Technical Addendum:

Enviro-Plant Project

  

Date: 11-16-97

Project Code: EID372-G1

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

   

1

Introduction

*

1.1

Information Clarifications

*

1.2

Standards Clarifications

*

1.3

Technical Clarifications

*

2

IAPCS Example, 1 Plant

*

 

 

 

 

  1. Introduction
    1. Information Clarifications
    2. During the weeks that have followed the release of the Request for Proposal for the Enviro-Plant Venture Project, various potential bidders have expressed questions regarding more specific technical information on the power plant and on the environmental controls desired. The running values for the power plants are readily available, and the numbers regarding the current pollution conditions are also accessible. However, the desired results for the environmental control changes desired for the plants are not so easily defined. As mentioned earlier, basic "European standards" are requested to be the basis for the changes on the power plants. These are intended to be guides that will ensure a level of improvement significant enough to gain the attention and the approval of the World Bank; thus, extra funds can be achieved for the joint venture.

    3. Standards Clarifications
    4. These standards are available in the form of various international trade laws and environmental practices, but are not compiled in any one document for easy retrieval. Although difficult to extract exact data from, the U.S. EPA is a good model, as are the current environmental developments in France and Germany. The NNPA and the CUCC are not looking for a specific development path for the environmental controls, rather we are looking for a choice of paths to determine which is best, and to work with those that created the chosen proposal to fine-tune its constraints. When writing the proposal, make a educated choices for one or more environmental standards, describe the costs and benefits, and back up the choices with information regarding their efficacy, their probability of success in Russia, and their likelihood of promoting financial assistance from foreign aid benefactors.

    5. Technical Clarifications

    Raw numbers have been distributed to groups that have requested them, and now these values for a "standard" plant will be included in this technical addendum. These numbers, correctly implemented using the IAPCS costing program provided to all active teams and professors, will result in some fairly accurate numbers for pollution exhaust as well as approximations for equipment and labor costs. Teams are cautioned to keep in mind that this program is designed for a power plant in the United States, while the two 700MW power plants in question are in central Russia; currency, labor costs, and equipment prices should be adjusted for the appropriate national environment.

  2. IAPCS Example, 1 Plant

INTEGRATED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM COSTING PROGRAM

Plant and Boiler Description Card

Technology Description Card

 

USER INPUT SUMMARY

BOILER SIZE:

700. MW

 

WALL FIRED, DRY BOTTOM

CAPACITY FACTOR:

65.0 %

 

310. DEG.F

CONSTRUCTION STATUS

 

OF CONTROL SYSTEM:

RETROFIT

 

 

COAL CLEANING LEVEL: RUN-OF-MINE SORTED AND SCREENED

COAL CHARACTERISTICS AT THIS CLEANING LEVEL:

 

HHV (BTU/#):

13100.0

SULFUR CONTENT (%):

2.60

ASH CONTENT (%):

9.10

COST ($/TON):

4.57

CHLORINE CONTENT (%):

0.10

MOISTURE CONTENT (%):

6.00

VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT (%):

36.20

FIXED CARBON CONTENT (%):

48.70

 

 

ASH CHARACTERISTICS AT THIS CLEANING LEVEL:

 

NA20 CONTENT (%):

0.90

ALKALINITY (%):

5.10

FE2O3 CONTENT (%):

20.20

 

 

CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:

 

1 - LOW NOX COMBUSTION

LOW-NOX, STAGED COMBUSTION BURNERS ARE PROVIDED FORPULVERIZED-COAL, WALL-FIRED, DRY BOTTOM BOILERS.

FOR EXISTING BOILERS, ALL RETROFIT CONSIDERATIONS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE COST ESTIMATES.

A NOX REDUCTION OF 34.4% IS ACHIEVED.

 

2 - ESP

THE ESP IS DESIGNED TO REMOVE 99.9% OF THE PARTICULATE LOADING WITH AN SCA OF 283. FT^2/ACFM.

THE ESP REFLECTS A RIGID FRAME DESIGN AND A SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY OF 4 FT/S.

A RESISTIVITY OF 5.0E+09 OHM-CM WAS USED

 

3 - FGD

THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS SYSTEM INCLUDES SPRAY TOWERS

LIMESTONE SLURRY.

NO CHEMICAL ADDITIVE IS USED.

NO. OF ABSORBERS = 3, NO. OF SPARE = 1

THE L/G RATIO IS 80.0 @ A STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO OF 1.150.

DESIGN SO2 REMOVAL OF 90.0% OCCURS IN THE TREATED GAS STREAM.

 

0.% OF THE GAS STREAM IS BEING BYPASSED.

 

0.% OF THE WASTES ARE DISPOSED OF IN AN ONSITE FACILITY.

 

(FANS)

THE TOTAL SYSTEM PRESSURE DROP IS 7.4 IN. H20.

THE SYSTEM REQUIRES 4 FAN(S) RATED AT 865. HP EACH.

 

 

BOILER/SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

 

PARASITIC DEMAND (W/O CONTROL)

4.1%

STEAM CYCLE HEAT RATE

8277.0 BTU/KWH

BOILER THERMAL EFFICIENCY

88.1%

BOILER GROSS HEAT RATE

9390.6 BTU/KWH

BOILER NET HEAT RATE W/O CONTROL SYSTEM

9797.2 BTU/KWH

BOILER NET HEAT RATE W/ CONTROL SYSTEM

9948.1 BTU/KWH

 

HEAT INPUT

6858.0 MMBTU/H

COAL USE

261.8 TONS/H

ANNUAL COAL CONSUMPTION

1.4904E+06 TONS/YR

 

IAPCS ENERGY PENALTY

150.9 BTU/KWH

IAPCS ENERGY PENALTY

1.5 %

SYSTEM NET GENERATION

689.4 MW

 

 

SYSTEM MATERIAL BALANCE

(100% CAPACITY CONDITION)

 

 

 

Uncontrolled

Air Heater Exit

ESP

FGD

FLUEGAS

1000LB/H

6522.

6520.

6479.

7850.

FLUEGAS

1000ACFM

2164.

2164.

2164.

1934.

TEMPERATURE

DEG.F

310.

310.

310.

127.

MOISTURE

LB/H

355152.

355152.

355152.

748084.

ALKALINITY

LB/H

2065.

2065.

2.

2.

PARTICULATE

LB/H

40494.

40494.

40.

40.

SO2

LB/H

26542.

26542.

26542.

2654.

NO2

LB/H

5497.

3606.

3606.

3606.

CO2

LB/H

964119.

964119.

964119.

964119.

 

 

EMISSION SUMMARY

 

POLLUTANT

LB/HR

REDUCTION

LB/MMBTU

PPM(V)

PARTICULATE

40.

99.9

0.006

 

SO2

2654.

90.0

387

153.

NO2

3606.

34.4

526

444.

CO2

964119.

0

140.582