Advanced Pulverised Coal Power Plants EPRI 2007 208p

CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants

Version 1

1012237

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA

800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com

CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants

Version 1

1012237

Technical Update, March 2007

EPRI Project Managers J. Wheeldon

D. Dillon

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT CoalFleet Advanced PC Guideline Working Group (see Citations) Electric Power Research Institute

NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THAT IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF EPRI, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AVAILABLE ONLY UNDER LICENSE FROM EPRI AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED, WHOLLY OR IN PART, BY ANY LICENSEE TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ORGANIZATION.

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or e-mail [email protected].

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii

CITATIONS This document was prepared by

Alstom Power Glen Jukkola

Babcock & Wilcox Co. Kevin McCauley

Bechtel Power Corporation Paul Kochis Ram Narula Bob Nicolo Harvey Wen

Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc. Rich Myhre Eric Worrell

Consultants Janos Beer Carl Bozzuto

CPS Energy John Kosub

EPRI Ralph Altman Tony Armor Kent Coleman Chuck Dene Des Dillon Tony Facchiano George Offen Vis Viswanathan John Wheeldon

E.ON US Doug Schetzel

Exelon Daniel Wusinich

Great River Energy Charles Bullinger

Lincoln Electrical System Tom Davlin

MHI David McDeed

Midwest Generation (EME) Kent Wanninger

TXU Corp. Ronald Hagen

U.S. Departmet of Energy Robert Romanosky

WorleyParsons Group, Inc. Gary Grubbs Bruce M. Kautsky Don Leininger Paul K. Shewchuk Richard E. Weinstein

This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants: Version 1, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2007. 1012237.

v

ABSTRACT The CoalFleet Guideline for Advanced Pulverized Coal Power Plants provides an overview of state-of-the art and emerging technologies for pulverized coal-fired generating units along with lessons learned for current plants worldwide. The Guideline aims to facilitate the timely deployment of reliable, next-generation generating units that incorporate: Higher steam conditions for higher efficiency and reduced generation of pollutants Advanced environmental controls for reduced emissions and environmental impacts Techniques for CO2 capture, or for future retrofit of CO2 capture, that minimize impacts on

efficiency and capacity

This Guideline represents the first step in an ongoing collaborative effort by the CoalFleet Advanced PC Working Group, which includes more than 30 participants from CoalFleet member companies, EPRI staff, and expert consultants. The Guideline reflects information from EPRI, DOE, power producers, equipment suppliers, plant designers, and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) companies. Version 1 features a summary of worldwide history with supercritical steam conditions for pulverized coal power plants. Data are provided on current and planned units with supercritical and more advanced ultra-supercritical steam conditions. A review of current design trends addresses unit size, major component types and maximum sizes, furnace design, cycling of supercritical steam generators, fuel properties, use of materials with improved high-temperature strength and corrosion resistance to enable higher efficiency, use of coal drying to improve efficiency, environmental control technologies for SO2 and SO3, and multi-pollutant control technologies.

Future versions of the Guideline will update and expand upon these topics to include control of NOX, mercury, and fine particulate emissions, and technologies for carbon dioxide capture and compression. Subsequent versions will also add lessons learned from power industry experience with new advanced pulverized coal power plants and technology development pilot projects. The state-of-the-art and emerging technologies covered in the Guideline provide a viable path to coal-based power generation that meets economic, environmental, and security criteria. The focus is on advancements in supercritical generating units, although the advanced environmental control technologies are applicable to conventional pulverized coal units as well.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

vii

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1

Overview of Guideline Development Approach and Content...............................................1-1 Guideline Topic Areas..........................................................................................................1-3

2 ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL REFERENCE PLANT GUIDELINES APPROACH........2-1 Assumed Generation Planning Decisions............................................................................2-2 Future Generations of Reference Plants..............................................................................2-3

3 STATE OF THE ART FOR ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL POWER PLANTS...............3-1 Supercritical Steam Technology Deployment History ..........................................................3-1 Drivers for SC and USC Technology Evolution....................................................................3-3

Economic Factors ..........................................................................................................3-3 Environmental Factors ...................................................................................................3-4

Lessons Learned from 50 Years of Supercritical Technology..............................................3-4 World Market Trends for Advanced Pulverized Coal Units: Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical Plants......................................................................................................3-6

World Market for Supercritical Steam Generators..........................................................3-6 Planned Units in China...................................................................................................3-8 Planned Units in Europe ................................................................................................3-9 Planned Units in the United States ..............................................................................3-11

Major Equipment Supplier Experience with Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical Steam Power Plants ......................................................................................................................3-13

4 CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND ISSUES.........................................................................4-1 Unit Size and Scale..............................................................................................................4-1

General Capital Cost Considerations.............................................................................4-1 Construction and Schedule Considerations ...................................................................4-6 Cost of Redundancy and Reliability versus Replacement Power ..................................4-6 Technical Risk................................................................................................................4-6

Steam Generator Design Issues and Trends.......................................................................4-6 Furnace Design..............................................................................................................4-6 Designing Supercritical Steam Generators for Low Minimum Load Capability and Continuous Duty Minimum Load Cycling .....................................................................4-13 Design Provisions for Higher Peak Power Rating........................................................4-14

5 ISSUES RELATED TO FUEL QUALITY................................................................................5-1 Coal Rank ............................................................................................................................5-1 Coal Analysis .......................................................................................................................5-2

Grindability .....................................................................................................................5-3 Ignition and Flame Stability ............................................................................................5-3 Unburned Carbon...........................................................................................................5-4


viii

Emissions.......................................................................................................................5-4 Ash Properties and Deposition Behavior .......................................................................5-5

Coal Blending.......................................................................................................................5-6 Blend Impact on Coal Grinding ......................................................................................5-6 Blend Impact on Combustion and Deposition ................................................................5-7 Blend Impact on Emissions............................................................................................5-7

6 IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH ADVANCED STEAM CONDITIONS ...................6-1 Designing for High Steam Pressure: >3750 psi (>260 bar) .................................................6-1 Designing for High Steam Temperatures: 10501150F (565620C)................................6-2

Steam Generator Components ......................................................................................6-4 Superheater and Reheater Design ................................................................................6-7 Headers and Piping......................................................................................................6-13

7 IMPROVING PLANT EFFICIENCY WITH COAL DRYING....................................................7-1 Conventional Coal Drying in Pulverized Coal Units .............................................................7-1 Advanced U.S. Coal Drying Technologies ...........................................................................7-3

Great River Energy Lignite Dryer ...................................................................................7-3 AMAX Coal Dryer...........................................................................................................7-7 Rosebud Coal Dryer.......................................................................................................7-9

Advanced International Coal Drying Technologies ............................................................7-11 Mechanical Thermal Expression Drying System..........................................................7-11 RWE WTA Fluidized-Bed Dryer ...................................................................................7-13

8 AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL ..................................................................................................8-1 Environmental Regulations ..................................................................................................8-1 Annual Emissions.................................................................................................................8-3

9 WET FGD SYSTEMS FOR SO2 CONTROL...........................................................................9-1 Equipment and Process for Limestone-Based Open Spray System....................................9-1

Gypsum Processing .......................................................................................................9-3 Limestone Preparation System ......................................................................................9-6

Alternative Designs ..............................................................................................................9-7 Lime-Based FGD Systems.............................................................................................9-7

Other Wet FGD Technologies..............................................................................................9-9 Jet Bubbling Reactor......................................................................................................9-9 Dual Contact Absorber.................................................................................................9-10 Alstom ..........................................................................................................................9-11 Babcock & Wilcox (B&W).............................................................................................9-11 Babcock Power Environmental Inc. (BPEI) ..................................................................9-12

Ammonia FGD System ......................................................................................................9-12 Current Design Issues........................................................................................................9-14

10 DRY SO2 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.............................................................................10-1


ix

Lime Spray Drying Absorption ...........................................................................................10-1 Lime Preparation System.............................................................................................10-3 Recycle Slurry System .................................................................................................10-3 Lime Spray Drying Absorption Process........................................................................10-4 Current Issues for Lime Spray Drying ..........................................................................10-5 Materials of Construction .............................................................................................10-7 SDA Vessel Size ..........................................................................................................10-7 Single versus Multiple Atomizers .................................................................................10-7 By-product Disposal .....................................................................................................10-7

Other Dry SO2 Control Technologies .................................................................................10-8 Dry Sorbent Injection Process......................................................................................10-8 Circulating Dry Scrubber (CDS) Process .....................................................................10-9 Flash Dryer Absorber (FDA) Process ........................................................................10-11

11 SO3 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES .....................................................................................11-1 SO3 and Acid Mist Formation in Coal-Fired Boilers............................................................11-2 Sorbent Injection Control Technologies .............................................................................11-3

Injection Methods .........................................................................................................11-4 Sorbent Properties .......................................................................................................11-5

Wet Electrostatic Precipitators (WESP) .............................................................................11-9 Horizontal Flow WESP...............................................................................................11-10 Tubular WESP ...........................................................................................................11-11 Materials of Construction ...........................................................................................11-14

Emerging Technologies for SO3 Control ..........................................................................11-14 Membrane WESP ......................................................................................................11-14 Plasma-Enhanced WESP ..........................................................................................11-14 Lime Spray Drying for SO3 Removal ..........................................................................11-15

Power Plant Applications of Sorbents for SO3 Control .....................................................11-15 Power Plant Applications of WESP for SO3 Control.........................................................11-17

12 MULTI-POLLUTANT CONTROL SYSTEMS .....................................................................12-1 Powerspan ECO Process,..................................................................................................12-1

Three-Step Processing of Flue Gas.............................................................................12-1 Collection of Liquid Streams ........................................................................................12-2 By-product Recovery....................................................................................................12-3 Performance Data and Other Considerations ..............................................................12-3

Other Multi-Pollutant Processes.........................................................................................12-3 ReACT Process ...........................................................................................................12-3 Airborn Process............................................................................................................12-4 Mobotec ROFA/ROTAMIX Process .............................................................................12-4

A TERMINOLOGY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMNS.................................................. A-1


xi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 EPRI Reference Plant Evolution in the Family of Advanced PC Guidelines ............2-4 Figure 3-1 State of the Art in Worldwide Pulverized Coal Installations......................................3-1 Figure 3-2 Steam Conditions and Key Material Selections for State-of-the-Art Pulverized Coal Plants.................................................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-3 Supercritical and USC Units Commissioned 19952004 with Main Steam at 1050F (565C) or Higher.......................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-4 Worldwide Pulverized Coal Units with Main Steam above 1050F (565C) Installed from 1995 to 2005......................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-5 Ultra-Supercritical Steam Generator Units Planned in Europe for Commissioning in 20062012 ...........................................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-6 Ultra-Supercritical Power Plant Units Announced in the United States for Construction Start in 20062014 .............................................................................................3-12 Figure 4-1 Trend in Cost versus Unit Gross Output Rating .......................................................4-1 Figure 4-2 Furnace Circuit Recirculation with Separate Recirculation Pump ..........................4-11 Figure 4-3 Furnace Circuit Recirculation without Separate Recirculation Pump .....................4-12 Figure 6-1 Comparison of Allowable Stresses of Ferritic Steels for Boiler..............................6-16 Figure 6-2 Comparison of Allowable Stress for Various Metals...............................................6-17 Figure 6-3 Vallourec & Mannesmann Hot Neck P91 Fitting ....................................................6-18 Figure 6-4 P91 Superheater Outlet Headers for Dayton Power and Light, Stuart Station.......6-20 Figure 6-5 Relative Rupture Strength of High Temperature Steels .........................................6-21 Figure 6-6 Comparison of Piping Wall Thickness for Candidate Ferritic Steels.......................6-21 Figure 6-7 Typical P91 to P22 Weld Vulnerable to Cracking at Junction between B9 Filler and P22...........................................................................................................................6-22 Figure 6-8 Joint Geometries of Concern Highlighted Transition Indicates Weakest Part of Weld .............................................................................................................................6-23 Figure 6-9 Correct Weld Profile for P91 to P22 Welds ............................................................6-23 Figure 7-1 Coal Drying and Grinding with Pressurized Preheated Air .......................................7-2 Figure 7-2 Coal Drying and Grinding with Furnace Gases and Air (Exhauster Mill) ..................7-2 Figure 7-3 Simplified Schematic of Great River Energy Dryer...................................................7-4 Figure 7-4 Reduction of Moisture at Great River Energys Coal Creek Station .........................7-5 Figure 7-5 AMAX Coal Dryer Schematic ...................................................................................7-8 Figure 7-6 Rosebud Coal Dryer Schematic .............................................................................7-10 Figure 7-7 Schematic of Mechanical Thermal Expression Coal Drying Process.....................7-12 Figure 7-8 WTA Dryer Schematic with Sample Flow Calculations ..........................................7-14 Figure 9-1 Wet FGD Spray Tower Configuration.......................................................................9-2 Figure 9-2 Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemAbsorber and Reagent Mixing ..........................................................................................................................9-4 Figure 9-3 Schematic of Typical Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization SystemGypsum Processing System.......................................................................................................................................9-5 Figure 9-4 Typical General Arrangement for Wet Limestone Grinding Systems .......................9-7 Figure 9-5 Schematic of Jet Bubbling Reactor Internals..........................................................9-10 Figure 10-1 Typical Dry FGD Process Flow Diagram..............................................................10-2 Figure 10-2 Dual Fluid Nozzle Atomizer (Left) and Rotary Atomizer (Right) ...........................10-3 Figure 10-3 Typical Dry Injection System ................................................................................10-9 Figure 10-4 Schematic of Circulating Dry Scrubber System (Lurgi Lentjes North America)..10-10 Figure 10-5 Alstom FDA Process ..........................................................................................10-11 Figure 11-1 Visible Results of SO3 Control Using Sorbent Injection ........................................11-2


xii

Figure 11-2 Preferred Injections Points for Various Sorbents..................................................11-5 Figure 11-3 Side Cut-Away View of Horizontal Flow Wet Electrostatic Precipitator ..............11-11 Figure 11-4 Example of Tubular WESP Installation above FGD ...........................................11-13 Figure 11-5 Magnesium-Enhanced Lime SO3 Control Process with Bleed Stream Oxidation and Mg(OH)2 Recovery ..........................................................................................................11-16 Figure 11-6 Power Plants Using the Thiosorbic Magnesium-Enhanced Lime FGD Process ..................................................................................................................................11-17 Figure 11-7 AES Deepwater After WESP Installation............................................................11-18 Figure 11-8 Xcel Sherco Station ............................................................................................11-20 Figure 11-9 Coleson Cove Shown Prior to the Installation of Wet FGD and Wet ESP Systems .................................................................................................................................11-22 Figure 11-10 Wet ESP Arrangement for Coleson Cove Station ............................................11-23


xiii

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Solutions to Reliability Issues Encountered in Early U.S. SC and USC Plants .........3-5 Table 3-2 Summary of Planned U.S. Supercritical Capacity Additions....................................3-13 Table 3-3 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Alstom...............................................3-14 Table 3-4 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Alstom...................................................3-18 Table 3-5 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Ansaldo Energia ...................................3-19 Table 3-6 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)..................3-20 Table 3-7 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Burmeister & Wain Energy (BWE) ....3-26 Table 3-8 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Foster-Wheeler .................................3-27 Table 3-9 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems.....................3-28 Table 3-10 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Hitachi Power Systems.......................3-30 Table 3-11 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) .........................................................................................................................3-31 Table 3-12 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Doosan Babcock (formerly Mitsui Babcock)........................................................................................................................3-33 Table 3-13 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ..3-34 Table 3-14 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ......3-36 Table-3-15 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Siemens-Westinghouse......................3-37 Table 3-16 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Toshiba ...............................................3-38 Table 6-1 Temperature Limits for Materials Proven in High-Temperature Applications ..........6-11 Table 6-2 Evolution of Four Generations of Ferritic Steels ......................................................6-15 Table 6-3 Composition of Advanced Steels, including Tungsten-Containing P92, P122, and E911..................................................................................................................................6-19 Table 6-4 Summary of the Availability and Use of Grade 91 and Other Advanced Ferritic Steels ...........................................................................................................................6-25 Table 6-5 EPRI Documents Related to Forming and Welding P91 in Fossil Plants ................6-31 Table 6-6 Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Supercritical Steam Conditions ................................................................................................................................6-32 Table 6-7 Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Supercritical Steam Conditions ................................................................................................................................6-32 Table 6-8 Specification Example for Main Steam Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam Conditions ................................................................................................................................6-33 Table 6-9 Specification Example for Hot Reheat Piping for Ultra-Supercritical Steam Conditions ................................................................................................................................6-33 Table 7-1 Maximum Grinding Mill Exit Temperatures for Different Coal Types.........................7-3 Table 7-2 Improved Unit Performance at the Coal Creek Station (With Just One of Seven Pulverizers Receiving Dried Coal) ..................................................................................7-6 Table 8-1 Emission Limits from the Latest Revision to 40CFR60, Subpart D............................8-2 Table 8-2 Worksheet for Expected Annual Air Emissions for a PC Plant ..................................8-4


1-1

1 INTRODUCTION The CoalFleet for Tomorrow program aims to accelerate the deployment of clean, efficient, advanced coal power systems by addressing technical and economic challenges to reduce risk.

This guideline is intended to help CoalFleet members expedite the technology selection, permitting, and design processes for advanced coal plants. Rather than serving as a comprehensive specification, the Guideline aims to identify key areas, technology changes, and lessons learned that should be addressed by engineers developing such specifications, with emphasis placed on technologies and issues unique to advanced PC plants.

Overview of Guideline Development Approach and Content

Compilation of Lessons Learned The intent of the Guideline is to assemble proven approaches and lessons learned while identifying areas of inadequate knowledge requiring further RD&D. Source materials used in preparation of the Guideline includes:

Experience of the expert team developing the Guideline Input from EPRI CoalFleet program members Information from published EPRI, DOE, and industry studies Future versions of the Guideline are expected to include non-proprietary information from site-specific design studies conducted by Early Deployment Project owners and their Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) companies and technology suppliers. Although this initial version of the Guideline concentrates on 60 Hz plants using North American coals, the Guideline draws on experience of power generators in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe.

Content Specific to Advanced PC Plants The Guideline focuses on issues related to advanced pulverized coal plant technology, which EPRI considers to include the following categories:


1-2

technologies for once-through steam generators (boilers), steam turbines, and associated balance-of-plant equipment used in pulverized coal, Rankine-cycle generating units utilizing supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam conditions1

high-temperature materials for SC and USC boilers and steam turbines state-of-the art emission control systems design of pulverized coal plants to accommodate future retrofit of CO2 capture process

equipment, including CO2 steam cleanup, drying, and compression for on-site geologic injection or transfer to pipeline

For the purpose of this Guideline, an advanced PC plant is defined by its use of one or more of the above categories of technology. The Guideline generally skips the much wider range of issues and technologies related to building any pulverized coal unit, except where those topics are useful for understanding advanced or state-of-the-art PC technology or may not be familiar to CoalFleet members.

Content Responsive to Varying User Needs and Backgrounds The Guideline recognizes that various CoalFleet members will approach the design of advanced PC plants with a broad range of prior experience and a diverse set of needs and constraints. Therefore, the Guideline content and organization aims to satisfy the needs of a variety of users, including:

Engineers, managers, generation planners, and financial personnel responsible for initiating and/or monitoring the development of advanced coal power plants.

Owners engineers experienced in the development of subcritical PC plants who are now charged with guiding specification and selection of key advanced plant parameters

EPC/CM contractors and OEMs who oversee the development of advanced supercritical plants.

Engineers experienced with development of supercritical fossil plants who need the latest information on best practices and current and developing technologies for ultra-supercritical and advanced low-emissions plants.

Communicating and Advancing the State of the Art The Guideline provides CoalFleet members with:

An overview of the best current information relevant to technology selection and plant design decisions, such as: Materials for higher steam conditions State-of-the-art environmental controls

1 For the purposes of this Guideline, ultra-supercritical (USC) steam conditions are defined as having final

main steam temperatures greater than 1100F (593C) and pressures greater than 3625 psia (250 bar). Although supercritical (SC) steam conditions are defined by pressure and temperature above the critical point of water (3200.1 psia (220.6 bara) and 705.1F (373.9C)), supercritical steam cycles typically have main steam pressures of about 3500 psia (240 bar) and main steam and reheat temperatures of about 1050F (565C). This allows the expanding steam to remain superheated throughout most of the steam turbine.


1-3

Trade-offs between design features for factors such as maximum heat rate, lowest cost of electricity, operating flexibility, etc.

Explanation of design features which may be dependent on site conditions Pre-engineered allowances for mid-life changes effecting areas such as:

emissions limits duty cycles fuel selection water quality, availability, and discharge requirements requirements for CO2 capture

comparative reference of existing and planned technology implementations (i.e., fuel specification, size, performance, and technology selections for specific plants)

OEM specification and operating history (e.g., performance, reliability, and availability data) for different technologies and locations

Identification of knowledge gaps where better understanding of material behavior or system dynamics is needed

Identification of technology gaps where known challenges require better solutions Guideline Topic Areas Topics to be addressed in this and future versions of the Guideline include the following (italics indicate future material): Defining the state of the art for advanced PC power plants

Reference plant approach International experience World market trends Status and experience of major suppliers Current design trends Fuel quality issues

Improving plant efficiency through advanced steam conditions Higher temperatures Higher pressures Single versus double reheat

Reducing environmental impact Current and future regulations SOX reduction NOX reduction CO, VOCs reduction Mercury and other HAP reductions Water use and liquid wastes Solid wastes


1-4

Steady state versus startup and changing loads Improving plant efficiency via other methods Reliability availability and maintenance

Operations Controls and monitoring Construction considerations Project schedules Safety issues


2-1

2 ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL REFERENCE PLANT GUIDELINES APPROACH The reference plant approach provides an initial configuration using standardized components that can be individually modified to accommodate site-specific design requirements. The reference plant is not based on a specific boiler type or manufacturer (i.e., boiler type could be spiral wall or vertical wall, wall-fired or corner-fired). Other variations developed from the reference plant configuration may include changes to: Unit size

Various components experience different types of impacts as a result of reducing unit size to as low as 600 MW or increasing unit size to as much as 1000 MW (or higher).

Steam temperatures and pressures Although there are significant changes to furnace and convective pass dimensions, the materials used for high-temperature piping, headers, and tubing are the greatest area of concern when temperatures are increased. The primary materials for current state-of-the-art plants are 9-chrome and 12-chrome ferritic alloys. Austenitic and/or high-nickel alloys may be required for the second generation (1200F, or 650C) reference plant. High-nickel alloys are almost certain to be the primary high-temperature materials used in a third generation (1300F, or 700C) reference plant.

Fuels and fuel blends The reference plant may be used as a starting point for configurations firing single fuels, multiple fuels, or blended fuels. Significant design variations result from the significant variations of constituents (carbon, volatile matter, ash, moisture, nitrogen, sulfur, chloride, etc.) and properties (heating value, ash fusion temperature, etc.) between and within such fuel types as bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite, petroleum coke, cofired biomass, etc. Necessary modifications address: Sizing and arrangement of the steam generator (boiler dimensions, materials, surface area

distribution, etc.) Burner design and control (low-NOX burners, degree of staging, etc.) Waterwall corrosion and mitigation strategies, including limiting staging with greater

NOX removal in the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) reactor, coatings, reagent injection, limiting steam temperatures based on fuel constituents

Air quality control equipment selection and design for reliable operation to meet permitted air emissions. Areas addressed include: SCR or hybrid SCR/selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), electrostatic

precipitator (ESP) or fabric filter (FF; often called a baghouse), wet or dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD), sorbent injection or a wet ESP (WESP) for SO3 control, and multi-pollutant control

Mercury control as a function of fuel, the suite of air quality control (AQC) equipment, activated carbon injection (ACI) with a baghouse, and fuel additives


2-2

Impacts on fly ash sales if ACI is used; available carbon removal technologies Condenser backpressure Pure sliding pressure versus hybrid sliding pressure operation (with corresponding impacts

on equipment and effect on ramp rate and unit response) Baseload or cycling operation, which may be implemented with initial operation of the unit

or expected to occur at an undefined future time Normal or fast startup (with corresponding impacts on specifications for turbine bypass,

inclusion of an auxiliary boiler, fatigue-resistant design, chemical treatment, etc.) Type and size of turbine bypass system Plant cooling method (cooling pond, wet mechanical draft cooling tower, wet/dry mechanical

draft cooling tower, etc.) Access to plant by barge or rail; impact on the level of modularization that can be achieved Assumed Generation Planning Decisions

The reference plant approach used in the Guideline assumes that a power producer has already established the need for new generation and selected a location for the plant. In making these determinations, the power producer would have already considered the following items, which are not explicitly addressed in the Guideline:

Existing generation capability Load growth projections Size of new unit(s) Loading profiles for existing units, new unit(s), and future units in the generating system Proposed plant site(s)/location(s) Available space on-site or off-site for landfilling by-products that cannot be sold Proximity to rail or barge service Proximity to and availability of water Quality of water Ability to discharge treated wastewater (i.e., Zero Liquid Discharge not required) Proximity to gas for startup versus on-site oil storage Proximity to existing transmission lines Capability of existing transmission system Schedule established based upon when generation is needed and the time to permit, design,

procure, deliver, construct, startup, and commission the new unit(s) In addition, it is assumed that the power producer has already established key design criteria, including:

The new unit(s) will be pulverized coal-fired with supercritical (or USC) steam conditions. [Note: Although recommendations in the Guideline may apply more broadly, it is also generally assumed that the unit will employ single reheat (although double reheat should be


2-3

considered where the highest efficiencies are sought), sliding-pressure operation, and a heater above the reheat point (HARP) cycle with eight feedwater heaters (four low-pressure, a deaerator, and three high-pressure).]

Solid fuel specifications (coal and petroleum coke design range, design blend ratios, and design basis for guarantees)

Minimum quality requirements for by-products (identified in the Guideline as a range of properties). Typically, fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum will be sold to the greatest extent practical and therefore must meet minimum requirements. If a dry scrubber is used, fly ash may not be saleable. Other specifications will typically include: Fly ash: maximum carbon content Bottom ash: maximum carbon content Gypsum: maximum chlorides and maximum moisture content

SCR reagent type and specifications. Considerations for choosing anhydrous ammonia, aqueous ammonia, solid urea, or liquid urea include purchase and transportation cost, safety, availability, and O&M requirements.

FGD reagent type and specifications. Considerations for choosing lime or limestone include purchase and transportation cost, availability, and O&M requirements.

Air emissions targets Liquid discharge targets Level of accommodation to be made for CO2 capture. This may include:

Space allocation for future equipment, considering likely technology and reagent choice Economic evaluation and design accommodation for impacts to the low-pressure (LP)

turbine(s). This may assume steam is extracted from the intermediate pressure (IP)-to-LP crossover or that provisions are made for other (typically LP) steam extraction points

Consideration of auxiliary power requirements. This may include modifications in the design of the auxiliary power system to include spare capacity in the initial design or to facilitate its addition at a later date.

Other minimal pre-investment options that could potentially avoid substantial future rework

Review of available technologies and an assessment of technology trends so that future facility needs can be estimated

Future Generations of Reference Plants Ultimately, EPRI envisions a reference plant approach that uses progressively more advanced design criteria. The three generations shown in Figure 2-1 incorporate sequentially advancing cycle conditions, improved environmental controls, and increasing considerations for CO2 capture and compression. Version 1 of the Guideline is built around the state-of-the-art reference plant design elements that are now commercially available. The nominal 1200F (650C) and 1300F (700C) design criteria represent expected future steps for plant designs that leverage newer technologies as they become ready for commercial application.


2-4

LARGER TO 1000 MW NET



860 MW GROSS800 MW NET1050-1150F

870 MW GROSS810 MW NET1150-1200F

1000 MW GROSS800 MW NET1200-1300F

SMALLER TO 600 MW NET

SMALLER TO 600 MW NET

SMALLER TO600 MW NET

FERRITIC AUSTENITICS, HIGH NICKEL HIGH NICKEL

ANTHRACITE ANTHRACITE ANTHRACITEBITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUSSUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?) SUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?) SUBBITUMINOUS (BASE?)LIGNITE LIGNITE LIGNITEPET COKE BLEND PET COKE BLEND PET COKE BLEND

STATE OF THE ART AIR

EMISSIONS

IMPROVED AIR EMISSIONS CONTROLS

NEAR ZERO EMISSIONS

AIR QUALITY CONTROL

EQUIPMENT BASED ON FUEL

SELECTION

AIR QUALITY CONTROL


SELECTION

AIR QUALITY CONTROL


SELECTION

CONSIDERA-TION GIVEN TO

SPACE ALLOCATION AND STRATEGIC PRE-INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES FOR

FUTURE CO 2 CAPTURE

CONSIDERA-TION GIVEN TO

SPACE ALLOCATION AND STRATEGIC PRE-INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES FOR

FUTURE CO 2 CAPTURE

CO 2 CAPTURE DESIGNED IN

4000 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE 4500 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE

VERSION 1 FUTURE VERSIONS

(SAME STEAM FLOW)INCREASED STEAM

FLOW TO OFFSET CO2

CAPTURE LOAD

1150F FINAL STEAM TEMPERATURES 1200F FINAL TEMPERATURES 1300F FINAL TEMPERATURES3750 PSIG FINAL STEAM PRESSURE

Figure 2-1 EPRI Reference Plant Evolution in the Family of Advanced PC Guidelines


3-1

3 STATE OF THE ART FOR ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL POWER PLANTS

Supercritical Steam Technology Deployment History Supercritical technology was pioneered in the United States in the late 1950s. American Electric Power put the Philo supercritical unit in service in 1957 (retired 1979) and Philadelphia Electric Power followed in 1960 with Eddystone Unit 1, a double reheat, USC unit, which is still in operation, albeit with a slight derate from original specifications. To this day, Eddystone 1 remains the unit with the highest operating steam conditions in the world, with main steam at 5000 (345 bar) and 1135F (613C). The two reheats are at 1050F (565C). Many supercritical units were built in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of these units employed single reheat with main steam conditions of about 3500 psi and 1000F and with the reheat also at 1000F (240 bar/538/538C). For a time, supercritical technology fell out of favor for new plants as a result of technical problems, including materials degradation and the need for overly complex operating procedures. Many U.S. power producers selected subcritical drum-type boilers thereafter, believing that supercritical technology had limited operating capability, complex maintenance issues, lower availability, and lower-than-expected plant efficiency.

Figure 3-1 State of the Art in Worldwide Pulverized Coal Installations


3-2

The problems experienced at the early U.S. plants have largely been remedied and these units are now achieving good performance with availabilities and operating costs similar to those of subcritical plants. Nonetheless, leadership in supercritical plant development moved overseas, with power producers in Denmark building units with steam temperatures exceeding 1050F (565C) in the 1990s. This trend was followed by Japanese power producers, who built a large number of units that would be classified as ultra-supercritical by EPRIs definition (with temperatures reaching 1110F or 600C). Today, Germany, Italy, and China all have projects under way that will increase substantially the worlds installed base of generating units with ultra-supercritical steam conditions.

Figure 3-1 illustrates USC PC technology trends by plotting maximum steam temperature versus year of initial commercial operation. The plot of recently announced plants for the United States shows the lag of this market behind others. An upward turn in recent years shows a growing trend toward adopting higher steam conditions with U.S. coals.

Figure 3-2 shows the steam conditions and materials used for a selection of leading USC plants.


3-3

High Temperature Materials

Headers: -----SH tubes: -----RH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: -----

High TemperatureMaterials

Headers: P122SH tubes: Super 304HRH Tubes: T122ST Rotors: COST 501E


Headers: P122SH tubes: Super 304H-HR3CRH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: Toshiba 12Cr

High TemperatureMaterials:

Headers: P91SH tubes: TP347FGRH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: Toshiba 12Cr


Headers: P92SH tubes: Super 304HRH Tubes: Super 304HST Rotors: -----

REHEAT 1 TEMP, 1112F, 600C

MAIN STEAM TEMP, 1112F, 600C

900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar) CHINA 2009



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

ISOGO (Pressure 3857 psi, 266 bar)



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

TSURUGA (Pressure 3698 psi, 255 bar)



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

NANAO-OHTA (Pressure 3698 psi, 255 bar)



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

TORREVALDALIGA (Pressure 3625 psi, 250 bar) ITALY 2006

JAPAN 2002

JAPAN 2000

JAPAN 1998

High Temperature Materials

Headers: -----SH tubes: -----RH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: -----


Headers: P122SH tubes: Super 304HRH Tubes: T122ST Rotors: COST 501E


Headers: P122SH tubes: Super 304H-HR3CRH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: Toshiba 12Cr

High TemperatureMaterials:

Headers: P91SH tubes: TP347FGRH Tubes: -----ST Rotors: Toshiba 12Cr


Headers: P92SH tubes: Super 304HRH Tubes: Super 304HST Rotors: -----



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar)



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

LANSHAN (Pressure 4420 psi, 305 bar) CHINA 2009



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200




900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

TORREVALDALIGA (Pressure 3625 psi, 250 bar)



900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200

TORREVALDALIGA (Pressure 3625 psi, 250 bar) ITALY 2006

JAPAN 2002

JAPAN 2000

JAPAN 1998

Figure 3-2 Steam Conditions and Key Material Selections for State-of-the-Art Pulverized Coal Plants2

Drivers for SC and USC Technology Evolution

Economic Factors The economic benefits offered by todays supercritical technology (and, by extension, ultra-supercritical) include the following:

2 CoalFleet Database of Advanced Pulverized Coal Plants and Development Projects


3-4

Reduced coal consumption, and therefore lower fuel costs per unit of electricity generated Better part-load efficiency and operating flexibility Excellent availabilitycomparable to that of existing subcritical plants Reduced use of consumables such as ammonia for SCR and limestone based sorbents for SO2

capture Reduced CO2 production which may reduce potential future costs for:

retrofit for post-combustion CO2 capture should the plant need to be retrofitted purchase of CO2 offsets taxes based on CO2 emissions

Environmental Factors The environmental benefits offered by supercritical technology include reductions of the following per unit of electricity generated:

Emissions of NOX, SO2, particulates, and mercury CO2 production Impacts of coal mining, transportation, and handling coal Ash production and disposal Water consumption for condenser cooling Lessons Learned from 50 Years of Supercritical Technology In hindsight, the operation and maintenance problems experienced by older U.S. plants have been primarily attributed to three major design issues: 1. Constant pressure operation

Early supercritical units used constant-pressure operation and required the boiler to remain at constant pressure throughout startup and the entire load range. Constant-pressure operation requires a complicated system startup, with longer startup times and higher minimum load than for sliding pressure units. The startup valves must endure large pressure differences during bypass operation, resulting in faster erosion and frequent valve maintenance. More recent supercritical units use sliding-pressure operation to mitigate these types of issues.

2. Slagging problems attributable to inadequate furnace size Furnaces of the early units in the 1960s were relatively small in size compared with those of newer units. A trend toward increased furnace size was a direct result of slagging problems, experienced with U.S. coals, which led to low availability and reliability.

3. Inappropriate water treatment chemistry Once-through boilers and supercritical steam generators are more susceptible to internal scaling of tube walls than are natural-circulation boilers, which use liquid blowdown from the steam drum and mud drum to limit concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids. If internal scale prevents cooling of the tube wall, increased metal temperature can lead to failure of waterwall and superheater tubes. In extreme cases, thick scale can


3-5

increase pressure drop and reduce flow, further reducing cooling of the tube walls. Once-through units must use very pure feedwater and a carefully balanced addition of water treatment chemicals to prevent corrosion and subsequent re-deposition of dissolved solids (scaling) on the interior of tube walls.

Table 3-1 summarizes some of the design improvements developed and implemented to overcome the problems found in early units. Research and development worldwide has led to improved reliability, fuel flexibility, and wider load range operation. Building on these successes, supercritical technology is much more attractive to U.S. power producers than it was 20 years ago.

Table 3-1 Solutions to Reliability Issues Encountered in Early U.S. SC and USC Plants3

Problem Cause Countermeasures Erosion of startup valves

High differential pressure due to constant pressure operation and complicated startup systems

Sliding-pressure operation, simplified startup systems, and low-load recirculation systems

Long startup times Complicated startup systems and operations (ramping operation required; difficulty matching steam and metal temperatures, etc.)

Sliding-pressure operation; simplified startup systems; low load recirculation systems

Low ramp rates Rapid temperature change during constant pressure operation causes high thermal stresses in the HP turbine

Sliding-pressure operation

High minimum stable operating load

Bypass operation and pressure ramp-up operation required

Sliding-pressure operation; low-load recirculation systems

Slagging Undersized furnace and inadequate coverage by sootblower system

Design of adequate plane area heat release rate and furnace height without division walls. Provisions of adequate system of sootblowing and water blowers

Circumferential cracking of water wall tubes

Metal temperature rise due to inner scale deposit and fireside wastage

Oxygenated water treatment (OWT). Protective surface in combustion zone of furnace for high-sulfur coal (e.g., thermal spray or weld overlay).

Frequent acid cleaning required

Inappropriate water chemistry Application of OWT

Lower efficiency than expected

High air in leakage due to pressurized furnace. RH spray injection required due to complications of RH steam temperature control in a double reheat cycle configuration.

Tight seal construction. Single reheat system with high steam temperature control by parallel damper gas biasing.

Low availability All the above All the above

3 US Revisits Supercritical Systems: CBEC 4 Leads the way, Modern Power Systems, 8th April 2004.


3-6

World Market Trends for Advanced Pulverized Coal Units: Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical Plants

World Market for Supercritical Steam Generators In total, there are around 600 supercritical and ultra-supercritical generating units operating worldwide, with the vast majority classified as supercritical, not ultra-supercritical. The combined capacity of these units totals more than 300 GW.4

Not all SC and USC units are coal-fired. For example, of 170 such units in the United States, 115 are coal-fired. Thirty-five of the 100 units in Japan are coal-fired. The International Energy Agencys Coalpower 5 database, updated in 2006, lists nearly all of the 60 SC and USC units in western Europe as coal-fired, whereas many of the 240 units in the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries are oil-fired. In Asia, China has about 21 coal-fired units in operation; South Korea has 22.5

Figure 3-3 shows the total number and capacity of supercritical and ultra-supercritical power plants commissioned between 1995 and 2004. During this 10-year period, Japan and Korea dominated the new plant market, while China began to show signs of rapid growth. In the United States, the last supercritical unit built was in 1989 (Rockport). MidAmericans Council Bluffs Unit 4, planned for startup in 2007, will break an almost 20-year hiatus.

Figure 3-3 Supercritical and USC Units Commissioned 19952004 with Main Steam at 1050F (565C) or Higher6

4 M.R. Susta, IMTE, Supercritical and Ultra Supercritical Power Plants - SEA vision or Reality, Powergen Asia 2004. 5 IEA, Coalpower 5 Database, 2006.

6 Source: IMTE AG.


3-7

Figure 3-4 compares the main steam temperatures of pulverized coal units commissioned from 1995 to 2005. The final main steam pressures of these units ranges from a high of 4305 psi (297 bar) for Avedore Unit 2 to a low of 3494 psi (241 bar) for Matsuura Unit 2. The present day market for supercritical boilers is dominated by the rapidly expanding market in China, which accounts for about 90% percent of all supercritical orders placed worldwide.7 With some 46 supercritical steam generators ordered each year, the total annual addition equates to roughly 28 GW of electrical generation. Due to the significant demand for new generation in China, many international steam generator manufacturers have established agreements with Chinese boiler fabricators allowing manufacturing and technology transfer.

Notable observations about this time frame include:

Japan deployed 11 pulverized coal units with supercritical or USC steam conditions. Other countries deploying SC/USC units included Denmark, Italy, and China, with 3 units each; South Korea with 2 units; and Germany, Canada, and Australia, with 1 unit each.

Japan leads the way in deploying high-temperature steam conditions. However, final steam pressures for these units (34943857 psi, or 241266 bar) are not the worlds highest.

Since the mid 1990s, Japan has been continually building the worlds largest capacity supercritical units for firing market-traded coals with less than 1% sulfur content. Eight units of about 1000 MW (net) capacity each are currently operating within Japan. Moderate-size units are not obsolete, as several (6 x 700 MW) units were also commissioned within this time frame.

Danish power companies now operate nine supercritical units, three of which have steam temperatures above 1050F (565C). These plants, which were built in the late 1990s, each produce about 400 MW of electricity along with ~450 MWt for district heating systems.

The three Danish plants with final steam temperatures above 1050F (565C) feature higher final main steam pressure (4305 psi, or 297 bar) than do Japanese designs.

7 A.J. Minchener, Market Perspectives of Clean Coal in Asia, IEA Clean Coal Centre.


3-8

Mill

mer

ran

Gen

esee

(3)

Wan

gqu

isog

o

Cha

ngsh

u

Hiro

no

Wan

gqu

Torr

eval

dalig

a1

Torr

eval

dalig

a2

Torr

eval

dalig

a3

Tsur

uga

Nan

aooh

ta

Skae

rbae

k(3

)

Nor

djyl

land

(3)

Yong

hung

do1

Yong

hung

do2

Nie

dera

usse

n

Mis

umi

Hek

inan

Mat

suur

a (2

)

Har

amac

hi(2

)

Hita

chin

aka

(1)

Tach

iban

a-w

an (2

)

Tom

atoh

-Ats

uma

(4) A

vedo

re(2

)

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

Millmerran

Genesee (3)

Wangqu

isogo

Changshu

Hirono

Wangqu

Torrevaldaliga 1

Torrevaldaliga 2

Torrevaldaliga 3

Tsuruga

Nanaoohta

Tomatoh-Atsuma (4)

Skaerbaek (3)

Avedore (2)

Nordjylland (3)

Yonghungdo 1

Yonghungdo 2

Niederaussen

Misumi

Hekinan

Matsuura (2)

Haramachi (2)

Hitachinaka (1)

Tachibana-wan (2)

MW (net)

Mill

mer

ran

Gen

esee

(3)

Wan

gqu

isog

o

Cha

ngsh

u

Hiro

no

Wan

gqu

Torr

eval

dalig

a1

Torr

eval

dalig

a2

Torr

eval

dalig

a3

Tsur

uga

Nan

aooh

ta

Skae

rbae

k(3

)

Nor

djyl

land

(3)

Yong

hung

do1

Yong

hung

do2

Nie

dera

usse

n

Mis

umi

Hek

inan

Mat

suur

a (2

)

Har

amac

hi(2

)

Hita

chin

aka

(1)

Tach

iban

a-w

an (2

)

Tom

atoh

-Ats

uma

(4) A

vedo

re(2

)

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

Millmerran

Genesee (3)

Wangqu

isogo

Changshu

Hirono

Wangqu

Torrevaldaliga 1

Torrevaldaliga 2

Torrevaldaliga 3

Tsuruga

Nanaoohta

Tomatoh-Atsuma (4)

Skaerbaek (3)

Avedore (2)

Nordjylland (3)

Yonghungdo 1

Yonghungdo 2

Niederaussen

Misumi

Hekinan

Matsuura (2)

Haramachi (2)

Hitachinaka (1)

Tachibana-wan (2)

MW (net)

Figure 3-4 Worldwide Pulverized Coal Units with Main Steam above 1050F (565C) Installed from 1995 to 2005

Planned Units in China Chinas first supercritical units (2 x 600 MW net) were built in the early 1990s at Shanghai Shidoukou No. 2 power plant. Since that time, over 20 imported supercritical units with a total capacity of 6000 MW have been commissioned.


3-9

In 2003, 26 GW of supercritical boilers were ordered by China (~43 x 600 MW). With similar numbers of orders placed between 2004 and 2006, this vast requirement for new generating capacity is expected to continue well into the future.8 Estimates suggest that ~22 GW of new supercritical capacity will be installed annually in China for the next 10 years.

Units ordered to date are generally 600 MW in capacity and employ well established steam conditions (3510 psi/1050/1050F, or 242 bar/565/565C).9 However, there has recently been a noticeable leap to very large plant capacities, with supercritical plants in the 9001000 MW range. This is exemplified by the 2 x 900 MW Waigaoqiao plant commissioned in 2002. Several Chinese demonstration projects are adopting ultra-supercritical steam conditions. The Huaneng Yuhuan plant, (4 x 1000 MW units) is planned to commence operation by 2009, with steam conditions of 3625 psi/1112/1112F (250 bar/600/600C). The Lanshan plant, which is also due for commissioning in 2009, is set to become one of the worlds foremost USC plants with steam conditions of 4420 psi/1112/1112F (305 bar/600/600C) while using smaller unit sizes (4 x 660 MW net). Lanshan represents a significant milestone in Chinas energy development, placing China as the leading nation in deployment of ultra-supercritical technology, surpassing Japan, Italy, and Germany before the end of the decade.

Planned Units in Europe Planned capacity additions in Europe during the next five years include a significant number of SC and USC plants, although not to the same extent as is planned for China. Figure 3-5 shows the names and capacities of planned European plants.

8A. Minchener, Market perspectives for clean coal in Asia, IEA Presentation. 9Z. Zongrang, TPRI, Development and Application of Supercritical Coal-Fired Units and CFB Boilers In China, 26 Jan 2005.


3-10

Mar

itza

2

Box

berg

R

Han

nove

r

Ledv

ice

Poce

rada

y

Port

o To

lle1

Port

o To

lle2

Port

o To

lle3

Her

ne5

Dui

sbur

g W

alsu

m10

Wes

tfale

n1

Wes

tfale

n2

Ham

burg

1

Ham

burg

2 Kar

lsru

heR

DK

8

Maa

svla

ke

Neu

rath

F

Neu

rath

G

Mar

itza

1

Mitt

elbr

u

Dat

teln

4

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

Maritza 1

Maritza 2

Boxberg R

Hannover

Ledvice

Poceraday

Porto Tolle 1

Porto Tolle 2

Porto Tolle 3

Herne 5

Duisburg Walsum10

Mittelbrun

Westfalen 1

Westfalen 2

Hamburg 1

Hamburg 2

Belchatow 2

Karlsruhe RDK 8

Maasvlake

Datteln 4

Neurath F

Neurath G

MWa (net)

Bel

chat

ow2

Mar

itza

2

Box

berg

R

Han

nove

r

Ledv

ice

Poce

rada

y

Port

o To

lle1

Port

o To

lle2

Port

o To

lle3

Her

ne5

Dui

sbur

g W

alsu

m10

Wes

tfale

n1

Wes

tfale

n2

Ham

burg

1

Ham

burg

2 Kar

lsru

heR

DK

8

Maa

svla

ke

Neu

rath

F

Neu

rath

G

Mar

itza

1

Mitt

elbr

u

Dat

teln

4

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

Maritza 1

Maritza 2

Boxberg R

Hannover

Ledvice

Poceraday

Porto Tolle 1

Porto Tolle 2

Porto Tolle 3

Herne 5

Duisburg Walsum10

Mittelbrun

Westfalen 1

Westfalen 2

Hamburg 1

Hamburg 2

Belchatow 2

Karlsruhe RDK 8

Maasvlake

Datteln 4

Neurath F

Neurath G

MWa (net)

Bel

chat

ow2

Figure 3-5 Ultra-Supercritical Steam Generator Units Planned in Europe for Commissioning in 20062012

The following should be noted:

The vast majority of the planned European units adopt ultra-supercritical steam conditions (i.e., steam temperatures above 1100F, or 593C, and main steam pressure above 3625 psi, or 250 bar). The chief exception is Polish lignite plants, where steam temperatures are about 1030F (554C). The steam conditions for plants planned for the Czech Republic and Bulgaria had not been announced as of early 2007.

Germany is set to invest some 60 billion euro in new power stations and electric transmission networks. The trend within the German market appears to be toward larger output units of 7001000 MW net, primarily firing lignite but with some use of bituminous coal. Three lignite units larger than 1000 MW are due to be completed by 2010. The two units planned for completion at Neurath in 2008 are to have the largest steam generators and highest steam


3-11

temperatures realized to date for lignite. Eight units of ~700 MW are due to be commissioned by 2012. A further two units of ~600 MW have been announced for the same time frame.

Italy has three units planned at about 660 MW net. The Netherlands has one 1100 MW unit due for completion by 2012. Several eastern European countries have lignite units in development. These include Poland

(one 833 MW unit due for completion by 2012), Bulgaria (two 330 MW units due for completion by 2010), and the Czech Republic (two 660 MW units due for completion by 2010).

Planned Units in the United States

As of early 2007, 49 supercritical plants had been announced for construction in the United States beginning in 200614. As noted, MidAmericans Council Bluffs Unit 4 will be the first supercritical unit commissioned in the United States in almost 20 years. TXU has announced planned additions of supercritical units in Texas. FPL has announced plans to build two 980 MW (net) units in Glades County, Florida, by 2012 and 2013, respectively. Plans for these units feature ultra-supercritical steam conditions of about 1118F (603C) and 3800 psi (262 bar). Longview Power (a subsidiary of GenPower) has announced a 600 MW ultra-supercritical plant intended to be operational in West Virginia by 2011. These announcements signify a renewed confidence in supercritical technology within the U.S. marketplace and will place the United States among the front runners of ultra-supercritical technology deployment by the early 2010s.

As shown in Figure 3-6 about two-thirds of these announced plants are expected to have net outputs greater than 700 MW, with ratings ranging from 700 to 950 MW. The remaining plants will have capacity ratings in the 400 to 700 MW net output range.


3-12

Spr

inge

rvill

e(4

)

San

d S

age

(2)

Big

Sto

ne( 2

)

Twin

Oak

s 3

Mor

gant

own

Oak

Cre

ek 1

Oak

Cre

ek 2

Elm

Roa

d 1

Elm

Roa

d 2

Hol

com

b 1

Hol

com

b 2

Nor

bonn

eB

ig C

ajun

2Tr

imbl

e C

ount

y (2

)H

ugo

2E

ly E

nerg

y 1

Ely

Ene

rgy

2Fa

rmin

gton

1Fa

rmin

gton

2

Ger

lach

2S

emin

ole

(3)

Com

anch

e (3

)P

raire

Sta

te C

ampu

s 1

Pra

ireS

tate

Cam

pus

2Th

orou

ghbr

ed C

ampu

s 2

Thor

ough

bred

Cam

pus

1Ta

ylor

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

Blu

ffs

Clif

fsid

e 2

Lim

esto

neO

ak G

rove

1O

ak G

rove

2Ia

tan

2Tr

adin

g H

ouse

(3 &

4)

Trad

ing

Hou

se (3

& 4

)V

alle

y (4

)M

orga

n C

reek

(7)

Mon

tece

llo(4

)M

artin

Lak

e (4

)La

ke C

reek

(3)

Big

Bro

wn

(3)

Inte

rmou

ntai

n Soo

ner (

red

rock

)FP

L Fl

orid

a 1

FPL

Flor

ida

2

Wes

ton

(4)

Pee

Dee

Ger

lach

1

Clif

fsid

e 1

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

Spr

inge

rvill

e(4

)

San

d S

age

(2)

Big

Sto

ne( 2

)

Twin

Oak

s 3

Mor

gant

own

Oak

Cre

ek 1

Oak

Cre

ek 2

Elm

Roa

d 1

Elm

Roa

d 2

Hol

com

b 1

Hol

com

b 2

Nor

bonn

eB

ig C

ajun

2Tr

imbl

e C

ount

y (2

)H

ugo

2E

ly E

nerg

y 1

Ely

Ene

rgy

2Fa

rmin

gton

1Fa

rmin

gton

2

Ger

lach

2S

emin

ole

(3)

Com

anch

e (3

)P

raire

Sta

te C

ampu

s 1

Pra

ireS

tate

Cam

pus

2Th

orou

ghbr

ed C

ampu

s 2

Thor

ough

bred

Cam

pus

1Ta

ylor

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

Blu

ffs

Clif

fsid

e 2

Lim

esto

neO

ak G

rove

1O

ak G

rove

2Ia

tan

2Tr

adin

g H

ouse

(3 &

4)

Trad

ing

Hou

se (3

& 4

)V

alle

y (4

)M

orga

n C

reek

(7)

Mon

tece

llo(4

)M

artin

Lak

e (4

)La

ke C

reek

(3)

Big

Bro

wn

(3)

Inte

rmou

ntai

n Soo

ner (

red

rock

)FP

L Fl

orid

a 1

FPL

Flor

ida

2

Wes

ton

(4)

Pee

Dee

Ger

lach

1

Clif

fsid

e 1

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

Figure 3-6 Ultra-Supercritical Power Plant Units Announced in the United States for Construction Start in 20062014

Table 3-2 breaks down the tally of planned units into several size ranges. This summary suggests a clear trend in planned pulverized coal unit capacity toward orders for larger units of 800 MW net output and above, namely:


3-13

About 2 in every 3 units currently planned in the United States are around 800 MW in net output capacity.

About 1 in every 3 units currently planned in the United States is in the 600 MW net output capacity range.

The average net output of the 49 units planned is 740 MW. Only two of the 49 planned supercritical pulverized coal units are smaller than 600 MW net

output.

None of the planned units are smaller than 400 MW net output.

Table 3-2 Summary of Planned U.S. Supercritical Capacity Additions

The majority of the planned units (~70%) will be fired on subbituminous coal. About one-fourth will utilize bituminous coal, and only 4 units planned for the United States will be lignite-fired.

Although steam conditions have not yet been announced for many of these proposed plants, developments outside of the United States provide indication of the pressures and temperatures likely to be adopted by some of these units.

Major Equipment Supplier Experience with Supercritical and Ultra-Supercritical Steam Power Plants The following tables list basic parameters for supercritical steam generators and steam turbines supplied by various major manufacturers. This partial listing provides insight into the breadth of the experience base and trends in unit size and steam conditions.

[Editors Note: As of early 2007, EPRI had not yet completed data collection activities. Thus, not all suppliers are represented in the following tables, and the data for listed suppliers may not be complete. Parameters shown are as-reported by suppliers or in published literature. EPRI has not conducted independent data verification activities. For various reasons, owners may modify operating steam pressures and/or temperatures and plant output during the life of a unit; such modifications may not be reflected below. It should also be noted that given the pace of mergers and acquisitions in the power industry, plant owner names may not be current. Future versions of the Guideline will strive to provide more comprehensive supplier experience compilations.]

Size Range MW (net) 900 MW Number of Units Planned (Percent of Total)

1

(2%) 16

(32%) 26

(60%) 3

(6%)


3-14

Table 3-3 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Alstom

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure

Main Steam Temperature

Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel Start Year Exelon Power (original ratings) Eddystone 1 354 5000 345 1200 649 1050 566 Bit. 1959 Reheat #2 1050 566 Exelon Power (current ratings) Eddystone 1 325 4500 310 1150 620 1050 566 Bit. 1959 Reheat #2 1050 566 Elektrim Megadex Patnow 450 4206 290 1011 544 1054 568 Lignite 2004 Hua Yang EPC Houshi 7? 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2006? Hua Yang EPC Houshi 6 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2003 Hua Yang EPC Houshi 5 600 4103 283 1006 541 1050 566 Bit. 2003 Vattenfall Lippendorf S 933 4061 280 1031 555 1031 555 2000 VEAG Shwarze pumpe IV 2? 800 4032 278 1004 540 1022 550 Lignite 1996 VEAG Shwarze pumpe IV 1 800 4032 278 1004 540 1022 550 Lignite 1995 Vestkraft Vestkraft PS 3 400 4002 276 1040 560 104 560 1992 Shanghai Municipal Elect Company Waigaoqiao 3 1000 3916 270 1112 600 1112 600 2009

RWE (Germany) Niederaussem 1000 3844 265 1076 580 1112 600 Lignite 2002 Public Power Corp Florina 1 330 3800 262 1009 543 1008 542 Lignite 2001 Shanghai EPB Waigaoqiao II 1 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004 Shanghai EPB Waigaoqiao II 2 900 3626 250 1000 538 1040 560 2004 Intergen Millmerran 400 3597 248 1053 567 1105 596 2002 Korea EPC Yunghung 1 800 3568 246 1051 566 1051 566 2002 Korea EPC Yunghung 2 800 3568 246 1051 566 1051 566 2002 Xcel Energy (Colorado USA) Comanche 3 750 3565 244 1050 566 1100 593 PRB

Due 2009

Exelon Power* Eddystone 2 325 (354) 3500 241 1050 565 1050 565 Bit. 1960


3-15

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel Start Year Reheat #2 1050 565 Formosa Plastics Mai-Liao FP-1 5 600 2000 Formosa Plastics Mai-Liao FP-1 4 600 1999 Korea EPC Hadong 5 500 1999 Korea EPC Hadong 6 500 1999 Korea EPC Tangjin 3 500 1999 Korea EPC Tangjin 4 500 1999 Korea EPC Tangjin 2 500 1999 Grosskraftwerk Franken II 3 600 1998 Korea EPC Tangjin 1 500 1998 Korea EPC Hadong 4 500 1998 Korea EPC Hadong 3 500 1998 Korea EPC Hadong 2 500 1997 Korea EPC Hadong 1 500 1997 Korea EPC Shamchonpo 5 500 1997 Korea EPC Shamchonpo 6 500 1997 Korea EPC Taean 3 500 1996 Korea EPC Taean 4 500 1996 Korea EPC Taean 1 500 1995 Korea EPC Taean 2 500 1995 Korea EPC Poryong 5 500 1994 Korea EPC Poryong 6 500 1994 Korea EPC Poryong 3 500 1993 Korea EPC Poryong 4 500 1993 HIPDC Shiongkou II 1 600 1991 HIPDC Shiongkou II 2 600 1991 GKW Mannheim Mannheim 18 480 1982 Texas Utilities Sandow 4 591 Lignite 1981 Public Services Okla Northeastern 4 473 1980


3-16

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel Start Year Public Services Okla Northeastern 3 473 1979 Texas Utilities Martin Lake 3 793 Lignite 1979 Georgia Power Co Wansley 2 952 1978 Texas Utilities Martin Lake 2 793 Lignite 1978 Texas Utilities Martin Lake 1 793 Lignite 1977 Georgia Power Co Wansley 1 952 1976 Salt River Project Navajo 3 803 1976 Georgia Power Co Bowen 4 952 1975 Salt River Project Navajo 2 803 1975 Texas Utilities Monticello 2 593 Lignite 1975 Texas Utilities Monticello 1 593 Lignite 1975 Alabama Power Co Gaston 5 952 1974 Georgia Power Co Bowen 3 952 1974 Salt River Project Navajo 1 803 1974 Colombus Southern Conesville 4 842 1973 Pennsylvania Power Montour 2 819 1973 South Carolina Gen A.M. Williams 1 533 1973 Alabama Power Co Gorgas 10 789 1972 Georgia Power Co Bowen 2 789 1972 Texas Utilities Big Brown 2 593 Lignite 1972 Alabama Power Co Barry 5 789 1971 Edison International Mohave 2 818 1971 Georgia Power Co Bowen 1 806 1971 Penn Elect Co Conemaugh 2 936 1971 Pennsylvania Power Montour 1 806 1971 Potomac Electric Morgantown 2 626 1971 Texas Utilities Big Brown 1 593 Lignite 1971 Duke Power Marshall 4 648 1970 Edison International Mohave 1 818 1970


3-17

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel Start Year Penn Elect Co Conemaugh 1 936 1970 Potomac Electric Morgantown 1 626 1970 Dairyland Power Genoa 3 350 1969 Duke Power Marshall 3 648 1969 Penn Elect Co Keystone 2 936 1968 Pennsylvania Power Brunner Island 790 1968 Kansai Electric Himeji II 4 450 Lignite 1967 Monongahela Power Fort Martin 1 576 1967 Penn Elect Co Keystone 1 936 1967 Powergen Drakelow C 3 375 1967 Tenn Valley Auth Bull Run 1 950 1967 Durr-Werke AG Frankin 110 1962 The Illuminating Co Avon Lake 215 1959


3-18

Table 3-4 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Alstom

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Start Year

RWE Neurath 1050 4279 295 1112 600 1121 605 Due 2008 ELSAM Nordjylland 3 411 (+450 MWt) 4134 285 545 582 1076 580 1998 Reheat #2 1076 580 Elektrim Megadex Patnow 460 4205 290 1011 544 1054 568 2006 Kraftwerk Schkopau Schkopau 450 4133 285 1010 545 1040 560 1995 Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2004 Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2005? Hua Yang Electric Power Corp Houshi 600 4103 283 1005.8 541 1050 566 2006 Veag Lippendorf S 933 4061 280 1031 555 1031 555 2000 Vestkraft Vestkraft 3 400 4002 276 1040 560 1040 560 1992 Nuon Hemweg 8 630 3770 260 500 540 1054 568 1994 Intergen Millmerran 400 3597 248 1053 567 1105 596 2002 Fortum & TVO Meri Pori 550 3583 244 471.2 540 1034 560 1994


3-19

Table 3-5 Supercritical Steam Turbines Supplied by Ansaldo Energia

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Start Year

Energy E2 Avedore 2 390 (+570 MWt) 4134 285 1076 580 1112 600 2001


3-20

Table 3-6 Supercritical Steam Generators Supplied by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)

Unit Net Output

Main Steam Pressure


Reheat Temperature

Owner Unit MW psi bar F C F C Fuel Order Year Start Year

AEP-Ohio Power Philo 6 125 4550 314 1150 621 1050 566 Cyc 1953 1957

Reheat #2 1000 538 (ret 1979) TXU Electric Forest Grove 1 775 3850 265 1005 541 1005 541 Coal 1973 TXU Electric Monticello 3 775 3850 265 101