ESTIMATING THE COST OF COAL-FIRED GENERATION AN APPLICATION OF VISTATM

April Anderson Fuels Consulting Project Manager Ken Nowling Project Manager Black & Veatch 11401 Lamar Avenue Overland Park, KS 66207 anderson-higgsaa@bv.com Coal characteristics affect nearly every operational facet of a power plant, including forced outage rate, maintenance costs, auxiliary power requirements, net plant heat rate, emissions, and the ability to meet full load. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the relative economics associated with significant changes in coal quality due to coal cleaning or coal blending. Recognizing the need to predict the total fuel-related cost of coal-fired generation, EPRI commissioned the development of the Coal Quality Impact Model (CQIMTM) a computer program to predict these performance and cost impacts of burning alternate coals at existing power generating facilities. First released in 1989, CQIM represented nearly a decade of effort by Black & Veatch (B&V) and EPRI. CQIM quickly became the industry standard for fuel-related performance and economic analyses. It has been obtained by over 100 EPRI member utilities and has been purchased by non-EPRI U.S. utilities, international utilities, and coal producers. The current version, VistaTM, was released as a commercial product in 2000. Vista represents continual technical improvements over CQIM which expand its applicability to power plants around the world. This paper will describe Vista and provide an example of Vistas applicability to the coals and power plants in India. 1.0 UNDERSTANDING VISTA Vista quantifies the cost and performance impacts associated with burning alternate coals, coal blends, and coalgas cofires in a power plant. Vista incorporates detailed predictive performance models for all equipment affected by coal quality, including a comprehensive steam generator heat transfer model. Maintenance and availability costs are determined with a detailed component/failure model sensitive to coal quality effects on performance and failure rates. Derates are analyzed using a range of coal quality. All models employ calculations based on engineering principles rather than empirical formulas and include the impacts of changes in performance of one system or component on another. Economic results are calculated from the Vista performance predictions using costs (e.g., Rs/tonne coal, Rs/tonne transportation, Rs/tonne waste disposal, Rs/kWh replacement power) input by the user. Vista provides a detailed comparison of the key performance and economic results for each of the alternate coals evaluated. The primary benefit of Vista evaluations is to provide the user with total fuel-related costs on a system-bysystem basis, via a summary of projected performance. These cost predictions consider the following impacts for the combustion of each coal supply: Plant efficiency effects Equipment system capacity Auxiliary power requirements Steam attemperation requirements Propensity for slagging or fouling NOx, SO2, particulate, and opacity emissions Maintenance costs Emissions fees or taxes. Waste disposal costs Replacement power costs resulting from predictions of differential unit availability and capability Fuel and fuel transportation costs

Vista and its precursor CQIM have been applied to a wide range of fuel-related evaluations by Black & Veatch, utilities, and coal companies. These evaluations have included the following: Evaluate potential coal supplies and assist in fuel procurement or sales. Determine the economic advantages of increased unit fuel flexibility. Support engineering studies to predict impacts of equipment modifications on overall unit performance and economics. Establish "unit-specific" coal specifications and property range limits. Develop or evaluate premiums and penalties for key coal quality parameters for use in coal contracts and negotiations. Assess changes in maintenance and availability costs. Quantify the advantages or disadvantages of blending and cleaning coals. Quantify the advantages or disadvantages of gas co-firing. Evaluate performance and economic tradeoffs from burning high-sulfur coals that require flue gas desulfurization versus burning compliance coals. Identify the flue gas volume and makeup of potential coals for use in selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system evaluations. Screen alternative coals prior to test burns, collect expected impacts to help write test burn procedures, and evaluate results of test burns. Develop strategies to address emission limits. Document and standardize the fuel procurement decision process.

Three examples using Vista, which may apply to the power plant in India, are presented in this paper. The first examines performance output provided by Vista by comparing two domestic coals and also considering how the plant performance will be impacted if the ash quantity of these coals increases. The second uses Vista to determine whether washing the coal may prove economical to the power plant. The third example considers overall unit performance and the performance predicted for the steam generator while analyzing blends of domestic and international coals. 2.0 VISTA APPLIED TO THE INDIAN POWER PLANT The power plant examined in this paper is hypothetical; however, it was selected to represent a unit that could be located in India. The coals represent Indian coals and coals that could be delivered from international locations. In determining configuration, operation, and economic data to use in this evaluation, effort was made to choose representative values. The examples that follow use these coals, power plant, and economic data to demonstrate how Vista could be applied in India; however, the power plant does not represent a specific plant in India and so the performance and costs predicted by the model should not be considered applicable to any specific unit in India. 2.1 Unit Characteristics The hypothetical unit evaluated for this paper is a 1990's-design unit, which has the following configuration and characteristic performance: Single-reheat Rankine-cycle pulverized coal unit with a maximum sustained gross generation of 500 MWe. Design steam conditions of 540 C main steam and 540 C reheat steam. Five vertical spindle coal pulverizers. Two primary air fans and two forced draft fans. Two induced draft fans. Two Ljungstrom regenerative air heaters. Two high-efficiency electrostatic precipitators.

The baseline performance assumed for the unit at continuous full-load conditions, while burning a domestic 40% ash coal, was the following: Parameter Gross generation, MWe Net generation, MWe Boiler efficiency, GCV basis, % Boiler efficiency, NCV basis, $ Net unit heat rate, GCV basis, kcal/kWh Net unit heat rate, NCV basis, kcal/kWh Full load coal burn rate, tonne/hr Coal specific consumption (SC), kg/kWh Unit thermal efficiency (GCV), % Unit thermal efficiency (NCV), % Main steam flow rate, kg/hr Reheat steam flow rate, kg/hr Excess air level, % Air heater leakage, % Value 500 450 88.97 93.22 2486.3 2375.9 278.32 0.62 34.6 36.2 1,859,750 1,632,950 20 10

The design fuel for this unit, which is used as the baseline for comparing all analyses, has the following key characteristics: Parameter (as-received basis) Gross calorific value, kcal/kg Net calorific value, kcal/kg Ash, % Moisture, % Volatile matter, % Fixed carbon, % Carbon, % Hydrogen, % Nitrogen, % Sulfur, % Oxygen, % Hardgrove Grindability Index Value 4020 3841 40.84 6.70 26.00 26.46 41.32 2.74 0.93 0.71 6.76 55

The unit is modeled within Vista by entering configuration and operating data to accurately characterize the unit. Using this information, Vista provides a comprehensive analysis of all power plant equipment systems impacted by coal quality, including the following systems: Coal Handling Fans Fuel Preparation and Firing Steam Generator Air Heater Particulate Removal Selective Catalytic Reduction Flue Gas Desulfurization Bottom Ash Handling Fly Ash Handling Waste Disposal

User input data, supported by defaulted data, is the basis for the equipment models. The following equipment data concerning each equipment system can be specified: System configuration number and type of components. Design parameters capacity, efficiency, horsepower. Performance data throughput, efficiency, and horsepower associated with the calibration coal.

Once the data is entered, the model is calibrated to match the particular operating conditions and performance of the unit. Defaulting routines complete the equipment models based on equipment data entered by the user, the overall plant configuration, and the characteristics of the design coal. 3.0 EVALUATING INDIAN COALS The first evaluation of this paper considers performance predictions for two coals from different regions of India. The first coal, Coal A, is a grade E coal characterized by a gross calorific value of 4020 kcal/kg and an ash content of 40.841 percent. The second coal, Coal B, is a grade D coal characterized by a gross calorific value of 4,770 kcal/kg and an ash content of 26.33 percent. The performance predictions generated by Vista include the following: Unit efficiency. Predicted changes in boiler efficiency, auxiliary power requirements, turbine cycle efficiency, and steam requirements for soot blowing, air preheat, steam-driven fans, and FGD reheat are summarized in a thermal efficiency prediction for each coal. Equipment system capacity. Duty required by each equipment system to meet the fuel, air, and flue gas flow requirements set by the steam generator are calculated. Auxiliary power requirements. Changes in duty identify changes in auxiliary power required. Steam attemperation requirements. A steam generator heat transfer profile is determined through an iterative process that considers turbine cycle conditions and reheat control capability, including main steam and reheat steam attemperation. Propensity for slagging or fouling. Industry standard indices assign slagging and fouling ranks to coals. The rank is then compared to boiler size and flue gas temperatures to determine whether slagging or fouling will be problematic. Equipment failure rates. Failure rates are developed by failure mode for each component modeled and are combined with other data to develop overall unit maintenance and availability predictions. For some equipment, Vista predicts changes in failure rates as a direct result of changes in coal quality. For other equipment, failure rates are not directly impacted by coal quality, but are indirectly affected because changes in coal quality affect component capacity and therefore sparing and duty cycle. Plant availability. Predicted component failures are combined into overall predictions of system and unit availability based on standard RAM calculations.

In addition to comparing these two coals, this example considers degradation in coal quality. This degradation is simulated using Vistas Coal Quality Generator application, which generates a consistent set of coal quality while modifying a single coal parameter as specified by the user. In this example, the coal ash content was increased five and ten percent above the original value for each coal. The Coal Sensitivity Generator was used to develop the remaining coal quality parameters. 3.1 Vista Results for Coal A, Coal B, and Higher Ash Sensitivities The effects of ash in the coal are widespread, and impact nearly every aspect of power plant operation. Unit efficiency, equipment performance, maintenance, availability, and economics are strongly tied to the quantity of ash contained in the coal. When considering plant performance, it is safe to say that higher ash content for a particular coal is undesirable at any plant for any reason. The following table considers the undesirable effects of increasing ash content. Parameter Coal ash content, % Coal gross calorific value, kcal/kg Specific consumption, kg/kWh Thermal efficiency, % Gross boiler efficiency, % Net boiler efficiency, % Full-load coal burn rate, tonne/hr Annual coal burn rate, Coal B 26.33 4769 0.54 33.66 86.53 92.53 241.05 1.509 Coal B +5% Ash 30.00 4532 0.56 33.62 86.49 92.48 253.82 1.589 Coal B +10% Ash 35.00 4208 0.61 33.58 86.40 92.39 273.61 1.713 Coal A 40.84 4020 0.62 34.59 88.97 93.22 278.32 1.743 Coal A +5% Ash 45.00 3737 0.67 34.55 88.91 93.16 299.61 1.877 Coal A +10% Ash 50.00 3397 0.73 34.49 88.78 93.02 330.05 2.069

Parameter Mtonne Annual ash disposal Fly ash, ktonne Bottom ash, ktonne Annual CO2 production, Mtonne Annual tube failures Unit Availability, %

Coal B

Coal B +5% Ash 377.5 94.4 2.803 4.17 81.40

Coal B +10% Ash 474.8 118.7 2.809 5.36 80.31

Coal A

Coal A +5% Ash 669.2 167.3 2.667 6.06 79.16

Coal A +10% Ash 819.3 204.8 2.672 7.5 77.69

314.6 78.7 2.802 3.45 82.06

563.9 141.0 2.664 5.16 80.15

In this table, we see that as the coal ash content increases, the coal calorific value decreases. The principal reason for this is that as the ash content increases, there is less combustible matter to burn to generate heat. As a result, the specific coal consumption (a measure of the mass of coal required to produce 1 kWh of useable energy) increases as the coal ash content increases. However, the specific coal consumption is also impacted by the unit thermal efficiency and, for both Coal A and Coal B, as the ash content increases, the unit thermal efficiency decreases, primarily due to a decrease in boiler efficiency. There is a significant increase in the boiler efficiency predicted between Coal B plus ten percent ash and Coal A. This increase is primarily due to Coal As lower moisture content and lower hydrogen content relative to Coal B, which results in a much lower level of latent heat losses in the steam generator. This is verified by the fact that although there is a difference of 2.57 percent between the predicted boiler efficiency for Coal B plus ten percent ash versus Coal A when measured on a higher calorific value basis, there is only a difference of 0.83 percent between the two coals when measured on a lower calorific value basis. In addition, Coal A was predicted to yield a lower unburned carbon heat loss relative to the Coal B plus ten percent ash case - 0.25 percent versus 0.36 percent. The remainder of the difference is due to small differences in the furnace heat transfer, which results in differences in the sensible heat losses of the unit. As would be expected based on the change in the specific coal consumption, the coal burn at both full-load and over an annual period is directly dependent on the level of ash in the coal. The change in the ash disposal required represents a double effect. Not only is the fuel burn rate increasing but the ash content itself is increasing as well. For example, observe the difference between the ash content and the ash disposal required for Coal B, versus Coal B +5% greater ash. Parameter Coal ash content, % Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne Annual ash disposal, Mtonne Coal B 26.33% 1.509 0.393 Coal B +5% Ash 30.00% 1.589 0.472 Difference +13.9% +5.3% +20.1%

Therefore, the impact on ash disposal costs as ash content increases may be higher than expected. Equipment system capacity and the resulting ability of the unit to generate at full load conditions. For Coal B plus five percent ash and Coal B plus ten percent ash, the pulverizers are inadequately sized compared to the amount of coal required, resulting in a maximum derate of twelve percent. Other systems in the plant, including the coal handling, fans, pulverizer drying, steam generator, and precipitator, are adequately sized to handle even the fifty percent ash coal. Maintenance and availability are strongly impacted by the ash content of the coal. The ash impacts maintenance and availability through four principal mechanisms: 1. As the ash content of the coal increases and the calorific value of the coal decreases, the mass of coal which must be burned will also increase. This will impact the coal receipt systems, conveyors, crushers, silos, feeders, pulverizers, pipes, and burners. The largest impact will be on the pulverizers, where an increased throughput can not only lead to increased auxiliary energy requirements, increased maintenance, and potential limitations on the maximum achievable load, but will also reduce the availability of the unit through more failures and a decrease in the maximum load that the unit can achieve with pulverizers out of service due to planned or unplanned maintenance.

2. 3.

4.

As the ash content of the coal increases and the fuel burn rate increases, the quantity of flue gas traveling through the steam generator increases. Coupled with the increase in ash content, this causes an increase in tube failures, impacting both maintenance and availability. Similarly, as the ash content of the coal increases and the fuel burn rate increases, the quantity of ash that the bottom ash, fly ash, and precipitator or fabric filter systems must handle will increase. This increased level of usage will yield higher levels of erosion and more frequent cleaning and preventative repairs. Another ash-related factor which will impact maintenance and availability is the quality of the ash. All coal ashes are made up of different levels of minerals and inorganic compounds, which can yield different levels of erosion throughout any part of the unit which must handle the coal, flue gas, or ash. In addition, differing levels of inorganic compounds can contribute to very different levels of corrosion, especially in the high-temperature regions of the furnace.

Accordingly, as the amount of ash increases, the predicted incidence of tube failures increases and the availability decreases. The exception lies between the Coal B plus ten percent ash and Coal A, where the incidence of tube failures decreases, even though the amount of ash increases approximately five percent. This is due to a much higher flue gas velocity predicted for Coal B compared to Coal A, due to the boiler efficiency effects discussed above. 4.0 CLEANED INDIAN COALS A common suggestion in the literature is to improve the quality of Indian coals through washing. This example compares different levels of washing for the Coal A discussed in the prior section. The analysis of the washed coal was developed based on Black & Veatch experience with coal cleaning operations developed for a subbituminous coal. Efforts were made to develop costs and cleaned coal representative of India; however, this example is not based on actual testing performed in India. Estimated cleaning costs were developed for four different levels of wash plant operation, and are shown along with the mine price and transportation cost of the coal. Parameter Grade E coal mine price, Rs/tonne Transportation price, Rs/tonne 25% wash cost, Rs/tonne 50% wash cost, Rs/tonne 75% wash cost, Rs/tonne Full wash cost, Rs/tonne Maintenance Labor Rate, Rs/man/yr Replacement power above current generation cost, Rs/kWh Price 660 1000 150 200 250 300 967,000 1.5

This example focuses on the economic predictions provided by Vista. Economic predictions include the following: Maintenance costs. Every failure, regardless of whether it impacts unit availability, directly impacts system maintenance costs. Predicted repair costs (manpower plus materials) are estimated for each equipment and component within the systems modeled by Vista. Waste disposal costs. Fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge disposal are considered. Emissions fees or taxes. In some countries, fees or taxes are charged on emissions such as CO2, CO, SO2, NOx, and particulate. Replacement power costs. Replacement power costs result from changes in predicted unit availability and capability. Losses in unit availability or capability are matched to unit demand to determine replacement power requirements and costs. Fuel and fuel transportation costs. Coal quality impacts on equipment, boiler, and turbine efficiencies are reflected in fuel burn rate requirements, and therefore fuel and transportation costs.

Costs for waste disposal and emissions fees were not included in this analysis.

4.1 Vista Results for Cleaning Analysis The primary effect of washing or cleaning coal is to remove ash and mineral matter from the coal. In doing this, there is an added effect of an increase in calorific value, an increase in moisture, and a decrease in sulfur in the coal. However, while many recognize the benefits which can be yielded from washing a high-ash coal, those benefits are sometimes difficult to quantify. For justifying the cost of operating a coal washing plant, a good understanding of the costs and benefits must be obtained. To this end, four coal washing scenarios were generated within Vista, based on Coal A. These four scenarios represent different levels of washing which might be employed to remove the ash from the Coal A, with each increase in the level of washing yielding an increase in the operating cost of the wash plant and having a subsequent impact on the total fuel-related cost of the coal. Because the cost of the coal washing was included as a separate line item in the analysis, the cost of the coal at the mine (as fed to the wash plant) was not varied from Rs 660 per tonne. Parameter Ash Content, % Coal gross calorific value, kcal/kg Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne Coal cost, MRs/yr Transport cost, MRs/yr Coal Wash Cost, MRs/yr Differential Maintenance Credit, MRs/yr Differential Availability Credit, MRs/yr Auxiliary Energy Credit, MRs/yr Total First-Year Cost, MRs/yr No Wash 40.84 4020 1.740 1150.58 1743.30 0.00 0 0 0 2893.88 25% 32.00 4410 1.581 1131.04 1581.87 237.28 -19.61 -61.38 -5.14 2864.06 Coal Wash Level 50% 28.64 4579 1.524 1174.22 1524.96 304.99 -24.67 -71.23 -6.36 2901.91 75% 25.48 4750 1.469 1212.35 1469.52 367.38 -32.95 -83.05 -7.96 2925.31 Full Wash 22.60 4917 1.419 1249.25 1419.60 425.88 -36.47 -91.12 -9.961 2957.18

The table above shows clear trends in costs as the level of coal washing is varied. Due to the increased calorific value of the coal as the ash is removed, the amount of coal burned annually decreases. In determining the annual coal cost, this decrease is offset by the increase in mine coal that is required to produce the cleaned coal at higher wash levels. The reduced annual coal burn results in transportation costs that are lowered substantially as the wash level increases. The reduced ash content yields a benefit in the form of decreased maintenance and increased equipment reliability, which is reflected in a credit due to differential maintenance and differential availability. In addition, the lower coal burn rate results in reduced equipment utilization which yields a decrease in the auxiliary energy required at the unit, and therefore a credit is seen due to additional net generating capacity. The overall results show that coal washing compares favorably to burning raw coal at the 25 percent level, with an annual savings of almost 30 MRs predicted. A break-even point is reached for total fuel-related costs at just below 50 percent wash level. However, at 75 percent and maximum washing, the cost reductions due to improved plant performance cannot offset the additional coal and cleaning costs. . Note that these costs do not take into account potential fly ash and bottom ash disposal costs from the plant, which would be reduced as the level of ash content of the coal was reduced by washing. Therefore, the economic numbers shown above are conservative for this conceptual case. 5.0 BLENDING INDIAN AND WORLD COALS Another method for improving the quality of domestic coal may be to blend with a higher quality coal available on the international market. This example compares blends of Coal A with conceptual coals chosen to represent coal sources in South Africa, Australia, and Indonesia. Blending these coals was facilitated by an application within Vista that blends several sources of coals to a specified percentage.

This example is used to look in more detail at Vistas performance results predicted for the steam generator. A detailed steam generator heat transfer model is used to evaluate steam generator performance including boiler efficiency, gas and steam temperatures, attemperation, slagging potential, fouling potential, and soot blowing requirements. It is based on the actual configuration of the steam generator, reflecting the steam temperature control methods, design operating parameters, and target turbine cycle parameters. Its predictions are used in a tube failure analysis. 5.1 Vista Results for Blending Analysis Coal A was blended at levels of 10%, 20%, and 30% with each of three representative world-market coals from Australia, Indonesia, and South Africa. While these coals are different in their compositions, they all share one common characteristic of having much lower ash content than the Indian Coal A which is under consideration. Therefore, the most immediate impact seen is due to the decrease of the total ash of the blended coal. There are, however, several other factors which must be considered as well to understand the issues involved with blending. The following table provides results of Coal A and Australian coal blends. Parameter Coal ash content, % Coal gross calorific value, kcal/kg Specific consumption, kg/kWh Thermal efficiency, % Gross boiler efficiency, % Net boiler efficiency, % Full-load coal burn rate, tonne/hr Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne Annual ash disposal Fly ash, ktonne Bottom ash, ktonne Annual CO2 production, Mtonne Annual tube failures Unit Availability, % Coal A 40.84 4020 0.62 34.59 88.97 93.22 278.3 1.743 563.9 141.0 2.664 5.16 80.15 10% Australia 38.40 4222 0.59 34.67 89.15 93.31 264.5 1.657 504.0 126.0 2.667 4.39 80.93 20% Australia 35.95 4424 0.56 34.73 89.30 93.37 252.1 1.580 449.9 112.5 2.670 3.70 81.58 30% Australia 33.51 4626 0.53 34.80 89.43 93.41 240.7 1.509 400.5 100.1 2.673 3.12 82.14

The most immediate effect seen from blending the Australian coal and Coal A is the reduction in fuel burn rate. This results in improved specific coal consumption and a lower level of ash disposal. This effect is tied largely to the calorific value, but the boiler efficiency also increases as the lower moisture content of the Australian coal yields a lower level of latent heat losses in the boiler. One effect to note is the large increase in unit availability as the blend level increases - from 80.15 to 82.14 percent. This is largely due to two factors. First, as the blend level increases and the ash decreases, the predicted probability of steam generator tube failures decreases as well. Second, both pulverizer erosion and pulverizer failures are predicted to decrease as the ash content decreases. Additionally, the lower fuel burn rate required increases the pulverizer system availability level should one or more pulverizers suffer an unplanned maintenance outage. While the boiler efficiency increases and the specific coal consumption decreases as the blend percentage of Australian coal increases, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increase steadily. This is the result of an overall increase in the carbon content per tonne of coal, which increases with the increasing blend percentage at a greater rate than the fuel burn rate decreases. For example, comparing Coal A with the 30 percent Australian blend in the following table, the increase in coal carbon content is slightly greater than the decrease in annual coal consumption. Parameter Coal carbon content, % Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne Annual CO2 production, Mtonne Coal A 41.32% 1.743 2.664 70% Coal A/30% Australian Coal 47.89% 1.509 2.673 Difference +15.9% -13.4% +0.34%

The following table provides results of Coal A and Indonesian coal blends. Parameter Coal ash content, %: Coal gross calorific value, kcal/kg: Specific consumption, kg/kWh: Thermal efficiency, %: Gross boiler efficiency, %: Net boiler efficiency, %: Full-load coal burn rate, tonne/hr: Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne: Annual ash disposal Fly ash, ktonne: Bottom ash, ktonne: Annual CO2 production, Mtonne Annual tube failures Unit Availability, %: Coal A 40.84 4020 0.62 34.59 88.97 93.22 278.3 1.743 563.9 141.0 2.664 5.16 80.15 10% Indonesia 36.89 4152 0.60 34.52 88.72 93.24 270.0 1.692 494.1 123.5 2.679 4.47 80.74 20% Indonesia 32.91 4285 0.58 34.42 88.45 93.22 262.4 1.644 428.5 107.1 2.695 3.81 81.25 30% Indonesia 28.95 4419 0.57 34.34 88.21 93.21 255.2 1.598 366.5 91.63 2.710 3.22 81.70

When blending Coal A with the Indonesian coal, there is a dramatic decrease in the overall ash content of the fuel seen at the unit. This is due to the extremely low (1.2 percent) ash content of the Indonesian coal. However, even with this much lower aggregate ash content, the predicted tube failures and unit availability are not better than that of the Australian coal blends. This is due primarily to each Indonesian blend case having a higher coal burn rate and subsequently higher flue gas flow rate than the corresponding Australian blend case. The Indonesian coal also has a more abrasive ash compared to the Australian coal. This increased fuel burn rate relative to the Australian blend cases is due to the high latent heat losses associated with burning the Indonesian coal, which has a raw moisture content of 25 percent. In addition, burning the Indonesian coal yields a small increase in the unburned carbon level of the coal, which also reduces the boiler efficiency of the unit. The results of Coal A and South African coal blends follow. Parameter Coal ash content, % Coal gross calorific value, kcal/kg Specific consumption, kg/kWh Thermal efficiency, % Gross boiler efficiency, % Net boiler efficiency, % Full-load coal burn rate, tonne/hr Annual coal burn rate, Mtonne Annual ash disposal Fly ash, ktonne Bottom ash, ktonne Annual CO2 production, Mtonne Annual tube failures Unit Availability, % Coal A 40.84 4020 0.62 34.59 88.97 93.22 278.3 1.743 563.9 141.0 2.664 5.16 80.15 10% South Africa 38.16 4243 0.58 34.66 89.12 93.31 263.2 1.650 498.6 124.6 2.665 4.12 81.05 20% South Africa 35.47 4467 0.55 34.71 89.21 93.35 249.8 1.566 440.0 110.0 2.667 3.42 81.76 30% South Africa 32.79 4691 0.53 34.74 89.30 93.39 237.6 1.490 387.0 96.8 2.668 2.76 82.36

The South African coal possesses the highest calorific value of the three imported coals, and as a result the blends of Coal A with the South African coal yield the lowest coal burn rate. The South African coal blends

also yield the lowest tube failures and best unit availability, which is principally a result of the lower erosion potential associated with the South African coal ash. This lower erosion potential results in a decrease in projected maintenance for the coal pulverizers and the steam generator tubes and surfaces. However, this increase in unit availability was also due to a decreased level of coal pulverizer loading, which results in an increased ability of the unit to achieve the desired generation as a pulverizer is removed from service for maintenance. 5.2 Detailed Steam Generator Performance Results The Vista results indicate that the steam generator is adequately sized and configured to burn a wide variety of coals, showing no problems over the range of coals evaluated in this example. The following summarize the results: Flue gas temperature and velocity profile. The flue gas temperatures and velocities throughout the steam generator do not vary significantly between the coals. The furnace exit gas temperature increases slightly and the flue gas velocity decreases slightly as the percentage of Australian and South African coal increases. However, these trends reverse as the percentage of Indonesian coal increases. The change in furnace exit gas temperature indicates that the heat transfer within the steam generator is shifting slightly with the change in flue gas volume. The increase in flue gas velocity will tend to increase the propensity for tube failures. Main and reheat steam outlet temperatures and attemperation spray. With Coal A, the unit has difficulty meeting design main and reheat outlet temperatures. This situation does not change for the Australian and South African coal blends. With the Indonesian coal blends, the shift in the heat transfer profile causes an increase in main and reheat outlet temperature and requires a small amount of superheat attemperation spray for the twenty and thirty percent blend cases, 2,993 and 5,555 kg/hr respectively. Slagging potential, fouling potential, and sootblowing duty. Coal A, the Indonesian coal blends and the South African coal blends are predicted to have a low propensity to cause ash deposits in the steam generator. The Australian coal blends are predicted to have a low/medium propensity to cause ash buildup in the pendent and backpass sections, however, this increase in fouling potential is not predicted to impact steam generator performance. Changes in sootblowing frequency are not predicted as the coal blend increases.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS In this paper, three Vista examples have been examined: Comparing coals of increasing ash content. Considering the economics associated with washed coal. Investigating detailed performance expectations associated with blends of domestic and international coal.

Each example demonstrates a different facet of Vistas predictive capabilities. The plant modeled was designed for a 40 percent ash coal and also designed with ample design margin which allows it to burn a variety of coals successfully. A unit that does not have large design margins, particularly older units which were designed for significantly lower ash coals, may experience more difficulty generating at full load, higher maintenance costs, and lower availability than these examples indicate. In this example, the unit experienced an inability to meet full load with an increase in ash content of five percentage points above the ash content of the unit design coal. An older unit designed for a better quality coal is more likely to experience coals with an ash content five percent higher, resulting in more frequent operational difficulty and thus, a high sensitivity in performance and costs to variations in coal quality. Even for this unit with ample design margin, the varying coal supply can still have significant impacts on thermal efficiency, emissions, and generation costs. Vista can predict these impacts. Vista provides a solid basis for analyzing fuel and plant strategies to identify the best alternatives for decreasing generation costs and improving dispatch. Vistas quick, comprehensive, and accurate performance and cost predictions clarify the status of alternate coals. Because of its convenience, Vista can be used to screen numerous coals that may not otherwise be given consideration. The comprehensiveness of Vistas performance evaluation provides information to plant operators, engineers, and maintenance staff regarding the changes that can be expected when burning alternate coals. The comprehensiveness of Vistas economic evaluation provides an equitable comparison of alternatives to improve fuel purchasing decisions and plant equipment or operational changes.

10

APPENDIX COAL QUALITY DATA The following tables present the coal quality data used in the analyses presented in this paper.

Coal Quality for Coal A, Coal B, and Higher Ash Sensitivity Coals
Description Heating Value Gross Calorific Value Net Calorific Value Proximate Analysis Basis Moisture Moisture, Min Moisture, Max Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Ash, Min Ash, Max Ultimate Analysis Basis Carbon Carbon, Min Carbon, Max Hydrogen Hydrogen, Min Hydrogen, Max Nitrogen Nitrogen, Min Nitrogen, Max Sulfur Sulfur, Min Sulfur, Max Chlorine Chlorine, Min Chlorine, Max Oxygen (by difference) Ash Analysis Silica (SiO2) Alumnia (Al2O3) Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) Titania (TiO2) Phosphorus (P2O5) Lime (CaO) Magnesia (MgO) Sodium (Na2O) Sodium (Na2O), Min Sodium (Na2O), Max Potassium (K2O) Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) Undetermined/Balance Ash Temperatures Initial Deformation (Reducing) Hemispherical (Oxidizing) Miscellaneous Properties Hardgrove Grindability T250 Equilibrium Moisture SO2 Production Indian Coal B Indian Coal B +5% Ash 4532 kcal/kg 4247 kcal/kg As-Received 9.33 8.02 10.64 27.09 25.14 30.00 27.00 33.00 As-Received 47.72 45.33 50.10 4.54 4.31 4.77 1.04 0.93 1.14 0.31 0.25 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.05 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal B +10% Ash 4208 kcal/kg 3944 kcal/kg As-Received 8.66 7.45 9.88 25.15 23.35 35.00 31.50 38.50 As-Received 44.31 42.09 46.53 4.22 4.01 4.43 0.96 0.87 1.06 0.29 0.23 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.01 6.55 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal A Indian Coal A +5% Ash 3737 kcal/kg 3571 kcal/kg As-Received 6.23 5.36 7.10 24.17 24.60 45.00 40.50 49.50 As-Received 38.41 36.49 40.34 2.55 2.42 2.67 0.86 0.78 0.95 0.66 0.53 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.28 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal A +10% Ash 3397 kcal/kg 3246 kcal/kg As-Received 5.66 4.87 6.46 21.97 22.36 50.00 45.00 55.00 As-Received 34.92 33.18 36.67 2.32 2.20 2.43 0.79 0.71 0.86 0.60 0.48 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.71 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

4769 kcal/kg 4470 kcal/kg As-Received 9.82 4.70 8.50 28.51 26.46 26.33 21.72 30.94 As-Received 50.22 39.88 41.45 4.78 2.62 2.78 1.09 0.92 0.93 0.33 0.28 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.42 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

4019 kcal/kg 3841 kcal/kg As-Received 6.70 4.70 8.50 26.00 26.46 40.84 33.80 46.60 As-Received 41.32 39.88 41.45 2.74 2.62 2.78 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.71 0.61 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.76 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

1210 C 1400 C 57.00 1887 C 8.35 % 0.33 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 57.00 1887 C 7.93 % 0.33 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 57.00 1887 C 7.36 % 0.33 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 5.70 % 0.84 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 5.29 % 0.84 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 4.81 % 0.84 kg/GJ

Coal Quality for Coal A and Cleaned Indian Coal Scenarios

Description Heating Value Gross Calorific Value Net Calorific Value Proximate Analysis Basis Moisture Moisture, Min Moisture, Max Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Ash, Min Ash, Max Ultimate Analysis Basis Carbon Carbon, Min Carbon, Max Hydrogen Hydrogen, Min Hydrogen, Max Nitrogen Nitrogen, Min Nitrogen, Max Sulfur Sulfur, Min Sulfur, Max Chlorine Chlorine, Min Chlorine, Max Oxygen (by difference) Ash Analysis Silica (SiO2) Alumnia (Al2O3) Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) Titania (TiO2) Phosphorus (P2O5) Lime (CaO) Magnesia (MgO) Sodium (Na2O) Sodium (Na2O), Min Sodium (Na2O), Max Potassium (K2O) Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) Undetermined/Balance Ash Temperatures Initial Deformation (Reducing) Hemispherical (Oxidizing) Miscellaneous Properties Hardgrove Grindability T250 Equilibrium Moisture SO2 Production Indian Coal A Indian Coal A 25% Wash Case 4409 kcal/kg 4229 kcal/kg As-Received 7.00 4.70 8.50 29.89 26.46 32.00 26.40 37.60 As-Received 44.63 43.29 45.97 2.96 2.87 3.05 1.00 0.87 0.93 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.76 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal A 50% Wash Case 4578 kcal/kg 4376 kcal/kg As-Received 7.50 4.70 8.50 31.29 26.46 28.64 23.63 33.65 As-Received 47.06 39.88 41.45 3.12 2.62 2.78 1.06 0.92 0.93 0.62 0.52 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal A 75% Wash Case 4749 kcal/kg 4538 kcal/kg As-Received 8.00 4.70 8.50 32.59 26.46 25.48 21.02 29.94 As-Received 48.81 47.35 50.27 3.23 3.13 3.33 1.10 0.96 1.24 0.60 0.51 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.78 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06 Indian Coal A Full Wash 4916 kcal/kg 4696 kcal/kg As-Received 8.50 4.70 8.50 33.76 26.46 22.60 18.65 26.56 As-Received 50.54 49.02 52.06 3.35 3.25 3.45 1.14 0.99 1.29 0.58 0.49 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.29 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

4019 kcal/kg 3841 kcal/kg As-Received 6.70 4.70 8.50 26.00 26.46 40.84 33.80 46.60 As-Received 41.32 39.88 41.45 2.74 2.62 2.78 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.71 0.61 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.76 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 5.70 % 0.84 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 5.95 % 0.70 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 6.38 % 0.65 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 6.80 % 0.60 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 7.22 % 0.56 kg/GJ

Coal Quality for Blends of Indian Coal A and World Coals

Description Heating Value Gross Calorific Value Net Calorific Value Proximate Analysis Basis Moisture Moisture, Min Moisture, Max Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Ash, Min Ash, Max Ultimate Analysis Basis Carbon Carbon, Min Carbon, Max Hydrogen Hydrogen, Min Hydrogen, Max Nitrogen Nitrogen, Min Nitrogen, Max Sulfur Sulfur, Min Sulfur, Max Chlorine Chlorine, Min Chlorine, Max Oxygen (by difference) Ash Analysis Silica (SiO2) Alumnia (Al2O3) Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) Titania (TiO2) Phosphorus (P2O5) Lime (CaO) Magnesia (MgO) Sodium (Na2O) Sodium (Na2O), Min Sodium (Na2O), Max Potassium (K2O) Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) Undetermined/Balance Ash Temperatures Initial Deformation (Reducing) Hemispherical (Oxidizing) Miscellaneous Properties Hardgrove Grindability T250 Equilibrium Moisture SO2 Production Indian Coal A 90% Indian Coal A 10% Australian Coal 4221 kcal/kg 4038 kcal/kg As-Received 6.81 5.31 8.31 25.94 28.85 38.40 31.68 45.12 As-Received 43.51 42.20 44.82 2.82 2.73 2.90 0.91 0.79 1.03 0.67 0.57 0.77 0.01 0.00 0.02 6.39 59.70 28.75 6.18 1.70 0.47 1.37 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.55 0.37 0.07 80% Indian Coal A 20% Australian Coal 4423 kcal/kg 4236 kcal/kg As-Received 6.92 5.40 8.44 25.88 31.25 35.95 29.66 42.24 As-Received 45.70 44.33 47.07 2.89 2.80 2.98 0.90 0.78 1.01 0.63 0.53 0.73 0.01 0.00 0.02 6.51 59.35 28.72 6.31 1.68 0.46 1.63 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.56 0.35 0.07 70% Indian Coal A 30% Australian Coal 4625 kcal/kg 4433 kcal/kg As-Received 7.03 5.48 8.58 25.82 33.65 33.51 27.64 39.37 As-Received 47.89 46.45 49.33 2.96 2.88 3.05 0.88 0.76 0.99 0.59 0.50 0.68 0.01 0.00 0.02 6.64 58.96 28.69 6.46 1.66 0.45 1.93 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.58 0.34 0.08 90% Indian Coal A 10% Indonesian Coal 4152 kcal/kg 3957 kcal/kg As-Received 8.53 6.65 10.41 27.10 27.49 36.88 30.42 43.33 As-Received 42.83 41.54 44.11 2.88 2.79 2.96 0.92 0.80 1.04 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.31 59.88 28.72 6.08 1.72 0.48 1.21 0.50 0.39 0.26 0.52 0.54 0.42 0.07 80% Indian Coal A 20% Indonesian Coal 4285 kcal/kg 4072 kcal/kg As-Received 10.36 8.08 12.64 28.20 28.53 32.91 27.15 38.67 As-Received 44.34 43.01 45.67 3.01 2.92 3.10 0.90 0.79 1.02 0.59 0.50 0.68 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.88 59.72 28.66 6.10 1.71 0.48 1.30 0.53 0.41 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.47 0.07 70% Indian Coal A 30% Indonesian Coal 4418 kcal/kg 4188 kcal/kg As-Received 12.19 9.51 14.87 29.30 29.56 28.95 23.88 34.01 As-Received 45.84 44.47 47.22 3.15 3.05 3.24 0.89 0.78 1.01 0.53 0.45 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.01 8.44 59.53 28.57 6.13 1.71 0.48 1.41 0.58 0.43 0.28 0.57 0.55 0.54 0.09 90% Indian Coal A 10% S. African Coal 4243 kcal/kg 4058 kcal/kg As-Received 6.83 5.33 8.33 25.80 29.21 38.16 31.48 44.83 As-Received 43.69 42.38 45.00 2.87 2.78 2.95 1.00 0.87 1.13 0.70 0.59 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.76 59.38 28.89 5.98 1.71 0.54 1.43 0.52 0.37 0.25 0.50 0.54 0.59 0.06 80% Indian Coal A 20% S. African Coal 4467 kcal/kg 4275 kcal/kg As-Received 6.96 5.43 8.49 25.60 31.97 35.47 29.26 41.68 As-Received 46.06 44.67 47.44 2.99 2.90 3.08 1.06 0.93 1.20 0.69 0.58 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.77 58.66 29.02 5.90 1.70 0.60 1.76 0.57 0.37 0.24 0.49 0.54 0.82 0.06 70% Indian Coal A 30% S. African Coal 4691 kcal/kg 4491 kcal/kg As-Received 7.09 5.53 8.65 25.40 34.72 32.79 27.05 38.53 As-Received 48.42 46.97 49.88 3.12 3.02 3.21 1.13 0.98 1.28 0.68 0.57 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.77 57.82 29.18 5.80 1.69 0.67 2.15 0.63 0.36 0.24 0.48 0.53 1.10 0.07

4019 kcal/kg 3841 kcal/kg As-Received 6.70 4.70 8.50 26.00 26.46 40.84 33.80 46.60 As-Received 41.32 39.88 41.45 2.74 2.62 2.78 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.71 0.61 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.76 60.00 28.77 6.06 1.72 0.48 1.14 0.47 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.54 0.38 0.06

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

1210 C 1400 C 55.00 1887 C 5.70 % 0.84 kg/GJ

1288 C 1490 C 54.70 1867 C 5.79 % 0.76 kg/GJ

1377 C 1593 C 54.40 1844 C 5.88 % 0.68 kg/GJ

1479 C 1710 C 54.10 1819 C 5.98 % 0.61 kg/GJ

1210 C 1400 C 54.70 1879 C 7.25 % 0.75 kg/GJ

1210 C 1399 C 54.40 1870 C 8.86 % 0.65 kg/GJ

1210 C 1399 C 54.10 1858 C 10.69 % 0.57 kg/GJ

1214 C 1403 C 54.50 1871 C 5.81 % 0.79 kg/GJ

1218 C 1406 C 54.00 1854 C 5.92 % 0.73 kg/GJ

1223 C 1410 C 53.50 1589 C 6.03 % 0.69 kg/GJ