Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COAL-FIRED OPEN CYCLE MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCIES
J. Gruhl
MIT Energy Lab Report #MIT-EL 78-018
November 1977
COAL-FIRED OPEN CYCLE MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCIES
by
J. Gruhl
MIT Energy LaboratoryCambridge, Massachusetts 02139
MIT-EL 78-018
MIT Principal InvestigatorJ. F. Louis
MIT Project ManagerA. E. Sotak
Sponsored under a subcontract toExxon Research and Engineering Company
Linden, New JerseyPrincipal Investigator
H. Shaw
Sponsored byU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Program OfficerW. C. Cain
Contract #68-02-2146
NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared at the MIT Energy Laboratory, Cambridge,MA, as an account of a small portion of the work performed as a
subcontract to an Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J.,program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract#68-02-2146. Principal Investigator of this project at MIT was Prof. J.Louis; program managers were J.D. Teare and later A. Sotak. Programmanagers at Exxon and EPA were H. Shaw and W.C. Cain.
None of these organizations nor any person acting on behalf of theseorganizations: (a) makes any warranty or representation, express orimplied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of theinformation contained in this report, or that the use of any information,apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringeprivately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect tothe use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information,apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Mentions ofproducts or policies do not necessarily imply endorsements of thoseproducts or policies by any of these organizations.
ii
ABSTRACT
This study is a review of projected emissions and energy
efficiencies of coal-fired open cycle MHD power plants. Ideally one
would like to develop empirically-based probabilistic models of MHD
performance. However, with the lack of empirical information about
full-sized facilities this survey concentrates on modeling analytically
developed data. Also presented are discussions of unresolved MHD issues
of importance, comprehensive lists of recent and ongoing research, and a
bibliography of material related to emissions and efficiencies of
coal-fired open cycle MHD power plants.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice and Acknowledgments. .........................
Abstract . ..............................Table of Contents.................................
1. Introduction ..................................
2. MHD Programs in Progress ........................
3. Plant Design Configurations. ....................
3.1 Operating and Design Parameters ...........
3.2 Mass Balances of Specific Designs.........
3.3 Energy Efficiency Evaluations .............
4. Environmental Assessment ........................
...........
e* eeeeee e Ie
·............
. . . . . . . .· eeeeeeeeee~· eeeeeeeee·l4Illlll·tlll.
4.1 Air Emissions............
4.1.1 Sulfur Oxides.....
4.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides...
4.1.3 Trace Metals......
4.1.4 Particulates......
4.1.5 Other Air Emission!
4.2 Emissions to Water.......
4.3 Solids and Resources.....
4.4 Other Fuel Cycle Effects.
5. Conclusions....................
6. References and Bibliography ....
A. Appendix on MHD Economic-Environmental Simulation........... 127
iv
Page
ii
iv
1
9
25
27
31
55
73
73
73
80
90
98
102
103
105
105
109
112
I
. . . .. .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................ ·
.............................
.............................
.......................................................................................
............
............
............
1. Introduction
Recent reports (Pomeroy, et al., 1978) show open cycle (or binary)
coal-fired magnetohydrodynamics, OCMHD, playing an extremely important
role in our nation's energy future. Under certain assumed scenarios,
such as no breeder reactors, open cycle MHD is overwhelmingly preferred
once it is available (about the year 2003). That same study shows the
large size (1932 MW) to be somewhat of a disadvantage that makes earlier
penetration, if available, unlikely. Once available, however, the share
of the market for OCMHD could be as large as 90% (Pomeroy, et al.,
1978). Most forecasts show MHD dominating future coal-fired power plant
markets, especially in scenarios where coal prices escalate rapidly.
Clearly this is an important advanced energy technology, yet there
is currently not enough performance data to precisely assess the
emissions or efficiency capabilities of OCMHD power plants. Appendix A
displays the large uncertainties that exist concerning this information.
The theoretically very high performance potential, meeting emissions
standards with 50 to 60% conversion efficiency, and absence of moving
parts and heat exchanges in the MHD cycle, have been the principal
justifications for continued research and development. With the absence
of full-sized facilities, this study concentrates on analytically derived
data, ongoing research efforts, and problems and potential solutions for
meeting the theoretical performance potential.
MHD is envisioned as a topping cycle to be operated in series with a
steam cycle, see Figure 1-1. Coal is first processed then sent into a
combustor where it is burned at very high temperatures, 2756 K to 3033 K
(45000 F to 50000 F) and at high pressure, 7 to 15 atm. The gaseous
1
al oC o
E-L *
-raO
II-
_
",I
O
I
2
r-
{NH
C)
.)
C4
C)
0©I)o· r
rO
·ri
--w,
21m
II
rzI
t , E I
i
I
W.C
,,
combustion products are made electrically conductive, about 10 to 12
mhos/m, by injection of a small fraction, about 1%, of seed material such
as potassium carbonate. The conductive gas is then expanded at high
velocity, about 1000 m/s, through a high magnetic field, about 5 to 8
Tesla, thus producing direct current at electrodes perpendicular to the
flow field and magnetic field. The still hot gases, about 2256 K
(3600 0F), are then sent to a bottoming steam turbine. Before or after
this turbine the gases usually will preheat the coal and/or air. In an
open-cycle system the steam turbine exhaust usually goes to a water
heater and then eventually up the stack. Some of the possible design
variations that have been studied are outlined in Chapter 3.
Even considering nearly identical conditions, about 1617 K
(24500 F) direct air preheat and a 24.1 MN/m2/811K/811K
(35000 psi/10000 F/10000 F) supercritical single reheat steam
bottoming cycle, performance estimates are widely scattered, (see Table
1-1 and several others in this report) sometimes almost a factor of two
variation on certain estimates ($642 versus $1102 investment cost per
kWe). This large uncertainty in projected performance is the first major
issue discussed in each of the following chapters.
The second issue elaborated is that of barriers that must be hurdled
before commercialization of OCMHD. These technological problems are
indirectly related to the issues of this paper. Thus they are only
roughly summarized in Table 1-2, are listed in order of severity in
Chapter 5, and are briefly mentioned in the sections of this report where
they bear upon aspects of performance.
3
TABLE 1-1
AVAILABILITY AND COST COMPARISONS OF PROJECTED FULL-SIZEOPEN CYCLE COAL MHD DESIGNS
Capital Cost
(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)
(NASA, 1977-(NASA, 1977)
(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(General Electric, 1975)
(Pepper, Yu, 1975)
(Rosa, et al., 1970)
(Hals, Jaci-on, 1969)
$805/kWe$1103/kWe (Westinghouse)$642/kWe (GE Co.)
$718/kWe$910-$1440/kWe$340-$440/kWe$35-$55/kWe (peaking)$90-$120/kWe
Cost of Electricity
(Levi, 1978)
(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)(Pomeroy, et aT., 1978)
(NASA, 1977-(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(General Electric, 1975)(NASA, 1975)
(NASA, 1975)(NASA, 1975)
(Hals, Jackson, 1969)
32 mills/kWh34-43 mills/kWh (baseload)130 mills/kWh (peaking)27.1-43.9 mills/kWh42-49 mills/kWh (GE Co.)32-50 mills/kWh (WE Co.)31.8 mills/kWh (GE Co.)41.5-55.5 mills/kWh41-48 mills/kWh (GE Co.)27-35 mills/kWh (Westinghou34-42 mills/kWh (low Btu,Westinghouse)
3.34-4.26 mills/kWh
Construction Time
(Pomeroy, et al.
(Seikel, Harris,
, 1978)1976)
5-6.5 years6.5 years
Date of Commercialization
(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)
(Penny, Bourgeois, Cain,(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Pepper, Yu, 1975)
1977)200320001996-19991988
4
se)
- -- �--��-�- -1- -111�-------- -�-�- --"I' I-----
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF MHD PROBLEM AREAS
Problems Potential Solutions
Particulate Removalsubmicron sizeshigh quality plasma with lowash
. facility testing
Seed Recovery- efficiencies of recovery fromsolids
- suitability for reuse- economic problems and energycosts
- water contamination- ash composition peculiarities- atmospheric releases
Nitrogen Oxide Control-- may not meet standards
Sulfur Oxide- potassium sulfate emissions
Properties of Coal
- some fundamentals are importantbut not known or are widely
varying
- conductivity, ignition, de-volatilization, combustion,gasification, slag vaporization,slag agglomeration
Moisture- in low-grade coals
· seed collection· combustion modeling
· thermal regeneration
· minimize during combustion· reduce oxygen in high-
temperature areas and injectair in low-temperature
regions· post-combustion control· two-stage combustion· use different pressures· use different air/fuel ratios
· facility testing
· kinetic conditions testing
· devolatilization kineticsstudies
· ash vaporization studies
· coal drying
5
TABLE 1-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF MHD PROBLEM AREAS
Durable Materials, especially insulators, electrodes and heat exchangers- extremely high temperatures . develop high grade materials- corrosive exhaust gases . develop predictive techniques
for optimizing conditions andmaterials
- short life of nozzles, valves, . study high temperature andboiler tubes and duct materials corrosion effects
- ash and seed corrosion of . study of thermal cyclingceramic and metal parts and long duty cycle effects
Generator, Duct and Diffuser Life
- effects of combustion productsand slag on walls
- multiplicity of load circuits- axial breakdown limitation
Other Component Problems- demonstrate air preheaters- slag coating of heat exchangers- high temperature heat exchangers- superconducting magnetic system
cost, size, and temperature
problems
Combustors- 5000OF- reasonably free of slag vapor10-20% original ash
- sufficient rate and uniformcoal feed
- good mixing with low pressuredrop
- high slag rejection and topping
Large Facility Sizes- effects of components on eachother
- 2000 MW minimums
- reliability problems associatedwith large blocks of power
- scale-up problems
Turndown and Load Follow
. studies of properties ofcombustion productslong duration tests
· disk generators
. facility testing
· facility testing· more direct measurements
and analytic modeling
· development of smallermodules
· testing of componentinterfaces
· use several smaller modules
6
_·
TABLE 1-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF MHD PROBLEM AREAS
Demonstrate Enthalpy Extractionand Isentropic Efficiency
Absolute and ConvectiveInstabilities
Stable Electrical Loading
Accurate Performance Estimates
- efficiency and coal consumption- capital cost and cost of
electricity- availability- adaptability to base load- likelihood and expected yearof commercialization
. short duration experiments
large facility testing
large facility characteristicsanalytic stability studies
· optimum design specification· facility testing
· forecast of R&D funding levels
7
It is easy to be optimistic about the future of OCMHD, one just has
to review the system's simplicity, the fallback positions, the time and
funding available, and the progress to date (compared to the competing
technologies, particularly the operating experimental facilities).
However, it is also easy to be pessimistic, there are considerable
technical problems associated with virtually every major power plant
design component. Efficiencies and emissions will be significantly
affected by the trade-offs and design changes resulting from future
solutions for these technical problems, and this is a major reason for
the significant uncertainties in the values reported in the following
chapters.
8
2. MHD Programs in Progress
Research and development programs in MHD cycles have progressed
erratically for more than a century (Levi, 1978), initially being linked
to the work of Michael Faraday in 1831. Translation of the MHD concept
into commercial application has been motivated recently by the need for
efficient, clean methods of converting coal energy into electricity.
Modern efforts began at Westinghouse starting in 1938 and were continued
into the 1950's at Cornell University. Feasibility experiments were
conducted in the 1960's first at Westinghouse, GE, and Avco and later at
University of Tennessee and Stanford University.
Internationally, the Soviet Union has advanced, first in
closed-cycle, later in open-cycle, facilities fueled by natural gas. The
Japanese have been concentrating on use of heavy oils as fuels, primarily
to reduce amounts of petroleum to be imported. In addition to the U.S.
and U.S.S.R., Poland and India because of their significant fossil fuel
resources have continued to conduct MHD research. The United Kingdom,
France, and West Germany have essentially stopped their MHD programs
although they have joined an international cooperative with the other
principal research countries and some countries with relatively new
interests: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslavakia, Hungary,
Italy, Netherlands, Rumania, Sweden and Switzerland.
A summary of the more recent history of MHD development is shown in
Figure 2-1. Excellent further historical discussions are contained in
(Kantrowitz, 1977), (Way, 1971), and (Tager, Henry, 1976).
It would take a considerable effort to describe all the current and
future plans for MHD in the U.S. Instead Table 2-1 lists the
9
'JJ4 96-MOO -- N3D HHIWHD-_-4
I L- .3D - 3HI
L4 OOOL - - 00l-31V 3H3ud ulv 3
I a3ldllU3A 1ONO 3 ZOS O
. Q313 :lU3A OtlNOO XON
u!w L - MI OO0'8'L - N39 HW
VlS3J1 t- .L3NVW )S 3ZI118VIS Ani I--
u!w L - MI 000'Z£ - N3D HW
aI l31U:3A a33S JO NOI.LVIdl33Ud 31lV.lSOL.3313sq OZ - IO.LSt WO VO3 CO HHW
0ro
I mOL-M OO9L -N 3
o01.vUt3finjss
I CM C
I0N
I. °
..... I
I
I
4
I1
I
* . q~~~'t
N30 HWI3OOfnS SL) - M OL
I.-M~I0L
O
CD U)
4:0
0)
U
Oa:
o o
O
O
-o 0
0 -CDC4
HO
O ¢
{9 ';~ ,
co#)
0.
r-iI
0)
4
34(SUrV--o -oA SNOI- 1II)
SaNn .- LN3IdO3A3Q tVnNNt
10
.1 srq Z - M) - N3D HIW
I.-z Z
cc? TU. , jwZ I.
liZ I0 I0
.',;
I I I I
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .I
.
.- . . . .
. B
q
.
i
I
TABLE 2-1
RECENT AND ONGOING MHD RESEARCH
Argonne National Lab
Arnold Engineering DevelopmentCenter
Avco-Everett Research Lab
Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab
Bechtel
British Coal Utilization Reseai
Association
Brookhaven National Labs
Burns and Roe
California Institute ofTechnology
Central Electricity GeneratingBoard, Great Britian
Eindhoven, Holland
Electrotechnical Lab of Japan
- generator phenomena- combustion studies and modeling- project planning and definition- systems studies- magnets
- component and materials experiments- high enthalpy extraction- magnet testing and building- test facility
- component and materials experiments- seed recovery- generator design- economic and environmentalassessments
- auxiliary component development- peaking plants- pollution control by gas cleaning- NOx control experiments
- electrode development
- design evaluation- labor and materials studies- cooling water evaluations
rch
- combustion modeling
- comparative assessments
- design
- performance studies
- slag buildup on heat exchangers
- closed-cycle facility
- oil-fired MHD -Mark V, VI
11
__I s --
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
RECENT AND ONGOING MHD RESEARCH
EPRI
Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Flinders University of SouthAustralia
Fluidyne Corporation
Foster-Wheeler
Gilbert Associates Inc.
General Electric Co.
Hercules Powder Corp
Hittman Associates Inc.
Institute of Gas Technology
International Atomic EnergyAgency, Vienna
Krzhizhnavosky Power Institute
Laboratory of Direct Conversionof Italy
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Lockheed-Huntsville Research& Engineering
Max Planck Institute of PlasmaPhysics of Germany
Maxwell Labs
- market penetration- R&D funding
- evaluation of designs
- comparative assessments
- air preheaters- facility design and evaluation
- design evaluation- evaluation of auxiliaries
- design studies
- MHD market penetration- design and evaluation offacilities
- preheater development
- support studies
- comparative assessments
- comparative assessments
- MHD commercialization potential
- prototype MHD plant
- closed-cycle facility
- comparative assessment
- environmental assessments
- combustion modeling- closed-cycle facility
- support studies
12
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
RECENT AND ONGOING MHD RESEARCH
MEPPSCO
Mississippi State University
M.I.T.
Montana Energy and MHD R&DInstitute
Montana State University
National Bureau of Standards
National Science Foundation
North Carolina StateUniversity
Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD)
Oak Ridge National Labs
Parsons
Rand Corporation
Reynolds Metals
Rockwell International
Stanford Research Institute
- generator design~~~~~~
- generator design- magnet design
- corrosion studies
- magnet design- emission modeling and control- combustion modeling- modular design tool- generator performance- disc generator experiments- materials problems- seed recovery experiments
- research facilities
- air preheaters
- materials problems- electrodes- slag characteristics
- basic research funding- comparative study funding
- electrode materials
- international cooperation
- comparative assessment
- design studies
- closed-cycle examination- overview studies
- gaseous electrode development
- design studies- space applications
- comparative assessments
13
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
RECENT AND ONGOING MHD RESEARCH
Stanford University
STD Research Corporation
Systems Research Labs
Teknekron,Inc.
Tokyo Institute of Technology
TRW Energy Systems
University
University
University
University
of Illinois at Chicago
of Mississippi
of Montana
of Pittsburgh
- test facility- generator phenomena- magnet design and effects- NOx modeling and control- cooling requirements
- design and systems studies- coal drying- retrofit to older plants
- support studies
- comparative assessments
- NOx modeling
- evaluation of designs- prototype combustors
- combustion modeling
- performance studies
- support studies
- seed regeneration- slag effects- downstream components
University of Tennessee
University of Tokyo
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Morgantown
U.S. DOE
U.S. DOE Pittsburgh EnergyResearch Center
- seed recovery- experimental facility
- systems studies
- seed regeneration- seeded coal combustion properties
- R&D funding- experimental programs- commercial demonstration
- seeding and seed recovery andregeneration
- environmental emissions- combustion experiments- coal drying
14
! __ _
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
RECENT AND ONGOING MHD RESEARCH
U.S. EPA
U.S. NASA
U.S. Senate, Office of TechnologyAssessment
U.S.S.R.
USSR Atomic Energy Institute
USSR Institute for HighTempertures
Westinghouse Research Labs
Whittaker Corporation
Wright-Patterson AFB
- environmental assessments
- comparative study funding- design and evaluation
- overview of government role in MHD
- comparison with other energy cycles
- sponsoring MHD research anddevelopment
- systems studies
- MHD research- facilities
- design and evaluation offacilities
- systems studies- experimental facility
- unconventional designs- systems studies
- systems studies
15
organizations involved and the general research and development areas to
which they are contributing. In addition to EPRI sponsorship, a recent
tally of government funding of MHD studies (Penny, Bourgeois, Cain, 1977)
showed DOE with 81%, DOD 13%, and NSF 6%, of the $8.15 million being
spent on 37 projects. Current facilities are listed in Table 2-2 and
some of the future U.S. facilities are listed in Table 2-3. The
approximate timing of these future facilities is shown in the ECAS study
in Figure 2-2 and in an accelerated forecasted from DOE and EPRI in
Figure 2-3. Two ideas about the logical process of the research and
development necessary to support this facility timetable are shown in
Figures 2-4 and 2-5.
16
0,4
C) u.0t
InI4-
14 d w
('bd
$4
. 7
W!* 1%9-.4 H-
0 , t .4 4 ) 4 U) 4
r to v) 94
U) 0. 14 0. (4.$4 0's .0 1 ;4 -4 - Nv
.9-4
r('
0
0 3$o
0)
u U
C14.UQ
00V Q
Cl 0 C0
4Io,4
oo0 0,
u
0o 4>A1
.-4 4,t twl
o o o 0 0o 0) - C 0
I,-4
C4cn
._4
X X~ X Xn001 l 00 cW,. 4 cJ-IT .
o oC)14,4 0I 1 94('4 .'l (, 4.4
O Z Io' O 0 01-4
,-4
14 oV444j0 1 cl c
94 Alo ,4 ,-4* O -O O
0 .O
0 I
tn o:o -:r-t(s I94 ,O 94O Ioo I
,.4
ix: In,-vx a vaz'n X vz X:; 4
c1 I,4
,4 4
Co '= v ra0 o4 "O '(
Uc
i, .,.
'94 P..
to
A
0a
CN
0Ur0"
I IC
,4,-I
trl o
a o- O
(4 0
0 E9- :01-4
N
o u0.O14
,4 : $4 .0
li u
-4
0 0
0 O
r,0 -0
94 0 00Vn 0
O;
0 C4
00
o0 o0 o('4 '.4
o, 0
U)n d
17
914 U ('4I LA X 4
..
I U4O ('4 o
0 1
0 0X c'('I 0(101-44 r4
O .4-CIO
Ul
00
0I ,
c;
.4I Cl
0
0 a
A Z OCl -4 -4
14
_ 00 a
v) . I . q on = cN on: ?- A F
omi.5-4
I IS ,4 14
I
I
01.%coN
N
I
I
a)coa?0
w
U)
) 1-
UoW F
..4,o 4O93004-
*o4 ^F4
C) $4 '-10N'.4o
o >
F-4K0
>4
P. ,0
C ."-4
H .P:X
D _10
. 5
H4-3
4
tJ04
0
0ol
) 0co4)Ce
k
E-4
ck44(-r J4)l
0<,4000
o000
0
C)
DN
I ~4
U 4a"4 0F4A
I
I
( H
0
0-1-
0 Fo7H
I Q 0 0u
HO O:
o~~~F o *S
4,~~P HEOy]O Z g : X
a)0;e3Li N
+) ~ ~ ~~~ H X e0N
Z >s doo
W ~~~~~~~~~~.(" 1
H -'U p i O S O
a~~~ O
W P ,I-sl e
F-I:z O X
I-o
0~ '-I
H
OH
4.F4H4 F4aW,) Q
0 hi
0
00 .--
U v
om
'A(n (
luQ L00'a ..Ol C) O
°c ·- a~ _ 3 a00 ,C- -1 o n
0 (A 0n 1cj 'A~
2
0
NU-i
rl
0 0.0 -T
u HH xp.
4'4
OH4 0
r(0
0o
EO
I 11 L LL J
Cl
I0CU
cl
IU
H
0-4,"J0H
0 '-
.0
o0D
U)
C'
0En0Vl-4U)-11:mp'nu
U-i
O0
00a
Cl
U.'
('
Oq t'*q
0400a0 000
r ..-)
o I0) J0
XO t~
Oa
0.14 0H
0
r"
U-
Li.) 0(-4
0-4
0co
0
O H
\00q CO* 11
o'J r,
w ,
.nol -4
.U'
4
>k. " H ,.
CO 0 C'4> rE-C'J
U.
O 0 0O 0 0a, Cl H H
I 0 I(.
'4
10
xcl
-4
s zcN
c;
ci:30
0
')
Ln vn O
;0 ' C
( NH4
000..
C .z0 w'
- 00~ E
H
1-4a. ('. ,
.- I ;3
Z v< LQ- -. 0nA itU 7-.- ) a'
18
0H
0 L
"I > >: agt
CD
'0
I-
H'a-'
m 9H
0Cl
co
; II D0 r
I
N cl e- ('4e
.
D C C
00
0I I
ua
0
IN ,,o
Jl C co
cn cn o{
M
044r 4c ctn
U) U) >~.4 ) '-
soH _
o00
V)a
a< ,) 00LI ) L i ) .
-a:'..-
0
0wr
0
U
a
00'.et
m
0 .0 (14
U H
I
*0 e-40 C "
Q1 ~ 0 N 0 N 0P 9-405C 3L~~r! cO.Nu
cn
o 0 00H 0
H U
U U 4:> in
a'
0;
00%OC14
00Hx
o
oC. Xr, ,
.J 3
U k )1 bO
0 O H0 U Hd 0)
tn
H
H4
0
O)
onI'
0O
co
N Nw W bli 0! ~
. 14 --
) CL
4
e -7
v I
o 0 0 0o o O 0N 0 N N
C.. (9 NO
I I
X
VO
04
I
o o c)0400 0-a 0 : >
V4-4 ,
-7TCO000
;
0
co0
900
*n-.Ir I-0r
0;
c
o,UCo
I
V):,
'0
0' O XX. x -4
x x xCo OD t
'-40o 0 N 4
c4
0.4
0 0 H o o '"44
0.,
0 I I
-7'
C-)xcnHN
0z
'.4
e) Hla 4
1a
o00
0 00 0o; o:
-7-7
0 -o c
* 0
4)
OD 0O
0co H
HI-.
HF-4cn
HH1-4
:):D -
19
U U
I: G4 oC .e0 0
OC
:: cJ : : I
n
oI-r T
0J'4
o C
14 4 CP
0r:0
W 0 o
94NHH00
o
-p
Pp4
.,-uS
I0 V
;n MP °I
r-4
Eq
U
i-f11-04
ct
. C ..,
14 -0 0 ;!to P
(Of) COC°cm :t Iw tx
0
0
Hr"
0o
Ia
r-4
O
I
Cd)0 I"
-c'' VIi. < tzK la
P: D P4
I
t
4F
E4J
ora~~~ 4
0
O 0
4 o0o
· H 4 ,:o
d oC)C
0r) <0 0Noc oP C$6-
a'\
Ua ~wHk pcn P
Q, E~~~~~~~~.
c O
0 E-4N
0 0o a
u - N N
0 .0O 0r-4* vI
H ,N o
CO O 0
u'o 4cu
~' ' H HH04 C3 ^ 9,~ E 'ai C|2<R
20
iCa -1 ; %-Oxi ;;I 1-f m~ F. -.
C)
0
0
r-4
0a,
CO
I,)OD
4,
'D-
2 r..
21
Figure 2-3 Major MRD Program Phases (Jackson,et al., 1976)
22
YEARS
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
I . i . ... . ._..... ... __PH SEI
OIMtL)NSTRAI. tN(RG AND F'FRFORMANCE OF MAJOR r,(IMP¢)NE N I i S |
INITIATlT SUBJSYSTEM TEETING AND INTEGRATIONITrT CDIfI
tINITlATE BASE PLANT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
t( OMiLE 11 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ETF
- . r ! , i ..r i. ... i... .PHASE II
*DISIGN AND C( NIRUCT THE ETF· DMONSTRATE I SYSTEM PERFORMANCE*OPTIMIZE COM OINENIS AND SUBSYSTEM· COMPLETE PRELIIIiNARY DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL SCALE PLANT. ~, . ... .'17 r- T ... -._'N._ =-; -T -- ';
PHASE III
· DESIGN CE)NSTRUCT AND OPERATEFULL SCATE PLANT TO DEMONSTRATECOMMfRCIAL FfASIBILITY
zM0'.
co
C:
0
EI
at
--Co
.00=l
CL7CI
a:
ooc'0'C -
a, Eo 0
E >0 W0.) CU)
0 E_ _l
,
CL
-U
0I2.M
4)
0
C3
0d
04)0
CaH
OPd'
O
H
a AOr
*r4
23
CL
C
C
O
0,
0o
cC,a:
.
a-C,
M
a-CL
T3r,
- Ew aC-0 W
0 3
,
0
C
OH
r4
COd
P*r
4 0O
OH
I.ar
0'H
24
..5
ui6-
-N
-2l00
3. Plant Design Configurations
In addition to choices between open-cycle and closed-cycle there are
a tremendous number of possible MHD design variations. In Phase I of the
ECAS study the open-cycle variations included:
(1) coal, solvent refined coal, or coal gasifier products as fuels;
(2) air or oxygen-enriched air as oxidant;
(3) direct air preheat using MHD exhaust, or indirect (separate)
preheating using coal volatiles or a coal gasifier product, or
combinations of direct and indirect preheats; and
(4) steam bottoming cycles or gas-turbine bottoming cycles.
An excellent display of the MHD configuration options is shown in Figure
3-1 from (Jackson, et al., 1976). This diagram shows that for coal-fired
OCMHD the principal distinguishing feature is the high-temperature
preheat or regeneration procedure. The regeneration procedures could
involve anything from using the MHD exhaust heat to produce a clean fuel
for indirect air preheaters, to using direct air preheaters with the MHD
exhaust heat utilized to generate heated, clean fuel for the MHD
combustor. The simplicity of the MHD process and the relatively early
stage of its development are the reasons for the tremendous variety of
designs.
Receiving the most attention lately (due to low expected cost of
electricity) is the OCMHD design suggested in Phase II of the ECAS study
(General Electric, 1976), called NASA Case 1. This configuration uses
direct air preheating at 1316 K to 1371 K (24000 F to 2500 0F), direct
coal-fired combustor, and a 24.1 MN/m2/811 K/811 K (3500
25
o
oE-C-I
0
00
04)
O
(n
H
I0A
43hD
26
I� _ _
Iil-1o - t
Iff JI I .- 4 fl
I :·r 7 z- I . -
psi/10000 F/10000 F) steam bottoming cycle. In this system the coal
processor feeds dried crushed coal to a single-stage cyclone combustor.
The preheated air is mixed with the coal at a 95% stiochiometric air fuel
ratio and is fired to 2700 K (44000F). The cyclone combustor is
assumed to remove 80% of he coal ash. Potassium carbonate is the
seeding material. The MHD generator conditions (Beecher, et al., 1976)
include a .62MPa (6 atm) pressure, .75 Mach flow rate, and 6 T magnetic
field (in the equivalent Westinghouse ECAS Base Case). The MHD exhaust
is at 1650 K (25110 F) and passes to the steam generator. Seed-ash is
collected on the superheater surface and in the stack gas cleanup
system. The seed is recycled through a Claus plant that converts part of
the potassium sulfate to potassium carbonate before reuse. These are the
most important features of the frontrunning configuration, additional
important parameters are listed in Section 3.1.
3.1 Operating and Design Parameters
Even given the exact design configuration there is still a
significant variation in system performance that is due to variations in
operating and design parameters. For example, the air preheat
temperature can play a major role in system efficiency and cost, and
values of 1089 K, 1366 K, 1589 K, 1644 K, 1922 K, and 2200 K (1500 0 F.
20000 F, 24000F, 25000F, 30000F, and 35000°F) have been
explicitly investigated. This section begins with a listing of the
important operating and design parameters, Table 3.1-1. This list is
separated into the parameters related to the various system components,
and is further segregated into the independent parameters and the
27
TABLE 3.1-1
MAJOR PARAMETERS DETERMINING OCMHD PERFORMANCE
MHD GeneratorIndependent Parameters- generator type and channel connection; linear Faraday, Hall,
diagonal wall, and cylindrical configurations- generator size and geometry- materials- temperatures and pressures- working fluid- magnetic flux density
- seed type and feed rate
- flow rate
Dependent Parameters- enthalpy extraction ratio- plasma flow rate- electrical conductivity of fluid- electron affinities of OH, C02 and A102- electron-atom collision cross sections- emissions- power output- Hall parameter nonuniformities- pressure drop- electrical loading parameter- heat leak fraction- enthalpy
Fuel and Combustor
Independent Parameters- combustor type, desiTgn and stages- combustor pressure and temperature-time history
- coal feed rate and configuration- coal type and size, or solvent refined or gasified coal
characteristics- oxidizer type and eed rate
- air feed rate and temperature- coal properties; ash, volatiles, moisture and so on
- drying of coal
Dependent Parameters- air/fuel ratio- percent slag rejection- percent ash in flue gas
- coal moisture- enthalpy- pressure drop- radioactive heat loss- overall efficiency of combustor- combustor residence time- carbon burnout- uniformity of product distribution
28
TABLE 3.1-1 (continued)
MAJOR PARAMETERS DETERMINING OCMHD PERFORMANCE
Nozzle, Diffuser, Inverters, Electrodes, Insulators, CompressorIndependent Parameters- size and geometry f channel, etc.- materials- nozzle area, contour- pressure and temperatures
Dependent Parameters- lifetimes- pressure and temperature drops- thermal losses- electrical losses- diffuser exit temperature- diffuser recovery factor- duct wall temperature- heat transfer coefficients- nozzle heat loss
- channel loft
- efficiencies- enthalpy- flow rates
MagnetsIndependent Parameters
- magnet size and strength- support- magnet shape and orientation
Dependent Parameters- bending stress- magnetic flux density
Air PreheaterIndependent Parameters- design and type- temperatures at stages- pressure
Dependent Parameters
29
- lifetime- air preheater losses- enthalpy- pressure drop
'FTABLE 3.1-1 (continued)
MAJOR PARAMETERS DETERMINING OCMHD PERFORMANCE
Seed and Slag RecoveryIndependent Parameters- combustor designs- reactor, absorption tower, heat exchanger types and sizes- coal propertes
Dependent Parameters- recovery percent- seed form- cost and energy losses
Seed RegeneratorIndependent Parameters- reducing process- design and type
Dependent Parameters- efficiency and cost- seed form
Steam CycleIndependent Parameters- type and design- pressures and temperatures
- heat rejection type
Dependent Parameters- boiler lifetimes- heat rejection- heat transfer coefficients- power turbine heat rate- compressor turbine heat rate- power output
30
dependent parameters, that is those values that can only be controlled
through changes in independent parameters. It should be noted that
dependent parameters for some components are independent choices for
others.
The values for many of the parameters that are expected to be
selected for the first commercial design are shown in Table 3.1-2. The
Base Case ECAS OCMHD cycle parameters for (Phase I General Electric) are
shown in Table 3.1-3. A comparison of major features of the Base Case
with the solvent refined coal case is shown in Table 3.1-4; a comparison
of magnet designs in Table 3.1-5 and 3.1-6; and a comparison of
preheaters in Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8.
Phase I ECAS Base Cases for General Electric and Westinghouse are
compared to the General Electric Phase III Base Case in Table 3.1-9.
Additional Phase II OCMHD Base Case parameters are shown in Table 3.1-10
and performances in 3.1-11. Finally some interesting miscellaneous
performance factors are collected in Table 3.1-12.
3.2 Mass Balances of Specific Designs
First it should be reiterated that no large coal-fired OCMHD's are
operational. Mass balance computations to date have therefore been
calculated analytically not empirically. Computer programs for these
computations exist at Westinghouse, General Electric, and elsewhere, and
are also being developed at MIT. Thus there is no reason to duplicate
these efforts for this study, instead some already published mass
balances of important specific OCMHD designs are presented here.
31
Table 3.1-2 Input Parameters Projected for First CommercialSized Facility (Jackson, t al., 1976)
POWER INPUT - GROSS
COMBUSTIONCoal ICombustor I
Seed rate I
PREHEATERTypeOxidizer temp. (K)
MHD GENERATORType
Load factorMagnet
Flow
DIFFUSERExit pressure (psia)Recovery factor
2000 MWth
Montana, Rosebud SeamDirect, 2-stage, 90%
slag -rejectionK - 1% of total
combustion products
Direct fired, regenerativei644
Diagonal connected,i5 meter nominal
0.7 (variable)Maximum field 6 tesla,
superconductingHigh subsonic
16.250.8
STEAM BOTTOMING CYCLESteam conditions 3500 psia (1000l°F/OO000F)Heat rejection wet cooling tower
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSSOz < 1.2 lb/106 BtuNOx < 0.7 lb/106 BtuParticulates < 0.1 lb/106 Btu
32
Table 3.1-3 Major System Parameters for Open Cycle MHDGeneral Electric Base Case (Harris, Shah, 1976)
PARAMETER
FUEL COAL
TYPE
SIZE, PULVERIZEDMOISTURE CONTENT, DRIEDOXIDIZER
FURNACE, GASIFIER OR FUEL PROCESSING
VALUE OR DESCRIPTION
ILL #6, 10788 Btu/LB HHV70% THROUGH 200 MESH
2%AIR
COMBUSTOR TYPECOMBUSTION PRESSURE (ATM)COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE (OF)AIR PREHEAT TEMPERATUREF/A RATIO RELATIVE TO
STOICHIOMETRIC F/ASLAG REJECTION
TYPEWORKING FLUIDAVERAGE MAGNETIC FLUX
DENSITY (TESLA)COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIODIFFUSER OUTLET PRESSURE (ATM)ELECTRIC LOAD PARAMETERPOTASSIUM SEEDING
ANGER(S)HIGH TEMPERATURE AIR HEATER
TYPE REFR,GAS AP/PAIRAP/P
RADIANT FURNACEGAS AP/PWATER AP (PSI)
SECONDARY FURNACEGAS A P/PSTEAM AP (PSI)AIR AP (PSI)
ECONOMIZERS
STEAM BOTTOMING CYCLE
GAS AP/PWATER AP (PSI)
TYPEHEAT RATE FOR POWER TURBINE
(BTU/kW-HR)HEAT RATE FOR COMPRESSOR
TURBINE (BTU/kW-HR)CONDENSING PRESSURE (IN. Hg)
HEAT REJECTION
WET MECHANICAL DRAFTCOOLING TOWERS
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE33
DIAGONALCOMBUSTION GASES
510.751.140.801%
ACTORY CERAMIC STORAGE0.070.02
0.01570
0.0385421
0.0221
?S.3500/1000F/1000F
8160 (r = 42)
8270 (r - 41 )
2.3 (1060 F)
25 CELLS251°F
PRIME CYCLE MHD
SPECIAL9
46342500
1.0785%
HEAT EXCH,
Io 8 8 81 a % r R 8 8S %
· - - - - - - - - 0C g
-·i 8 8 8 r r % a 9 P °o%_I., . j -_
SL
III It
.E.2~-u 2
aEt
.V?I
, I
2,
: . t- -I E
0~.I_ CM3
E-
snI
- Irw 8hhZ CI . .I,,, Z ; ''6-E=1.. -12 :
LQP ·5P 4; LhOr Wr
v\ *r%Odhi*dC\(olPm LI"'�a�
PS 4�j� 5:
tL SJ,f"ch9 _3
Z LCEe'5 L a
4,- e4C�ur� 8C-i a'Ec"
; %�g E.se�f&��rcE"
:kero-ee 8g,�.P���norm
Iio
I
o
e
-TE I
8 :
-3: s I 9 ; d 'L (V e -! :i d ;·
,.,It 1
o o sl9 0 R t- s-
:EI
_
: _ ;i8 it a
,. _ ., | Z = Z _
z Z Ei
C Z i & t 5; ZIsef
Ii-
c
'IaE.
rE
Z
E__ Z.15R
_2 <
Z f EI~f t:~. I1.I.@-;~ E 'E -
I e , J.3-i _F ,
z,
?_-
9Ua
U
0l)o0
gI E i o 0
v
I '9Ac . oEl I
.1 . j ,3
2
:E
dd ~wi~oo 2 9 -
a
cl0
o0
4
0
H *4 _Cf-09
C
I
.EE
:: 1
E _,
- S
aVEEZE - e f'E Z ' , F
V -CE .2 g
2
| B rss|4
Z E
E
!ac :
m ,o
I
F9I90Q
r4
1
0E4
1
'Uv
Z;Z
gz710
t
"-Ea: &
-i I
o, E
If--
34
- R w R . -.-j .6 : ;-4 ,
t1
>io.
ZE
2
Ti.1
o
ICICI
� C a ;-" B 5� �5a
cSi
o �P�ggi,,9 r
�fla�?R�P:a3%$P��
w
w
"I9
!3x
V.
Z a - &z,
Table 3.1-5 Magnet Design Data for Base Case MHD GeneratorCase 1 - 2000MWE Plant Size(General Electric, 1976)
Channel Specifications
Inlet
Exit
Active Length
Field: Inlet
Bo max.
ExitVB2 = 25
0
1.4297 m x 1.4297 m
3.653 m x 3.653 m
25m
2.496 T
5.992 T
3.12 T
11 11,600 m3T2
Magnet Design Data
Warm bore (circular) Inlet
Exit
Active length
Ampere turns
Ampere meters
Stored energy
Current density, winding, average
Dewar O.D.
Inlet end
Exit end
Dewar length, overall
Conductor weight
Main structure weight
(design stress 25,000 psi)
Internal structure &miscellaneous weight
Dewar weight
2.87 m
6.50 m
25 m
50.8 x 106
34.2 x 108
15,200 megajoules
2.0 x 107 A/m 2
9.3 m
13.6 m
31 m
900,000
1,900,000
180,000
750,000
kg
kg
kg
kg
3,730,000 kgTotal
35
2 d
Table 3.1-6 Magnet Design Data for Base Case MHD GeneratorCase 24 - SRC As Fuel (General Electric, 1976)
Channel Specifications
Inlet
Exit
Active
Field:
length
InletPeak
Exit
Magnet Design Data
Warm bore (circular):
Active
Field:
1.067 m sq.
3.499 m sq.
4\20 m
3.21 T
7.72 T
2.40 T
Inlet
Exit
length
Inlet
Peak
Exit
2.60 m
6.36 m
20 m
3.27.92.4
VB2 = 2 AB2 dl0
Ampere turnsCurrent density, average
Dewar O.D.
Inlet end
Exit end
Dewar length
Conductor weight
Main .structure weight
Intermediate structure &miscellaneous weight
Dewar weight
13,200 m3T2
76.4 x 106
2.0 x 107 A/m 2
9.8 m
13.7 m
28 m
1,036,000 kg2,100,000 kg
200,000 kg
750,000 kg
4,086,000 kgTotal 365,
Table 3.1-7 Air Preheater Design Data for GE OCMHD
Cases 1, 2 and 3 (General Electric, 1976)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Plant Size MWe 2000 1200 600
Air preheattemp (F) 2500 2500 2500
Air pressure (atm) 10.5 10.5 10.5
Number of Heaters 6 2 blowdown 6 2 blowdown 6-2 blowdown3 reheat 3 reheat 3 reheatL1 spare i 1 spare L1 spare
Heater beddia. (ft) 30 24 17
Heater bedheight (ft) 40 40 40
Heater totalheight (ft) 75 70 60
Heater bedweight (tons) 1400 900 450
Heater totalweight (tons) 2400 1650 1000
Pressure dropAir side (atm) 0.01 0.01 0.01Gas side (atm) 0.06 0.06 0.06
Table 3.1-8 Air Preheater Design Data for GE OCMHDCase 24 - base Case with SRC As Fuel(General Electric, 1976)
Air preheat temperature (F)
Air pressure (atm)
Number of Heaters
Heater bed diameter (ft)Heater bed height (ft)Heater total height (ft)
Heater bed weight (tons)
Heater total weight (tons)
Pressure dropAir side (atm)Gas side (atm)
3100
16
6 2 blowdown3 reheat1 spare
30
40
75
1600
2600
0.010.10
37
- ---- --. . . . . . . ~ ~ -
_ .-
_
Table 3.1-9 Comparison of Performance Data forCoal/Open Cycle MHD/ Steam Systems Between ECA8Phases 1 and 2 (NASA, 1977)
Net output power, MWe
Coal thermal input to combustor, MWt
Air preheat temperature, OF
MHD inlet temperature, OF
MHD diffuser exit temperature, OF
MHD inlet pressure, atm
Compressor exit pressure, atm
Airflow, lb/sec:PrimarySecondary
MIHD inverter output power, MWe
Compressor power requireda, MWe
Steam turbine-generator output, MWe
Powerplant gross power output, MWe
Ratio of the difference of MHD power and compressorpower to plant gross power
Auxiliary power required, MWe
Ratio of auxiliary power to powerplant gross power
Coal thermal input to seed-reprocessing system, MWt
Ratio of coal for seed reprocessing to total coal
MHD efficiency, MHD power minus compressor powerdivided by amount of coal to combustor
Steam-cycle efficiency (including generator)
Thermodynamic efficiency, ratio of gross power toamount of coal to combustor
Overall efficiency, ratio of net power to total coal used
aGiven in electric power even if shaft driven.
Phase 2 G. E.conceptualpowerplant
1932
3688
2500
4634
3662
9.0
10.7
2492
189
1406
377
587
1993
0.52
50.7
0.025
311
0.078
0.279
0.420
0. 540
0.483
Phase 1
Westinghouse
base case 2,point 17
1988
3870
2400
4503
3655
7.0
7.6
2653279
1230
307
821
2051
0.45
63
0.031
213
0.052
0.238
0.420
0. 530
0.487
38
G. E. basecase 1
1895
3700
2500
4634
3625
9.0
10.5
2486187
1399
361
555
1954
0.53
55.6
0.028
231
0.059
0.281
0.400
0.528
0.483
.
.
- ---- - ----
Table 3.1-10 Major Dign Parameters of Coal/Open CycleMHD/ Steam System - ECAS Phase 2 (NASA, 1977)
Table 3.1-11 Summary of Performance and Cost for Coal/Open Cycle l)D/Bteam(NASA, 1977)
System - BEAb enas C
Net powerplant output (60 Hz; 500 kV
Thermodynamic efficiency, percent
Powerplant efficiency, percent . .
Overall energy efficiency, percent.
Coal consumption, lb/kW-hr . . . .
Total wastes, lb/kW-hr.......
Powerplant capital cost, dollars
Powerplant capital cost, $/kWe
Cost of electricity (capacity factor, Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fuel . . . . . . . . . . .Operation and maintenance ..Total. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimated time of construction, yr
), MWe ............ 1932.2
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 4 .0.................. .... .49.8... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 4 8 . 3
.. .................... 0.655
............ .... ..... ........ 0.082
... . ......... . . . . 1391. 1x106
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720.0
). 65), mills/kW-hr:.. ... ...... .............. 22.7
. .. . . .... . .. .. . .. . 7.3 .. .. ........ .... ....... .1.7... . . ...... . .. . . . ... . . . . 3 1 . 8
. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5
G. E. estimate of approximate date of first commercial service . .
Coal type ........ I....................... . Illinois #6
Moisture content of coal delivered to combustor, percent ............... 2
Air preheat temperature, oF ................... . . ........... 2500
Combustion pressure, atm 9. ......... .............. 9'Combustion temperature, F . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4634
Combustor fuel-air ratio relative to stoichiometric . . .. ..... .... .1.07
Combustor slag rejection, percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 85
Slag carryover to channel, percent. ........ .. 15
Generator type . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . Diagonal wall
Average magnetic flux density, T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5
Electrical load parameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... 0.8
Potassium seed, percent ...................... 1
Steam-bottoming-cycle conditions, psig/ 0 F/F . . . . . . . . . ... 3500/1000/1000
Cooling tower type .................. .... . Wet mechanical draft
Stack-gas temperature, F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
-- r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ll~~~~~1lit
0%
I qqR- 1999. .-.-- 1!11
TABLE 3.1-12
PROJECTED OCMHD OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Full Load Heat Rate(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)(Pepper, Y-Ui- 774)
Forced/Planned Outage Rate
(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)
(Jackson, et iT., 1976)
Minimum Load(Pomeroy,(Pomeroy,
et al.,
et T.,1978)1978)
Lifetime(Beecher, et al., 1976)
7068 Btu/kWh6600 Btu/kWh
20%/15%
20% total unavailability
60% full capacity
85% of full efficiency
30 years
40
Perhaps the most important design, certainly the most often cited,
is the ECAS General Electric Base Case. The first mass and energy
balance schematic of this case showed the potential of flexibility of
input fuels, Figure 3.2-1. A slightly revised and later version of this
schematic is shown in Figure 3.2-2.
The ECAS Phase I Westinghouse equivalent Base Case is shown in the
schematic diagram in Figure 3.2-3 (Base Case 2). The other major
configurations studied by Westinghouse included a coal gasifier, shown in
Figure 3.2-4, and a char fuel option, shown in Figure 3.2-5.
Another important mass and energy schematic is that developed for
the U.S. Department of Energy that is to represent the goal for the first
commercial facility, see Figures 3.2-6 and 3.2-7.
EPRI has also sponsored mass and energy schematics, and that closest
to the ECAS Base Cases is shown in Figure 3.2-8. Figure 3.2-9 shows a
scheme for increasing the stiochiometric air ratio to 120%. This cycle
is incorporated into the other EPRI-sponsored schematic in Figure 3.2-10
as an attempt to maximize NOx and extract it as a fixed nitrogen source
for fertilizers.
Aside from these system-wide schematics there are a number of mass
and energy balances of particular types of components. For example,
perhaps the most important of these are the seed regeneration schematics
which include the ECAS schematics, Figure 3.2-11, Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2,
as well as others, Figure 3.2-12, Tables 3.2-3, 3.2-4 and 3.2-5.
41
(,13, c,
o , -I oE
LOA ,2 ll n -In L.), tn V - z3 q '
42
-
o
--o
)lox
2
L.ck::3oa:IE
21o
cr
E9 cr.o
rzI.1
'I X
O
C-
r-4
.pO
r-4
I)
0
Q
r1.
I
.)O40
01
Q4)
o~f~CMA
Z, ~ ~ ~ g""¢
~--9o ~o. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
75 ,o V) i
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-c i"ID'---' EJII _ _.i,, - ~ c : ~1 II--
C' E;El/','2 - 2! li
,, ~_~~~CI,-D
co EoIC 1_ 2 2,
L10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0, 1 o
CL U'o 31:I
¢,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~l
ODcu o ~~~~~~~~~ ru~cooL m ,,~~~~~~~~60 cu a, a: Z m~~~~~~~~~~' o -
O C3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 C
C,,
C ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~C
43
Cr
a3C
Lt
zz2.
rc
I
II
I
i
tI
'S
Lf
00
0o
d
o
bO0d
.V -
. 4
NO4IN
0f4
tl
i
I
II
II
12.
z
C;
R
L
I
Location
Ambient
Compressor Inlet
Compressor Outlet
Preheater Outlet
Combustor OutletMHD Duct EntranceMHD Duct ExitDiffuser ExitPreheater Exit
Air Quench Chamber Exit
Steam Generator Exit
Figure 3.2-3 Schematic Diagram and State Points for OpenCycle MHD Westinghouse ECAS Base Case 2(Westinghouse, 1976)
44
PointNo.
0
1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
Prss ure.Psia
14 6%
14.40
95.36
92.58
8. 18
59. 18
13.09
17.00
16.52
15.58
14.696
Temperatur,._F
59.0
59.0
465.2
2398. 4
4414.4
4185.8
3460.4
3644 .0
2538.0
1880305.0
Flow.IbiS
2768.5
2768.5
2768. 5
2768.5
3144.3
3144.3
3144. 3
3144.3
3435. 8
3435. 8
3435.8
LocWtion Point._______________ .No.
Ambient 0
Compressor nletd ICompressor Outlet 2Air Preheater Outletd 3Combustor OuUdet 4
D Duct Entrance 5MHD Oduct Ex 6OifWuser Ea 7Air Preheater Exit 8Air Quench Chamber Exit 9Steam Generator Exit 10Fuel Preheater Entrance 11
Fuel Preheater Exit 12
Figure 3.2-4 Schematic Diagram and State Points for OpenCycle MHD Westinghouse ECAS Base Case 3(West nghouse, 1976)
45
Pressure,Psia
14,696
14.40
13&94
15431
146.96
99.02
13.5417.00
16.52
15.58
14.696
15S9015 31
Temperature,. F
59.0
59.0
603.8
2587.44400.0
41:9.6
3280.4
3446.0
2230.4
1680.0
305.0
1600
259L 0
Flow.Iis
1710.2
1710.2
1710.2
303 2
3030.2
3030. 23030.23210.2
3210 2
3210.2
1282.9
1282.9
Location
Ambient
Compressor Inlet
Compressor Outlet
Air Prehealer OutletCombustor OutletMHO Ouct EntranceMHO Ouct Exit
Difluser ExitAir Preheater Exit
Air Quench Chamber Exit
Steam Generator ExitGaporSFA Combustion Air
Crossover Air
Figure 3.2-5 Schematic DiaCycle MHD Wes(Hoover, et a
gram and State Points for Opentinghouse ECAS Base Case 11., 1976)
46
Point.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
1112
13
Pressure.
Psia
14.696
14.40
95.36
92.58
88.18
58.59
12 94
17.00
16.52
15.58
14.696
16.16
2L 25
93.5
Temperature,OF
59.0
13 15469
2933.54400.0
4162 4
3422 6
3620.6
2483. 0
1880.0
305. 0
800.0
23840
2384.0
1976.3
2934.
2934. 7
2934.7
3194.8
3194. 8
3194.8
3194.8
3194.8
3493.4
3493.4
113.0
63 0
29347
t . ._
Flow.
131.3P
641.5H4.~~~~~~~~~l 17Pg41
|". r i* gja
GII
Figure 3.2-6 Air-Gas Side Balance of OCMHD(Jackson, et al., Oct. 1976)
LEGE ND
N - ENTHALPY - 8TULBI - fLO I LI/NO
P - PNESSUNE - PSIAF - TEMPERATURE - F DECREES
3218 II
Figure 3.2-7 Steam Side Balance of OCMHD(Jackson, et al., Oct. 1976)
47
(
TO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fuktlN~E . FF 1 03 OFa LiilW.P iE4 .' '
CO"E"IST.R 'S2 IF DIFFUSER 6. 0¢ 3:,5 5tZ250.8~ ooo.or D 5~nP T IL6 417.2F 1s 1V3.32357W 1116 - 11 61 4I 5.'" (;.2P
S L A t S E E D 188 .5 3 2Ef TE 6043. , 2200F:5.:o;,-V"" e " I .T I3 I 41 r .O w IF S .:2
IL~3'P SE 9 2 1. 1X I5. 1777 - E"R U - I .0F s'3v
"3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 6%.8s"'2S-~ 26.; 73? KS6a6 ' ... O 2.7ill( 16.21. ~ 33 2r 1 l.Sr[a. 1682r s3ni i.fzl l ?:, 314TE. 5,OE 13 .EiOaA 3.7¢~.3 11u 6 ijj
AI~ *Enrl3 69.OPIq0.0P ale ,L~~~~~~~~~~I56 3M~1 2. 2r 21~.6~P
$LA~ SEE0 8. 5H ?n ) u .5.132.2H ~57'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 35. ~,
1~'223~*2CO j Ci426.0~u
]200'. '3U20 . i;
BoP -2 ,1 *
LEGED: (!2~P
p - PRESSURE - PSlIAI~ l5.5+
¢ - TEH~£RATURE - F eJ2.0F
H 'ENTHLP - RTU/L8 k,~20,/e~
W- FLOY- LB/PR
Figure 3.2-8 Air-Gas ide Flow Diaram-PP~I 0aae 2(Cufing, etal.,, 197)
350 W3Z5 K4
881 W2658 K
COMBUSTOR 4.85 P N(
12700 ppm .(NOx)
O.fu0.ui sec 0. 161 sec Dwell Time NO Level
(9 0.25 sec 4800 ppmW = Mass Flow (kg/sec) 0.5 sec 4420 ppmK = Temperature (K) 1.0 sec 3920 ppmP = Pressure (Atmospheres)
Figure 3.2-9 Theruodynasic State Points and Flowratesfor Topping Oycle-120% Stoichiomatric AirEPRI Case 4 (Cu&ting, et al., 1971)
Figure 3.2-10 Air-Gas ide Flow Diagram-EPRI Case 4(Cutting, et al., 1971)
*4
0
C
-r
e4.
0a Obeo
.t9
CO 0
30ri~da'' e
am
*rJr
0
hi4
49
I
E 0 -00 o0-+C " 0 C 00 Co C o o
h o ~ ~ C o
,l o o o Uo= + - r) u C o f*V dddd CC 0 * X R 0 v ° o
Q . * * * . *-0_ . 1- C- ,
O_ ° o o oo o o,-,
· l D Co C) o . C o o oC
-- . . c- - CZ
7 C, * C8 UN _
o - 8 o o o C ooW M
ceC:C "- . 8 oo n '0'8 U' .oo0) U'0'
n ~ 0 4 '0- -aC ) )C ) C '
c C
0o , o _X Q CL 8
ZL ~ ~ Eo o o °, I Ou o ) F CC z ) CC O OO ; C.
0AC,
0Y.2
50
C1
0
C4bo
43U
4O3d
Owk
oO
4r reorm
rHI
(\JOd
rAr--44~,0E-4
'- 0$~h a00 0 0 0 00
' ,- O- . o cO :a. . ..0 C'.J CJ C'J D C
'(C'.') 0.
BS o o o o o o o,..~g P00 ,- , -,, CD -
'.0 0 - 0 '
8o 0o oo oooC%~Q~~,~CC%
t. oF-. , o-Y 000000
,
I 0v S C On O
C(D~~ f e C V O6C00 C C CD
7. . ' C CD o o
coEen.. o
00 0 0C mCD o 00 ' - -
,
W .00 .
o os .
0 o X- I..
CD -0,A OL ,,0 U'.
m . L:* D 6
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E mC_o _
i'-1
_ 0
.J c 0 0 cO C IC'J 0 - N 4- OC2 = C) I .) = 0(A Id Y<
51
0
0to
0o
0-t
4.
) o311
o611
rR
ICCj
('J
0r-4
14
Sed L Irs m MI FIll
FSe Seli Ta .
I ·,0 IC.. II SoC.eilpsehside""'"")I -"-'t , ,,,er I.
m) 2S I 2c30 1 1 IT.
1u' . (i 8'4 s1 P., 1) ( 13.5l4
hesu rl, I.Seed3 SeCleIssSIll, I
',SI4 /psi&
To MiD ,:ll S off -GC.-but, 6 .
5l il
, , I elerISZ°C
Figure 3.2-12 Desulfurization Scheme for CombinedCycle MHD Power Plant (Bergman, t al., 1977)
52
Table 3.2-3 Solid and Liquid Streams - Material Balancefor Base Case MHD Processing Scheme(Bergman, et al., 1977)
Solid or Liquid Streams
Coal** Ash***
4750
47005050
1040
2537Q1270 2280
K2SO4 Sulfur K2S
(lb/hr)
82100820810
8046080460
1207068390
300 1370300 1370
1750310 15190
11600
2co3 *2
47005050
46004600
7003900
42300 39101270 55470.
'Enthalpy**~*H
(Btu/hr)
345080
3450807850033500
-257.321015 -29.76
-11.19-68.27
-192.90.- 0.87
1270 55470
*See Figure 32 - 12.
**Coal Analysis (4.95% H, 76.1% C,4 Kg H2 0/100 Kg dry coal)
1.0% N, 4.95% 0, 3.0% S, 10.0% Ash,
***Ash Analysis (28.0% Al iO, 4.4% CaO, 15.0% Fe203,0.8% Na2O, 0.5% P205, 6.5% SO 2, 1.3% TIO 2)2 * 2 5' i02, 1.3 2 Tb 2)
1.6% K20, 1.1 % MgO,
****At 298 K and 1 atm the enthalpy of all elements in that physicalstate is 0.
53
FlowStream*
ABCDEFGHIJKLHN0PQ
Table 3.2-4 Gaseous Streams - Material Balance for BaseCase MED Sed Processing Scheme(Bergman, et al., 1977)
Mole 2
Ar CO2 co ' H2 H20 R2S N2 02
1. Gasifier Air
2. Producer Gas
3. Reducer Off-gas to heatrecovery
4. Reducer Off-gas to regen-eration
0.92 0.03 1.26 77.10 20.69
0.70 3.06 24.86 8.80 3.67 0.29 58.64
0.70 24.25 3.67 1.31 11.16 ' 0.29 58.54
- 1.45 21.91
- 0.08 1.92 -5.68
- 0.08 1.25 -153.33
0.70 24.25 3.67 1.31 11.16 0.29 58.54 . :-. . 0.08 0.66 -80.60
_ -, _ - - 100.00 - 0.087 -23.32
6. RegeneratorOff-gas
7. Claus PlantAir
0,75 4.34 3.95
0.92 0.03
1.40 4.34 .22.01
1.26
63.12
77.10 20.69
- 0.09 0.62 -16.29
- 0.40 -1.48
8. Claus PlantTail Gas 0.64 5.46 18.23 .35' 74.95 - 0.40 0.955 -65.57
* See Figure 3-12
** he molar gas volume is taken to be 359 ft3at 273 K and 1 atm.
*** At 298 K and-I atm the enthalpy of all elements in that physical is 0.
Table 3.2-5 Energy Requirements for Seed Desulfurizationin Base Cae (IgTman, et al., 1977)
Coal Input (Wt)
Thermal Input (MWt)Air preheatSteam for regeneration reaction
Total
Thermal Output (Wt)Casifier steamReductor steamRegenerator steamClaus plant steamReductor gas, sensible heat, and
heating valueSolids sensible heat
Net heat recovered (t)
Electricity produced(402 efficiency, MWe)Electrical input for auxiliaries(compressors. pumps, etc.. MWe)*Credit for carbonate production (e)Net electricity production (MiWe)
Effect on Efficiency
1000 + 23.32 1023.32000 + 98.2 2098.2
98.2
(6.92)(0. 51
(7.43)
2.6311.7911.4413.77
15.873.59
59.09
51 ;60
20.64
(0.32)
3.0023.32
- 48.77
Loss of Efficiency 50.00 - 48.80 - 1.23 points
*Includes seed leacthing system energy consumption and assumes steamdrives for pumps and gas compressors above 50 HP.
54
Flow Stream*
No Name
VolumetricFlow RatescfJ** X10
EnthalpyR*** Xlo;bBtu/hr
5. Steam
3.3 Energy Efficiency Evaluations
Table 3.3-1 shows the wide spread of estimates of OCMHD
efficiencies. Of course some of this variation is due to lack of data
and some is due to differences in designs. The energy losses at the
points in several specific designs can be computed from the schmeatics in
the previous section. Th-is section begins with some general energy loss
information and proceeds to the specific energy effects of changes in
various design and operating parameters.
In comparison with other advanced energy cycles the Phase I ECAS
studies shown how OCMHD's appear now to be competitive, Figures 3.3-1 and
3.3-2. With the axes reversed Figure 3.3-3 shows a slightly different
set of results directly from the Westinghouse ECAS report. In the
detailed ECAS Phase II studies the energy balance is shown in the flow
chart in Figure 3.3-4. Table 3.3-2 displays a slightly more explicit
breakdown of combustion losses; Table 3.3-3 shows additional detail on
energy use of auxiliary components, and Table 3.3-4 shows a similar loss
breakdown for the "reference" commercial facility of the future.
The best way to determine the energy efficiency changes due to
particular parameter variations is currently through parametric
investigations in the analytic system models. Some of these studies have
been done as part of ECAS Phase I, Table 3.3-5. Unfortunately there were
not enough of these parameteric studies to allow for a unique solution
for the effects of various parametric changes. Statistically stated
there are not enough values to ensure that predictive formulae would not
capitalize on chance effects in the observed data. There have been some
55
TABLE 3.3-1
PROJECTED OVERALL OCMHD ENERGY EFFICIENCIES
Estimate
(Pomeroy, et al., 1978)
(Cutting, et al., 1977)(NASA, 1977J-(Penny, Bourgeois, Cain,1977)
(Bergman, Bienstock, 1976)(Jackson, et al., 19;'6)
(NASA, 1976
(NASA, 1976)
(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Seikel, Harris, 1976)(Westinghouse, 1976)(Westinghouse, 1976)(General Electric, 1975)
(General Electric, 1975)
(Pepper, Yu, 1975)
(Powell, Ulmer, 19741(Feldmann, Simons,Bienstock, 1970)(Hals, Jackson, 1969)
48.3% - 49.2%46% - 46.9%48.3% - 48.7%
55% - 60%
45.6% - 50.14%47%
46% - 54% low Btu Westinghouse data
loss of 3% for seed reprocessing
associated with high-sulfur coal41% - 53% (GE Co.)
42% - 50% (WE Co.)48.3% (GE Co.)
44% - 49% direct air preheat44% - 54%
44% - 55%
40% - 46% with solvent refined coal52% thermal
50% - 55%
50.8% - 51.9% thermal efficiency50% - 60%
56
Reference
I L1MMHD Isteam1 ccoal fired)
I
I
* aI -,Supercritical 02
; ,-CCMHD-steamI ,- aao Fredl
I- 1 | -- 4-SRC fuel, - , CC lsteam/, ,e -k -
fuel) / -Supercritical CO2 a. -, \
TLBmintegrated : , , ,gasifier)-, I I
- ", - LowtemperaturI < fuel cells (HBTU
- t1 'r_ _
fuel ca
, CGT (HB
CGT ioal fired (A
Low-temperaturefuel cells(hydrogen fuel)-
. "
OGT 1'- I- HBTU fuel)J /
OGTlorganic (HBTU fuell
LMR steam tcoal (PFB) andLBTU Integrated gasifier)-J
I
.20 - .30
m al fired AFB))
IHD Isteamfired)
!I I
II II
I.II
gasifier)
.50
Figure 3.3-1 Effect of Overall Energy Efficiency on Coatof Electricity in General Electric Resultswith Shaded Area OCMHD (Seikel, Harris, 1976)
57
80
70
60
50
E
-
b;Ii
8S
d
40
30
20
in
.10~v I I~~~~~~~ B ~~~~~~~~__ I
-
I I I I.60
I
tE
.bId
zr2
.-.... Contrdor data--- NASA estimate using
contrator data
Figure 3.3-2 Effect of Overall Energy Efficiency on Costof Electricity in Westinghouse Results withShaded Areas OCMHD (Seikel,Harris, 1976)
58
as
e
50
40
._
._t-
r-
L
3030
20
30 40 50 60Cost of Electricity, Mills/kWh
A-Fuel Cell Steam Bottoming1-Molten-Carbonate2-Solid Electrolyte
B-Fuel Cell (Phosphoric Acid)C-Alkaline Fuel CellsD-Liquid Metal MDE-Recuperated-Open-Cyzle Gas TurbineF-Closed Recuperated Gas Turbine (Coai)G-Recuperated-Closed-Cycle Gas TurbineH-Steam (Atmospheric Boiler)I-Steam (Pressurized Fluidized Bed oiler)J-Steam (Pressurized Boiler)K-Distillate-Burning Combined-Gas TurbineL-Open-Cycle MHDH-Metal Vapor Rankine Topping CycleN-Combined-Closed-Cycle Gas-Steam TurbineO-Coal Burning Combined-Cycle-Gas Steam Turbine
Figure 3.3-3 Advanced Energy-Conversion Systems - Rang ofResults with Shaded Area uCMHD (Beecher, et al.1976)
59
IBTU fuel.. I. 1 .At.
Wf
Cooling towerrejection,1345 IMW
Figure 3 3-4 Simplified Energy Flow Diagram for Phase 2Conceptual Powerplant - Coal/Open Cycle MD/Steam System (NASA, 1977)
60
Table 3.3-2 Energy Balance for Combustion FlowtHarris, Shah, 1976)
Energy Outputs
*MHD power output 1420*Combustor/channel/diffuser cooling 235*Radiant furnace heat transfer 983*HTAH heat transfer 857*Secondary furnace heat transfer 1298*(Economizers 328(Coal dryers 8Leaving losses 370
Coal ash (sensible + latent) 22K 2SO 4 (sensible + latent) 10Combustion gas (sensible) 183Combustion gas (latent) 155
Energy Inputs Other Than Combustion
Air heating (857 + 539) 1396Air compressor power 372Coal heating in mills, dryers 8
Net Energy Output 3723 MWt
Combustion Energy Input 3750 MWt
Fuel HHV @ 10.788 Btu/lb 3688Correction for SOx - K2SO4(G) 17Condensation and solidification 45
of K2S04
Excess Energy Input 27 MWt
*Values specified by system advocate
61
Table 3.3-3 Auxiliary Power Requirements and ElectricalLosses for ECAS Open Cycle MHD(Harris, Shah, 1976)
ITEM
PUMPS
CONDENSATECIRCULATING WATER
AIR BLOWER
COOLING TOWERS
COAL HANDLING
COAL PROCESSING
MHD COMPONENTS
TURBINE AUXILIARIES
"HOTEL" LOAD
MAKEUP WATER TREATMENT
INTAKE STRUCTURE
INVERTER LOSSES
TRANSFORMER LOSSES
ASSUMPTIONS
A/E ESTIMATEPROPORTIONAL TO COOLING
TOWER HEAT LOAD
v =80%
PROPORTIONAL TO HEAT LOAD
" OF EQUIPMENT RATING
EQUIPMENT RATING
0.75% MHD POWER
0.75% STEAM POWER
A/E ESTIMATE
A/E ESTIMATE
A/E ESTIMATE
1% MHD D-C OUTPUT
0.5% 60 HZ GENERATION
NO. OF MW TOTALUNITS EACH MWe
4-
3
25
1.464.61
'*.- 1.00
,2.15
.2.25
14.00
10.50
6.90
6.37
.75
.75
.. 14.2
9.96
74.9
62
_ __
Table 3.3-4 OCMHD System Energy Balance for EventualCommercial OCMHD (Jackson, et al., 1976)
GENERATORS
MHD
Steam TurbineSubtotal Generators
MOTORS (CALCULATED)
Secondary Air FanCirculating Water PumpCondensate PumpBoiler Feed Booster PumpInduced Draft FanSubtotal Motors
PLANT AUXILIARIES (ESTIMATED)
Main Steam TurbineFuel HandlingAsh HandlingService Water SystemMHD TransformerSteam Turbine TransformerSeed HandlingInve rter -C1lnup SystemMagntMiscellaneousSubtotal Awuliaries
TOTAL PLANT OUTPUT (NET)COAL BURNER
LB/HRHHV
. BTU/SEC
KWth.STATION HEAT RATE (BTU/KWH)
(BASED ON HHV)STATION EFFICIENCY (%)
.KW
634, 000
370,408
4844,9071, 230
766
7, 556
295
6, 307
1,636' .293
12,6835, 548
10, 000
6,31113, 671
1,0001, 936
616,00911,081
1,896,1112, 000, 000
. . KW
1,004,408
-14, 943
-59,680929, 785
- 7341
46.50
63
_ - _ - i lu ~ ii i~~~~~~~~ ,, , ,.
Table 3.5-5 Parametric Variations for General ElectricECAS Task I Study Open Cycle MHD(Corman, et al., 1976)
Parameters
Power Output (MWe)
Combustion
Coal
Oxidizer
Combustor slag rejection percent)
Preheater
Firing
Oxidizer temperature (FI
MHD Generator
Type
Inlet pressure (atm)
Average magnetic field (TI
Potassium seed (percent)
Electrical load parameter
Heat Exchangers
Gas ( pip)
Air (A p/p)
Steam Bottoming Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature (OF)
Turbine inlet pressure (psi)
Maximum feedwater temperature (OF)
Air Bottoming Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature (OF)
Pressure ratio
Heat Rejection (in. Hg)
Actual Powerplant Output (MWe)
Thermodynamic Efficiency (percent)
Powerplant Efficiency (percent)
Overall Energy Efficiency (percent)
Coal Consumption (lb/kWh)
Plant Capital Cost ($ million)
Plant Capital Cost ($1kWe)
Cost of Electricity, Capacity Factor - 0. 65
Capital (millslkWh)
Fuel (millslkWh)
Maintenance and operating (millslkWhl
Total (millslkWh)
Sensitivity
Capacity factor - 0.50 (total millsikWh)
Capacity factor - 0. 80 (total mills/kWh)
Capital a = 20 percent ( A mills/kWh)
Fuel A = 20 percent ( A mills/kWh)
Estimated Time for Construction (years)Estimated Date of 1st Commercial Service (year)
Common Elements: Direct Coal Comnbustion. Avco Combustors. and Refractory S
Case 1 2
1895
111. 6
Air
90
Direcl
2500
r araay
9
5
1.0
0.8
0.15 -
0. 10 -
1000/100c.... ,-3500
232
WCT1.5
1895
52.8
49.2
48.3
0.65
2090
1102
34.9
6.2
2.8
43.9
55.1
36.8
7.0
1.2
7
1997
1180
8.9
1180
52.0
48.5
47.6
0.67
1239
1049
33.2
6.3
2.9
42.4
53.2
35.6
6.6
1.3
6
1997
3
599
8.7
=-·
599
52.3
48.7
47.8
0.66
715
1193
37.7
6.3
3.2
47.3
59.6
39.6
7.5
1.3
6
1997
4
1870
Mont
7
1870
49.6
47.9
47.8
0.80
2060
1101
34.8
6.l2.9
43.8
55.2
36.8
7.0
1.2
7
1997
5
1867
N. D.
6.5
1867
48.4
46.5
46.3
1.07
2107
1128
35.7
6.3
2.9
44,9
56.5
37.7
7.11.3
7
1997
6
1888
I111. 6
80
9-
1888
52.7
49.1
48.1
0.66
2092
1108
35.0
6.3
2.8
44.1
55.4
37.0
7.0
1.3
7
1997
7
1888
0
188
52.7
49.1
48.1
0.66
2091
1107
35.0
6.3
2.8
44.1
55.4
37.0
7.0
1.3
7
1997
8*
1426
7
=·
1426
51.6
47.2
46.1
0.69
2018
1415
44.7
6.6
3.6
55.0
69.5
45.9
9.9
1.3
7
1997
9
991
Air/O
500
1500
10.2
1991
50.0
46.9
46.1
0.69
2016
1012
32.0
8.8
2.3
43.1
53.4
36.b
6.4
1.3
7
1993
10
1994
I Air
Indirecl
3104.
11.5
, 1_12017
Di reel
13.0
..'
1994 .2017
S5.5
51.850.8
0.62
2164
1085
34.3
5.9
2.9
43.1
54.2
36.1
6.9
1.2
1993
.56.1
52.4
51.4
0.62
215Z
1061
33.7
5.9
2.7
42.3
i53.Z
1.2
1999
12
2073
16
6
2073
57.7
53.9
52,0
0.60
2173
1048
33.1
5.7
2.6
52,1347
6.6
1,1
1999
13
1738
2000
6
5.
i738
48.6
45.1
44.3
071
2052
1181
37.3
6.8
3.0
47.1
59,2
39.6
7.5
1.4
7
1995
14
1929
25.00
8.7
0.85
1929
53.7
50.1
49.2
0.64
2116
1096
34.7
6.1
2,7
43.5
54.7
36.5
6.9
1.2
7
1997
15
9.
0.7
1799
50.2
46.8
45.9
0.69
2059
1144
36.2
6.6
2.9
45.6
57.438.37.2
1.3
71997
Base case 1."Base case 1 configuration, reduced power output.t Base case 2.
DCT - Dry cooling towerHT = High temperatureIll. Illinois 64
Mont - MontanaN. D. North DakotaWCT - Wet cooling tower
I
.- _ _ -- . - -
- I _ I I _ 3 _ _
! . . I- _
It |- -
I t
.- -
I i
-
__
-- L·C
--
--
I .I I _ _ I.- _ --9 .
.-
-- ---
-
1993
I 1799
.
Infli rect Di reel
t
l
Table 3.3-5 (cont'd)
Parameters
Power Output (MWe)
Combustion
Coal
Oxidizer
Combustor slag rejection (percent)
Preheater
Firing
Oxidizer temperature (F)
MHD Generator
Type
Inlet pressure (atm)
Average magnetic field (T)
Potassium seed (percent)
Electrical load parameter
Heat Exchangers
Gas (pip)
Air (plp)
Steam Bottoming Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature (F)
Turbine inlet pressure (psi)
Maximum feedwater temperature (F)
Air Bottoming Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature (oF)
Pressure ratio
Heat Rejection (in. Hg)
Actual Powerplant Output (MWe)
Thermodynamic Efficiency (percent)
Powerplant Efficiency (percent)
Overall Enemgy Efficiency (percent)
Coal Consumption (lb/kWh)
Plant Capital Cost ($ million)
Plant Capital Cost ($/ikWe)
Cost of Electricity, Capacity Factor - 0.65
Capital (millslkWh)
Fuel (millslkWh)
Maintenance and operating (mills/kWh)
Total (millslkWh)Sensitivity
Capacity factor - 0. 50 (total millsl/kWh)
Capacity factor - 0.80 (total millslkWh)Capital A - 20 percent ( A millslkWh)
Fuel a -20percent( Amills/kWh)
Estiaed Time for Construction yearsEsti~ned Date of 1st Commercial Service (year)
Drage HT Air Preheater
16
1701
0.6
0. 6
1701
4706
44.2
43.4
0.73
2036
1197
37.A
7.0
3.1
47.9
60.2
40.2
?.6
1.4
7
19!97
17
1895
6
0.8
.1895
52,6
49,2
48,3
0.65
2028
1069
33.6
6.2
2.8
42,6
S3.8
36.026,06,6
1.2
7
1997
18
1895
I, i
ii ii
1695
52.8
49.2
40.3
0.65
2024
1067
33.9
6.2
2.8
4207
53.7
35.9
6.6
1.2
7
1997
19
188320
1901
Diagonal Farada:
1683
52.5
4809· .9
48.0
0.66
20s9
1109
35.1
6.3
2.6
44.1
55.5
37.07.0
1.3
7
1997
0.5
1901
53,050.'
49.9
0.63
2105
1107
'35.0
5.9
2.7
43.7
55.0
36.67.0
1.2
7
199?
65
21
1870
1.5
i
-lb
18170
52.1
'7.646.3
0.46
20689
11i7
35.3
6.6
2.8
44.7
56.137.6
7.1
1.3
1997lo3l
22
1999
1.0
2400
10
1999
S5.5
5.,950.9
0.62
2304
1152
36,4
5.9
3.2
45,6
57.5
1.2
19991999
23
1889
---- I---3500
232 -
DCT1.9
1889
520. -
49.1
68.1
0.66
2153
1140
36.0
6.3
2.8~501
'5.1
5607
37.87.2
1.3
19971997
Common Elements: SRC Fuel. Avco Combustor.and Refratorv Storagre HT Air Preheater
24*
1932
. .
3100
Farada3
15
6
WCT1.5
1932
5S.2
56.6
44.3
0,71
166
965
30.5
10.6
2.8
37.9
6,1
2.2
19791999
25
1754
2500
9
1754
53.0
51.6
40,2
0.79
1763
1016
32.1
11.9.
3.0
47.0
57.6
40*4604
2.4
17951995
26
2005
3600
20
2005
60.4
56.9
46.0
0.69
1883
939
29,7
10.4
3.0
43.1
52.9
37.0
35.9
2.1
20032003
27
1931
3100.
15
5
1931
58.2
56.8
44.3
0.71
1670
968
30.6
10.8
2.8
44.2
'54.3
36.0
6.1
2.2
7
1999
28
1937
7
w1
1937
56.4
56.9
4404
0.71
1652
956
30.2
10.8
2.6
43.8
53.7
37.66"U
2.2
7
1999
29
1942
6
0.5
1942
58.6
57.1
4.5
0.71
1673
964
30.5
10.8
208
44.0
54.0
37.66.1
2.2.·7
1999
30
1919
1.
1.5
_b.
-.ak
1919'
57.9
56.4
'4.0
0.72
1859
966
30.6
10.9
2.6
44.3
5404
38,16.1
2.2
71999
.................... r .....
II
i
-- Ip
-- to
.5
II Innnnnn I II,
I I I II
e,
I I
wII .
.:t I l t!: I I -- Y_ .- - I __.LL= · : =t_ .! [- · I _I __ ___�____� � ·· � _ � _�·__����_ __�_�__�_�� __·_�_·�_�·�___ ·IIIIi I II
additional investigations of efficiency changes due to variations in one
parameter, the moisture content of the coal, Tables 3.3-6, 3.3-7 and
3.3-8. Attempts to model the effects of parameter changes have been made
for sulfur content of coal, Figure 3.3-5, and for channel wall
temperature and pressures, Figures 3.3-6 and 3.3-7.
Some crude initial models of OCMHD efficiencies are shown in Figures
3.3-8 and 3.3-9.
66
Table 3.3-6 Energy Balance for 2000 MWt MHD Power PlantOperating on Eastern and Western Coal withThermal Drying (Bergman, Bienstock, 1976)
Pittsburgh Seam Rosebud Seam
2
Moisture Level (wt. H20)x100/(wt. dry coal)
Gross MMD Channel Power, We 634.54
Gross Steam Plant Power, We 583.31
Compressor Power, MWe 171.17
Plant Auxiliaries and ElectricalLosses, MWe 43.82
Net Power, MWe 1002.86
Drying Energy, MWt 1/ -" 0
Efficiency, Z 50.14, , .. .. , ... ..~~~~~~~~~.
2
601.12
593.50
172.23
43.60
978.79
93.0
46.74-; '
; -.
l/Drying energy is supplied by combustion of an
Table 3.3-7 Energy BalanceOperating on ASteam Drying
Pittsburgh Seam
Moisture (wt H 0) x 100/(wt dry coal -- 2
Gross MMD Channel Power, MWe 634.54
Gross Steam Plant Power, MWe 583.31
Compressor Power, MWe 171.17
Plant Auxiliaries and ElectricalLosses, MWe 43.82
Net Power, MWe 1002.86
Drying Energy, I Wt 0
Efficiency, 2 50.14
auxiliary fuel in the dryer.
for 2000 MWt MHD Power Plantatern and Western Coal with,Berg an, Bienstock, 1976)
. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . .
2
601.12
585.47
172.23
43.26
971.10
33.8
48.56
Rosebud Seam
10
581.96
587.10
172.23
42.94
953.89
24.0
47.69
, 27.4
532.15
595.25
172.23
42.32
912.85
0
45.64
-/Drying energy comes from waste steam deposited in steam bottoming plant from MMD topping cycle.
67
10 27.4
532.15
595.25
172.23
581.96
592.80
172.23
43.19
959.34.
66.1
46.43
42.32
912.85
0
45.64
Table 3.3-b Energy Efficiency Effects of Various SystemsParameters (Annen, Eustis, 19l7)
_!_ _ _ _ - ; : Illinois 6 Coal - Montana Rosebud Coal
Separate Flow Separate Flow Single Flow Separate Flow Separate Flow Single FlowAir Preheat Temp. Air Turbine Gas Turbine Gas Turbine Air Turbine Gas Turbine Gas TurbineiAir Preheat Temp.
2000°K 18001 2000°K 1800'K 2000°K 1800 20000 K 1800°K 2000K 1800°K 2000°K 18000. , ,. , , .. . . ., , , , ! '
Net Power from MHD
!cycle (MHD PWR- 1cycompressor power),- i 636.7 544.5 599.8 513.8 648.3 554,7 628.8 541.9compressor power),MW
707.9 599.6 734.0 619.1Net Power from Air/;Net Power from Air 269.9 319.6 297.7 343.4 271.6 321.6 284.5 335.2:Gas Turbine, MW
lNet Power from Bt- iNet Power from Bot- 130.2 143.6 134.1 142.8 327.8 383.0 119.2 133.3 11u.8 128.8 313.5 368.71toming Cycle, MW
JTotal Power, MW 1036.8 1007.7 1031.6 1000.0 1035.7 982.6 1039.1 1009.6 1030.1 1005.9 1047.5 987.8
,Thermal Efficiency !i(based on lower ! 51.8 50.41 51.6 50.0 51.8 49.1 52.0 50.5 51.5 50.3 52.4 49.4heating value) %
Bottoming Cycle and iIntercooler Heat iRejection (propor- iIRejection (propor- i 384.4 424.0 400.6 424.9 540.1 631.3 352.0 391.3 366.3 397.7 516.7 607.7itional to coolingwater requirement)
MW
iMID Mass Flow Rate D Mass Flow Rate 763 665 772 692kg/sec806 . 826.6
.Air/Gas TurbineMass Flow Rate 1479 1751 830 1080 1488 1762 838 1111
kg/sec
HD Combustor Flame i 2932 2841 2963 2870 2794 2689 2934 2843 2963 2871 2805 2700
iMHD Dt Length 18.2 15.2 20.1' 16.7 13.4 10.3 18.8 15.4 20.2 17.2 14.5 10.7I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ .... _______ __________ .... ______(Thermal Input = 2000 MW)
68
V
LSILLIIIo
0.1.
PERCE,.T SLLF.P '. C'
'A EP, '_ I 'SS' . L' ,IB L -T c , i E- , L PI 5 tC GE . -:
Figure 3.3-5
50
Baseline Plant Station Efficiency and SulfurControl Costs s. Coal ulfur Content(Jackson, et al., 1976)
COMBUSTION PRESSURE
5 ATM.
ALI- IN
"-ONLY 120 MW OF HEAT RECOVERED IN STEAM PLANTI I - I I I
600 800 1000 1200WALL TEMPERATURE (K)
1400 1600
Figure 3.3-6 Effect of MB Channel Wall Temperature andAssociated Heat Losses on Cycle Efficiencyfor Two Different Combustion Pressures(RiA, 1975)
69
0
U-
wC)
W
a-
JQ
49
48
47
46
45
400I- - -
Inn
11711IIntII
_
_
_ . --1
-
cycle
1500 K
TinLr Preheater
combustorinlet
pressureI L, , a Lm)
~---4~~~~ l
> 10
Figure 3.3-7 Open Cycle nED Efficiency Variationwith Changes in Combustor Pressure(Amend,1975)
70
e
50
45-
I1nn rV
I ,
Model of Overall Energy Efficiency of OCMHD:
E = .415 - 1.392C + 3.977A -.00056R - .004F + .0229T - .0115G
+ 1.535P - 10.98M - 1.842S + 23.13L + 1.87B + .0122W
+ .00615W M - .00216W P - .00001W T + .218M P
- .000836M T + .00057P T - 1.035(C-2.2)2
E = Overall energy efficiency of OCMHD design, in percentC = Coal type: Ill #6=1, Montana= 2, N.D.=3, SRC=4
A = Combustion oxidizer: air=l, air/02=2R = Combustor slag rejection in percent
F = Preheater firing: direct=l, indirect=2T = Temperature in F of preheated air
G = Generator type: Faraday=l, diagonal Faraday=2
P = Generator inlet pressure in atmospheresM = Averaae maanetic field strenath in TeslasS = Potassium seeding in percent
L = Electrical load parameter,as fraction
B = Bottom cycle type: steam=l, air=2W = power output of OCMHD, in megawatts
Fit to 39 parametric designs with arithmetic standard deviationequal to 0.28% 2
Correlation of actual to predicted values is R .985
Figure 3.3-8 Simplified model fit to the energy efficiencyresult from GE ECAS Task 1 (Corman, et al., 1976).
71
I·"--�OIUIICIIXWWIWn�-1�. rur�llrn-rru-l--------·�---- , - -- -- -
l
iIF
i
i
I
4C(. 42. 1 44. 4 .41( 5.7 52. 5-
I *
.,J.~ I *1J
a/) 53.3 -'U,
4 51.7 1
* I 1
·,- [ 1:
o I-
>, 5 C , 2. . 5 . I *
o*_ I .*4-
4r.3
a) I,
m 46.7 1*
o I JC1C
-o 1 '*a)
. 45.0 i
m . 3
I F
I * .I 1
4I I
1('.U 42.1 h,.3 46.4 4fI.K 5(C.7 5 2.c 5.
Figure 3.3-9 Scatterplot of predicted efficiencies versus those
analytically derived in GE ECAS Task 1, different letters refer
to different types of system configurations.
72
4. Environmental Assessment
The primary impetus for developing open cycle MHD power plants is
the economic attractiveness. Some of this economic potential is due to
the very high efficiencies of these cycles and part is due to the lack of
need for scrubbers. Investigations to date indicate that there are other
environmental gains possible, but data are still lacking on many key
points. In particular only a few of the potential air pollution
emissions have been studied whereas the list of possible pollutants from
fossil-fuel facilities includes more than 602 inorganic pollutants and
491 organics. Liquid emissions are expected to be total suspended
solids, oil, grease, copper, iron, other heavy metals, and thermal
discharges (Penny, et al., 1977). Solids will be dominated by furnace
wastes, other collected slids, and sulfur. The following sections deal
in more detail with the particular emissions that have been studied to
date.
4.1 Air Emissions
When they come on lile OCMHD power plants will have to meet either
the EPA New Sources Performance Standards or updated (probably stricter)
standards for air pollution from stationary coal-fired power plants,
presented in Table 4.1-1. The following sections deal specifically with
these emissions, and a summary of these and other environmental and
economic data can be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1 Sulfur Oxides
Some projections of OCMHD sulfur oxide emissions are shown in Table
4.1.1-I. The ash holds about 2.4% of the sulfur, and high combustion
efficiencies reduce sulfur emissions, see Figure 4.1.1-but the
73
TABLE 4.1-1
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SOLID-FUELED SOURCES
74
Pollutant Standard (lb/MBtu) Possible Future Stand-ard (EPRI-predicted)(lb/MBtu)
SOx 1.20 (as S02 ) 0.60 to 0.30 (as S02)
NOx 0.70 (as N02) 0.40 to 0.13 (as N02)
Total Particulates 0.10 0.10 to 0.05
Fine Particulates none 0.10 to 0.02( less than 3 microns)
TABLE 4.1.1.-1
ESTIMATES OF SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM OCMHD
Reference lb/106 Btu input lb/kWh output
(General Electric, 1976) base case 1.2 .008
(General Electric, 1976) SRC 0.8 .0062
(Jackson, et al., 1976) reference less than 1.2 -
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) 0.77 g/kWht 1.6 g/kWhe
(Penny, et al., 1977) - 5 ppm
(Hals, Jackson, 1977)
fertilizer recovery system - 100 ppm
(Harris, Shah, 1976) 0.5 .0034
(REA, 1976) 0.045
1.0I
C. .6,
SI6NC')
C
-. 2-
0
THEMGnDYrAM : C EFFIC\JNCy
Figure 4.1.1-1 SO2 Emissions as aFunction of Power PlantEfficiency (Bienstock, et al.,1971)
0 1 2 3 4 1 5r1ASS OF K2CO3/tiASS OF S STOICHiOMETRIC
Figure 4.1.1-2 Sulfur Removal byPotassium Carbonate Addition(Dicks, et al., 1977)
75
·1
I �
I
I 7
I
$· · , ·
overwhelmingly dominant influence on the level of these emissions is the
amount of seed material used. As can..be seen from Table 4.1.1-2 or from
Figure 4.1.1-2 the concentration of SO2 in the emissions can be lowered
to almost any desired value, see Figure 4.1.1-3. This is a very
impressive advantage of MHD cycles, however, there are fairly substantial
economic and energy-efficiency penalties for high removal percentages.
An interesting trade-off then presents itself requiring a choice among
low-sulfur coal, beneficiated coal, high seeding levels, and
post-combustion sulfur oxide removal. Expectations for commercial-sized
facilities (Jackson, et al., 1976) show that the seed recovery method of
sulfur oxide control is likely to be the most cost effective technique,
0.5% efficiency penalty versus 1.5% and 3.0% for flue gas desulfurization
and coal cleaning (Jackson, et al., 1976), and 1.5% for nitrogen
maximization (Cutting, et al., 1977).
table 4.1.1-2 Removal of Sulfur Oxides in MiD PowerGeneration with K2 CO as Seed(Bienstock,et al., 171)
Wgt % of sulfur in coal: 2.2105% of stoichiometric oxygen
N2/0 2 = 2
Seed concentration Actual
g moles K2 C03 lb K2 CO3 S02 in S02 S02 removalcombustion removal, stoichiometric
kg coal 100 lb coal agas, ppm % removal
0 0 2735 -
0.37 5 1608 41.2 Si 94
0.72 10 102 96.3 8 - oY
0.90 12.5 35 98.7
a op onom o 9.8 b
aBased on formation of KS04.
76
2.0
o-)
C:0ON
0E
-J
W_J0
1.5
I.0
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5SULFUR CONTENT OF COAL,weight %
Figure 4.1.1-3 MHD Plasma SeedingLevels for Completely Elis-inating Sulfur From Uoal[Bienstock, et al., 1974)
2.0 iSO02 Emissions Are A EPA Lm,t
011.20 lb S0 2 .106 BTU
Combustion Products Of Plttsburgh/15 Sea Coal
1.0
0.5
00 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE OF SULFUR IN COAL WT. %I
3.5
30;I
E2
.E9
vl-x
.JIz
S
I<r
c
c:c
2Figure 4.1.1-4 Effect of SulfurContent on Cycle EfficiencyLoss (Bergman, et al., 1977)
2.5
2.0
1.5
..0
G5
o
77
502 Emission Level I 2 lb ,S Blu
ILLIN156SUBBITUMINOUSA
P1 TTS BURGHHIGH-VOLATILEA BITUMINOUS
MONTANASUBBITU MINOUS C
-NORTH DAKOTA LIGITE
100 200 300 400 500
POUNDS SULFUR/106
BTU IN ENTERING COAL
Figure 4.1.1-5 Energy Consumed inSeed Regeneration vs. Type ofCoal Employed(Bergman, et al., 1977)
I-
u
rJ
w9UU
U
Q
r X W --*--·
- - h
_ _
[-
w
L
_
Once the seeding technique has been selected there are several
factors that affect the economics of the process:
(1) the seed material used, almost certainly potassium carbonate,
but possibly cesium carbonate or a mixture;
(2) the sulfur content of the coal, Figures 4.1.1-4 and 4.1.1.-5,
and degree of control desired will affect the amount of
potassium sulfate that must be regenerated, see Table 4.1.1-3;
(3) lesser control translates into lesser requirements for reducing
gas and thus less equipment; and
(4) threshold standard, Figure 4.1.1-6.
From the initial sulfur i the coal to the sulfur that would come from a
Claus plant, the principal reactions are:
S + 2 = SO2
2S02 + 2K2C03 + 02 = 2K2S04 + 2C02
K2S04 + 2(CO + H2) = K2S + 2(C02 + H20)
K2S + CO2 + H20 = K2C03 + H2S
2H2S + 302 = 2S02 + 2H20
2H2S + S02 = 3S + H20.
A previously mentioned alternative to the seeding procedure is the
post-combustion removal option. In the particular design where NO is
maximized to be drawn off as a fixed nitrogen source for fertilizers the
nitrogen oxides convert the SO2 to S03 which is easily removed as
sulfuric acid (Hals, Jackson, 1969). Concentrations as low as 100 ppm
are apparently possible with this operating configuration, described a
little further in the following section.
78
Table 4.1.1-3 Required Percent ofK2SO0 to Sulfur-free Pota&giuaCompounds (Jackson, et al.,1976)
CoalPennsylvania(Pittsburgh)West. KentuckyIllinois #6
Montana(Rosebud)
Wt. Sulfur
1.63.33.3
0.85
Conversion %
16
52
57-71
8 - M
0
2
U
U
UI110C,
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2,0 2.5
SO2 EISSION Ilb tO10TU OF COAL BURNTI
Figure 4.1.1-6 Change of Cycle Eff-iciency Loss with SO2 Emmis-sions Level (Bergman, et al.,1977)
79
2.0 -
t -
1.0 -
n 5O
Combustion Producl Of Pittsburgh S..Co\l 3% Sulr
I · ·I
V.P
I
I I I I I
As has been stated before, the best method currently available for
computing SOx or other emissions from MHD's is the composite analytic
models. One such model is the GPES system of the MIT Energy Laboratory
which can be used to construct hypothetical systems, see Figure 4.1.1-7.
Sample results are shown in Figure 4.1.1-8. There are several other such
analytic models including those of Argonne National Labs, see Table
4.1.1-4. A crude parametric model of OCMHD emissions is shown in Figure
4.1.1-9.
4.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides
As can be seen in Table 4.1.2-1 there is a considerable variation in
the estimated NOx emissions from OCMHD. In the combustion of fossil
fuels the process of nitric oxide formation is a function of temperature,
see Figures 4.1.2-1 and 4.1.2-2. With the extremely high temperatures in
OCMHD it might be possible to produce levels of NOx emissions at almost
10 times those for conventional gas- and oil-fired plants, almost 10
times the current standard or 6.6 lbs N02/106 Btu (Beinstock, Demski,
Demeter, 1971). Fortunately there are relatively easy methods of
substantially reducing these NOx emissions, namely:
(1) using two-stage combustion,
(2) maximizing NOx production then scrubbing it out as a valuable
fixed nitrogen source for fertilizers, or
(3) using pure oxygen instead of air for the combustion oxidant.
The first of these control options, two-stage combustion, not only
reduces NOx emissions but also can increase the power density by 10 to
20% by operating at 90% of stiochiometric air (Beinstock, Demski,
Demeter, 1971). The measured NOx values in a staged combustion
simulation are shown in Table 4.1.2-2. Although it is not the intent of
this review to deal explicitly with the various (6 to 60 reaction
80
0
sI
I U - .I
' - .I
U)r-p >1 o -
tO CU
3 w: U $-wD j~ C) -I
E E u r CO>o o 4 ' CV U C a -'-4
o
14 C. ¢k U C5-IL0 4100 ia)CLb0
E
I I I I I I I.
'-.4
C .C- E E - - - >
0*1-
H
4,
rHV43
0H
0
0
0
0 P
**V fi:0. i
ur:
C)-'0-Cp t
s= I c C4.I X o. 0 u II'. a) Q r-Cl.E m m
I I I Iiii
14c 4_s CLas _c r v0. bD
.4
81
0. $(O 0 ,0,¥10,,~ 3 l
II
I
I
I
-· -0,50
~--.Z '": "",50'"" ="==".=.'===. '" ~ 2.,. X1 o**-2~'""=:::-; =.= .. 2,50
V 700 _I, ~ chamber
I -
v."CO
0
O
._4 0 ,5-Q
O, 40(
0,f00
0o200o I
,
SO2
A/
'/
-/
77
7
2"
SO
0,0S
.1 o ":~j 0 .... . :7=..:Z ::, I .1 ......:'
SO2 In 22 o0 lUre 4 1 XlA0
-'. *1 4-
nf Sulfur Con oundn cD COcl . IPund"__.O m
Pig'
for
iP /
I!
tr - ---
--- ., .- -' .
'---w
(
Table 4.1.1-4 Comparison of Equilibrium Conditions BetweenComputer Codes (Chung, Smith, 1977)
Parameter Present Code NASA Code
CpgI average .31 .33 Computed internallyfor each specie
Pressure, atm 4 4 4
Gas Temp,, R 4704 4593 4568
Average Molecular Wt. 29,5 29.6 29,5
Mass Fractions
02 - .020 .017 .012
CO .035 .030 .028
CO2 .2028 .2116 .2125
N2 .692 .692 .674
NO .0044 .0044 .0058
SO2 .0021 .0021 .0020
H2 .00021 .00021 .00018
H20 .0424 .0427 .0495
Ar - - .O11
Preheat temp., 1300R
Stoichiometric Ratio, 1.0
Higher Heating Value, 11946 Btu/lb
Coal, ontana Rosebud with ash removed
83
-10. 10. 30. 50. 70. 90. 110.I-i ======= =====-= I ====!== =-==2===== ! ======= ==== == 1
110. I
I 2 *S = 180.8 - 27.1 K - 1.64 K - 1.73 A + 0.514 K A *
I C *
I S = SOx removal in percent *
I B*
I K = ratio of mass K2C03 to mass Sulfur in combustor
I *
90. 1 A = Stoichiometric air ratio in percent *+~ ! * B
aJ ~ . I *
I *
J K* HI *
>o 70. 1EI *x
o I
,I *" ! *GFE
- 50 I A*
! * D *D C
*!I *30.I *I *
I *
I *
10. 1 *I *
I *A
I *
1*
I . Actual SOx Removal in Percent
-10 1=-!0. 30. 50. 70. ==I===== !=-=. 110.-10. 10, 30. 50. 70. 90. 110.
Figure 4.1.1-9 Very crude model of SOx removal based upon data from
(Dicks,et al.,1977) and (Bienstock, et al.,1971).
84
TABLE 4.1.2-1
ESTIMATED NOx EMISSIONS FOR OCMHDX
85
Reference lb/106 ug/J lb/kWh ppmBtu input output
(General Electric, 1976) base case 0.3 0.129 .002 248
(General Electric, 1976) SRC 0.3 - .0023 -
(Jackson, et al., Oct. 19;76) less than
Reference 0.7 - -
(Shaw, 1978) 0.71 0.304 - 585
(Folsom, 1978) Old EER set 0.72 0.309 - 595
(Folsom, 1978) New EER set 0.685 0.295 - 566
(Mori, Taira, 1972) - - - 243
(Mori, Taira, 1973) - - - 50
(Pepper, Eustis, Kruger, 1972) - - - 283
(Penny, Bourgeois, Cain, 1977) - - - 135-300
(Bienstock, et al., 1973) - - 150
(Hals, Lewis, 1972) - - 160-260
(REA, 1976) - - 155
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) 1.10g/kWht 2.3g/KWhe
I0,00c
I000
a-
z
0
zz0zZ
100
I0
0.1
0 01
0 001
I I I I I I I I I I !
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4900 5600GAS TEMPERATURE IN F
Figure 4.1.2-1 NO-Equilibrium Concen-trations in Combustion Gases(Hals, Lewis, 1972)
1
wW0
z0zo
TEMPERATURE (F)
Figure 4.1.2-2 The Variation in Nit-ric Oxide (NO) EquilibriumConcentrations for CombustionProducts From Coal with Airfor Different Preheat Temper-atures and Fuel-air Ratios(Hals, Jackson, 1969)
Table 4.1.2-2 NO Formation in 2-Stage Combustiont(Benstock, et al., 1973)
% Stoichio-metric oxypen
11010210195949492929188
NO,
440026952650880782727543496496356
CO
vol-%
1.142.172.274.306.616.908.117.539.95
10.40
2000 2150 2450 2850% Stoichio-metric
NOX ,p Pm
Gas entrance temperature,or
I b NU'
1()6 BtuCO
vol-%
110102101106103105107107104104
x
x
x
x
K
408626122225150351550575885885814
3.132.001.700.120.270.400.430.660.640. 59
00.10.40O000OO
86
FOTAL GAS PRESSURE: t ATM
_- _i i i I I I I I i
Second Staoe�I_
:I - - - --
2000- "' r ----------V---------'------'
- _I l _ _= _ I s-- _ _------Y
------ _ _ _- _ _. · I I__ �. .
C------
inn r\nnI U,UU
b
I
-
F jjL Stag - --------- C·--·L--Y-·SamlinP at s0nn-n6NN()-n% S toich i), -- VV- -- - P 'FFI. t- , P t 1, - - "' ��""�` LL"CI`�L'
equation) analytic models, some of this discussion is really in order to
explain extrapolation of the results in Table 4.1.2-2 to large
facilities. Comparisons of analytic models is therefore made at a couple
of key points in their simulations.
Using principles of thermodynamic chemical equilibria and postulated
kinetic mechanisms the principal concern of analytic models of NOx
emissions is the temperature-time-composition environments of the
process. The tremendous amount of nitric oxide formed during combustion
slowly decomposes to its elements. At some point in this process the mix
is frozen and remains unchanged, and analytic models of the
time-temperature history are aimed at estimating that freeze point.
In addition to a considerable amount of work at MIT there have been
analytic models developed and used by:
(1) NASA-Lewis TRAN-72 (Patel, et al., 1976)
(2) US Bureau of Mines (Bienstock, et al., 1973)
(3) Avco (Hals, Lewis, 1972)
(4) Stanford (Pepper, Eustis, Kruger, 1972)
(5) Tokyo Institute of Technology (Mori, Taira, 1972)
(6) STD (Patel, et al., 1976)
(7) Exxon (Shaw, 1978)
(8) EER (Folsom, 1978)
(9) Argonne (Chung, Smith, 1977)
Comparisons of these models can first be made for the temperature-time
profiles of their simulations, see Figures 4.1.2-3 through 4.1.2-7.
Exact specification of the cooling rate is essential because high
87
Figure 4.1.2-3 Temperature Profilesin MHD Plants (Bienstock, etal., 1973)
IC.2
z'4
0,
o2
z0
o4zI-zz0
U
Figure 4.1.2-4 ED-teamS Power Plant
with Two Stage Combustions forControl of Nitrogen Oxides.200F assumed Air Preheat Tem-
perature (Hals, Lewis, 1972)
NOZZLIE N x ZLS
NGLE rTAG COMBI; r.T ,lN
j . 0DUC1 r Tt CA)' O TH
- ~ ~~~~~~~ rAt) %TR2EWLJT:D
I
0 ' ~~ 2 4 t- . | | *19 ~~PREHE ATE FPt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I | ifFUSERI | |
..' , PA
N T
i i
,4 . _ | ] , | _ t . _-- _- I .L- -- L~ _~ -- . -J
40 '0 2 IO '
TIUE S1C i
Figure 4.1.2-5 MHD-Steam Power Plantwith Two Stag4 Combustions forControl of Nitrogen Oxides.300 Assumed Air Preheat TeU-perature (Hals, Lewis, 1972)
Figure 4.1.2-6 Teperature-Time History in OCMHD (Pepper, Eust4iKruger, 1972)
88
zI',4
o
z
zU20
z
A
i ....... diffuser boiler -7 Mn4r. ! ~trailht t-c . ... o( = const.- -
28
24
200
1
1200 -
8
40(
Figure 4.1.2-7 Analytic ResultsTemperature-Time History(Mori, Taira, 1973)
Dilf fuser- - Boler
r Air peheciter
-_1 _04% SA ( 700°K)
.... 2460ppm
94% S A
1500 KI
165 ppm
i I I I I I i I I
005 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 20
T IME, seconds
I
Figure 4.1.2-8 NO Levels in MHDPlant (Biewstock, et al.,
16
zx
17
0
-10
5
0zx 2
-03
5
2
_ r04
1973)Figure 4.1.2-9 NO-Time History in
OCMHD (Pepper, Eustis, Kruger,1972)
162 101 t sec 1I -Figure 4.1.2-10
Figure 4.1.2-10 AnalyticalPlant, &v-i.
89
Results, Taira,
for the1973)
Optimize
for
10000
Z 50000o
0
9 200Z 1000
I
,1 I.E U'I
IC
d Power
i-t-
3
I*, s';cr I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~b·~~~~~' 'ih~~~~~~~
n >
-ii
-85 -pt
""IU()
to 2TIME :SC)
. - I
I
I
cooling rates cause decomposition to stop, or freeze, at high NOx
concentrations, Translation of these temperature profiles into NOx
histories, including the end frozen flow point are shown in Figures
4.1.2-8 through 4.1.2-11. Gas resident times at high temperatures and
substiochiometric air, SA, conditions can be seen to be very important
see Figures 4.1.2-12 through 4.1.2-15. Other important factors for NOx
control are method, position, temperature, and pressure of secondary air
injection, with some illuminating sensitivity analysis on this subject
shown in Table 4.1.2-3.
The second NOx control scheme is now taken up, namely, that of
maximizing NOx formation and then scrubbing it out as a saleable
fertilizer additive (Hoover, et al., 1976), (Cutting, et al., 1977), see
Figure 4.1.2-16. It has been determined that NOx emissions could be as
high as 4800 ppm and that a Mitsui wet process could be best for its
recovery. The process has been concluded (Cutting, et al., 1977) to be
not competitive, losing four points in efficiency with 10% higher capital
investment and cost of electricity. The third NOx control scheme, use
of pure oxygen, also is at a substantial cost disadvantage (Hals, Lewis,
1972).
A crude parametric model of NOx from the staged OCMHD process is
developed in Figure 4.1.2-17.
4.1.3 Trace Metals
There are no experimental studies of trace metals from MHD
facilities. Some very crude analytic work would be very useful. There
is speculation (Harris, Shah, 1976) that all trace elements will vaporize
90
' t
Czz
f .
:,i
2jLirl_L, ,
!i.,
-1 i
Li
31I
<Z
'
/
H-
I-,
/
/
0 0 o 0o
C)Ludd ON
CC
0kQ
09 0
It4
4lo
00
o0
· ,X
EE)I Hii- X
f~t-
r-4
II 1 c
'40U
- C(ZV
0 CIV) (NFq C:
\o, (, X"i c Owa- 1(N (N
_\9 94
-0(- VAI ' 'Sso-1d91
NJ
rN
G-
r\!0C"3:.
_ __ · __ __ _ _ _0__
(N
0· te
ar
1*
0_ __ __ __ __ ___
-L
4-coI
I-i
c"JC)
E o0--I0-
C\1 C)
I I I I I
0otl
oCoco
o-4-
C)0t~J
wtasAWS 0o .LX3 :e (;at) uwdd ON
I. q
cuJOVo
KO
o .. uE 0Q)
C) 0o ELO 0 0
C a
-O 0X 4
t= 40j0C ¢
0
c O
L7 D 0
O 0
O s- ..Ca) )
0, 44-- 0V
LdX HcU
43
l ;zpc e
92
___ __ _ __�__ ______
-- ---r - --- I-
* ANALYTICAL COMPUTED DATAT EXP DATA (RANGE) 5% FUEL RICH
1 EXP DATA (RANGE) 10% FUEL RICH
5% FUEL RICH(ANALYTICAL DATA )-
10% FUEL RICHNALYTICAL DATA)
500 750 1000 1250 1500
GAS COOLING RATE-°K PER SECOND
Figure 4.1.2-13 Final NO -concentra-tions in MND Eaist Gas Accor-ding to Experimental and Ana-lytical Data (Hals, Lewis, 1972)
0o 2 4 6 8 10RESIDENCE TIME (sec)
Figure 4.1.2-14 NO Emissions in anMHD Power Plant as a Functionof Residence Time for the Ra-diant Boiler and Air PreheaterEaCh (Jackson, et al., 1976)
93
1400
1200
I000
800
600
400
Ea.C.
Zz
0
zwoz00x0
200
250
I-I-- I T I 1
--- Equilibrium 0 concentrationassumed
---- Non-equilibrium 0 concentrationQ'-\ allowed
-- '---Present EPA limits for\ cool considered
"a~~R, -__
3000
E00C
- 200C
(-
zo0
(Z
0z
))
fnI I m I [ [ I m · m n
n
\ . . . .
92% Al -I '_RIiI
v ·-
Oo Oo oU)
C)Co
was£S Jo 1x3 le (4laM) wdd ON
oO.r4
e;4-
6,
0
-4
CDo O4m
o O
p4· o
Oi
0r'
4-
NI O O
4) 0cu J
O--
* J
94
a)
m-I-r-Li)CAs
4-,
co
-
E.E sA
Lttn ei OLr) '.
I. I II - I ,_ . ... .... __ _ _
oCco.
_ _I _ -- Ir -- -- �III�L·II�IIIY
Table 4.1.2-3 Open Cycle MED Sensitivity of NOx Ei ssionsEstimates (Folsom, 1978)
SYSTEM MODIFICATION
Baseline Configuration
MHD Channel Residence TimeReduced by Factor of Two
Diffuser Residence TimeReduced by Factor of Two
Linear MHD ChannelPressure Profile
Frozen Chemistryin Nozzle
Combustor NO ConcentrationReduced to Zero
Linear Temperature Profilein Radiant Furnace
Radiant Furance ResidenceTime Increased by 0.5 sec.
Secondary Air Injection inExit Plenum Delayed 0.5 sec.
First Order Approximation ofRadiant Furnace ThreeDimensional TemperatureProfile
* NEW RESIJLT
NO CONCENTRATIONAT END OF EXIT
PLENUM (PPM)
566
572*
568*
566
565 *
590
516
417
677*
PERCENT CHANGEFROM BASELINE
0
+ 1.06
+ 0.35
- 0.18
+ 4.24
- 8.83
-26.3
+19.6
95
. _ _ .- -
---- I I
,-
o
-ii-
ow4WZI >
2 :4wwO
U(A0IxU
a-a:w
<WCL I
W
ILn
0
J m) a
ZW I.~. n OD-'r'u
oo.0
O H
o P ,
d 0_
o to
e- IgF.e oO H
H
04
96
v,4
0yUAU)
aLclM4
-JW
d4oz+
U
0. 750. 1500. 2250. 3000. 3750. 4500.X10**3 == == ====:=== I ==== : ===== = =_==== ==
4..50' *
N = 104066. + 241.8 S1 -61.2 T - 1682. S2 - .4374 ST*
+ 4.91 S1S 2 + 1.001 S2T
E 4.00 N = NOx concentration at exhaust in ppmI *
S= Percent stoichiometric at st stage
S : Percent stoichiometric at 2nd stage *
3.50 I T = Second stage entrance temperature OC *
x IXx I *° 3.00"' I *UI
I*a !L 2.50 * *I *
I C*
I *
i~~ *2.00 !.50I I *
I *
*1 *1.50 I *· ! 1*I *! *
1 *
0.50 1 *I E F
I D*
I*0.00 * Actual NOx at Exhaust in ppm
O. 750. 1500. 2250. 3000. 3750. 4500.
Figure 4.1.2-17 Very crude model of NOx exhaust from two-stage
combustor based upon (Bienstock,et al.,1973) data.
97
in the combustor and form sulfates, oxides, chlorides, and fluorides and
should be collected with the K2S04. (Adding to this the inevitable
corrosion products of the facility materials, and some refining of the
seed material thus appears necessary.) In (Harris, Shah, 1976) they
reason that 1% of these elements will appear in the stack gas.
Considering particle size distributions, adhesions, and actions of vapors
it could be that the eventual levels will be somewhere between the
conventional coal combustor levels and these optimistic 99% removal
levels, see Table 4.1.3-1. If any of the numbers in these fairly broad
ranges are causes of concern then research ought to be directed at those
sensitive areas.
4.1.4 Particulates
Estimates of particulate emissions from full-sized OCMHD are shown
in Table 4.1.4-1. There are several reasons why particulates may not
present a problem for OCMHD's:
(1) to be economically viable 99.5% of seed and ash particles must
be captured, see Figure 4.1.4-1;
(2) mechanical cyclones, Venturi scrubbers, baghouse filters,
electrostatic precipitators and other collection devices are
available technologies;
(3) some pre-generation, hot-side precipitators may be necessary to
avoid slag buildups and this would further reduce particulate
emissions;
(4) combustion parameters that reject most of the ash as slag will
pay great dividends in seed recovery, see Figure 4.1.4-2.
The materials that reach the precipitators consist of approximately 10%
of the total coal ash and 50% of the K 2SO4 formed in the flow
(Harris, Shah, 1976).
98
TABLE 4.1.3-1
ESTIMATED TRACE METAL REMOVAL PERCENTAGES IN OCMHD
TABLE 4.1.4-1
ESTIMATED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM OCMHD
Reference lb/lO6Btu input lb/kWh output
(General Electric, 1976) base case 0.1 .0008
(General Electric, 1976) SRC 0.06 .00046(Jackson, et al., Oct. 1976) less than
reference 0.1(Shaw, Cain, 1977) totalparticulates 0.15 g/kWht 0.32 g/kWhe
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) fineparticulates - -
(Harris, Shah, 1976) 0.1 .0007General Electric, 1976) 0.1 .0007
(REA, 1976) 0.1 -
99
Element Percent of Element Entering SystemThat Is Removed Before Stack Emission
Antimony 25-99
Arsenic 60-99
Beryllium 25-99
Boron 25-99
Cadmium 35-99
Chromium 0-99
Cobalt 20-99
Iron 0-99
Lead 60-99
Manganese 0-99
Mercury 90-99
Selenium 70-99
Uranium 0-99
Vanadium 30-99
Zinc 28-99
cumulative
or
99.4 99.5 99.6
Figure 4.1.4-1 Precipitator Efficiencies for 39 CasesInvestigated in Westinghouse Phase I ECAS Studies(Hoover, et al., 1976).
100
30
20
10
0
40
uu I I I I
95
a
o
o
(n 90
0
8570 75 80 85 90 95 100
SLAG REJECTION, percent
Pigure 4.1.4-2 Potassium Recovery from Fly Ash VersusSlag Rejection in Combustor (Bienstock,et al.,1973).
101
o 0.7g mol K2CO3/kg coalX I.Og mol K2CO3/kg cool
+ Equiv .Og mol K2 CO3 /kg coal
I I I I 1
__; A -IU I I I- 1
I I
A slightly different collection procedure may be required for
peaking MHD's, but dust concentrations less than 0.01 grain/SCF are
expected (Rosa, et al., 1970).
4.1.5 Other Air Emissions
Estimates of some of the other air emissions from OCMHD are given in
Table 4.1.5-1. Thermal discharges to the air would be considerable in an
MHD-Gas turbine design, but in the MHD-Steam these would be less than for
conventional combustors, due to the greater expected efficiencies of
MHDs. Although heat is the pollutant in air most positively correlated
with excess mortalities, the heat dispersive potential of the atmosphere
is considered so enormous that there have been considerations of pushing
additional heat up the stack to increase the buoyancy of the MHD plume
(Rosa, et al., 1970) for better disperson of the other gaseous and solid
pollutants.
TABLE 4.1.5-1
OTHER AIR EMISSIONS FROM OCMHD
102
Heat to Air
(General Electric, 1976) base case 606 Btu/kWh
CO
TShaw, Cain, 1977) nil(Bienstock, et al., 1971) 0
(General EleEriTc, 1976) 0
(Hals, Lewis, 1972) with single stage 4.0%(Hals, Lewis, 1972) with secondary stage 0.4 to 0.6%
Hydrocarbons
(General Electric, 1976) 0(Rosa, et al., 1970) 0
i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
There is a considerable amount of CO created in the combustion
process. The carbon monoxide concentrations exist in accordance with
several equilibrium relationships including:
2C0 2 = 2C0 + 02
CO + H20 = CO2 + H2.
The fraction of CO in these chambers can be as much as 10.4%, see Table
4.1.2-2. In the OCMHD design currently of interest, however, this CO is
completely oxidized in the second stage, see again Table 4.1.2-2.
There is no expectation for MHD exhaust to contain any unburned fuel
or hydrocarbons (Rosa, et al., 1970).
Noise from an MHD facility will be less than that from gas turbines
of the same power (Rosa, et al., 1970). With the secondary heat recovery
cycles attached there should be sufficient suppression of noise so that
no additional attenuation will be necessary.
4.2 Emissions to Water
Table 4.2-1 shows estimates of some of the water wastes and
emissions from OCMHD facilities. Figure 4.2-1 indicates the substantial
reduction in thermal emissions to water from OCMHD. The principal reason
for this amount can be seen to be the higher expected efficiency of these
facilities. Quantifications have not been attempted of what amounts of
total suspended solids, oil, grease, copper, iron and other heavy metals
might be released to the water system supporting the OCMHD facility.
103
0 TOTAL HEAT REJECTED PER UNITW _ Fl ErITPI T Y T r.PN9PATrFn
W
2.0
w 1.5LU
z
1.0
0
o .5
I
I- ?0
l-orAL-
N.PC EAR.PRESENT
_ I
CONVSTEAM
7 =OVERALL THERMAL EFFICIENCY
CONDENSER HEAT REJECTED\ Ei STACK + OTHER HEAT REJECTED
ITOTAL
N
N CLEAR (AD';ANCED I
MHD-IGAS MHD-
TURBI Ej / TEA
S 1 11 S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II 20 30 40 50 60 70
OVERALL THERMAL EFFICIENCY, 7/ %
Figure 4.2-1 Effect of Power Generation Efficincyupon Thermal Pollution (Bienstock,et al.,1971).
104
I
TABLE 4.2-1
ESTIMATES OF WATER EMISSIONS FROM OCMHD
Heat to Water
(General Electric, 1976) base case 2468 Btu/kWh
(Harris, Shah, 1976) 2377 Btu/kWh
(General Electric, 1976) SRC 2040 Btu/kWh
Waste Water
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) 0.051 kg/kWhe
(Harris, Shah, 1976) 0.75 lb/kWh
(General Electric, 1976) 0.09 lb/kWh
Liquid Waste
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) 24.60 g/kWht
(Shaw, Cain, 1977) 51.0 g/kWhe
4.3 Solids and Resources
The ash wastes shown in Table 4.3-1 are just slightly under the
total ash that comes in with the coal. The same is true of the sulfur
output shown in Table 4.3-2. The coal input to the plant is held outside
in a 60-day supply pile; seed material is held inside. Slag and other
wastes are held temporarily onsite before trucking to disposal. With
holding ponds and all of this storage for the 30-year life of the plant
it can be seen why the plant land requirements are only a small fraction
of the total land requirements once disposal needs are considered.
4.4 Other Fuel Cycle Effects
The effects of coal extraction and transportation, facility
construction, aesthetics, and other indirect environmental consequences
of MHD plants will be very similar to those consequences for conventional
105
TABLE 4.3-1
ESTIMATES OF SOLID WASTES FROM OCMHD
Furnace Solids(General lectric, 1976) .0534 lb/kWh
Fly Ash(General Electric, 1976)(Shaw, Cain, 1977)(Harris, Shah, 1976)
.006 lb/kWh0.029 kg/kWh0.058 lb/kWh
Total
(Shaw, Cain, 1977)
(Shaw, Cain, 1977)(General Electric, 1976)
14.01 g/kWht29 g/kWhe
0.082 lb/kWh
106
__
L
TABLE 4.3-2
CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOLIDS
Land (acres/100 MWe)General:General
"Harris,:Harris,
(Hoover,
(Hoover,(Hoover,
Electric, 1976) base case main plantElectric, 1976) SRC main plantShah, 1976) main plantShah, 1976) disposal landet al., 1976) main plant
et al., 1976) disposal land
tT., 1976) railroad access
Total Water (gal/kWh)(General Electric, 1976) base case(General Electric, 1976) SRC(Shaw, Cain, 1977)(Harris, Shah, 1976) disposal land(Hoover, et al., 1976)
Cooling Water (gal/kWh)(General Electric, 1976) base case
(General Electric, 1976) SRC
(Harris, Shah, 1976)(Hoover, et al., 1976)
K2SO4 Seed MaterialShaw, Cain, 1977)Harris, Shah, 1976)Hoover, et al., 1976)
Sulfur Output(Shaw, Cain, 1977)
(Shaw, Cain, 1977)(Harris, Shah, 1976)
Coal Input
(General Electric, 1976) base case(General Electric, 1976) SRC(Shaw, Cain, 1977)(Harris, Shah, 1976)(Hoover, et al., 1976)
3.713.715.1
84.011.64 to 24.3811.36 to 14.7523.05 to 28.13
0.220.21
0.727 kg/kWhe0.33
0.530 to 0.612
0.220.21An oU.3L0.516 to 0.596
.00059 kg/kWh
.00120 lb/kWh
.00027 to 00535 lb/kWh
11.4 g/kWhe4.60 g/kWht0.021 lb/kWh
0.65 lb/kWh0.71 lb/kWh0.297 g/kWhe0.655 lb/kWh0.65 to 1.07 lb/kWh
107
I-- - --- --- __
coal-fired facilities. There are computer programs that can be used to
simulate some of these effects, such as direct fuel cycle effects from
MERES at Brookhaven National Labs or indirect national environmental
effects from SEAS at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A listing of
some of these general impacts from coal-fired facilities can be found in
(Jahnig, Shaw, 1977).
108
5.0 Conclusions
There is considerable trade-off potential between the various
performance measures for OCMHD power plants. As such there is little
doubt that current source emission standards, or even stricter standards,
could be met. As increased demands are put on various aspects of OCMHD
performance, however, the ultimate performance measure that is likely to
suffer is economic cost. And thus the eventual market penetration of
this technology will depend directly upon the comparative degree to which
the costs have been held in line after all the problems have been solved
and the emission and resource constraints met.
Some of the problems that have been perceived to most severely tax
that ultimate performance measure are, in order of priority:
(1) considerable variations in types and severity of problems at
different facility sizes;
(2) short life of materials exposed to exhaust gases and
particulates, particularly electrodes and insulators, and the
mutual compatibility of the materials under thermal cycling;
(3) slag coating of components, particularly the heat exchangers,
slag tapping techniques, and high slag rejection in combustion
area;
(4) arcs in passage of currents through cooler layers, and power
conditioning system;
(5) workable and durable air preheater;
(6) good uniform mixing and feed of air and fuel;
(7) suitability for reuse of regenerated seed, and homogeneous
seeding with that regenerated material;
109
(8) cost of stable superconducting magnet system;
(9) durability of heat exchanger surfaces in secondary furnace;
(10) energy costs of seed recovery system;
(11) cost of seed losses, especially in the slag, and investment
cost of seed regenerator;
(12) avoidance of excessive heat losses, and effects of necessary
thermal gradients between superhot and supercool areas;
(13) workability of NOx control;
(14) prediction, optimization, and maintenance of working fluid
conductivity, particularly boundary layer and particulate
influences, and feedback from channel to combustor;
(15) expense of integrated power plant control system;
(16) costs of high-temperature heat exchangers; and
(17) costs of coal drying and handling.
Although most of these problems are only indirectly related to emissions
and energy efficiencies it is believed that the trade-offs involved in
solving these problems will significantly affect those performance
measures in the commercial OCMHD. To ensure that the most appropriate
trade-off of cost versus emissions is reached it seems essential that
emission standards be based upon power plant outputs, so investments in
high MHD efficiencies are adequately rewarded.
From the standpoint of recommending future work in this area it
would be desirable to have maintained an updated data base of MHD
emissions and efficiency information. An ongoing project at MIT is
concerned with putting together just such a data base for fluidized
110
bed combustors. There are several advantages to having such data bases
available for all of the advanced energy technologies:
(1) they can be used as design tools to search for attractive
configurations and operating parameters, particularly those
unexpected synergistic effects that could be identified and
exploited;
(2) they can be a ready source of latest information on the
performance of that energy cycle;
(3) analytical models can be systematically tested against such a
data base to evaluate the gap between theoretical and
experimental information; and finally,
(4) they can be used to systematically identify and quantify the
need for key pieces of information that are now inadequately
known.
This final objective is perhaps the most important in that it could
be a mechanism for developing R&D strategies.
111
6. References and Bibliography
Alad'ev, I.T., et al., 1969. "Studies of Liquid-Metal MHD Cycles at theKrzhizhanovskTT Power Institute," Tenth Symposium on EngineeringAspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge, MA, pp. 39-40, March 26,CONF-690348.
Alyautdinov, R.A., et al., 1974. "Computer Model of the U-25Installation," Colloquium on the Problems of MHD Energy Conversion,Moscow, pp. 233-239, February, CONF-740242.
Amend, W.E., et al., 1975, "Investigation of Two-Phase Liquid-MetalMagnetohydrodynamic Power Systems," Argonne National Lab., Argonne,Ill., 14 p., CONF-750810-1.
Amend, W.E., 1975. "Open Cycle MHD Systems Modeling Studies," ArgonneNational Lab., Argonne, Ill., 13 p., CONF-750669-2.
Annen, K.D., R.H. Eustis, 1977. "MHD Systems with Low CoolingRequirements," 16th Symposium on Engineering Aspects of MHD,Pittsburgh, PA, May 16-18.
Argyropoulos, G., 1976. "Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Cycles for ElectricPower Generation," Issue paper to U.S. Senate Office of TechnologyAssessment.
Atomic Energy Review, 1972. "MHD Electrical Power Generation -- 1972Status Report," Vol. 10(3), pp. 304-361.
AVCO Everett Research Lab., Inc., 1970. "Study of MHD Power SystemBurning Char with Oxygen," Everett, MA., 27 p., Feb.DI-14-32-0001-1201. PB-235-776.
AVCO Everett Research Lab., Inc. 1974. "Development Program for MHDPower Generation," Interim Technical Report, Everett, MA, 250 p.,June.
Bates, J.L., 1976. "Characterization and Evaluation of Materials for theUS-USSR MHD Program," Quarterly Report, Battelle Pacific NorthwestLabs., Richland, WA, 70 p., January-March, BNWL-2004-2.
Beecher, D.T., et al., 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS), WestEinghouse, Volume III. Summary and Advanced Steam Plantwith Pressurized Fluidized Bed Boilers," Westinghouse ResearchLabs., Pittsburgh, PA, November. PB-268-558. NSF/RA-760590.
Beecher, D.T., 1975. "Study of Advanced Energy Conversion Techniques forUtility Applications Using Coal and Coal-Derived Fuels,"Westinghouse Report No. 75-9E9-ECAS-R1, pp. 4-43.
112
Bergman, P.D., D. Bienstock, 1973. "Mixed Potassium-Cesium Seeding inOpen-Cycle MHD Power Generation," 13th Symposium for EngineeringAspects of MHD, Stanford, March.
Bergman, P.D. et al., 1975. "Conceptual Design and Economics of an MHDPilot Plai," Intersociety Conference on Energy Conversion, Newark,Delaware, pp. 512-23, August.
Bergman, P.D., D. Bienstock, 1976. "Utilization of Western Coal for MHDEnergy Conversion," 15th Symposium on Engineering Aspects of MHD,Philadelphia, PA, May 24-26.
Bergman, P.D., D. Bienstock, 1977. "Economic and Energy Considerationsin MHD Seed Regeneration," 16th Symposium for Engineering Aspects ofMHD, Pittsburgh, PA, May 16-18.
Bienstock, D., et al., 1970. "High-Temperature Combustion of Coal Seeded
with Potassium Carbonate in the MHD Generation of Electric Power,"Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 7361, 33 p.
Bienstock, D., et al., 1971. "Environmental Aspects of MHD PowerGeneration, T71 Intersociety Energy Conversion EngineeringConference, New York, pp. 1210-17.
Bienstock, D., et al., 1973. "Coal Combustion Aspects of MHD PowerGeneration," Conference on American-Soviet Cooperation in the Fieldof MHD Power.
Bienstock, D., et al., 1973. "Air Pollution Aspects of MHD PowerGeneration,' Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Universityof Mississippi, pp. vii.1.l-vii.1.10, March 26, CONF-730311.
Bienstock, D., et al., 1974. "Coal Combustion Aspects of MHD PowerGeneration," Colloquium on the Problems of MHD Energy Conversion,Moscow, pp. 50-62, February, CONF-740242.
Blair, D., 1977. "Open Cycle MHD," Draft of Paper, Exxon Research andEngineering Co., Linden, N.J., April 12.
Bogdanova, T.N., et al., 1973. "Study of the Energy Efficiency ofThermal Electric Power Stations with MHD Generators," Izv. Akad.Nauk SSSR, Ener. Transp. No. 5, pp. 143-9, Sept.-Oct.
Bohn, T., et al., 1972. "Applied Magnetohydrodynamics Volume 10. MHDExperimental Installation AGRAS II: Description and OperatingExperience," Kernforschungslanlage, Jeulich, 85 p., August.Jul-883-TP.
Brogan, T.R., 1963. "Electrical Properties of Seeded Combustion Gases,"in Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 12, pp. 319-345,Academic Press, New York.
113
Brogan, T.R., et al., 1974. "Preliminary Design of a Magnetohydrodynamic(MHD) ChanneT-for the USSR U-25 Facility." Final Report. MEPPSCP,Inc., Boston, MA, 304 p., November. FE-1733-T-1.
Brouns, R.J., 1976. "Environmental Impacts of Nonfusion Power Systems,"Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA, 130 pp., Sept.
Brown. D.H., et al., 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS). eneral Electric Phase II Final Report Volume I, etc..."General Electric Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady,NY, December. PB-268-466 NSF/RA-760582.
Brunsvold, A.R., E.S. Pierson, 1976. "Liquid-Metal MHD Coupled toCoal-Fired Fluidized-Bed Combustors," Argonne National Lab.,Argonne, IL, 9 p., CONF-760556-1
Buende, R., J. Raider, 1973. "Designing MHD Generator Systems forMinimum Power Production Costs," Energy Convers. 13, No. 4, pp.143-148, October.
Burkhart, J.A., et al., 1977. "Open-Cycle Magnetohydrodynamic/Steam
System," inTNSA, 1977), pp. 201-245.
Carter, C., 1969. "Convective and Absolute Instabilities in an OpenCycle MHD Generator," in Proc. Tenth Symp. on Engr. Aspects of MHD,Mass. Inst. Tech., Cambridge, Mass.
Chung, P.M. and R.S. Smith, 1977. "An Analysis of a High-TemperatureCoal Combustor According to a One-dimensional Flow Model," ArgonneNational Lab, ANL/MHD-77-2, October.
Corman, J.C. et al., 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS). eiieral Electric Phase II Final Report Volume I, etc...."General Electric Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady,NY, December. PB-268-466 NSF/RA-760582.
Corman, J.C., R.B. Fleming, L.P. Harris, and P.V. Pohl, 1976. "EnergyConversion Alternatives Study (ECAS), General Electric Phase I.Final Report, Vol. II, Advanced Energy Conversion Systems: Part 3,Direct Energy Conversion Cycles," NASA CR-134948-II-3, Feb.
Cutting, J.C., et al., 1977. "Open-Cycle Coal Burning MHD Power Plantsfor CommerciaFService," 16th Symposium Engineering Aspects of MHD,Pittsburgh, PA, May 16-18.
Dicks, J.B., 1972. "MHD Central Power: A Status Report," Mech. Eng., p.14, May.
Dicks, J.B., et al., 1974. "The Direct Coal-Fired MHD Generator System,"14th Symposium Engineering Aspects of MHD, April.
1!4
Dicks, J.B., et al., 1974. "Direct Coal-Fired MHD Power Generation," J.Eng. Power, 96, No. 2, pp. 153-157.
Dicks, J.B., et al., 1975, 1976. "Development Program for MHD DirectCoal-Fired Power Generation Test Facility," Quarterly ProgressReports, Tennessee University, Tullahoma, TN, FE-1760-1, 2, 10, 22.
Dicks, J.B., et al., 1977. "A Description of the Direct Coal-Fired MHDFacility-at-he University of Tennessee Space Institute," 12thIECEC, pp. 995-1003.
Dicks, J.B., et al., 1977. "Investigation of Direct Coal-Fired MHD PowerGeneration," 16th Symposium Engineering Aspects of MHD, Pittsburgh,PA, May 16-18.
Dinelli, G., 1966. Effect of Various Parameters on the Efficiency of theMHD Power Stations," International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,Austria, 26 p., July 4, CONF-660704-54.
Donshoi, K.V., et al., 1966. "Problems of MHD Conversion: SomeExperimentaT e-rsults," International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,Austria, 20 p., July 4, CONF-660704-56.
Duggan, J.L., Cloutier, R.J. (eds.), 1975. "Energy Sources for theFuture. Proceedings of a Conference Held July 7-25, 1975 in OakRidge, TN," Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Inc., TN, 312 p.,July. CONF-750733.
Edelston, B.S., E.S. Rubin, 1976. "Current and Future Use of Coal in theNortheast," Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY, 151 p., May,BNL-50560.
Electric Power Research Institute, 1975. "An Overall Program for theDevelopment of Open Cycle MHD Power Generation," June, EPRI-SR-12.
Electric Power Research Institute, 1974. "EPRI/OCR Workshop on theDevelopment of Open-Cycle MHD," Electric Power Research Instituteand Office of Coal Research, Palo Alto, CA, May.
ERDA, 1974, 1975. "U-25 MHD Pilot Plant," Inst. Vysokikh Temperatur,USSR, ERDA-tr-102-P1, 2, 3.
ERDA, 1975. "Magnetohydrodynamics Power Generation and Theory,"Technical information Center, Oak Ridge, TN, 875 p., November,TID-3356.
ERDA, 1975. "Second US-USSR Colloquium on MagentohydrodynamicElectrical Power Generation," Washington, D.C., 327 p. CONF-750669.
ERDA, 1976. "Third US-USSR Colloquium on MHD Electrical PowerGeneration," Moscow, USSR, October 20-21, CONF-761015.
115
Eustis, R.H., C.M. Kruger, 1975. "Atmospheric Pollution Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamic Power Plants," Stanford Univ., EPRI-110-FR,(PB-248 331), November.
Eustis, R.H., S.A. Self, 1975. "MHD Phenomena at High Magnetic Fields.Interim Technical Report July 1972 - December 1974," Stanford Univ.Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Calif. 13 p., February. FE-1227-1.
Fabris, G., et al., 1976. "Influence of Wall-Jet Gas Injection onLiquid-RFtaT MHD Generator Performance," Argonne National Lab.,Ill., 8 p. CONF-760556-2.
Federal Register, 1971. "Standards of Performance for New StationarySources," 36(247), 24876-24895, December 23.
Feldman, H.F., et al., 1970. "The Effect of Air/Fuel in theMHD-Generator on the Operation of an Open-cycle MHD-topped PowerPlant," 10th Symposium on Engineering Aspects of
Magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge, MA, March 26-28.
Feldman, H.F., et al., 1970. "The Effect of Air/Fuel in theMHD-Generator on the Operation of an Open-cycle MHD-topped PowerPlant," Energy Conversion, Vol. 10, #2, April.
Feldman, H.F., Simons, W.H. and Bienstock, D., 1968. "Factors Affectingthe Optimum Feeding Levels of Coal or Char Fired, Open Cycle MHDPower Plants," SM107/36, Electricity from MHD, IAEA, Vienna.
Feldman, H.F., et al., 1970. "Kinetics of Recoverying Sulfur from theSpent Seed Tinn MHD Power Plant," Environmental Science andTechnology 4(6), pp. 496-502.
Feldman, H.F., et al., 1970. "Thermodynamic, Electrical, Physical, andCompositionalProperties of Seeded Coal Combustion Products," Bureauof Mines Bulletin 655, Washington, DC.
Fishman, F., 1968. "Instability of Hall MHD Generators toMagneto-acoustic Waves," in 9th Symp. on Engr Aspects of MHD, Univ.of Tenn. Space Inst., Tullahoma, Tenn.
Flinders University of South Australia, 1974. "Physics and theEnergy Industry," Bedford Park, Australia, January, CONF-740137,INIS-mf-2006.
Folsom, B.A., 1978. "Environmental Assessment of Advanced EnergyConversion Technologies," EER Corp. presentation to EPA-IERL,Cincinnati, OH, May 17.
Fushini, K. et al., 1973. "Construction of a Small-scale MHD Test Plant(ETL MAR VIT)," Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Univ.of Mississippi, pp. iv-l.l-iv.1.6, March 26, CONF-730311.
116
Gadda, "Recent Experimental Results Relating to the Seeding of MHD
Combustion Gases," SM107/207, in Electricity from MHD, IAEA, Vienna.
Gannon, R.E., S.K. Ubhayakar, C.W. Von Rosenberg, Jr., D.B. Stickler,
and F.A. Hals, 1968. Application of the Rapid Devolatilization of
Coal in MHD Power Cycles, Symposium on Engineering Aspects of MHD,
Gaponov, I.M., L.P. Poberezhskii, 1975. "Study of the Electrical
Conductivity of a Plasma in Combustion Productions, (An SSSR MoscowInst. Vyspokikh Temperatur)," 45 p. ERDA-tr-186.
General Electric Company, 1975. "Study of Advanced Energy Conversion
Techniques for Utility Applications Using Coal or Coal DerivedFuels," Vol. II, Oral Briefing on the Results of Task I at NASA
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, May 20, NAS3-19406.
General Electric Company, 1976. "Comparative Study and Evaluation ofAdvanced Cycle Systems," General Electric Corporate Research and
Development, Schenectady, NY, May. PB-254-392, EPRI/AF-158.
General Electric Company, 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study -
ECAS - Phase 1," NASA, CR-134948.
General Electric Company, 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study,
Phase II Report," NASA Report NASA-CR-134949, General Electric Co.,Schenectady, NY, December.
General Electric Company, 1976. "Study of Advanced Energy Conversion
Techniques for Utility Applications Using Coal or Coal DerivedFuels," General Electric Report, February 17.
General Electric Company, 1977. "Coal/Open-Cycle Magnetohydro-dynamic/Steam System." in (NASA, 1977).
Gilbert Assoc. Inc., STD Research, 1976. "Baseline Power Plant OverallPlant Design Description," ERDA, MHD Power Generation Program,December.
Goldenburg, S.A., et al., 1975. "Experimental Investigation of the Effect
of the Excess Fuel Coefficient on the Electrical Conductivity ofPotassium-seeded Hydrocarbon Fuel Combustion Products," Electricity
from MHD, Vol. IV, Vienna, Austria, pp. 2239-2248, July 24.
Golyashevich, S.L. et al., 1975. "Investigations of Coal Combustion for
MHD Conversion of Energy," 6th International Conference on
Magnetohydrodynamic Electrical Power Generation, Vol. II,Washington, DC, pp. 321-334, June 9, CONF 750601-P2.
117
Gubarev, A.V., I.G. Nosov, 1970. "Study of the Efficiency of ElectricPower Generation at Thermal Electric Power Plants with Faraday-typeOpen-cycle MHD Generators," Institut Atomnai Energii, Moscow, USSR,IAE-2021.
Hals, F., L. Keefe, 1964. "A Method of Seed Recovery in Coal Fired
MHD Power Plants," 5th Symposium on Engineering Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamics," Cambridge, MA.
Hals, F., W.D. Jackson, 1969. "MHD Power Generation: Economic andEnvironmental Implications," 10th Symposium on Engineering Aspectsof Magnetohydrodynamics," Cambridge, MA, pp. 136-141, March 26,CONF-690348.
Hals, F., P. Lewis, 1972. "Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides in MHD
Power Plants," Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Argonne,IL, pp. VI.5.1.-VI.5.10.
Hals, F.A., et al, 1974. "Auxiliary Component Development Work at AvcoEverett Research Laboratory Inc.," 14th Symposium on EngineeringAspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Tullahoma, TN, pp. II.3/1-13, April8-10.
Hals, F.A., et al., 1975. "Development and Design of High-TemperatureAir Preheaters and Techniques for Emission Control of NitrogenOxides for Open Cycle MHD Power Systems," 6th InternationalConference on Magnetohydrodynamic Electric Power Generation, Vol.II, Washington, DC, pp. 267-288, June 9, CONF-750601-P2.
Harris, L.P. and R.P. Shah, 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS) General Electric Phase II Final Report, Vol. II AdvancedEnergy Conversion Systems -- Conceptual Designs: part 3, Open CycleGas Turbines and Open Cycle MHD," NASA-CR 134949-II-3, December.
Hart, A.B., et al., 1964. "Some Factors in Seed Recovery," InternationalSymposium on Magnetohydrodynamic Electric Power Generation, Vol. 3,pp. 1348-64, July 6-11.
Hauser, L.G., 1973. "Assessing Advanced Methods of Generation,"Westinghouse Electric Co., Arch. Energiewirt., 17(20), pp. 989-999.
Heywood, J.B., G.J. Womack, 1969. Open-Cycle MHD Power Generation,Pergamon Press, Ltd.
Hoover, D.Q., et al., 1966. "Feasibility Study of Coal Burning MHDGeneration," Westinghouse Research Lab., March, PB 235 460.
Hoover, D.Q., et al., 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS), We-stinghouse Phase I Final Report, Vol. III, Open-CycleMHD," Westinghouse Research Labs., NASA CR-134941, 425 p., February.
118
Horn, G., and E.M. Hughes, 1967. "Engineering Aspects of
Magnetohydrodynamic Power Generation," Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.,
London, T-182-9, June.
Hughes, E., et al., 1974. "Control of Environmental Impacts from
Advanced Energy Sources," EPA, March, EPA-600/2-74-002.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1970. "Critique of MHD Power Generation," J. Eng.
Power, 92, pp. 217 -3 0 , July.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1973. "Coal Fired MHD for Central Station PowerGeneration,- 6fh Annual Frontiers of Power Technology Conference,Stillwater, OK, pp. 4/1-17, October 10-11.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1974. "The Role of the Office of Coal Research in
the NationaT Program for MHD Development," in (NSF, 1974), pp. 17-26.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1975. "Consideration in the Development of Open
Cycle MHD Systems for Commercial Service," 6th InternationalConference on MHD Electric Power Generation, Vol. V., Washington,DC, p. 21, June, CONF-75061-P5.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1975. "MHD Power Generation - Technology Status
and Development Plan," Institute of Gas Technology Symposium,Chicago, IL, June 23.
Jackson, W.D., P.S. Zygielbaum, 1975. "Open Cycle MHD Power Generation -
Status and Engineering Development Approach," American Power
Conference, Chicago, IL.
Jackson, W.D., 1976. "MHD Electrical Power Generation: Prospects and
Issues," AIAA 9th Fluid and Plasmadynamics Conference, San Diego,
CA, July, AIAA 76-309.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1976. "Design Considerations for a Coal-Fired
2000 MW (th Open Cycle MHD/Steam Baseload Powerplant," 3rd US-USSR
Colloquium on MHD Electric Power Generation, Moscow, USSR, October20-21.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1976. "Development of a Baseline Reference Design
for an Open CycTe MHD Power Plant for Commercial Service," 15thSymposium on EAM, Philadelphia.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1976. "MHD Power Generation 1976 Status Report,"
IECEC, pp. TO-6-1019.
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1977. "Status of the Reference Dual-Cycle
MHD-Steam TPwerPlant," 16th Symposium on Engineering Aspects ofMHD, Pittsburgh, PA, May 16-18.
119
Jackson, W.D., et al., 1977. "Design of the Montana MagnetohydrodynamicsComponent D-eveTopment and Integration Facility," 12th IECEC, pp.988-994.
Jahnig, C.E. and H. Shaw, 1976. "Environmental Assessment of an 800 MWeConventional Steam Power Plant," Exxon/GRU.1.DJAD.76, Exxon R&E, 54pp., September.
Jedrzyowski, Zb., St. Andrzejewski, 1966. "Study of Cycle Diagrams ofPower Plants with MHD Generators," International Atomic EnergyAgency, 20 pp., July 4, CONF-660704-81.
Joint Publications Research Service, 1975. "First Joint Soviet-AmericanColloquium on the Problem of MHD Energy Conversion," JPRS-63794, 254pp., January.
Joubert, J.I., et al., 1976. "Kinetics of Regeneration of Spent Seed
from MHD Power Generation Systems," 15th Symposium on EngineeringAspects of MHD, Philadelphia, May 24-26.
Kantrowitz, A., R.J. Rosa, 1974. "MHD Power Generation," AmericanPhysical Society Topical Conference on Energy, Chicago, IL, February.
Kantrowitz, A., 1977. "The First 20 Years of MHD Development,"Conference on High Temperature Sciences Related to Open-Cycle,Coal-Fired MHD Systems, Argonne, IL, pp. 289-298, April 4-6,ANL-77-21.
Karr, C., Jr., et al., 1974. "Composition of Fly Ash from a Coal-FiredMHD Generator with Potash Seed," J. Inst. of Fuel, Vol. 52, pp.177-80.
Kiepeia, J.E. (ed.), 1975. "Sixth International Conference on
Magnetohydrodynamic Electrical Power Generation," Vol. II, ERDA,Washington, DC, 336 p., June 9-13, CONF 750601-P1, P2, P3, P4, P5,P6.
Kirillia, V.A., et al., 1967. "The Prospective Economics and ThermalEfficiency Tf Erge Scale Open Cycle MHD Stations," Phil. Trans.Roy. Soc. London Ser. A., 261, pp. 394-400, July 6.
Klepeis, J., and J.F. Louis, 1971. "Disk Generator Applied to Open CyclePower Generation," Proc. of the 5th International Conf. of MHDElectrical Power Generation, Munich.
Kolb, G., et al., 1974. "Applied Magnetohydrodynamics No. 13.
Theoretical Bases of MHD Energy Conversion with Combustion Gases,"Inst. fuer Technische Physik, Kernforschungsanlage Juelich G. m.b.H., 215 p., March. Jul-1055-TP.
120
Kontos, J., 1969. "System Analysis and Simulation in Magneto-hydrodynamics," NTIS # DEMO-69/2, May.
Kuehne, W.D., et al., 1972. "Applied Magnetohydrodynamics Volume 9.
Calculation f the Characteristic Quantity of the Working Gas of theMHD-Combustion Gas Generator," Kernsforschungsanlage, Juelich, W.Germany, 124 p. Jul-874-TP.
Lane, J.A., 1974. "Outlook for Alternative Energy Sources," Energy
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., 36 p.CONF-75-614-1.
Levi, E., 1978. "MHD's Target: Payoff by 2000," IEEE Spectrum, pp.46-51, May.
Lindsay, W.T., E.V. Somers, W.S. Emmerich, 1964. "Fixed NitrogenBy-Products in Open Cycle MHD Generators," Westinghouse ResearchLabs., CONF-640701-38, 7 pp.
Little, A.D., Inc., 1975. "Benefits/Costs of Advanced Power CycleResearch: A Mid-1974 Analysis," Final Report, Cambridge, MA, 83 p.,December. FE-1756-1.
Louis, J.F., 1968. "Disk Generator," AIAA Journal, 6, 9, p. 1674.
Louis, J.F., (ed.), 1971. "Open Cycle Coal Burning MHD PowerGeneration; An Assessment and a Plant for Action," MIT, Cambridge,MA, June.
Louis, J.F., 1974. "MHD: Systems and Characteristics," in (NSF, 1974),
pp. 27-30.
Louis, J.F., 1975, 1976. "Critical Contributions in MHD Power
Generation," Annual Report, Quarterly Reports, MIT, E(49-18)-2215
(ERDA), FE-2215-1, 2, 3.
Louis, J.F., et al., Open Cycle Coal Fired MHD Power Generation, Final
Report for the Period 21 May (1971) - 31 May (1975), Dept. ofAeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, prepared for ERDA Fossil Energy
Contract No. E(49-18)-1209, Vols. I and II.
Marston, C.H., et al., 1976. "MHD Generator Investigations," General
Electric Company, Philadelphia, March (AD-A023 417), November(AD-A032 790).
McGrath, I.A., M.W. Thring, 1964. "Open Cycle Magnetohydrodynamic Power
Generation," J. Inst. Fuel, 37, No. 287, pp. 525-30, December.
Migra, R.P., et al., 1976. "Comparative Evaluation of Phase I Resultsfrom the-negy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS)," NASA,February, NASA TMX-71855.
121
Millet, J., 1968. Electricity from MHD, Proceedings from WarsawSymposium, pp. 2979-2990.
MIT, 1975. "Open Cycle Coal Fired MHD Power Generation," Final Report,Cambridge, MA, 701 p., July 31.
Mori, Y., "Cycle and Efficiency of Large Scale Open-Cycle MHD PowerPlants", in Proc. of 5th International Conf. on MHD Electrical PowerGeneration, (Munich, 1971).
Mori, Y., T. Taira, 1972. "Kinetic Study of Oxides of Nitrogen in MHDPower Plants," Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Argonne,IL, pp. VI.7.1-VI.7.6.
Mori, Y., T. Taira, 1973. "Reduction of Nox Concentrations in MHD SteamPower Plant Systems," 13th Symposium on Engineering Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamics, Stanford, CA, March.
Mori, Y., K. O. Atake, S. Irobe, and T. Taira, 1975. "Decomposition ofNO on Alumina Surface under Reducing Conditions for Emission Controlof NO in MHD Power Plants," CONF-750601-P1, pp. 61-76.
Mori, Y., et al., 1975. "Prediction of NO Concentrations in MHD Power
Plants by Axi-Symmetric Two Dimensional Analyses," Tokyo Inst. ofTech., CONF-750601-P1, pp. 77-89.
NASA Lewis Research Center, 1976. "Comparative Evaluation of Phase IResults from the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS)," NASATMX-71855, February.
NASA, 1977. "Evaluation of Phase 2 Conceptual Designs and ImplementationAssessment Resulting from the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study(ECAS)," Cleveland, OH, NASA TMX-73515, April.
NSF, 1974. "NSF-OCR Engineering Workshop on MHD Materials," MIT,November 20-22.
Nedospasov, A.V., et al., 1976. "Thermophysical and ElectrophysicalProperties of-o-ustion Products with Seed," Inst. VysokikhTemperatur, Moscow, USSR, 68 p., September. ERDA-tr-183.
Novosadov, V.B., 1976. "Errors of Measurement of Plasma Temperature inMHD Generator Channels," 35 p., October. ERDA-tr-184.
Nowacki, P.J., 1968. "Recent Developments in the Direct Conversion ofHeat into Electricity by Means of Magnetohydrodynamic ElectricalPower Generation," Neue Tech., 1-, No. B1, pp. 3-24, February.
Olds, F.C., 1971. "S02 Control: Focusing on New Targets," PowerEngineering 77(8), pp. 24-29.
Oliver, D.A., P.H. Byer, 1972. "Physical and Economic Models of an OpenCycle Coal Burning MHD Power Generation," Gas Turbine LaboratoryReport No. 197, MIT, Cambridge, MA, June.
122
Patel, N.J., et al., 1976. "Influence of Coal Type and Drying upon MHDPower Plants and Components," 15th Symposium for Engineering Aspectsof MHD, Philadelphia, PA, May 24-26.
Penny, M.M., et al., 1977. "Development Status and Environmental Hazardsof Several Candidate Advanced Energy Systems," 12th IECEC, pp.646-654 (also EPA/IERL-Ci-092, 1976).
Pepper, J.W., et al., 1970. "NO Concentrations in MHD Steam Power PlantSystems," 1ith Symposium on Engineering Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamics, Pasadena, CA.
Pepper, J.W., et al., 1972. "NO Concentrations in MHD Steam Power PlantSystems," Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Argonne,Illinois, pp. VI.6.1.-VI.6.5.
Pepper, J.W., C.H. Kruger, 1973. "Accurate Modeling of NO Decompositionin MHD Steam Power Plant Systems," Engineering Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamics, Univ. of Mississippi, pp. VII.2.1.-VII.2.3,March 26, CONF-730311.
Pepper, J. and O.S. Yu, 1974. "The Application of Open Cycle MHD in anElectric Utility System," Proceedings of NSF-OCR EngineeringWorkshop on MHD Materials, MIT, November 20-22.
Pepper, J.W., et al., 1974. "NO Concentrations in MHD Steam Power PlantSystems,"-T4th Symposium on Engineering Aspects ofMagnetohydrodynamics, Univ. of Tennessee Space Inst., Tullahoma, TN,pp. 111.5/1-2, April 8-10.
Pepper, J.W., 1974. "Effect of Nitric Oxide Control on MHD-Steam PowerPlant Economics and Performance," Stanford Univ. SU-IPR Report No.614, December.
Pepper, J. and O.S. Yu, 1974. "The Application of Open Cycle MHD in an
Electric Utility System," in (NSF, 1974) pp. 31-46.
Pepper, J.W., 1975. "Effect of Nitric Oxide Control on MHD-Steam PowerPlant Economics and Performance," Stanford Univ., 127 p.
Petrick, M., et al., 1976. "Experimental Two-Phase Liquid-MetalMagnetohydro-ynamic Generator Program," Argonne National Lab.,Argonne, IL, 102 p., November, ANL/ENG 76-04.
Pomeroy, B.D., et al., 1978. "Comparative Study and Evaluation ofAdvanced Cycle Systems," General Electric, EPRI Report AF-664,February.
Poncelet, J., L. Lozano, 1968. "Chemi-ionization and MHD: The Effect ofC02 and Additives," Electricity from MHD, Vol. IV, Vienna,Austria, pp. 2141-2159, July 24.
123
Powell, C.A., 1974. "Utility Requirements for MHD Power Generation," in(NSF, 1974), pp. 7-16.
Powell, E.M., R.C. Ulmer, 1974. "Controlling Emissions fromFossil-Fueled Power Plants, Combustion 45, No. 7, pp. 24-34, January.
Reeder, J., R. Buende, 1973. "Basic Equations and Fundamental Data forCombustion MHD Generators, " Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik,Garching Munich, R.F. Germany, 225 p., July. IPP-IV-60.
Research and Education Association, 1975. "Chapter 46, MHD PowerGeneration" in Modern Energy Technology, REA, New York, pp.1359-1412.
Rikov, A.I., et al., 1975. "Development and Study of High TemperatureMaterials for Various Components of MHD Installations," Inst.Vysokikh Temperatur, Moscow, USSR, 51 p., ERDA-tr-185.
Rockwell International Corp., 1976. "MHD Combustor Design Study," FinalReport, Rockwell International Corp. Rocketdyne Div., Canoga Park,Calif., 440 p. May. TID-27144.
Rosa, R.. et al., 1970. "Advanced Peaking Power Plants," 11th Symposiumon Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Pasadena, CA.
Rosa, R.J., 1975. "MHD Power Generation Development Program," AVCOEverett Research Lab., Everett, MA, 227 p., June. PB-243-233.
Rudins, G., 1974. "U.S. and Soviety MHD Technology: A ComparativeOverview," Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA. AD-A0004-614.
Sarofim, A.F., 1977. "Combustion and Characterization of Coal,"Conference on High Temperature Sciences Realted to Open-Cycle,Coal-Fired MHD Systems, Argonne, IL, April 4-6, ANL 77-21.
Seikel, G.R., et al., 1971. "The Potential of Nuclear MHD Electric PowerSystems," NASA, 12 p., NASA-TM-X-67829. N71-24578.
Seikel, G.R., et al., 1976. "A Summary of the ECAS Performance and CostResults f NWFD Systems," 15th Symposium Engineering on Aspects ofMHD, Philadelphia, May 24-26.
Seikel, G.R., and L.P. Harris, 1976. "A Summary of the ECAS MHD PowerPlant Results," 3rd US-USSR Colloquium on MHD, Moscow, USSR, October21-22, NASA TMX-73481.
Shaw, H., 1978. "Environmental Assessment of Advanced Energy ConversionTechnologies," Exxon R&E presentation to EPA-IERL, May 17.
124
Shaw, H., W.C. Cain, 1977. "Environmental Considerations in AdvancedEnergy Conversion Technology Assessments," 12th IECEC, pp. 655-660.
Sheindlin, A.E., G.I. Rossievskii, 1972. "Analysis of FactorsInfluencing the Thermal Efficiency and Economic Vitality ofElectric-Power Stations Using Open-Cycle MHD Generators," ForeignTechnology Div., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 18 p., September,AD-753708.
Shumiatskii, B. Ya., et al., 1976. "Studies Conducted at the U-15
Facility (IV)," Inst. Vysokikh Temperatur, Moscow, USSR, 60 p.,ERDA-tr-182.
Siniasky, N.A. and I.A. Yavorsky, 1968. "The Effect of Phase Changes inMineralized Composition of the Inorganic Part of Natural Coals onthe Electrical Conductivity of a Colloidal Plasma," Electricity fromMHD, IAEA, Vienna, SM 107/186.
Solbes, A. S.W. Petty, 1977. "Progress in Channel Development for DirectCoal Fired MHD," 12th IECEC, pp. 1004-1014.
Somers, E.V., D. Berg, and A.P. Fickett, 1976. "Advanced EnergyConversion," in Annual Review of Energy-1976, pp. 345-368.
Sonju, O.K., J. Teno and T.R. Brogan, 1970. "Comparison of Experimentaland Analytical Results for a 20-MW Driven Hall Configuration MHDGenerator," 11th Symp. on Engr. Aspects of MHD, California Inst. ofTech., Pasadena, California.
Sporn, Philip, Arthur Kantrowitz, 1959. "Large Scale Generation ofElectric Power by Application of the Magnetohydrodynamic Concept,"Power, Vol. 103, pp. 62-65.
STD Research Corp., 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974. "Realistic Modeling andPerformance Prediction of MHD Generator Channels," Progress Reports,Pasadena, CA, May 17, 1971, Febraury 16, 1972, March 16, 1973,January 15, 1974, FE-1211-T-1, 2, 3, 4.
STD Research Corp., 1977. "Open-Cycle MHD Systems Analysis," AnnualReport, EPRI, March, RP-640-2.
Tager, S.A. and J.M. Henry, 1976. "Fuel and Combustion," US-USSR text onMHD.
TRW Defense and Space Systems Group, 1976. "TRW 25 MW/sub T/Staged MHD
Coal Combustor Conceptual Design Study," Redondo Beach, CA, 363 p.,June. TID-27145.
Tempelmeyer, E.D., et al., 1977. "Investigation of Factors Influencing
Potassium Seed Recovery in a Direct Coal-Fired Generator System,"16th Symposium for Engineering Aspects of MHD, Pittsburgh, PA, May16-18.
125
Teno, J., et al., "Research Studies and Development of MHD Generators andAccelerators," AVCO Everett Research Laboratory Report.
USSR Institute for High Temperatures, 1974, "Influence of Ash on theOperation of MHD Generator Channel in the U-02 Facility," 20 p.ERDA-66.
USSR Institute for High Temperatures, 1975. "Principal Results ofScientific Research Done for 1974," Moscow, 62 p. ERDA-tr-162.
Way, S., 1964. "MHD Power Generation," Combustion: 36, No. 3, pp.34-41, September.
Way, S., 1967. "Problems of the Coal-Fired MHD Power Plant," in Advancesin Plasma Dynamics, T.P. Anderson and R.W. Springer (eds.),Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.
Way, S., 1971. "MHD Power Plant for Early Realization," 5thInternational Symposium MHD, Munich, W. Germany, pp. 615-26, May.
Way, S., 1974. "Combustion Aspects of MHD Power Generation," Chapter 10,Combustion Technology, edited by H.B. Palmer and J.M. Beer,Academic Press, New York and London.
Westinghouse, 1976. "Energy Conversion Alternatives Study - ECAS - Phase1," Vols. 1-12, NASA, CR-134941.
Witwer, J.G., 1976. "Costs of Alternative Sources of Electricity,"Stanford Research Inst., Menlo Park, CA, July, PB-255-765.
Wu, Y.C.L., et al., 1968. "Two Terminal Connected Open Cycle MHD
Generators," 9th Symp. on Engr. Aspects of MHD, Univ. of Tenn. SpaceInstitute, Tullahoma, Tenn.
Wu, Y.C.L., et al., 1974. "On Direct Coal-Fired MHD Generator," 14thSymposium on Engineering Aspects of MHD, April.
Wu, Y.C.L., et al., 1975. "Experimental and Theoretical Investigation ofa DirecCoal-Fired MHD Generator," 6th International Conference onMHD Electric Power Generation, Washington, DC, June 9-13.
Young, W.E., et al., 1967. "Recent Studies of Advanced Coal BurningPower Plants," 1967 Intersociety Energy Conversion EngineeringConference, pp. 485-492.
Young, W.E., et al., 1974-1975. "Magnetohydrodynamic Investigation forCoal-Fire en Cycle Systems," Monthly Prog. Rep. 1-20, OCRContract No. 14-32-0001-1540, Office of Coal Research, Washington,DC.
126
Appendix A MHD Economic-Environmental Simulation
A computerized model has been developed at the MIT Energy Laboratory
that has the capability of simulating the siting of many technologies
including MHD power plants. This model, AEGIS - Alternative Electric
Generation Impact Simulator, can be obtained from James Gruhl, principal
investigator, at the MIT Energy Laboratory. To date the sponsors have been
New England Electric System (NEES), Bradley Schrader program manager, and
Northeast Utilities Service Co. (NUSCO), Denning Powell and William
Renfro program managers.
Table A-1 shows the interactive nature of the program's input
routine. Table A-2 displays the listing of the input assumptions and
acts both as a means for the user to verify the assumptionsand for the
formal record of the simulation run.
The output from the OCMHD simulation is shown in Table A-3,
displaying the range of uncertainty associated with each of the 109
performance measures. Minus numbers, such as -1., or letters, such as
NA, are indications that these are performance values that are not
predicted by the particular modules chosen by the user.
Table A-4 presents the code for identifying specific pieces of
information that the user may be interested in retrieving from the online
documentation. Tables A-5 and A-6 show the retrievals of all OCMHD power
plant information and LAMM health impact information. References are
almost all available in this report's bibliography. The AEGIS program
and bibliography will be available to the public late in 1978 upon
completion of the NEES-NUSCO Project.
127
Table A-1 Input session for use of AEGIS program - terminal responsesare in CAPITALS, user responses are in lower case; this is anexample of the no-prompt option.
C:C
I---J
C:,,
C-< z. -<C 2-
C
C Z
: -Ca-U; t
LU -- C, C , Cr· : C,--.. -
- -- .J C_u c .C .U . Uu C: qW S
I-
CrC
Z
.C* C
_= C-' - E
1 41I- LU: _-a
C : C_U-I- - I(tC C -C CZO- C
C - ,.LL
C CL LL' -II :.- - · C iI.I- ' ,
L: C , CC C.. .. -- Z - Q' CC = , Ca- C _
« ,C CL
C- : -': C C C
- Cm U.- LL-L: = L: . 'C LUC (L-
Z C. aC--C C CC--wu = L .. -' C, LIC c .-= L c -c .
_U = LU.. C:
--- CLC- I- - C. ,
- Q..I-U..- ..-.- C
-- II II II I!,.~~_~ r'C
C:
C
:
v IIG"C
..
Z: i
II
C.C
1..
C rI--C.
CZ: I-.
D
C
LL:
II c CC: N
*f C 'C' G
!=s ,: .- : i
N i C lI < -
Q r , 1aC II Qv I·c. II _. v II oc C
N' 11IZ .c: r 11 oZZ iW .cc v-Ur,
N II N u-C r'- ~,c, Ni
1 <' N C r-: 0
II- CN 'C_U J-- · C', %cN c 11 N: N L_
C.: ZrII : 11 Lv r : ¢,, , --.112 c. ?: N Lr, --. ·- :
LU _ e: 411or II -Ii Nr-
11 1_ 1 U N -C N ", r-. CIL h IC N IC ,Cr.c r-1. N
LLNC. N- I: 4
<,: C C"; ,-I L' C I C 'W
N: N CCN N/I, r -: ~l .. C.
L- -Cq -- --
I _- -,-C
I4 N' Ct ' NJ cc;; tc c
128
Table A-2 Display to user of the assumptions that will be used in thisparticular session.
C)>-0Ua-CoC CCL
.- C LL
LU.J<CC2:2:0
LL LC: ' :CC CC7 =
C2:
LLQ
-... .LL<0 L:: C~ > 1LLU< LUCl)~-H
L CL L C- LL C > C >>- < C: >- F
- HH<f C.. CH < CL HZ = ' C' /'' C CL L: C': C :
:-J C LL LL' C < C FL LU-: 2: C <:- 1 Li C.:t#XCX2:CLL CC* .C_ L;
C HZ L
J< C
L: _,-
C< -· CC
C a-CMC C.
<: 2 C
- CC2:C: Z-,:
*. LU
UCLr-LUlUHt L
> C 2: L: >-H C C <
-)- CL
H LL' < > LJ- LL C -_
C -' C CC _ _ C_
LZ Li L-:< C
L:CCZ
.t
C LL ZC: C
C2-:2: 4
cfC X
*-=CC C
( = C II(- ' F-- C' cZ
H C- --- Z L' -C, II
.- LLJCLL' L1
.r C; CL C
LL
129
-J
CCD-,
C/z
I
c oc cc
C: C. Z-- , C
I I
I C I ;\ UI - I LU
I C I 2:0
I _: I L ,
I C) I - LUI < I i G
I I_. _. _I~1~I~1~'I !
Table A-3 Performance measures for- chosen for this simulation.
cC+
CC C 0C L - C Lcc C C,. ;x C =C C. -- C 0C
r- :} c: c. * U c . LA.0C: -*.-: r CC = _ r-
CC
-. C L N rr. cC.: :. cr -c . c -- - G q c 1-
Lr , I, r .W C --. V i. Co r:C C * . . . C·N i . r. W . 0 ,-
L Co. ·C LALn C.-i cc
tocLL'
C. c C 0. C C c C C,4 C CC C C Ccr c-C C c C, C C _t . oZ . CC _
r ., . , _~ r ., 1 C": cc tr.C C14 C
LC
*C r-C C C. 0 r-I CC- · L. (C CC r. L C CL CC C C r- ! · ·* , Kq r * · · · ' C: 1
C
LIC C c CC C C . N C C,
. c - Uc. Liu-n c Ln
C' ri · · · , * .- *r - .L, .C,: r-.' H
ALc
CCC
I I .--. :~( ~I: I Cf .
CE I _. L 0IC I-- FI 3- I = 0
I I -CI ~- 3 -I C I ; CLIC L ' C
I _ I - ' C -I C : <I ,, : .I .-I 1 -- C.: LI I : C .CLI LL I -_ C:
--
I-' .~-
LZ-
:-C: W _-
Cr:~s A -I I
_ .'. _ VI C I. I L - ' - I L1 V ,:- ILL I
U C IC 1
U C IL C :_'"
I C I
0( 0 C L I CC IC IL' I
CCCC
O
C CC
C cC= c-C_ C=
C
C -,1
C .CC
C-
CLL
UC-
-
LL
C WL
the technology/site options
C C)·CC
C C CC .LA LA
C C C* C C
*
C Oc CC LUALA
CC=C:C C C
C-. otCCc Cr-* W LA.
C CCC C
C,- C,
C C C
C. C
00 Cr-I W., L i
LU
J I
C LU I-'I C- C- I C .L I -- I LUJ I
L V I I>- I L I
--- C - I II I C. V-I-_I > I C C . I - II - 1 CJ C- I C- I
I - I C: _.C L I
I e I H C I C 3
I C - II a I
., o C--r '. U.
C C -4m. HH l
C: C C
.. Ln
W. Ln a,LI i i1U
C C C C
h, r-! r-- t
C I C CC~ t
00G. C :C C C C
c: l_
-' r- ccC- t-. a .
I_ C LA C'
A cG>-
OVLU>
LU0LL ' CC<- H
C_I-LL -' L-
0=
00_ _U23=-
(CCC ·
LC" r- - C C
CC .(C LC
r. C ; Z :tr·. r. : UC :
*lf. CCL * _ CC.c .- CCC.- C C i.~
r,- 00 r-. -
I r-: cc .L Lno- · . C'J Cq
r- C. r-: . r-
C C' ' C Coc L. C~ * ·
r1 r, C'- C Cr C r L LA
IICIWI. I
,~ I LL |-I _ I /_
vi% IC 3I L I CI 2 I A;
Io: CI CC "-' CC V 1.
LL' IO I =3 i3--I_ C ,,
> I ,' C O
I 3 I< LU
130
I II II
I I
r I
I _c Ic |I -c I3 xc I. <: · 1, =c-4 3* CI! II II II II II II 3
I >-i I3 LU-~' I -I
I i 3l II II II I
I II C[C II II II I
II II II : I
I "'CU I I
I II I
I II II II !I IIC* I
1>00II trj
I IIC II II II II aa II !: I I
I 'C II C II - 1
I ! II* II II II I
I I
I C I
10 I ILWIT--J1I =C I
I < I,< ILU I -I cc:
I0..zi I
'--4'I -<aI <.>3.IVj II aI
O
C
Continued display of performance measures.
C C1+ ++
L..L LUlU!CC 'CCC 00CCC C, o LU C C N aC C LL;UCC.~ * ~~
· a, r-t.C-_.?c r-.* *C *~-~ C
CCC+
G- L G.C' 1 tCC;o -- C: C. * tt.C C-C - C -I - · C_ , L CJ 1' _I K . % ¢,F..UWI .· . . . . r -i - -. .C . oc Cc Lr. C.
OC · C I- C r' I- .· C . -C C C L N- UL C * J J o_ L: Oa c L CCP, ,I. :." =' -L . .- , ' :. - ,: --. r. J .- cC r
cc _: c_, c::C CC C C+ I I I IL.. L .L2L L;
" r . C- i-- Co,oo LI, C C L.
-IC .i- C r-: Lc r- rc - C. C. N,
--I L r-.C CCI + +
LU W LLWC * *CCCCCCC. C C C C C C C C Cr. C C, C oC CC oC OC ,C _ , * -.OC .C' 0C CC . "- CC '. C.*·C.C * * C. I-C. * C
CC+ +
o. _- C ~ ' C C t r . . . C' C C. - *L:, LC C C . T C C . L, ALn C. C: ·., U-, C: rC -
r- · · · · . lT. · ·C L C' r-,-CC * _ N r C- L- . CL U . _ I r 3 _ Ir C - C-", - ". L r C C. C , r -.t. ,- C- C: .u c r.H4v-lv-tv-ttALL *:<u.C> H. C -C * * L
c
c4
c Lr. C. . .
M .T.= - - - _
c_ C c C c_ c c
LLU LL LU L LU L LULr. KC. -. - VI C C'M C" oc I C -1 LA C C L C-, CL C L C U: L C4LU.C - i-- C- C , _
L L l t - ,., . -. C C C C C C C
Lr, LI L LU 2 LL t1W, v-i C -i I
t-I C .-r---I C:tV. C :- - -i C
CLV
C; A 1. L", cC r Ln Lr, Lu. O LA -- : eo; . - L L W - L N- C: C
*v-C * *C, t' *LU * CZ.· ·L CL oC C. CC C C C,: r.
C, IT., Ct: ., l'~, . C,. * OC C< C~ G OC-
UC - 1- . LI, _- . . .,CC C CCC C CC+ + + I I I I I I ILL 'i L' LLL IU I t LL LJC: C', *-I N- r . C f" r- C c CC r- c I Ln C- t' -.' t - ,r": (' C - ,-- oc r: C', C LU. WC - · O,? -, C. G C 'r- I- L Ltr C C C'. C ... N- - r- -I cNI* t I . * * - .* . . . .
C C CI + I
L' LU: La:C· * CCCCC CC C C CC C CC C C CC c C, U ccC C : CC r. ,C r ".N · ·C C.C OC C
I ~ v I-- CZ-C.tMC;<.~'* *G. C.2N'.,L . *G *-
C C CI + I
L: L L,'CCC .CCCCCLL C-2 C * C C . 0t LU-
C i -V_ C', C·C ~ l"'r ·C Cq Iv ·* **C.r _t *r¢S *
--I -- L C r-C CCC CI + +
LU LW WL L:- G LC - r C- :. C C _ I., - L. C *.C _,C. N, C Cc C: I" C .C- LU. LU, -. Lr ., --. I '",CI LC C r. C , W . . L U C C' C ', -I C -I CLCO -. lur. C -*' *L C · * C. C',- r-: *· L
·!. · · ·C C: i -_ ·* C C ' LTr. -' Cc C C C. · .OCCC- o r-: CCC -. *-, · L..
'-Ir-C - C'4 - : - C C LCCCC C C CC CCC C
I I I I I I I I + + +, LLU L L L U,' LL. L:LIL LU
N- :. .- a c L C,: -E ", L C,,: LU, C -C P-,.'C. ,-Ci --G. -, LUL C: r-, .- II Lr.
r^-" N- L r- Lr, cN r-, L c - L c c,,: -. c cc L r-a., N,'-. OcC a- 1-. , O C r -_ Cr. v4 L C, U _ . -i C,: N'. UC N- . N _- .c r. L C C
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. t ; . .
L L L Lu. ML tP. LAC CCC CCI I I I I ILL L. LL .L L LL
,i I CI ICC -; L: C
CL.: L LL 1. ' 1-
r-: L Lr,: A, U. LA L.:
C C.- Co C aC C. Lc. C cc P , C r-CrU, C: LA cN _
C *- *- *- *' * LA
LU LA Lr. LA L Ln LL
I I I I I L' L L L LL
-I o C M IAr-I - r-I C CLUL - C -: -I tN-. r V.' CN- v-I v- C,, · ·
UZ WC,,: -
C- or,C GNE. NC c
L tr.u L Lr. ML Lu. L0CCCCCC
LU N- C C: . - WLA C LU LU, o_ v
C -r. a C ci C LCLr. r-i i -: ci r'. MIIIIIII *
C;-L C:
C W. C. =
- --- C-W
C C C > L::-cC-'- LCI---- C.C LU < >- --J LU .i-- LU X C. C -C2C aC:CC. C-- i -
-J>- CC' C C:LL C C.:L-: <; =-= U U
C: C C.C <_ CEC U < LU -1 :- :
Z C-,/ LL: <C.
- -I- :--
A ZA C>- A AC-
C: >C-NCU>- A>- >- .C: A - C
v v> < A -- :V- F- ,c -C' C=< --- .c = C -v
O- CC ,: C-- C.C ~F-- C C - C CC I-: ,: tr U-
C -i LL C
c .. C C. L C C_ -C C; --I 1'A c.,i
C I--_ t7 C
C< C, , C C --;- .-C
<C _ C. C C C .=
N' -4 = v- ' CO C,m , C C H cc c<C
131
Table A-3
I I ICI .1 I
L LL LC CN (LCCC L ..-L. C C,. C A,
C C C CI I I I
LU L 1C- .t C~cc L, LC rr,, LU. ir," Cr-I t' CN ,CLA C ri ·-
* . * .
I I ILL LLr-I C CCc C. -i, -,, -i
c r- 0r* * -
C CCI + +
LU LL WC * *CCC C C L CLU C C C C.C. C I-i. r-L r- L^. V- U..·- ru . .
C C C C CC -> Cc C C
* C .CC C,0.2~ .
In u'% Ut' U'IC C C CLU L LU-. OU C C,-! O C. C'. C C CC
* . . .
C. CCC C C
C. -I LrC. Chi _t
* * *:
C =-Cx F- -C C
O C
C< CCCC- CU U
--C' Zv-1 r-I
Table A-3 Completion of display; -1.0 values indicate information notpredicted by modules chosen.
,C : O C · C. CCC C C; C C cC CCC C · C C C CCCC C C C: CCCCC
r_ _ C : -C a a C C C C C C C C C C C Cr-· -* "I 1~; -i U. _-; : ; : r- I_;-: : r r
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
COC C CoC C C CCCC CCC CC CC
I I I I I
C CI I
!r- LA Lna. · OC0. CCH. *'OL
*LA l-
Cj(CCI I
cO - C C 'C O C C W4
r-I cc · C · C
I I
F- cc . F-Ln -: Ln oC c PI In C
UIF c . * CC_-I * 04 * I_
* . _I _1 cc: W.
OC - L C C'CtC CN LA _ -4 -
ru- *HCs C *v eF * C'_I- *G:CC 0.
c C C aC C C C C C ' C CC C C C C C C C C C CC.CCCCCCCCCCC
*C C C C C C CCC· CCCCCCCCCC
CC C C C C C C C CC C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C C C
11 I 11111 I I I I
CI
LU4i. C4 -rl C LC
C CC F-- LA L-,
. e. ..-
C CI I
I 1_ n
C C C: C u-I- IC u-I r- *-
CJ * b: U
C" C C C C C C C C C C C C'W. C C C C C C C C C C CaC, C C C C C C C C C C CCCCCC CCCCCCCC
I I I I I I I I I I I I
1-CI
_. CCCC
r CC.
*1-C
C C C CCCCCC C C C C
u- .: ._: I _
C CC CCCC C
I I
C CCCCCC C
I
CCCCCCCC CC C C CC C C C C C CCC C C C C C C
I v I I uI ICICCCCC
CCCCCCC C
I I
C CCC CC C C
_3 : v-l l
CC C C CCCC C:C C C C CaC C C C CC
I I- I I1 uIcccccl
C CCCI I I I
WL LL LL _ W , cc " C Cc
C. CC: .r C. C C CW ., C' - C - .r*; * * * _: _-i
I I
O CCCI IIIII IW LWLLJC C OC C C : C CC"- cc LA C f- C r-
G-, Cr _I J: C tr. C, C, W. C) 7_i 4 IC -.CL. * * C -
C: = _ > > - c: - Cc
v vvvc Il- CCV v W L L V C C V·C~ .~CC--C - V
- F c lUc <C._ V W= <
<-CLL U-c W- L U- C C -- I--
=CCCCCC'C -CO VVLU < C C C F_ <C =C C
·.
L - F-- Cc LU - =-- \:¥L L CM. C LV C
- C < C H L U H V L U C H C C : LCC : a - <" CZ C < , - c : - LU C - C. L. - C:_._ ' _. _ -- - v ; - - C -- v C_ C-' - C -.C-.C --C , 'C c-, C _
-'- C -- C-'-C -vC .. _-_C ,
CL
.-
C < Vi LUC I- C -C -Cr- _-
_C
N. A
-C c c:LC CV -. (>
C <c C.- F- u- - C / C CCV<: : CL->- C .C- W - <-C --_ C C -I-. " c C I- UC. 0~
C__ c. =C. U:,C . CC.< --z>:C -v
132
C C CCC C CCCC C C C CC C CCC
-: I -i,- -I I I I I
UI I
1 11
C C Co CC C
-: .- I r-:I I
C CCC C CC C C
1CC 1I I I
C CCC CC CCC CCCCCCC C C C
I l i
C C C CCC C CC C C C CCC C C C
1l 1 1 : _I I I
C C C CC C-C C CCC C C C
I I I u I
LLI L'LIJC. C I'- .-_:I Ir _.-4i C. L. C_: .- . .* . l *.
tC :I W l 'C C CI I IL; L LL:_I cc '- r-
C . _IC L CC U C
cc-I.
L:(L C .L. C-- C.
C* C C
I
LICC C I.. t C C'-_; C -ICCC -CC .*.
. -I C.I
C CC
C C
rVI
1
C C' ·C CSC _:
u--c-
C CC CCCC. C
I
CCCCCCCCC
l C Cla, a u-= a
CCC CC CC C
I .
C C C,C CCC C C
I I I
C CCC C C
CCCl a- a
C CC CC OC C
I IcclI-CZ
C
CCc
*.
LU
c.o
C U C L
Table A-4 Code and format for on-line documentation retrieval.
cc C cc
c cc .; .~
C>Z LL
C. C
c ccL u? Lc C.;
oc c- c
4 ·
<C - -
O.:
Z C. L C:c; :: I
_I z- LLL LL L
ClC
LL 4
Cc
LL
--Zi.;
-
H :-
Z IcL' Z F
F-- _LL: r _ L
v m = F --:'- M - -
II 1 II il II-: C', I - IM
C C CC C
LLJC
C
CLL_
C
/.:
H-
<-
C; C..IC -
C LL:II II II
U:C.;
- U)
- F-"'ccc c < c_L -<- v
(C-c~C' ICct Ir 1 L
"._ . ~c; _ :C LL=- II Ccc _ c,ct C--= C:
C =- 4 :
LL<: HC c- c Cii II II II
C- Cr: CsC s-.r-:-
-=ccL,..
- Z
Z.C-;
u
cfLUC>-e :
i- -
LL C.
Z C-, C CLC az C_
_ C
C C.; -CLu -
- C-V C;
ti-
cc
CC
c:t._I-
C
-LU CC
LC ( CC- L GL-C .
'-- C)-_ c- -<* LU = -
c C C:_ L CL' Z L:
'- L .C -IIC L
C -Z w-ClCZ- 0 Z
iLL-C-
CL, it-C--A LU z
cc -w
LL' C U
L 1 o
C_ -
_ cc
C- cc,
C- <LJ- C-C ---_C-i--
- c
- Cc:- ,,
* C,C LC; IcC
IcCCCLL1,L
: LZ C:
C
U:
CI-CC
cc
. < :
-Z C
-U) -I"'-; C- _
.- LA.-C I-
--cc- HZ -:a: C .
; . LLZ-
aZ C,-; -t
<0-I' -<:, .C
C
O
---- : X IE·--:S L
11 ----- ---__ - - -- _^ - %cl C
L- - - _- - o -=·--- - - _ - C.II Z .… ---... I -- I
------ --C---~-'--- - ~ ------- -- --- C
133
i
I
I
>-
II
_ _ _
Table A-5 On-line retrieval of Open Cycle Coal-Fired MHD data.
CZ- C
C Zi -
u- I -~.Cl C,
, C:
CWCH o'^ LL:
C--o 2-
H Co LICC C CC' C L
LLC
C -~cci-- C C,,C. < -I!.1 cZo
C= · Lcft \LL C
I "U ::ZI1_ -- - :1l C
.C *Cc - LL Cs LU:> -- -- .C- .: C: LJ-C -' LL. ' -L-
>_ - C _ L
C Q <C CC~:C C - C L_ 2
C C
r: t4.- C.C :
CC -= Z
C r-I C
u_
C cc
C o0 .
C CU-
CI CLL
CccC- LU
/)_ L .C -I., C L C.
+ C C
C
C
C -
. Lv- C
U% -- Ot. Lr
C L -tJ r~-- . .
O C'w, L
CN N I I
_- L. - .-- 'Ij C W C
C . _ I._ F
Gc: C c r--C_ C .- _ ,CI LU -C1
iC -s LL; ->-s-s
.un N C: C' s v- u -
C. C-LU: C
I- H U .f- H H C
= L: C C C: H' F
C C <L! L. <2: LU 2: L_. CL C_ C
Cv-i
I
-
cCI
L.U.sI_%
r. r-up CI r-c
Lr. Z
· C,. LL:
i: -L C
L. :
C-a_
Ccc
< ccLL: r:
Ct C V1 C_ CI CLI CC
-r - L; C7f(' C C C
': M c C I -:-. I L: LU- (c I - CC C
C. C:. C C C
< < ,-: L C- ': - cc c --4 : --
. ' If -H U LU:C C I N L; ::C7- C;- C Lr' C 4
<' Lo C t U
C 2 .L- - LL L
L < LU L <- -Cvvv~
CC X
r.-I cc CCI lc C
c - ' C C--C . OC r-I - cc< I u-I. - , C; .-- I ' %: IC .Lc: *c
r! C. C ; -- t l
¢ <K< C< LU CC CLUL VLC <C w <
_J _S o _ s _
C C r, =
CCCCCC
CCC C CCCCC
G C C C C
r-, cC4 . - G u C -I UmC C C C ri rq r- r-, r-' r-I -i u- v-i r-: -I r-iC-CCC-CCCCCt C C C Ct C C C C
C CCC CCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
LC v- 0C w-7- C r C'4 rn Z_ c C"J - r v-I -I Cu- v-=i U-I v-I u-I
u- v-- u-i u-i v--I -I u--i u-I u- ! C c' c C' C C "! CCCC
CCCaC; C -
C-CC. CLZ LCCC
C CC C- C
C CC CC-C
C C CCC C C C CCCCC C C C C C C C C C Cs
rm F; 'n 'h rr-, h% r' t. r, ~, ,
C C CCC C C C CC CCC C C a-r- C C- C C -C C C
134
C,:
CC
C4=
c:c=
vvv.vv_ vv
Table A-5 (continued)
.
C(j.
I.I
C C.
· v Co
< C,LL:c OC
cc c~. ' ·
C -.. c c r-,;: _
- r, LL: C .
C C <' C I
I ~ -
- Cc c c c z --C:. , Ci- r - r; C C, "i -.
LL: Ij 4. 1,1LC C4. ,,-C <CL~LL:<r - C- --c: ._
>: cc 2 -: cc
,-.sC LL' ** .: I ;Sw
O-
C
·C :Z
LL r ,CC
t CL LAC U.F- _. C Wco< --W Z:,-: '.
LLH C>< Lc-...C ,',OC -c CCCI t .C ·* CC C C.C _; * .
c<: -< .-L.L:C I U, L.
c- ~ c: - c: t,.- < C C- 1--
C
r-I
C;
HC C: C. - C c= LLJ C; r C
I-: C C C r-: CC ,-C - ~
C ..C r-I -'
- c (_ r' - : ·<: C Ns
II --- H ,C
C: - LL . rl -
a _C: -t-L t. L
>--- L C L (< -c' C 2
C-
Iitr.
L,
4t
C'-II_l,
II.-N-
.<r-
C r-
;cU: CC' C
.-: .. -'
C 0c
C L G.-:
C Z
C W
. C:CCL'
,4.
C
is, C'e
* C.(N .0
r--
* C..
V! C * CU) · - 4.
r-: CT
C L
r-1
L;reLCI-:
- LC:
u-. r-.
_.--
< C
LL' CIcC
<. _C v
C <C
C1iv-q
C
cc!,'0c LL -C
'* *C --* -- -' .1
*II U --.!. C 4.I II C
-<'II C: ,r-:
II r '- tr
.
a.C
t--
-G. -r- < (uC
r-: C LC
C U-
<C LC
_ - C
(.
L: =
cILCFC
X .(C·
I C·
C LLC;_ LLI
i-- C -C
- C-,C,
11 C:
/2LL C:
OL:C C
_. C-' ri
--C
v' 4;
0 I Ni , C - C , - un L C rN cC* r-; Cr-i C C C, r -r4 r- r- r- r-i r-i r-1 r- C C
C C CCC CC" CC C CCCC C C CC C C C C C C C C C C
CL C C C C C_ C( C( C C C C CCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
tr - 1./ C r-tC C C r- r-I
CCCCCC C C C C
C CCC C
CCC rC C
CN u- 1- V-I C- - -_ _ tr.
C C:C C C
C CC C-
C 00 CC- C
C -' , rN . M r-t C M C ru---I r- r-. - - r4- C C C -1 r--iL-. L, .L. L1 t 1U L(C UC f SC CC C C C C C C C CCCC~C t2. Ct~ .CT tC S- C C C ,,C C C C C C C C C O. CD~
C C C C C C C C C C OC_ c ~ C'. F' F'. C c-' F'.C:
135
LC,
C
-C
C Ccc W
C:
CF.H(CZC
I-c H1
*- Ir: CZ
-- L
CCr1 C--
C
i - -
r-: - c
* CCC HO-.C(-
i.
I,
Table A-5 (continued)
r-
cc
C
% t.C :;ir. %. S
r;
N- .Ir
0.<
C
* -
C CC
,
C ZC
C CC <
LU' If
>- G L;I-- <,C- --- c O_ ,---- Ln
.C % CL · 1 c ,- rIrcr ' .', Wt r-,' ' I· h. - . C I
,-: r-. · II C -LI*- .. C C C
. - : LL LC L < % LJ U. C CC t" (. ·* N " ..J I
·*C r, < C· .c tCZ CC C)3 I42: 2-- 0, C
. ' r-. C.) u. It· (/ * C 8x1
C * O LL
C - I -.: .a
Gt C - = - _: CC C·aa < < - - ,C , r/<C CC< Z < C wC C < < C
C uuvvv~~~~~; 3:uuv,...
-J
CC
C- C
;
v:
U.:wL
I--
- LUC-.< C,
= r"
>.' C- -CLL := I
LLC C
C L
('
C CC CC: C C
a C~u
C
C
C",
Tr.
G
CC
CCCr-: -,
I a-t_ tf--
C c- C r- CC C. -: C:C,:; - %C':-_,-
1- .I
C- a
f4,% . r-'.
cc
C C
cc C Cr-
Lr -
C* r. *t. , C'C r. CC
Lr. a . Lr.C.- CCC C
t. C . C CCC C r- C
C_- CC: % C,:
Co,-n U U
C 0(C < - rr- r-(2cc c-
C'
C.C':
H
C.
-
--.
C,:
r-
tC- .7% _- - . a
1 - '( /C -' --t-. 1- LL:~ Hri CCC C a. C' L- C. CLA r C: L2C-e.- C - c
-- LLC-C C- . : LC < - L U -2< L N - 1' -- C :
tC C -' C r; -LL % -L- C L > C : . C C: LU <: -< < =
C._ - C: 2 L( L C2 C L U C <>-'L. >-C<
_< <<- - J
LU
C-C
C Cr-
(5..
-- cC x"Z.
"- C :CC u%
C C
,r-. (. , ccC- Fr. _ *. .C <C
*1- ccL
,.-. C L C
CrC C.
*<C_ CC- * C C
H -_
. _= -:D' ".
_ tZ(C
cV.c r -1-h C C5CG.- ; -(2'~ ~.2.G'-<
L~'r !-- F-C, L LU:
5- LL5 _...' · ·
<-C C CtL<C Ct, __
_- LU L
LU
CL
,GL_:
CF-U,..-t-
CN n _ - U'% C HHl r-I -H H H CC C C C C C-.CCCCCCC CD Ct C-- C- CCCCCC
GCt C C GC
CHH HCC- r- r- r- CCCCCCCC C C C CCCCCCN . r,'. F-4. Pf.d, V ACCCCCC_ rC C-- r-
Ci C
CCocCCt_ C'
CCCC,--~
r-q O,: r,r; H ,HC C C (- CN' N2. N^.C CCCCC
.- t r-4 C, C r- c' Cr- r CC HC C C H-I0: o C CC C CC CCC C r-i r!- Ct(C Z C. t LCZ (.2 C.C C C C CC C CN-'. te r1'.' rl- II NA. I. VC CCCCC C CC C CC CC C C
C r-I C' NN C rHC r H H C HH rH :: - H C-,: C: C'
I r- rH H_ r-: v-I
CCC;
r-i 4 r- CC: rI r-i rI-
r-' -: H HC .C . I? L (.: (c c. C .CCC C C C C C C C C C"'% V'% V' .G I.. V % C % I C
CC C C C C c C C C C CC C CC C C.CCC Ca
136
Ln
u
C
C C
r-
(Cr-: <c,C ;
'o >---
C: - C
_ - 5'-. 5.. -,': .C J' -- C
(C: C. C
< C C <-- L C C_ .U
-4
C
C. C
- r0
---
C z
0L ULU2 r-
..' C·
LCC C)LLt C<_-. _-
---
Table A-5 (continued)
rtU-'.
I..- C\IW.2 C':
C, -L- r( C
< <2l Cr -Cu\2; c: Z: CC
nr_ -( (LC
, Z - rLL r -: C:
C C '_
- C ZiL-C:C -r-
* I-- CC *C
C L CL.
r u' Z - C
. C r - C C cC C
M n Z CuS11. * - . I'
--. f2 I. r-: -
r-,. = ( C -u .C-
': . " .U -'
- U -C : -- LU. - C _ =. I,.~
. C L 1: LL o"C
. C - 2£ ._ C:C C LL 0' C
C (:
n -.t r-{ C,4 mr. C r-i r-ii-I r-ICCC rH CC- -t,- C C C _1 -P C1r-H H r- -I r- H r r:
LC L L L ( (Z LCCCCC C C C CI'' p .. r" Vr !. I ,CC C- C C- C CC C C C C C
CU
C
(e,
- C0< -
C HC3 CC c~
.C (,Cg-
- <C
" -. s MLLC- .r -...
·-- , cc - . c. cr
c o c~ (,- 4. v*
Cr C; LC -- -rl-0 C 0 LU
C %
C U _' '
C (C:_CL __: C.C < , ,:c -c; - L
i LL CU L
<C : = Cc- UL U<L<cZZ 0
C(r,
C
um-
LL CZ
i:
r- C -- L
uC L
· r, M:
C
C 0C
C C.
(_CL
C) C
C. U, c
C OPLU02
<
CHM
LiC l-
>< LLL
'- -
C C; Li =
0 - II -I- C _-
' -! C2 X(r ,
C CcC 02
.C:c-
a, .- C¢_c
G CJ
c L £2 LU
'£ L2
C><L
-- : C
C.C1 4 1 C ,r
r- r r r-i C C C C C C C Cr-I t-iUt.. L. U% (LC (C C r'- I- CC CC o0 Cc oCrH- t-- r-I -I r-I r--I r-4 rHi r -I --i r r-H r-I
G C£ C Cc CCCO CtT C)C C C _C CcCCC£2CC £CCC C CC £ C C C C C C C C (C C C C
GC C. C C C C C C C Ga
C-
a/
U-.
c:
C
- C, C2
...r-C C r- --* 02 C
C c - r4. r
(2 - -
<1 CCC_ 2 . 0 0
cC -W
i'. *CLC
LL'
r; · _ C;UL ,L: C LL C,r-: .ZU
C -
-LLS- C C LL, ,--
C. ( *I-I
C C
C , - 4X CLLr- . . L C LL' *-: c r L.
.C r-.C * :
cc - - < >-oC H Z _ C-
_. _s -'3'- C -'- c -
G. O'. r: Z 09(r -{. C-Jr.% %o I (rd Z IV , c Cc2 C; C rN L: C
( 0n -. cu c. Lc c4 C C L IL!C
-LU - 2^ : 6- -a- C C _- V.',2 C L 1-- .=' -c2 Cr_ , !-- ': c:, .G . -:
,_' Zo , , _ -- F- C F- Ca_ L. c _ G C- .C_ , -u u L u-- LL' .Lu
C Lu ' X : CC CL
Cs: V _j- m Ct l_ OC G.r-I -t,-- r- r-l r- r-t --cc OC cc cc C C C: o02n -- rn rn- r-] r- r r,-
CC CCCCC CC C C_- C -a-
-i C,4 r C',4 r-i CNCC CCC CC C: CH --
rI r- C q C,, "12 (1 U;1
CC£ C C2
CCI', C
C_ C C
137
C
t-
C
L,.
02
C7;C
ZCi-
LL:CL
O_
. .
C r C C r C r-i C -
Table A-5 (continued)
C C C CC * C C .f
U _C * C
w-i Cq LC *-i ri-q u-i v-
C C C
C LI'. U 1 C. N- CLk r
-JC:
C rLL:
L CCL -LL
C
I-- I
- 0
cc\CTL
o LU- % --
C:Cc .I C; o- >- CC C-
C C
LC C C C:_- C. C C, U., -'
C. < L- IL
.cL±*C C :-- r- c tLU 2 P - - -C ._:~ LLU _ ' C U?
cC. 2Z .*. 0
w - t q L (Y =CT - * C/
H c C- 0 : v: '
- C r.~ c : oCC r-. ~. C.r- L' * ..:H- c: *Cc C
L: S' C C- CC - C : . I C: . C
L C Ci G CC L: L _ r: :C - _:
_. _ fLL C- > 2 :0 - C c _
-L C _ C- c C .: Z_
L : 2J ' - C- CC; C' Cf vv vv CL U(C ~ cC _,,-, , C
C c;
C C(C LC C,i,. - ·
LCgc
C C-- C
IL: G
C CI--
LUC C( C<CCr c) (N
C-CC:< CC- (--c LCC , C
C-C
C-c
-c- ,cc-cc
1 1"-- CCt C11 C:
a,\-
-- -C --= r- Fc a
-. , C: -- C- C' IL <
r- LL: LL: C -
-Z ,.U LL -- .. .- %. _ C C
<C -J L '-C
- C __C LLUC C2 _2 : =
_, , .,, , , c,: _ L.c u_
C: C C C* C: C<: I -
CN L r. ·.t- L . *
uL- r- 0
C r U--r-i -i
C ('q
cc t.Co (C r-I
* - Ci-- * c
I- _ I-IC LL LL
(, C C
.:' c- .c cC- cc - r;--.C C r-! -
L-
- U-
C:U:
U-< UF ..C r-;
LL: 4 --
- -,
LU C c,cc L:. LC% ' C LC; % ...
C -
-- H-
C
C L2
c L'
L C.C:. ,
C C C
I C Lr OCc
C C C Ca- a * * *
* -C' cc i, C
C C C1- C * *
o* c -i -i -i
S C C C O
* - ri- -I ft
C.; C- -I
LL ULC C
0':
I'-
-- C:-4<
: -L
C C-C.
Zr-I
: :0
C-,-4C L<C:
C'- >< C.-C
0 U , I I
-I - ,t
<- N C
: H
-' C -:C C-iLLc -LL 4.. 4.I.2: 0 1. s 0• rK' 0• 2
L -5 _ G C _cZ Lu C< :< 2 C C0
I.. C r- C r-i N r- C, v-I C r-I CNI C C C r-I r-i r r- C C C r-t r- r- r r-r-! -I r-! r- ri -H C: C; % I,% N t. pN t P.C( CN C C' C C N C CN C( CN C C( ( C (NCC C C LC
CC CCC . cN C) lr
C C CG CN-A% iI, W I N- !'A I'- I'CCCCC CCC zGC GC G
c C:
C: (N
CC r-,: C CL L U. U.L UC' C C C' C(
c CC Lz C C C C L =C CCCC C C C CCC
C C C C_ C C C C
C CGC C C C CCC
' --l C r-i C --; 0-I' -,-I C -Ic c c c C C C r-: C r-I C -I C
L= c- c; cc c C C C C r-f r4 "U t e
C C'. CC CC,: C4 tr. C " C , iI W, fz ,
C C C C C_ C CD 4. C C C CD C) C?
C. C C: C C C C C C C
138
C a C
-.t cC
ccc~c
. _.. :
Table A-5 (continued)
CC C
CC* C C
C c cq
C- C C
W. r-1, CCC
C_ r_ C
.4 C~ Lnc: r r' c
C c cC
l c .f
Z
c c:V- ( -..
CC
i--Z
C CJC-.
-. C'. -
C
c J C C.-c < . <* c , LI. Z
CC Cc C C,: c C
ZC >
C *2· C
t1. L C
CC.CLL
4, r- LL:
2
C c C C CCu- v- v-I r-- -I C
C ,
ZLU
C C>U~. C--I. tri C
Cc LL
C .
C.
c cE.-CC-- ,- C
C
O C LUC C C C C J ~-1 C
i I I I I LL - I-t - r: : - : 1L L r-:
\> > - " c: > O. c c c cc ON,
2 2 _ ,_ _: 2C C C C -: - C_ _' _ _ _ c_ --
C ( C CC CJ CV - -L L U:C LU: < L -- L -C; _ rZ - 0 H
C'LU
' -:
L;
C C
C 0C C * _ C;
_*C C CC C c C C.1- P- r: r- 0c
C C C C CC C - -t
i; U: cc cc r-
C C C C C
V. Ir. u. u. c
LLC:
vI --i -H LC .C
a:r
C C C:~ C C--C:C
.... UC C
C C,: C C C C ·t-. r- v- . --q Cq C III I -: C,-:
C ,:r : §B
v-- r-
C _ C: G:< C: r:_,. " '" -_..r- .0: -
, -C C UC LL ~L
_ a: 2:' Q:C- C.: -" ~ -CL C Ct C; C CS: C Z i" C; C. c
H- < --C C9· C :
r-:
C
-_
.C2_-
CCCCC
Ce
c 1r
C -Cc-cr-, C -- -- rc.
C• <
C (7.C ,-C:- *0 C CC C *VI VI C V L (- - - Vr C
r-
2-
-C:
C
r:
F- F-C') o<
CC *<C C
c <
C C. - I--
HC H
'- Lr.C C
-- -,L
C2
-- C !
C. C Cr-- (2 1- r ,-; -- ~_ C ,- C:J F- C. 2C C v-I:' LU H
-F cU C G CC /_l-- II < - J C
C< C ---, -- C
< C' <
-J
- C_ LUJ _
mn
.J -J
- cl- -
<_ <
C CC= ; C' d
C
C FHV.
C<C<<C
c/)
C-
LL:
C
L'
;_
C rC : C rI C r C r I C C_- C r-ih C
r- C -- C r- C r-iC -- C C r-I C -C C r'.. - Lf% LU, I. Cc C Oc; Ccc ( G: CC C C
L L LC : C Lc - c -C : C -(Z'C C. C-- 4 C C -C! C C C C C -_ C , C-- _ -
C C C C C C C C C C C CC C C CCCCCC CCCC CC Cc1-' -2 1__ F__ 1_: 1' 1__ 1-' 1-' 1__ 142 1_-2 1_2 E_-2 - ___
r- C-IC) r-iC uH v-C C '4-- C"C v-i C --i C -i C7 vI C C v-i
v- -: C C'i 142 1-2 -I -. L, L L2-=f .= ~- ~f~ =
C-- C C CC C C C C C
Cz C C c C a c c- c, c c
r-- C C C C Q CLu' -.' C LC ' t- i CC.L2 CL CC CC r- C. C;
O C a C C C C. C_C C C C C C C CG-1- 1- C -12- G 4 CG -C
139
Table A-5 (continued)
CC C,m-i
I-_ :
c :- ec- CC LL
C <CC C C
· c: · C 0
Cc - C - -: CC
wU Z
·e _ * C Cc C Fc
* o - CC - CCm C c CL
-<- c C<Lu <',c C C : C' Cc Zr <_ C~--c -- : c
C _-- -" C
C C C- -Ce: *-- - : t rc'. ( _ 4 = 0C C;: -
CC -C (C .-FC · ..C . r-: LL C Z_ C< C.CC aC CE2- _-) ,- C:· c--C - C,- 2 -2 -HC-: ..2 C L k: E- !---cC ,= - L F C r:
~'F C - oC: C --- C2 I C C' L. r- IC -.-- C 1 .C C C r-, C; r-C: -- C ' _ _C.. : 14c C-- l- LL&' I.- - C - C-'C i: Lu -. i-C: LL' _. C' <:
.-. C _ ._ C C C Lu C C C
C C ,H_-: L2 C, ... E
. C - _ i C C
c CL C C C' C - C;. 0 LP L-: H C LC v-_ - L C C --
S _ `-. - ,0 -0 -0 -L
C C-, C C
C:CC
C,-4C
C
UL-r-: C,--=
V^
LuCC
(':=
C'c.CC
C:I-
CZ0< C-
cZC C
CO LC2 -'CC CC C,'? L C
i --
- Lo
C'( C-- C: Lu H
L2C-= -I, L
/;
CHL C CC CC:L-- CC-
0
C C
< ccC-cLI C I
C oC- ,-
Z C:LL' C:
* r-*- LL
C I
C C (' LL;C; · C < _
C C- L_ C CC C I CtH C '.L:
C CC.
C · (J3 -- CC LL I C L
Lu
-;
-
C-.
. Lu_ Cc<
C -:LL_; /\C -
LL LL!>- L C '
. -' c
.cc --
C C .C < _-Ct. L_ G.. < -
c. c:
C. :*-Hc
IiCC
C..
r-IC
I,,-qC
. LL'O C CC C L. C . J C r- : C
, I -L<CC -52 U; L X r- * o1 v:C CLL: I C*C Xr- i .2 C-' . LL: LL -
-r-
r - Oc n:cu -- C- LL C<J ; . ' -: C- t -Ci C,: 3v C_ -; _
c,, : C , I _:CC -: :C C -
< C L-< 4:C< ' -4 C. L C C,Cr C a-> -- cc - -- < u ,' --: F-._ _ _LL C= ,I Z<
- >- I-- cc cCGl-
Lu5 CDC" C , -, =%<C-': C =-CCC a
>-
C
r-.
I_
c:-4
CC.
C.LLC
CCr:LL
C(.
C
L:
CL
LL uLC
LLU
<J LtC.-C ;
C -
C . CI.: V. (C,
CZ
-C
< Cv C CLL -C'CC LL-
- C
LU -C-
-C:-- CC'C C -
C--C
C -C_ C .-i
LL .< <IL 0 -< <
CL C CLU'- r
-{
! ;t'
C C. .1
C~ CcLU
Ci-
LU
>- - C-; --.-- I eL
-F cLL -c -
_ > C U- Ic IL.: (C I-- - Ln C-nC<: v - C -
C C *\- I '", ----C C
C C C. O S 1A H (N * C- 1i4
r- r-: C -
C C: _ _. ..;
* -t 1: f- CNr-. CT LU r
C. C. H C:
C. <C CC-c
H H C,. f-A X- CC C C C C r-.C CCCC
L u L L, u% %l~ ,C C C CE CC, C C C C C
L .i t-, f- f- _ fC C C C: C CCCl, , CC
'H HHc, CC r-I,LA L,
:C C
CCC C
CN , r-H r-C C C CC- H CU_ ","
L, IF I' fn-AC C C CCC C C CC
f- rH C r- C" v- C: f - - CC C C C C C C C C r-IrN' _I~- _t LA LA C :C CLm Ln L, L LUn L AL% AL umL
CI C C L- U C; U C CC C C CC O C C C C CN b) n NII , P, tn fr V c b)
C C C C C C C C C CC C CCCCCC C
H'I CN -tILn C r(i CAC C C C r-I r- r- v-IN-N-N-- rN - N-N 1-N -
Ln Lf', L LAC C d C_ CCC CCCCC C CCC._~- C GC C
Li LA Lr,tC C CC CC
C C C
r-IoCOCC CC
C C
, CCLZ(:
140
C-
C
C
c-CHC
ccocrc
_I .
;, C,
,r:
,. <
C r-lr! -ICC C
C CCCC C
V,%.. I .
Table A-5 (continued)
cC
C
: CL
C rC L
ULLc c
C' C I
U u',C
C--ILLI
- f-. -cLL : {Z
L C
CZ IzLL:C *l. I- -;
C:h > F
CL t
LLU
C.
-.JC_
C-
CLLJ
C_C(/cC ,
C C
LL C
< ;C z
CI-
CTLULL
C
LL:C
iLL
CCC--
C:
CLL
..d'
C
L:
CCLn
LL:ULA
LA
ILU
t Cr:C/ ,-: 3
= < >< c,C LL .!O_ V r-I3
C I -
CC.C' -Ct _ F
0LC
C L( ;'_
'. CIu v-tte Ct -
Ctc :+
i% C -t CN IC -I C C C
C C C C, C
C;2 CCC C C C C
CC CCCC CCC C
LU2
~._ -a- <0-- C-
-Ca:
ctC C' LL' L C2:
ZLAL- : :C
GC
<; < CC C
C:'CLU
".; <c,
-* (. c-
C O*tn c= xtc fC
v> uc
L, C
C-
C
Cr
LUcc ·CINI cc
* (N C - cc
C C, C L
c C L: C CL
-- * --CU2 c G r, c . C
-C .L-- - Cu *:C cc' , . _-- LU - L
-* C C-: L CL Ca , C, < C C <
C C U C/ CGC C C C' &. _ LUC t- : * L-
CDLIM LLJU , Li0( 2 _ _ -- V C
C L v- ,1w. e
C
-o r- CN F, C r-I CNIC C C r: CC
C, CC C C r r-LA 2; cs(2 c(;2:2 (C) C C CC C CCC C C CCCCr G~ G~r G, G," IG,
<C r-I c C r-- C4 Cr--C C r -i C C r-rl C" , C"! c N.
C C C Cq C C C
C C C C C C, CrCCCCC CC
141
On-line retrieval of documentation of LAMM health impact model.
Cc_- cc -~ w. .
r- W -
C I- Z CC.C -:C
(r, a.; C_ X -_r. C "' C- C
s<. Z cZ a.c ci. _C+ ,
-C -C. CL.'- CL' .. C r. ,,C' C I' IC C; I :L . CC X--
_C, > r' C- C<
-C <= F- +L 1: -- C ;-4 - _- - C 11 ,--C ._ (O %LL +
CC C CE CC C:-- -- *C C C -",'
j C r_ < > >
C-� I-*-_ % ZC LL:-CL: WZ - C C- <
- _ a: - C: , L L W
W= --C<--_, C.CL C; c --' -- CI r LL C - WJ Zto C W u-I , -
O C C, C C C< + +
CC= C C C C C C C C CCC C C C CDCC Cr. W". h"r I . he" th:,, . "', 1' tG C CC C C CG C C CC C'CC C C C C- C C o, r-: -I --: r- r-' - -I -ICC" CC C C _C
142
Table A-6
