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization

Process Cost ModelsProcess Cost ModelsProcess Cost ModelsProcess Cost Models

Direct cost models for each major process area (typically 5-10 areas per technology)E li i li k f d lExplicit links to process performance modelsCalculate total capital costCalculate fixed and variable operating costsCalculate annualized cost of electricityApproximately 20-30 cost parameters for each process technology

IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach

Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization

IECM Soft are CapabilitiesIECM Soft are CapabilitiesIECM Software CapabilitiesIECM Software Capabilities

PowerPowerPlantPlantM d lM d l

Fuel PropertiesFuel PropertiesHeating ValueHeating ValueCompositionComposition

Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessP fP fModelModel

G hi lG hi l

CompositionCompositionDelivered CostDelivered Cost

Plant DesignPlant Design

PerformancePerformance

GraphicalGraphicalUserUser

InterfaceInterface

Furnace TypeFurnace TypeEmission ControlsEmission ControlsSolid Waste MgmtSolid Waste MgmtChemical InputsChemical Inputs

EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEmissionsEmissions

SessionSession& Fuel& Fuel

Chemical InputsChemical Inputs

Cost DataCost DataO&M CostsO&M Costs

Plant & ProcessPlant & ProcessC tC t& Fuel& Fuel

DatabasesDatabasesO& CostsO& CostsCapital CostsCapital CostsFinancial FactorsFinancial Factors

CostsCosts

IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach

Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS t A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization

Integrated Technology CostIntegrated Technology Cost

IECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling ApproachIECM Modeling Approach

Process Technology ModelsE i i E i M d lEngineering Economic ModelsAdvanced Software CapabilitiesS A l i F kSystems Analysis FrameworkUncertainty Characterization

Probabilistic Soft are CapabilitProbabilistic Soft are CapabilitProbabilistic Software CapabilityProbabilistic Software Capability

Quantify the effects of uncertainty in performance, emissions and costSpecify input parameter values as distribution functions, as well as conventional single valuesDisplay cumulative distribution functions, yielding confidence intervals for uncertain results

Probabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights GainedProbabilistic Insights Gained

What is the cost (or cost savings) of a particular control strategy?Which control strategy is most suitable for a given plant?Which parameters contribute most to the overall uncertainty? What are the potential payoffs of targeted research to reduce key uncertainties?

Example of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic ResultExample of a Probabilistic Resultab

ility

0.8

1.0

Deterministic

ve P

rob

ProbabilisticResult0 4

0.6

0.8 DeterministicResult

80% ProbabilityInterval

mul

ativ Result

0.2

0.480%

ConfidenceInterval

Cum

Total Capital Requirement ($/kW)1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

0.0

Total Capital Requirement ($/kW)

Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM

ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon InjectionWi h Fl G H idifi iWith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example

M ltiM lti Poll tant InteractionsPoll tant InteractionsMultiMulti--Pollutant InteractionsPollutant Interactions

CriteriaPM Hazardous HgAir

PollutantsSO2

NOx

AirPollutants

HgHClH2SO4

Technologies Effecting Technologies Effecting Merc r EmissionsMerc r EmissionsMercury EmissionsMercury Emissions

Elemental MercuryOxidized Mercury

Effect on Mercury EmissionsPower Plant Configuration

Some decreaseSome decreaseElectrostatic Precipitator

Decrease (highly coal specific)Conv. Coal Cleaning

Some decreaseSome decreaseFabric Filter

Some decreaseSome decreaseElectrostatic Precipitator

Limited decreaseSome decreaseSpray Dryer/Fabric Filter

No EffectDecreaseWet SO2 Scrubber

Decrease (based on pilot-scale studies)Carbon Adsorption System

Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM

ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example

Baseline Remo al EfficiencBaseline Remo al EfficiencBaseline Removal EfficiencyBaseline Removal Efficiency

FurnaceEmission

Emissionout

ESPEmissionin

ηfurnace

Emissionout ηESP

Emissionin

( )( )in

outin

EmissionEmissionEmission

EfficiencyRemovalMercury−

×=100(η)

Mercury in CoalMercury in Coal--Fired Power PlantsFired Power Plants(1999 ICR D )(1999 ICR D )(1999 ICR Data)(1999 ICR Data)

P t M di RParameter Median Range (min – max)

Mercury content in coalBituminous 0.12 ppm 0.01 – 0.45Subbituminous

Lignite0.10 ppm0.22 ppm

0.02 – 0.360.02 – 0.42

Oxidized Mercury at EconomizerBituminous 70% 7 - 100Subbituminous & Lignite 25% 3 - 88

Baseline removal in particulate collectorsBoiler (total)Cold-side ESP (total)

7%31%

0 - 100 - 87( )

Spray Dryer & Fabric Filter (total) 39% 0 - 100

Mercury removed in wet FGDElementalOxidized

0%100%Oxidized 100%

Elemental Mercury Oxidized in an SCR 35%

IECM Merc r Remo alIECM Merc r Remo alIECM Mercury RemovalIECM Mercury Removal

Technology Baseline Mercury Removal (%)

Bituminous Subbit Lignite

ESP 31.0 31.0 31.0

SCR + ESP 31 0 31 0 31 0SCR + ESP 31.0 31.0 31.0

ESP + FGD 79.3 48.3 48.3

SCR + ESP + FGD 96.2 54.3 54.3

SD + FF 39.0 39.0 39.0

SCR + SD + FF 39.0 39.0 39.0

Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM

ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example

Performance ParametersPerformance ParametersAffecting Merc r ControlAffecting Merc r ControlAffecting Mercury ControlAffecting Mercury Control

Baseline Mercury RemovalFuel Parameters

Sulfur ContentSulfur ContentMoisture ContentAsh Properties

Other ParametersSO3 Emission FactorFlue Gas Exit TemperatureFlue Gas Exit Temperature Approach to Acid Saturation TemperatureOxidation of SO2 to SO3 (SCR)2 3 ( )

Water & Carbon Injection ModuleWater & Carbon Injection Module

Activated Carbon InjectionActivated Carbon Injection(Pilot Studies, Bituminous Coal, ESP)(Pilot Studies, Bituminous Coal, ESP)

80

100

%)

225 F

60

80

emov

al (%

275 F

250 F

20

40

ercu

ry R

e

0

20

0 2 4 6 8 10

Me

Activated Carbon Added (lb/Macfm)

Water & Carbon InjectionWater & Carbon InjectionCapital CostCapital CostCapital CostCapital Cost

Plant Facilities Cost (Process Areas)

Spray Cooling Water

Indirect CostsGeneral Facilities CapitalEng’r & Home Office FeesSpray Cooling Water

Sorbent InjectionSorbent RecycleAdditional Ductwork

Eng r & Home Office FeesProject ContingencyProcess ContingencyRoyalty Feesdditional uctwo k

Sorbent DisposalCEMS UpgradePulse-Jet Fabric Filter

Pre-Production CostsMisc. Capital CostInventory Capital

Total Capital Required (TCR)

Merc r Control in the IECMMerc r Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECMMercury Control in the IECM

ApproachB li M R lBaseline Mercury RemovalActivated Carbon Injectionwith Flue Gas Humidificationwith Flue Gas HumidificationIllustrative Example

Case St d Performance Inp tsCase St d Performance Inp tsCase Study Performance InputsCase Study Performance Inputs

Coal Parameters Value Other Parameters Value

Heating value (Btu/lb) 14,220 Gross Plant Size (MW) 500g ( ) , ( )

Sulfur content (%) 0.6 Steam Cycle HR (Btu/kWh) 7880

Ash content (%) 3.8 APH Exit Temperature (F) 300

Moisture content (%) 2 2 Percent of SO as SO (%) 0 8Moisture content (%) 2.2 Percent of SOx as SO3 (%) 0.8

Mercury Removal (%) 90

Effect of Water Injection on Effect of Water Injection on Acti ated Carbon Injection Req iredActi ated Carbon Injection Req iredActivated Carbon Injection RequiredActivated Carbon Injection Required

70

80

cfm

)

50

60

on (l

b/M

ac

30

40

bon

Inje

cti

10

20

Car

b

0

ACI Only + Water Inj.

Carbon Injection Required (Deterministic)Carbon Injection Required (Deterministic)j q ( )j q ( )(18F Approach to Sat., 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(18F Approach to Sat., 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)

70

80

acfm

)

40

50

60

ctio

n (lb

/Ma

ESP Only

ESP + FGD

20

30

0

Car

bon

Inje

c

SCR + ESP + FGD

SCR+ SCR

0

10

Eastern Eastern Wyoming North Dakota

C + SCR+ SCR

Bituminous (Low Sulfur)

Bituminous (High Sulfur)

PRB Lignite

Total Revenue Required (Deterministic)Total Revenue Required (Deterministic)q ( )q ( )(Low(Low--S Appalachian Bit. Coal, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)S Appalachian Bit. Coal, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)

12

h)

96% Mercury

ESP Only ESP + FGD

8

10

st ($

/MW

h

SCRFGD

MercuryRemoval

2

4

6

eliz

ed C

os FGDCarbon Inj.ESP

0

2

Leve

CarbonI j

CarbonWaterI j+ SCR+ Water+ SCR+ Inj. Inj.Inj. SCR Inj. SCR

Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)j q ( y)j q ( y)(ESP Only, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(ESP Only, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)

y ded

area

s

0.8

1.0

Prob

abili

ty

betw

een

shad

0.6

Cum

ulat

ive

nce

inte

rval

b

0.4 Mean: 1.9312.5 percentile: 0.544

Median (50th percentile): 1.943C

95%

con

fiden

0.0

0.2( p )

97.5 percentile: 3.379

9

Carbon Injected (ton/hr)0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)Carbon Injection Required (Uncertainty)j q ( y)j q ( y)(ESP+FGD+SCR, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)(ESP+FGD+SCR, 90% Hg Removal., 500 MWg, 75% CF)

y ded

area

s

0.8

1.0

Prob

abili

ty

betw

een

shad

0.6

Cum

ulat

ive

nce

inte

rval

b

0.4

Base case uncertaintyH h i l h iC

95%

con

fiden

0.0

0.2 Hypthetical research uncertainty

9

Carbon Injected (ton/hr)0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500

Concl sionsConcl sionsConclusionsConclusions

IECM integrates Mercury removal to the existing suite of modelsIECM captures multi-pollutant interactionsCost of adding mercury control is dependent on plant configuration, flue gas temperature and fuelUncertainty can be reduced by better quantifying baseline removal and carbon injection rates

Preliminar IECM User Gro pPreliminar IECM User Gro pPreliminary IECM User GroupPreliminary IECM User Group

ABB Power Plant ControlAmerican Electric Power Consol, Inc.

National Power Plc.Niksa Energy AssociatesPacific Corp.,

Energy & Env. Research Corp.Exportech Company, Inc.FirstEnergy Corp.

pPennsylvania Electric AssociationPotomac Electric Power Co.Savvy Engineeringgy p

FLS Miljo A/SFoster Wheeler Development Corp.Lehigh University

y g gSierra Pacific Power Co.Southern Company Services, Inc.Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.g y

Lower Colorado River AuthorityMcDermott Technology, Inc.Mitsui Babcock Energy LTD.

g g pTampa Electric Co.University of California, BerkeleyUS Environmental Protection Agencygy g y

IECM Software and Documentation IECM Software and Documentation A ailabilit :A ailabilit : N !N !Availability: Availability: Now!Now!

Web Access:ftp://ftp.netl.doe.gov/pub/IECM/iecmpage.htm

Technical Support:ppPED.modeling@netl.doe.gov