Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 328

Clean Coal Technology

T E C H N O L O G Y
Demonstration Program

Program Update 1995

U.S. Department of Energy


Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy April 1996
Washington, DC 20585
Contents
Executive Summary: The Clean Coal Introduction ES-1
Technology Demonstration The Coal Technology Portfolio ES-2
Program-10 Years of Progress
Technical, Economic, and Environmental Performance ES-2
Marketplace Credibility ES-3
Model Govenunent/IndustryPartnership for Technology Advancement and Job Creation e5-8

Section 1: Role of the Program National Perspective 1-1


Maximizing Energy Productivity 1-2
Preventing Pollution to Reduce Adverse Environmental Impact 1-7
Acid Rain Mitigation 1-7
Hazardous Air Pollutants 1-10
Value-Added Solid Wastes 1-10
Global Climate Change Protection 1-10
Keeping America Secure 1-11
Coal Technology Perspective 1-12
Role of the Technologies 1-13
Advanced Electric Power Generation 1-13
Environmental Control Devices 1-18
Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 1-21
Industrial Applications 1-24

Section 2 Program Implementation Introduction 2-1


The Legislation 2-1
Implementation Prineiples 2-2
Soli&atiorrResults 1-3

Prog" update 1995 iii


Future Implementation Direction 2-12
Environmental Aspects 2-15
The Role of NEPA in the CCT Program 2-15
Compiiance with NEPA 2-16
CategoricalExclusions 2-16
Memoranda-m-Fde 2-17
Environmental Assessments 2-17
Environmental Impact Statements 2-19
NEPA Actions in 2-19
Environmental Monitoring 2-19
AkT~xicS 2-20

Section 3 Funding and Costs summary 3-1


PromFunding 3-1
AvailabilityO f Funding 3-2
use of Appropriated Funds 3-2
Project Funding, Costs, and Schedules 3 4
costsharing 34
Recovery of Government Outlays (Recoupment) 5

Section 4 The Road to Commercial summary 4-1


Realization
Commitment to commercial Reazization 4-2
Understanding the Domestic Market 4-10
An Emexging ~te!llatiodMarket 4-12
Market(3"ications 4-14

Section 5: Results of Completed Projects summary 5-1


Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project 5-1
-
Evaluation of Gas Reb"g and Low-NOx Burners on a WalI-Fbd Boiler 5-1

iv h g m m updote 1995
Demonstrationof SelectiveCatalytic Reduction Technology for Control of NOxEmissions from High-
Sulfur-coal-FiredBoilers 5-2
Advanced Hue Gas Desuhization DemonstrationProject 5-2
Demonstration of Innovatbe Applications of Technology for the Cr-121FGD PIWSS 5-3
Resultssu"aries 5-3
A d v a n d Electric Power Generation 5-5
Environmental Control Devices 5-13
Industrial Applications 5-53

Section 6 Results and Accomplishments Introduction 6-1


from Ongoing Projects
Advanced Electric Power Genedon 6-2
EnvironmentalControl Devices 6-6
Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 6-9
Industrial Applications 6-14

Section 7: Project Fact Sheets S~mmary 7-1


Advanced Electric Power Generation 7-7
EnvironmentalControl Devices 7-37
Coal procesSing for Clean Fuels 7-77
LnduSbid Applications 7-89

Appendix A Relevant Legislation A-I

Appendix B Selection and Negotiation History B-Z

Appendix C CCT Program publications c-1

Appendix D Papers and Presentations on the CC" Program D-I

Appendix E CCT Project Contacts E-1

Appendix F Acronyms and Abbreviations F-1

Index Index G-1

Program Ujmbte 1995 V


Exhibits
Executive Summary Es-1 Completed Projects by Application Category ES-3
Es-2 Summary of Results of Completed CCT Projects ES-4

Section 1: Role of the Program 1-1 service Areas of Utilities participating in the CCT Program 2-4
1-2 CCT Demonstdon Projects, by Application Category 2-5
1-3 NO, Emission Limits for Coal-EltedUnits 1-9
1-4 R&D Goals of Advauced Power Systems 2-23
1-5 CCT Program IGCC Project Characteristics 2-26
1 4 CCT Program NO, Control Technology CX"' S ~ ~ C S 2-29
1-7 - tics
CCT Program SO, Control Technology Cha" 2-20
1-8 CCI' Program Combined S 0 ~ 0 , C o n t r o Technology
l 1-21

Section 2 Program Implementation 2- 1 CCT Program Selection procesS Summary 2-4


2-2 Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Projects, by Solicitation 2-5
2-3 GeographicLocations of CCT Projects-Advanced Electric Power Generation 2-8
2-4 Geographic Locations of CCT Projects-Environmental Control Devices 2-9
2-5 GeographicLocations of CCT Projects-Cod Pnmsiig for Clem Fuels 2-20
2-6 Geographic Locations of CCT prOjects--Industrial Applications 2-12
2-7 NEPA Reviews Completed 2-26
2-8 Me"h-to-Fde Completed 2-17
2-9 Environmental Assessments Completed 2-28
2-10 Environmental Impact StatementsCompleted 2-29
2-1 1 NEPA Reviews in Progress 2-20
Section 3: Funding and Costs 3- 1 Relationship between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets for the CCT Program 3-2
3-2 Annual CCT Program Funding, by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets 3-3
3-3 CCT Financial Projections as of December 31,1995 34
3-4 Financial Status of the CCT Program as of December 31,1995 3-5
3-5 CCT Project Schedules and Funding, by Application Category 3-6
3-6 Cost Sharing of Active CCT Projects 3-8

Section 4: The Road to C o m m i a l 4-1 CCT Program: commercialization Successes 4-4


Realion
4-2 Award-Winning CCT Projects 4-11

Section 5: Results of Completed Projects 5- 1 CompletedProjects 5-3


5-2 Completed Projects, by Application category 5-4
5-3 Coal Reburning System Test Results 5-15
5-4 I,"Test Results 5-18
*
5-5 NOxData from Cherokee Station,Unit 3 5-20
5-6 Tangential Burner Configurations 5-21
5-7 CatalystsTe~ted 5-24
5-8 TestPammeters 5-34
5-9 OperatingResults 5-34
5-10 SO, Removal Performance 5-35
5-11 Operation of CT-121 scrubber 5-38
5-12 SO2Removal Efficiency 5-39
5-13 Particulate capture Performance 5-40

Section 6: Results and Accomplishments 6-1 Highlighted CCT Projects, by Application Category 6-1
from Ongoing Projects
6-2 Status of CCX DemonstrationProjects at Year-End 1995-Advanwd Electric Power Generation 615
6-3 Status of CCT DemonstrationProjects at Year-End 1995--Environmental Control Devices 6-17
6-4 Status of CCT DemonstrationProjects at Year-End 1995-Cod processing for clean Fuels 6-20
6-5 Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at Year-End 1995-Industrial Applications 6-21
f
ri
Executive Summary: The Clean Coal Technology
Demonstration Program-10 Years of Progress
as industrial power; (5) the most abundant fossil With over 40percent of the projects completed,
energy resource was secure within the nation's the E T Program has achieved several significant
Introduction borders and relatively invulnerable to natural or accomplishmentsthat will have lasting impact on the
The year 1995 marked the loth anniversary of human disruptions because of the coal industry's continued use of coal. These accomplishmentsare as
the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program production responsiveness and stockpiling capability; follows:
(known as the CCT Program): an anniversary of and (6)coal was the fuel of necessity in many lesser
1. Demonstration of a podolio of technologies
progress toward assuring that technologies being developed countries. The program jia"recog-
that expand coal utilization capabilities,
demonstrated will enable coal to continue as the nized that the continued viability of coal as a source
improve economics of coal use, and achieve
major contributor to the nation's energy supply mix, of energy was dependent on demonstration aad
strict environmental compliance goals for
provide the base for the nation's leadenhip in world commercial application of a new generation of
acid rain and other global environmental
energy production, and assist the country in achiev- a d ~ a n ~d 0 a l - Wtechnology characterized by
concerns
ing environmental objectives. enhanced technical, economic, and environmental
performance. This vision was extended to encom- 2. Extension of the technical, economic, and
In the framing of the CCT Program, the congres-
sional, executive branch, and private-sector partici- pass the recommendationsof the U.S. and Canadian environmental performance envelope of coal
pants recognized and understood the fundamental Special Envoys on Acid Rain and broadened the technologies
realisms of coal and its contribution to the national range of technological solutions available to elimi- 3. Establishment of commercial credibiity of
and global energy future. These included the facts nate acid rain concerns associated with coal use. advanced coal technologies in the domestic
that (1) the location, magnitude, and characteristics The participants in the framing of the CCT and international marketplaces
of the coal resource base were well understood,thus Program made use of the lessons learned from previ-
ous U.S.Department of Energy @OE) demonstration 4. Demonstration of a model program for
minimizing costs and risks associated with resource
programs and the operation of the Synthetic Fuels govmenthidustry cooperation in technol-
exploration; (2)the technology and skilled labor base
Corporation to craft a unique, cost-shared technology ogy development
of nearly 1.1 million workers were available to safely
and economically extract, transport, and use cod in a development effort which relied on the strengtbs of
manner that protected the environment; (3) a multi- the private industry and government participants
billion dollar infrastructure was in place to gather, working in partnership. The pioneering process
transport, and deliver this valuable energy commodi- implemented under the CCT Program proved that an
ty to serve the domestic and international market- industry/governmentpartnership to advance energy
place; (4) coal was used to produce over 55 percent of technology can produce exceptional results in a
the nation's electric power and was vital to industrial relatively short time fi-ame.
processes such as steel and cement production as well
Program Update 199s ES-I
Advanced electric power generation The five projects in the coal processing for clean
fuels application category, valued at over $519
The Coal Technology Portfolio Environmental control devices
million, represent a diversified portFolio of technolo-
Coal processing for clean fuels gies. These projects involve the production of high-
The CCT Program has been implemented
through a series of five nationwide competitive Industrial applications energydensity solid compliance fuels for utility or
solicitations conducted over a 9-year period. The industrial boilers. One of these projects also produc-
Approximately 75 percent, or about $5.4 billion, es a liquid for use as a chemical or transportation fuel
first solicitation was directed towards demonstraiing
of the total CCT Program costs are directed toward feedstock One project will demonstrate a new
the feasibility of future commercial application of
enhancing efficiency, environmental performance, methanol production process. The other project is
clean coal technology, which would balance the goals
and reliability of electric power production by the developing an expert computer software system that
of expanding coal use and minimizing environmental
demonstration of advanced electric power generation will enable a utility to predict operating performance
impact. The next two solicitations were aimed
systems and environmental control devices. of coals being considered but not previously burned
primarily at the technologies that could mitigate the
Over 1,200 megawatts m e ) of new capacity in the utility's boiler.
potential impacts of acid rain from existing coal-fired
and over 900 MWe of repowered capacity are repre- The five projects in the industrial applications
power plants. The fourth and fifth solicitations
sented by 14 advanced electric power generation category have a combined value of over $1.3 billion.
addressed the post-2OOO energy supply and demand
projects with an estimated cost of nearly $4.7 billion. Projects encompass the substitution of coal for 40
situations with sulfur dio,xide (SO2)emissions capped
Projects include 5 integrated gasification combined- percent of the coke used in iron making, integration
under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
cycle systems, 6 fluidized-bedcombustion systems, of a direct iron-making process with the production
1990, increased need for electric power, and the need
and 3 advanced combustionheatengine systems. of electricity, reduction of cement kiln emissions and
to alleviate concerns over global climak change-a
These projects will provide environmentallysound, solid waste generation, and the demonstrationof two
situation that translates into a need for technologies
more efficient, and less costly electric power genera- efficient industrial-scale combustors.
with very high efficienciesand extremely low emis-
tion in themid- to late-1990s and also will provide
sions.
the demonstrated technology base necessary to meet
The portfolio of clean coal technologies being
new capacity requirements in the 21st century.
demonstrated under the CCT Program is creating a
There are 19 environmental control devices Technical, Economic, and
technology base that allows the nation to meet its
projects valued at nearly $704 million. These
energy and environmental goals efficiently and
projects include 7 nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions
Environmental Performance
reliably. The fact that most of the demonstrations are
control systems installed on over 1,700 W e of The CCT Program has extended the technical,
being conducted at commercial scale, in actual user
utility generating capacity, 5 SO, emissions control economic, and environmental peaformawe envelope
environments and under conditions typical of com-
systems installed on about 770 W e , and 7 can- of a broad portfolio of advanced coal technologies.
mercial operations allows the potential of the tech-
bined S O P O Xemissions control systems installed on As of the loth anniversary of the CCT Program,18
nologies to be evaluated in their intended commexiai
about 800 MWe of capacity. Most of theseenviron- projects have completed operation,8 projects are in
applications.
mental control devices will have theii operating operation, 5 projects are in c o m o n , 11 projects
The technologies are categorized in four market
experience documented by the end of 1996. are in project definition, and 1project is in negotia-
sectors:
tion. Emibit Es-1 showsthe number of completed

ES-2 Program Updae 1995


I
1 projects by application category. Exhibit ES-2 regulated levels, but those proposed by the Environ- techologies are King used to transform low-rank
provides a summary of the key technical and environ- mental protection Agency @PA) for 2ooo. In fact, and noncompliance coals to useful, environmentally
mental results from the 18 completed demonstration EPA has used the results from the NO, technology superior coal-based fuels for use by domestic utility
projects and the capital cost, where available. demonstrations to guide its efforts in establishing and industrial coal users and are being considered for
NO, control regulations. Ciulating fluidized-bed major projects abroad. Finally,coal-based industrial
technology has become a commercial success in the processes are benefiting, environmentally and e c s
utility sector worldwide due largely to the data nomicaUy, h m the demonstration of advanced coal
Marketplace Credibility generated from a CCT pmject that was one of the technologies.
first utility-scale circulating fluidized-bed projects in Over the past 10 years, market credibility has
The CCT Program is establishing minketplace the world. The electric power generation technolo- been enhanced by the following project swxsses:
credibility as the technologies demonstrated during gies for the next century are W i g demonstrated in The Tidd demonstration was the first utility-
the 10 years of program implementation are entering the form of the pressurized fluidized-bed combustion scale PFBC system in the United States and
the commercial marketplace. Today, demonstrated (PFBC)systems and integrated gasification com- confirmed that the system could be applied to
technologies used to reduce N0,emissions are being bined-cycle (IGCC) systems. The CCT Program has
electric power generation. The plant repre-
retrofitted on a significant percentage (Le., over 25 also shown that several advanced technologies have
sented a 13:1 scalt+up from the pilot facility
percent) of the nations coal-fired capacity and led to significant improvementsin the economic and
and led to significant refinements and
provide the capability of achieving not only existing environmental performance of SO, controls. Further,
understanding of the technology. The unit
accumulated over 11,400 hours of operation
and established the commercial viability of
Exhibit ES-1 the design.
Completed Projects by Application Category As a result of the Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Associations Nucla CFB
A p p l i i category Number Completed Demonstration Project, Pyropower Corpora-
Advanced Electric Power Generation 2 tion was able to save almost 3 years in
Atmospheric fluidized bed combustion 1 establishing a commercial line of atmospheric
1
circulating fluidized-bed units. Pympowers
pressurized fluidized bed combustion
commercial units are now offered under
Environmental control Devices 14
warranty in sizes up to 400 W e .
NOlcontrol technology 5
so*controltechnology 5 The Wabash River project is the worlds
Combined SOPOXcontrol technology 4 largest single train IGCC power plant to be
Indnstrial Applicptions 2 operated in a fully commercial environment.
Industrial cyclone combustor 1 This repowered 262-MWe unit has the ability
Cement kilo flue gas recovery scrubber 1 to produce some of the lowest cost electricity
in PSI Energys system. The units net heat

Program Upiiate 1995 ES-3


Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Results of Completed CCT Projects
Project and Participant Key Results Capital cost

A d v a n c e d E k c t r i c P o w er ~
n
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power so, reduction of 9 0 4 5 % (Ohio bituminous coal)at Not yet available
company) 1.1-1.5 cds ratio
Heat rate 10,280 Btukwh
Comlmstionefficiency 99.9%
Commercially viable design
Gas turbine operable in FFBC environment
Nwla cF8 Dem onProject (Tri-stateGenera- SO, reduction of 7045% (up to 1.8% sulfur coal), Approximately .$1,123/net k W (repwer cost)
tion and Tnmsmission Ash- Inc.) dependingoncalsratio
NO, emissions average 0.18 Wmillion Btu
Heat rate 11,600 Btukwh
Combustionefficiency %.9-98.9%

Environmental contrd Devices


D e b -onof Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NOxreductions of 52% Using bituminous coal and 62% Ranges from S M W at 100 MWe to W W at
NOx Control (lkBabcock & Wilcox Compauy) using s u b b i m coal at full W (110 W e ) , 600 MWe
ranging to 36% and 53%, respectively, at 60MWe
Full-scale Dem -OU O f L0w-NOx Cell B ~ m a NOxreductions of 54-58% using -ib coal at full $5.50-8.oQlkW at 500 MWe
Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) load (605W e ) ; 48% at 350 MWe
EvatuationOf Gas Reburning and LOW-NO,Bumer~ LNB alone (second generation) -37% NO, ~ ~ I ~ c t i i o ~ Appximately $15/kW plus gas pipeline cost
a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy aod En-tal GR-LNB (second generation) -64% NOxreduction
-hCopmtion) (13% gas heat iqput)
18@MWeDe& onof Advanced Tangentially NOxreductionsof up to 48% at full load (180 MWe) for L . 1-$8-1mw
Fired CombustionTechniquesfor Rectudion of NOx LOW-NO, concentncFiring System (LT Level L.N-$15-uxkW
Emissions from W-Fired Boilers (southemCompany IH,which includes both separated overfife air and close-
services.Inc.) coupled overfire air
Demoastraton of Selective Catalytic Reducrion Available in 1996 Not yet available
Technology for Control of NO, Emissions from High-
SulfurCoal-Fired Boilers (southem Compauy
, services,Inc.)

I
~ ~ ~ ~~

Exhibit ES-2 (continued)


Summary of Results of Completed CCT Projects
Project and Participant w- capital cost

10-MWe Demonstrationof Gas Suspension Absorption Gas w o n absorption (GSAyelectrostatiC S149IkW for GSA ($216/kW for c o n v e n t i d wet
(AirPol, Inc.) Precipitator SO, removal efficiency 6041%; GSAf limestoneforced oxidation)
pllsejethm=*%%
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas -on SO, reductionof 50% (1.5-2-596 sulfur b i l u " Less than S3QlkW at so0 W e
Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) coal)
LIFAC Sorbent Injeztion D e d h r.m h'on Demonstration SO, removd efficiency 70+% at Ca/S ratio 2.0 s66/LW for two reactors (300W e ) ; $76/kW for one
Project (LIFAC-Nd America) reactoT (150 W e )
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Project Average SO, removal efficiemcy4J4%over 3 years Not yet available
(Pure Air on the Lake,LP.) Maxi" SO, removal efficiency 98%
Gypsum proaaction210,000 tans
Gypsum purity4V.296
A~ailabilty-99-49b
Powex a"ptio-5,275 kW (61%of expected)
Demonstrationof Innovative Applications of T e c b l - Over 90% SO, removal efficiency Not yet available
OW for the CT-121 FGD procesS (southern C o w y 97.7-99.3% palticdak removal&ciealcy
Services, Inc.)
F ' d u a I walIboard-gradegypsum as a by-pmduct
F%xrghs reinfolced *tic equip"ically
aud5it"&durable
S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project NO, reductionwith SCR over 94%SO, removal smw
(ABB Environmental Systems) efficiexq over 95%; prodaced salable sulfmc acid by-
proauct
LIMB DemonstrationProject Extension and coolside SO, removal efficiency:
Demonstration ("%e Babcock & Wilmx Company) -1% (3.8%sylfur coral; figno lime)
cmlside-70% (hydmed lime)
SOX-NOX-ROXBOX- Flw Gas Cleamup Demonstration so, reductions of 8040% using 3.4% sulfur bimmi- $26WkWat250We
Project ("%e Babcock & Wilcox Company) ~coaldepenQngonsorbentandconditions
NO, redudion of 90% with 0.9 m O x

Pmg"update1995 Es-5
Exhibit ES-2 (continued)
Summary of Results of Completed CCT Projects
Project and Participant Key Results Capital Cost

Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Hennepin-NOx reduction averaged 67% with 18%gas $979-1,318/ton of NO, removed
Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research input, SO, removal efficiency 52% at CalS ratio 1.76 $425-5 14/ton of SO, removed
Corporation) Lakeside-NOx reductions of 6466% and SO,
reductions of 6043% during extended continuous
combined (GR-SI)runs at 29 W e , about 22% gas
input, and CalS Of 1.67-1.75
NOx reduction averaged 67% during long-term testing
of gas reburn only

Industrial Applications
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur, SO, reduction of over 80% with sorbent injection; 58% Not available
Nitrogen, and Ash Control (CoalTech Corporation) maximum with limestone injection at 2.0 CalS
NOxemissions of 160-184 ppm (75% reduction)
Slag/sorbentretention of 55-90% in combustor; inert
slag
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber SO, reduction of %95% (3% sulfur bituminous coal); $25/ton of annual cement capacity
(PassamaquoddyTribe) 98% maximum reduction
NOxreductionsof 5-15%

rate of about 9,000 Btu per kilowatt-hour (38 by Wisconsin Power and Light for commer- Generic NOxControl Intelligence System to
percent efficiency) is roughly 20 percent cial use at Nelson Dewey Station, Unit No. 2. optimize plant performance in terms of NOx
better than that of the original plant. The emissions, unburned carbon in the fly ash,
a Foster Wheeler's commercial sale of its low-
project is expected to continue to operate as and overall plant efficiency.
NOxburners has an estimated value of $20
part of PSI Energy's baseload capacity for a The Low-NO, Concentric Firing System
million and an estimated employment impact
period of at least 25 years including the 3- (LNCFS") supplied by ABB Combustion
of 240 person-years. For example, Georgia
year demonstration. Engineering, Inc., is being retained by Gulf
Power is retaining the low-NOx burners
Babcock & Wilcox's coal-reburning technol- installed at Plant Hamond for use in comply- Power at its Plant Lansing Smith. The
ogy has been successfully demonstrated as a ing with emission regulations. Further, the technology also is being used at a number of
NOxemissions reduction technology for project also demonstrated the ability of the other utilities including Tennessee Valley
cyclone boilers. The system is being retained Authority, Illinois Power, Public Service

ES-6 Program Update 1995


i
Company of Colorado, Indianapolis Power emissions control system at Niles Station to annually, (2)a proposed agreement with
and Light, Cincinnati Gas and Electric, help the utility meet its overall SO, and NOx China to build a coal-cleanjng plant, togethex
Virginia Power, Union Electric, and New reduction goals. Commercial S N O P plants with a 500-mile underground slurry pipeline
York State Electric & Gas Corporation. are operational in Denmark and Sicily. and port facility at an estimated value of $888
Successfultesting of the AirPol technology A software package developed as part of the million, and (3) signed letters of intent ftom
resulted in the city of Hamilton, Ohio,
three Polish power plants that wish to produce
Milliken project to assist the utility in
7.5 million tons per year of cleaned coal with
receiving a $5-million grant from the Ohio optimizing project operation has become a
an estimated value of $75 million.
Coal Development Office to install the gas commercial product. Six modules of the
suspension absorption technology to control Plant Environmental and Economic Optimi- Rosebud SynCoal Partnership is worlcing on
SO, emissions from a 50-MWe coal-fired zation Advisor have been sold, and another two potential semi-commercial projects located
boiler at the municipal power plant. This five sales are pending. in Wyoming and Montana,ranging in size
project has an estimated employment impact The Babcock 8z Wilcox DRB-XCL@low-NOx from 0.5 to 5 million tons per year. The
of 70 person-years. Wyoming project is a stand-alonemine-mouth
burner demonstrated in Public Service
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P., will continue to design. The Montana project is designed to
Company of Colorados integrated dry NO!
expand the existing demonstration facility.
operate the advanced flue gas desulfurization SO, emissions control system has been a
unit at the Northem Indiana Public Service commercial success. Sales have involved The ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification project
Companys Bailly Generating Station for 17 1,829 burners, or approximately 23,664 MWe
has operated successfully for 4 years, accruing
years beyond the 3-year demonstration which of capacity, at an estimated value of over $240
over 8,200 hot operating hours. More than
was completed in 1995. In April 1994, Pure million and an employment benefit of over
43,000 tons of process-derived fuel have been
Air of Manatee, L.P., entered into a contract 1,670 person-years.
shipped to utility and metallurgical custom-
to provide 1,600 MWe of SO, scrubbing The first commercial sale of the Coal Quality ers. Unit train quantities have been success-
capacity at Florida Power & Lights Manatee
Expert (CQE) Acid Rain Advisor software fully burned as a compliance fuel in commer-
power plant. The estimated value of the sale
package, developed as part of CQE to assist cial boilers for over 2 years. Additionally, 2.2
is $200 million with an estimated employ-
utilities in making CAAA compliance million gallons of coal-derived fuel have been
ment benefit of 1,400 person-years.
decisions, was made in 1993. The final CQE shipped to industrial and metallurgical
Georgia Power is retaining the. CT-121 flue software was released in December 1995 and clients. Letters of intent for engineering and
gas desulfurization system at its Plant Yates, is being offered commercially. Over 40 U.S. economic assessments of full-scale commer-
Unit No. 1, for use in commercial operation. utilities have access to CQE through their cial plants are currently in place with two
In 1994, a tar sands oil extraction facility in membership in the Electric Power Research Indonesian companies. A letter of intent is
Murray, Canada, purchased a CT-121 Institute. also in place with a company that controls
scrubber. large reserves of subbituminous and lignite
The Self-scrubbing Coalm demonstration has
Ohio Edison is retaining the S N O P coals in Russia.
resulted in (1) proposed agreements with
technology as a permanent part of the domestic coal-marketing companies to
purchase 1 million tons of compliance coal
Program Update 1995 ES-7
Real and intellectual properly rights were In summary, the joint effort between industry
retained by industry. and the government in the CCT Program is a suc-
Model Governmenthdustry cess. The number of complex, capital intensive
Partnership for Technology Technology developed is made available on a
projects put into place by the CCT Program partner-
Advancement and Job Creation non-discriminatory basis to all us.compa-
ship is unprecedented, as is the degree of cost shar-
nies that seek, under reasonable terms and
ing. The partnership is important not only for the
The successful implementation of the CCT conditions, to use the technology.
end objectives it is achieving but for the benefits,
Program over the past 10 years is based on a number These principles, in large measure, led to wide tangible and intangible, created by continuing associ-
of principles that evolved as a result of the dedicated private industry and non-federal government partici- ation of the partners. Ten years have shown that,
effort of industry and DOE to cement a partnership to pation in the program. Non-DOE funds of nearly with the government serving as a risk-sharing part-
advance clean coal technologies. Highlights of some $4.9 billion have come f a wide variety of sourc- ner, industry funding can be leveraged to improve the
of theseprinciples are as follows: es. Apjn-oximately 55 investur-owned utilities, environment,reduce the cost of electricity, create
Strong and stable financial commitments for nonutility power gene, municipals and coopera- jobs, and assure technology is available that will
the life of the project were put into place by tives have invested over $3.5 billion into projects- enable coal to continue as the major contributor to
congress. These electric power generators represent approxi- the nations and the worlds energy future.
mately 50 percent of the coal-firedcapacity in the
Multiple solicitations spread over a number of
United States and almost 70 percent of the units
years enabled the program to address abroad
affected by Phase I under Title IV of the CAAA of
range of national needs with a portfolio of
1990. Further, over 60 industry participants, includ-
evolving technologies.
ing technology owners and equipment vendors, have
The technology agenda was determined by committed over $850 million of sharing to the
industry, not government. projects. Finally, 7 state agencies and 8 industry and
Demonstrations were conducted at commer- academic research and development organkations
cial scale in actual user environments. have provided over $225 million as their portion of
cost sharing.
The respective roles of government and This broad-based cost-shared participation in the
industry were clearly defined. program has translated into jobs over the past 10
Cost sharing was required through all project years. The projects supported by industry are a
P b . souxx Of over 29,000 jobs in trades and profa-
sions. Over 2,000 people are employed as facility
Allowance for cost growth,but with a
operators and 500 in coal mining and related indus-
swwlimit,provided an check-
tries- Each e o n s control pro,& pnovides 100-
and-balance feature of the program. 200 jobs and each advanced power generating project
Repayment of funds to the government was provides over 1,000 collsttllctonjobs.
r e q u i d of successful industrial participants.

Es-8 Progmmupdate1995
1. Role of the Program
percent. Utilities have reported plans to construct 16 significant over the past 25 years. With the promulga-
gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity, while retiring tion of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Perspective approximately 19 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO,) and the New
Coal is the nations most plentiful fossil fuel, Cogenerators and nonutility generators significantly Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for new coal-
accounting for over 94 percent of the proven fossil increase their share of the market by 2015, accounting fired power plants in 1971, a steady reduction in SO,
energy reserves in the United States. Deposits of coal for 43 percent of the new capacity construction and emissions per unit of electricity output has been
can be found in 38 of the 50 states, with production capturing 18 percent of the total capacity by 2015. witnessed. Since 1970, SO, emissions declined 8
contributing to the economies of 26 states; coal is Cogeneration and nonutility coal-fired generation are percent from coal-fired plants; this contrasts with a
expected to grow from 59 billion kilowatt-hours in 150 percent increase in coal consumed to produce
used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is
a major contributor to the energy well-being of the 1994 to approximately 92 billion kilowatt-hours in electricity. This improved environmental trend is
United States, accounting for almost one-quarter of 2015. continuing with the implementation of the Clean Air
In the non-electric sectors, an increase of 11 Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. SO, emissions
the primary energy consumed. Nearly 52 percent of
million tons of industrial steam coal consumption is from electric power generating sources are expected
all electricity generated in 1994 came from coal; of
the 3,27 1 billion kilowatt-hours generated by utilities, forecasted between 1994 and 2015 (0.6 percent to decrease over 24 percent between 1994 and 2000
annual growth). Increasing consumption of industrial and an additional 16 percent by 2010. These decreas-
nonutility generators, and cogenerators, 1,694 billion
kilowatt-hours were generated from coal. The Energy steam coal results primarily from the increased use of es will be achieved through a number of approaches
Information Administration (EM)forecasts that coal coal in the chemical and food processing industries. including fuel-switching, use of SO, allowance cred-
will continue to dominate as a fuel far electric power A projected decrease of 14 million tons in coking coal its, and advanced technologies demonstrated under the
consumption is caused by the displacement of raw CCT Program for the control of emissions and pro-
production at least through 2015 (the end of the
steel production from integrated steel mills, which use duction of electric power. Emissions from industrial
forecast period) when generation by coal technologies
is projected to increase to 2,146 billion kilowatt-hours coke as an energy and raw material input, by increased and other sources declined by over 40 percent be-
production from mini mills using electric arc furnaces, tween 1970 and 1994, due in part to the decrease in
and account for approximately 50 percent of all
electricity generated. Although EL4 forecasts show and by increased import of semi-finished steels. coal burning by the industrial and commercial sectors.
that coal-fired utility generation is expected to grow at Further, the amount of coke required per ton of iron Further, during the period 1970-1994, emissions from
only 1.1 percent annually and coal-fired cogeneration produced will decline because of improved energy metal processing industry declined by 86 percent due
efficiency and increased use of pulverized coal injec- to increased use of emissions control devices and
at 0.7 percent annually through 2015, nonutility
generators are expected to increase their coal-fired tion into blast furnaces. Finally, coal consumption in reduced coal use.
generation at an annual rate of approximately 5.5 the residential and commercial sectors will remain Coal production is a vital contributor to the U.S.
percent. constant, accounting for less than 1 percent of total economy. According to a 1994 Pennsylvania State
In the EIA forecast, average capacity factors for US. coal demand. University study commissioned by the National Coal
coal-fired power plants increase from 62 percent to 74 The environmental improvements in the use of Association, the direct and indirect benefits of coal to
coal for the generation of electric power has been the U.S. economy are as follows:

Program Update 1995 1-1


The coal industry is responsible for more than The demonstrations, for the most part, are at a that will meet the diverse requirements of the competi-
$88 billion of total sales, nearly 1.1 million scale large enough to generate data needed to enable tive marketplace for energy technologies well into the
workers, and for personal income of nearly stakeholdersto make judgments about the commercial next century. These technologies make use of the
$50 billion. potential of particular processes. The importance most secure and abundant fossil energy resource base
given to the commercial deployment of these technol- in the United States and will play a major role in
Coal production results in almost $14 billion
ogies reflects the strategic importance of coal to the strengthening the economy and improving living
in personal income, wages, benefits, interest,
U.S. economy and the commitment to sound environ- standards by making use of secure energy resources at
and dividends.
mental policies. reasonable costs. The CCT Program addresses the
Each $1 billion of U.S. coal production The CCT Program plays a major role in advanc- diversity of the energy marketplace by demonstrating
stimulates $3.1 billion of production through- ing the DOESpolicy of a sustainableenergy future, technologies in four market sectors:
out the U.S.economy. which is grounded in three fundamental facts: (1) Advanced electric power generation
For every direct job sustained in the coal energy fuels a competitive economy; (2) energy
affects the quality of the environment; and (3) energy Environmental control devices
industry, 11indirect jobs are supported.
affects national security. The CCT Rogram has a key Coal processing for clean fuels
Coal also exerts a positive influence on the role in achieving three strategic goals contained in the
nations trade deficit. U.S. coal consumption displac- Industrial applications
national energy policy articulated in Sustainable
es almost 10million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Energy Structure: Clean and Secure Energy for a Clean coal technologiesbeing demonstrated
The nations reliance on coal increases energy security Competitive Economy. under the CCT Program are establishing the technolo-
and reduces the balance of trade deficit by over $50 These three goals are as follows: gy data base that allows the nation to meet its energy
billion per year. Further, the export of coal to approx- and environmental goals efficiently and reliably.
imately 40nations is valued at about $4 billion per year. Maximize energy productivity to strengthen
the economy and improve living standards. Because most of the demonstrationsare being con-
Clean coal technology (CCT) has a vital role in ducted at commercial scale, in actual user environ-
ensuring that coal will continue to serve U.S. energy Prevent pollution to reduce adverse environ- ments, and under conditions typical of commercial
interests, enhancing opportunitiesfor economic mental impacts associated with energy operations, the performance potential of the technolo-
growth and employment while meeting the national production, delivery, and use. gies can be meaningfully evaluated in their intended
commitment to a clean and healthy global environ- commercial applications.
Keep America secure by reducing vulnerabil-
ment. These technologies are being advanced through Approximately 75 percent, or about $5.4 billion,
ity to global energy market shocks.
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)Clean Coal of the total CCT Program funds are directed toward
Technology Demonstration Program (also referred to enhancing energy productivity and reliability of utility
as the CCT Program). advanced electric power generation systems and
The CCT Program is a government and industry environmental control devices.
cost-shared partnership to demonstrate a new genera- Maximizing Energy Productivity
There are over 55 investor-owned utilities, non-
tion of advanced coal-based technologies so that the utility generators, municipals, and cooperatives
The CCT Program is fostering the demonstration
most promising technologies can be moved into the participating in the CCT Program. These generators
of a portfolio of advanced coal-based technologies
marketplace. account for approximately 50 percent of the coal-fired

1-2 hgmUpdate1995
i
capacity in the United States and have almost 70 Wholesale Competition through Open Access: Considerable uncertainty exists about the
percent of the Phase-I-affected units under Title IV of Non-Discriminatory Transmission Service by projected savings from demand-side manage-
the CAAA of 1990. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the extent Public Utilities (RM 95-8-000) and a ment and whether these savings will have a
of the geographic area served by utilities participating supplemental NOPR entitled Recovery of significant impact on reduction of power
in the CCT Program. Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Trans- generation needs.
The US. market or efficient and reliable electric mitting Utilities (RM 95-7-000). Referred to
CCT Program demonstrations provide a portfolio
power consists of retrofitting existing power plants together as the mega-NOPR, it addresses the
of technologies to satisfy markets for coal conversion
with environmental control devices, repowering key issues in moving toward a competitive
and utilization while satisfying energy and environ-
existing plants with advanced electric power genera- bulk power market. Deregulation and greater
mental goals in a highly efficient manner.
tion systems, and constructing new power plants using competition in the electric utility industry will
Over 1,200 megawatts W e ) of new capacity
advanced electric power generation systems or con- most likely have an impact on the projected
and over 900 MWe of repowered capacity are repre-
ventional power generation technology with environ- need for new capacity and the commercial
sented by 14 advanced electric power generation
mental control devices. The EIA forecasted 0.9 deployment of conventional and advanced coal
projects, valued at nearly $4.7 billion, which have
percent overall annual growth in electric utility gener- technologies; however, the magnitude is
been selected and are being developed under the CCT
ation between 1994 and 2015 while projecting growth unknown.
Program. The projects are listed in Exhibit 1-2.
in utility generation from coal at 1.1 percent annually. Increased competition from natural gas will These projects include six fluidized-bed combustion
Increases in coal-firedgeneration are expected to
reduce the growth of coal generation particu- systems, five integrated gasification combinedcycle
come from a combination of increased utilization of
larly in nonutility generation, where natural systems, and threeadvanced combustionheatengine
existing generating capacity and additions of new
gas is estimated to provide over 300 billion systems. The participants in the projects include
capacity. The average utilization rate for existing
kilowatt-hours in 2015 compared to 37 billion seven investor-owned utilities, two cooperative utili-
coal-fired units is expected to increase by nearly 20
kilowatt-hours from coal. ties, one municipal utility, two independent power
percent by 2015. Together, utilities, nonutilities, and
The existing inventory of nuclear units, which producers, and two industrial sponsors. These
cogenerators are expected to increase net coal-fired
projects, when completed. will use over 4 million tons
capacity by 10 gigawatts over the forecast period. accounts for about 20 percent of the electric
of coal per year. Because of their superior environ-
There are, however, uncertainties that affect the power generation in the United States, starts to
come up for relicensing in about 10 years. It is mental performance and increased efficiency, these
projected need for new capacity, such as follows:
units are projected to produce 42 percent less SO,, 83
doubtful that life extension for all these
The electric utility industry is in transition percent less nitrogen oxide (NOx),and 15 percent less
nuclear units will take place. Further, a recent
from a highly regulated industry to one where carbon dioxide (CO,) than 2,100 MWe of convention-
study by JX)E indicated that several nuclear
competition is promoted. The Energy Policy al pulverized coal-fired capacity with flue gas desulfu-
units may retire before their licenses come up
Act of 1992 provided the broad policy rization units capable of meeting NSPS. Based on a 3
for renewal. The EIA is projecting a decrease
consensus to promote competition in whole- percent sulfur coal, this represents a total reduction of
of 207 billion kilowatt-hours per year in
sale power markets. On March 29,1995, the approximately 68,000 tons per year of acid rain
nuclear generation between 1994 and 2015
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission precursor emissions.
with 37 gigawatts of nuclear capacity expected
(FERC) issued a Notice of Proposed These units not only will provide environmentally
to be retired during this time period.
Rulemaking (NOPR) entitled Promoting sound electric power generation starting in the mid- to
Exhibit 1-1
Service Areas of Utilities Participating in the CCT Program

14 Program Update 1995


~

Exhibit 1-2
CCT Demonstration Projects, by Application Category
Application Category Participant Project Solicitation

Advanced Electric ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project CCT-I1
Power Generation Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Healy Clean Coal Project CCT-JII
The Appalachian Power Company PFBC Utility Demonstration Project CCT-II
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project CCT-V
DMEC-1 Limited Partnership PCFB Demonstration Project CCT-III
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership Clean Energy Demonstration Project CCT-v
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project CCT-v
The Ohio Power Company Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project ccr-I
Pennsylvania Electric Company Warren Station Extemally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project CCT-v
Sierra Pacific Power Company Pifion Pine IGCC Power Project CCT-IV
Tampa Electric Company Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project CCT-III
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Nucla CFB Demonstration Project CCT-I
Association, Inc.
Wabasli River Coal Gasification Repowering Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project CCT-IV
Project Joint Venture
York County Energy Partners, L.P. ACFB Demonstration Project CCT-I

Environmental ABB Environmental Systems SNOXm Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project CCT-I1
Control Devices AirPol, Inc. 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption CCT-111
The Babcock & Wilcox Company Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOxControl CCT-I1
The Babcock & Wilcox Company Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Bumer Retrofit CCT-111
The Babcock & Wilcox Company LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration CCT-I
The Babcock & Wilcox Company SOX-NOx-RoxBoxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project CCT-I1
Bechtel Corporation Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration CCT-I11
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection CCT-I
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOxBumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler CCT-HI

Program Update 1995 1-5


I

Exhibit 1-2 (continued)


CCT Demonstration Projects, by Application Category
Application Category Participant P Solicitation

Environmental LIFAC-North America LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project CCT-III
Control Devices New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOxControl CCT-IV
(continued)
New Yo& State Electric & Gas Corporation Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project CCT-IV
NOXSO Corporation Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SOJN0,Removal Flue Gas ccr-III
Cleanup System
Public Service Company of Colorado Integrated Dry NO./SO, Emissions Control System CCT-III
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project CCT-11
I Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler CCT-I1
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the m-II
CT-121 FGD Process
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the CCT-II
Control of NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers
Southem Company Services, Inc. 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion CCT-II
Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers

Coal Processingfor ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ, Inc. Development of the Coal Quality Expert CCT-I
Clean Fwk Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol CCT-111
(LPMEo~Process
Custom Coals Intemational Self-Scrubbing Coal? An Integrated Approach to Clean Air CCT-IV
ENCOAL Corporation ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project CCT-111
Rosebud SynCoal Partnership Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration CCT-I

I Industrial
Applications
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Centerior Energy Corporation
Coal Tech Corporation
Blast Furnace Granulated-coal Injection System Demonstration Project
Clean Power from Integrated Coayore Reduction (CORJ!LX@)
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nimgen, and Ash Control
m-III
CCT-v
CCT-I
Passamaquoddy Tribe Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber CCT-11
Thermochem, Inc. Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam CCT-IV
Gasification of Coal

Id Program Update I995

I
late 1990s but also will provide the demonstrated immediate and significant environmentalbenefit by steel industry. One project is to substitutecoal for at
technology base required to carry the nation into the reducing SO, and NO, emissions from the uncon- least 40 percent of the coke used in iron ore reduction,
21st century with a suite of highly efficient, reliable, trolled host plants by approximately 40 percent. This and another steel industry project is directed toward
environmentally superior clean coal twhnologies to represents approximately 244,000 tons per year of eliminating the need for coke altogether. In another
meet new capacity and repowering requirements. SO, and NO, that otherwise would have been emitted project, cement kiln waste was used to achieve 90
Decisions on technology options to meet these re- into the atmosphere,assuming the use of 3 percent percent or more reduction in SO,. Cement, municipal
quirements would occur early in the next century. By sulfur coal. These technologies also can be used in waste, and paper production industriesin the United
that time, there will be sufficient technical, environ- new plants to satisfy increased capacity requirements. States and abroad are actively considering adoption of
mental, economic, and operational performance data Most of these environmentalcontrol devices this technology. Two advanced combustors that have
available from the CCT Program to enable potential projects have their operating experience documented. broad industrial application also are being demonstrated
users to make informed decisions from the technology By the end of 1995, all five of the SO, control tech-
options. nology projects had been completed, five of the seven
In summary, it will be critical to bring new NOxcontrol projects had completed testing, and four
technology options into the marketplaceduring the of the seven combined SOPOXcontrol technologies Preventing Pollution to Reduce
next 5 years in order to satisfy environmentalgoals had finished operational demonstration. Adverse Environmental Impact
and to meet longer range capacity growth require- The technical, environmental,and economic
ments both domesticallyand abroad. These technolo- performanceresults will be available for users and The CCT Program is pursuing the goal of reduc-
gies must be able to meet the stringent performance vendors to evaluate commercial deployment potential ing adverse environmentalimpacts. This goal is being
requirementsof the traditional utility industry, inde- in time to develop phase 11compliance strategies and pursued through the demonstrationof technologies
pendent power producers, and cogenerators. the decision-making process regarding which technol- that reduce emissions of SO,, NO,,hazardous air
The portfolio of technology options available to ogies to use. pollutants (HAPS),and solid and liquid wastes
existing coal-fired utilities to comply t:fficiently and There are five coal processing for clean fuels through significant improvementsin pre-utilization,
reliably with the CAAA of 1990requirements is large projects, valued at over $519 million (seeExhibit in-situ, and pst-utilization emissions control technol-
and diverse. There are 19 environmentalcontrol 1-2). These projects produce solid, high-energy- ogies. High-efficiency technologies that result not
devices projects, valued at more than $703 million, density compliancefuel; coal-derived liquid that can only in efficient and cost-effective use of resources,
which can be used to retrofit existing power plants be used as a chemical or transportation fuel feedstock; but also in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, are
(see Exhibit 1-2). These include seven NO, emission and a method to allow optimum matching of boilers to being demonstrated.
control systems installed on over 1,700 MWe of coal. Over 4 million tons per year of solid and liquid
utility plant capacity, five SO, emission control products will be produced from these projects. These Acid Rain M i t i g h n
projects installed on about 770 MWe of capacity, and solid and liquid compliance fuels are being tested by The CCT Program had its raots in the acid rain
seven combined SO$NOx emission control systems industrial and utility customers. programmatic initiatives of the 1980s. It became the
installed on about 800 MWe of capacity. In addition There are five industrial application projects, centerpiece for satisfying the recommendations
to establishing a sound base of technical, environmen- valued at over $1.3 billion, encompassing steel and contained in the January 1986 Joint Report of the
tal, and economic information to enable commercial cement industries and industrial boilers (see Exhibit Special Envoys on Acid Ruin. The first three solicita-
deployment,these demonstrationsare having an 1-2). Coke oven emissions are a major concern of the tions of the CCT Program (CCT-I-III) were aimed

Program Update 1995 1-7


primarily at mitigating the potential impacts of acid In Phase 11, beginning in 2000, emission levels on weighted annual emissions rate averaged over the
rain. The resulting CCT projects are providing a pool Phase I plants will be further reduced and restrictions units must be no greater than the Btu-weighted annual
of technologies for industry to draw upon to meet set for the remaining 2,500 boilers at lo00 plants. emissions rate for the same units had they been oper-
specific needs in developing compliance strategies. This will reduce SO, emissions by another 3 million ated in compliance with the applicable emission
On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted the tons. Because SO, allowance prices are expected to limitation. Another 580 tangentially fired and wall-
CAAA of 1990. Title IV, Acid Deposition Control, increase significantly after 2000, EIA is projecting fired boilers must meet the applicable NO, emission
established emissions reduction targets for SO,, that almost 32 gigawatts of capacity will be retrofitted limits by January 1,2000.
including the capping of SO, emissions in the post- with scrubbers to achieve Phase 11goals, with the bulk In the published Phase I rule, EPA included
2000 time frame, and directed the establishment of being installed between 2005 and 2010. A provision overfire air systems in its definition of low-NO,
allowable emissions limitations for NO,. This, along of the CAAA of 1990 allows a 4-year extension (to burner technology. A lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
with concerns over global warming and air toxics, December 31,2003) to comply with the requirements Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia arguing
prompted thrusts in the last two solicitations (CCT- of Title IV if one or more units is repowered with a that the CAAA of 1990 prevents EPA from requiring
IV-V) toward advanced electric power generation qualifying clean coal technology. installation of any equipment in addition to low-NO,
systems characterized by very high efficiency and The CAAA of 1990 required the U.S. Environ- burners. On November 29,1994, the court- agreed
negligible pollutant emissions compatible with the mental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish annual with industry and vacated the rule upon finding that
21st century. allowable emissions limitations for NO, in two phases. EPA had overstepped its statutory authority.
The acid rain provision of the CAAA of 1990 sets Phase I limitations were to be effective January 1, In April 1995, EPA announced that it would
emission reduction requirements on SO, to be met in 1995, and address allowable emissions for tangential- reissue the NO, emissions rule and extend the Phase I
two phases. Phase I affected 110 coal- and oil-fired ly fired and dry-bottom wall-fired boilers. Phase 11 compliance date to January 1, 1996, and include new
generating plants, a total of 261 units nationwide, limits will require wet-bottom wall-fired boilers, definitions of low-NO, burner and low-NO, burner
beginning in January 1995. By the end of 1995,145 cyclone burners, cell burners, and all other types of technology. These new definitions expressly exclude
units had switched to lower sulfur fuels with the utility boilers to reduce their NO, emissions starting in overfire air as a low-NO, burner technology. The
majority of the coal switchinghlending activities 2000. Proposed Phase 11limits also further restrict new rules also drop EPAs original interpretation of
involving the use of lower sulfur western and eastern tangentially fired and dry-bottom wall-fired boilers. the laws emissions averaging requirements, which
coals and a reduced use of higher sulfur interior or Phase I limitations were published in the Federal could have left individual units at a plant vulnerable to
midwestern coals. Twenty-seven units were installing Register on March 22, 1994. Emission limitations for enforcement even if the annual emissions average of
or had installed flue-gas desulfurization units. Seven NO, have been set at 0.45 pound per million British all the plants units comply with the emissions limit
of these units are part of the CCT Program. The thermal units (Btu) for tangentially fired units and specified in its permit. Instead, the rule clarifies that
single repowered Phase I unit was the Wabash River 0.50 pound per million Btu for wall-fired boilers. The if a plant that averages its emissions is in compliance
IGCC project being conducted under the CCT Pro- Phase I NO, limitations involve 169 boilers. An with its emissions limits, then the plants individual
gram. Other compliance strategies included natural option for NO, control is available for an owner or units are deemed to be in compliance.
gas cofiring, retirement of seven plants with 1,120 operator of two or more units subject to NO, emission In addition, on August 3, 1995, EPA issued a
W e of capacity, and the allowances purchased from limitations. The option allows the owner or operator proposed regulation that included a provision for
other utilities that generated offsets by reducing to average emissions among its units in lieu of com- open market emissions tradkg. Under this rule,
emissions below compliance levels. plying on a unit-specific basis. The actual Btu- utilities would not need state and federal approval for

1-8 Program Update 1995


~
Exhibit 1-3
NOxEmission Limits for Coal-Fired Units
~~

Group 1 Group 2 Number of Boilers Phase I NO, Proposed Phase II Proposed Emission
Unit Type Unit Type Phase I Phase II Emission Limits NO, Emission Limits Control Technology

Tangentially fired boilers


Dry bottom wall-fired
boilersb
} 169
296
284
0.45 lb/million Btu
0.50 lb/million Btu
0.38 lb/million Btu
0.45 Ib/million Btu

Cell burner boilers 35 0.68 lbimillion Btu Plug-in combustion controls or


non-plug-in combustion controls
Cyclone boilers 88 0.94 lbhillion Btu Coal rebuming, natural gas
reburning, or selective catalytic reduction
Wet-bottom boilers 38 0.86 lb/million Btu Combustion controls
Vertically fired boilers 29 0.80 lb/million Btu Combustion controls
Fluidized-bled 5 0.29 lb/million Btu Fluidized-bed combustion controls
combustor boilers

Emission limits are lb/million Btu of heat input on an annual average basis.
* Other than units applying cell burner teclmology

transactions of NOxand volatile organic compounds In establishing the Phase I emissions limitations, attainment areas to adopt regulations for controlling
(VOCs). Instead, utilities would be able to comply EPA used the data from tangentially fired and wall- NO, and VOCs emissions in these areas.
with air pollution mandates by buying and using an fired boiler demonstrationsconducted under the CCT The Northeast Ozone Transport Commission
appropriatenumber of tons of discreteemissions Program by Southern Company Services, Inc. Fur- approved a memorandum of understanding in Septem-
reductions. ther, NO, controls for cell burners, cyclone boilers, ber 1994 to reduce power plant emissions of NO, by
In January 1996, EPA issued its piroposed rule for vertically fired boilers, and fluidized-bed boilers have as much as 70 percent. An EPA-sponsored initiative,
implementing Phase 11CAAA NOxreduction provi- been demonstrated under the CCT Program, thus the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, may expand
sions, extending NO, control requirements to cell establishingthe technology base to achieve Phase 11 the geographic boundaries for these NOxcontrols to a
burners, cyclone boilers, wet-bottom boilers, vertical- emission levels. Techniques such as coal reburning, 37-state region extending eastward from North and
ly fired boilers, and fluidized-bed combustor boilers selective catalytic reduction, and low-NO, burners South Dakota. It is also likely that state regulations
and tighteningrequirements for tangentially fired and will have baseline technical, environmental,and pertaining to emissions of ozone precursors and other
wet-bottom wall-fired boilers. The NOxemission economic results by the end of 1996. air pollutants will be modified and made more
limits for coal-fired units for both Phase I and Phase 11 The NO, reduction program is also driven by stringent. Stricterregulations would affect both
are shown in Exhibit 1-3. concern about ground-level ozone. Title I of the existing and new power generation facilities.
CAAA of 1990 requires each state with ozone non-
Program Update 1995 1-9
ized plans to achieve reductions in the most cost- For example, pressurized fluidized-bed and
effective way. The utility-specific plan contains gasification combined-cycle technologies boost
generating efficiencies into the 40-45 percent range,
Keeping America Secure
specific commitments to one or more of the following
actions: as compared to conventional technology efficiencies It is in the national interest to maintain a multi-
Make a specified contribution to particular of approximately 33 percent. This can reduce CO, fuel energy mix to sustain national economic growth.
emissions by 17-27 percent. Clean coal technologies The CCT Program strategy is to pursue technology
industry initiatives
yet to be demonstrated, such as gasifiedfuel cell development and deployment that increases productiv-
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a combinations and advanced turbines, could lower CO, ity and enhances the efficient use of the United States
specified amount below the utilitys 1990 emissions by up to 55 percent. major energy resource, coal, while assuring national
baseline level by the year 2000 The Climate Change Action Plan includes a joint and global environmental goals are achieved. The
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the implementation pilot program to gain experience in domestic coal resources are large enough to sustain
utilitys 1990 baseline level by the year 2000 evaluating investments in other countries for emis- economic production at high levels for several hun-
sions reduction benefit. A central purpose of the joint dred years. In terms of market price for delivered
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to some implementation initiative is to encourage the rapid energy, coal is the least expensive energy source
other specified level development and implementation of cooperative, providing economical energy for electric power and
Reduce or limit the rate of greenhouse gas mutually voluntary projects between the U.S.and industrial needs.
emissions to a particular level, expressed in foreign partners aimed at reducing net emissions of The United States is highly dependent on import-
terms of emissions per kilowatt-hour generated greenhouse gases, particularly projects promoting ed oil, importing about 8.5 million barrels per day or
or sold technology cooperation with and sustainable develop over half the total consumed. Today, US.coal
ment in developing countries and countries with consumptiondisplaces the equivalent of approximate-
Undertake specific projects or actions, or
economies in transition to market economies. ly 10 million barrels per day. This large utilization of
make specific expenditures on projects or
Further, in Senate Report 103-294, Congress coal increases energy security and reduces the nations
actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
directed DOE to make the dissemination of CCTs balance of payments by over $50 billion per year.
Approximately 450 utilities are participating in overseas an integral part of its policy to reduce green- Clean coal technologies can provide the utiliza-
the Climate Challenge Program, pledging to reduce house gas emissions in developing countries. tion and conversion technologies that will enable the
greenhouse gas emissions substantially by 2000. Utilization of highly efficient clean coal technolo- coal fuel cycle to remain a major component of the
The Climate Wise Program is being carried out gies being developed under the CCT Program offers a nations economy while achieving theenvironmental
by EPA and DOE. It is designed to stimulate industri- major opportunity to contribute to this initiative. The quality that society demands. The domestic and
al emissions reductions. Companies representing benefits would be significant from the stand point of export value of annual coal production is $21 billion
almost 4 percent of U.S.industrial energy use are reduction of global CO, emissions in view of the in the U.S. economy. There are over 1.1 million
participating in the program. fact that the major energy growth is in the targeted workers whose jobs directly depend on the coal
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is economies. Further, significant benefits to the U.S. industry. These jobs are dispersed through the min-
achieved through increased efficiency in energy use. economy would accrue from improvement of U.S. ing, transportation, manufacturing, utility, and sup-
In more efficient energy systems, less CO, is produced balance of trade and creation of U.S.jobs in the porting industries. Clean coal technologies will
per unit of power generated. engineering, manufacturing, and service sectors. enable the coal fuel cycle to respond to these energy

Program Updnre 1995 1-11


markets, ensuring the continued need for these jobs The power systems program will focus on the
and their economic benefit. In addition to domestic completion of the 12 remaining CCT Program ad-
Coal Technology Perspective
opportunities, the international marketplace also holds vanced power system projects and the dissemination
enormous potential for U.S. industry. Conservative DOE has structured an integrated coal technology of the technical, economic, and environmental results
estimates conclude that by 2010, todays annual development program that will pursue, in partnership into the domestic and international marketplace.
worldwide coal consumption of 4.3 billion short tons with industry, three major technology product lines: Further, the power systems program will pursue an
should increase by almost 800 million short tons. Of evolving portfolio of more advanced power systems
Power systems directed toward acceleration of the commercial real-
this projected growth, almost 250 million short tons
will be for electric power generation. Coal fuels and industrial systems ization of affordable, high-efficiency,low-emission,
The worldwide market for power generation coal-fired electricity generating technologies. The
Environmental systems
technologies could be as high as $1 trillion by 2015. specific goals for these advanced power systems are
Of this, the U.S. share could be $200 billion. If this The thrust of the coal technology development outlined in Exhibit 1-4.
level of penetration is achieved, the export of clean program is to accelerate the progress of clean coal The coal fulels and industrial systems product line
coal technologies could result in 200,000 high-quality technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace program is directed toward keeping the option avail-
U.S. jobs over this period. This market provides and is focused on the development of new technolo- able to refine calal into a variety of liquid fuels and
opportunities for U.S. technology suppliers, develop- gies that will help fill the energy needs of the post- chemicals that Might be needed as substitutes for
ers, architecvengineers, and other U.S. f m s to capi- 2000 world. petroleum-based products. Coal preparation technolo-
talize on the advantages gained through experiences in The power systems product line research, devel- gies will emphasize advanced methods for removing
the CCT Program. However, other governments are opment, and demonstration (RDBrD) program is the organic and inorganic matter that causes air toxics
recognizing the enormous economic benefits that their shaped by three challenges: and other air pollutants. The industrial system tech-
economies can enjoy if their manufacturers capture a The possibility that the U.S. will lose a nologies will assure that the industrial steam coal
greater share of this market. substantial share of the global power technol- users and other users, such as the steel industry, will
Other DOE activities are aimed at creating a ogy market if it does not sustain the same type have available advanced highefficiency and low-
favorable export climate for U.S. coal and coal tech- of government/industry partnership forged in emission technologies that will keep the energy
nology. These efforts will (1) improve the visibility of recent years and that the nations competitors contribution to final product cost low and the product
U.S. f m s and their products by establishing an are now creating cost competitivle in the global market.
information clearinghouse and closer liaison with U.S. The coal fuels and industrial system program
representatives in other countries, (2) strengthen The realization that utility deregulation and includes the completion of the CCT Programs five
interagency coordination of federal programs perti- promotion of competition will have a profound industrial application projects and the five coal pro-
nent to these exports, and (3) improve current pro- affect on the utility sectors approach to R&D cessing for clean fuels projects. Moreover, advanced
grams and policies for facilitating the financing of resulting in a sharply reduced private R&D technologies will be pursued for the production of
coal-related projects abroad. funding and shifting the emphasis to projects coal-derived fuels, chemicals, cleaned coal, and other
with almost immediate payoff products for the utility, industrial, transportation,
The virtual disappearance of private sector commercial, and residential sectors.
funding for long-term public good benefits,
such as lower cost environmental protection
1-12 Program Update 19!25
Advanced Electric Power Generetion
Exhibit 1-4
Advanced electric power generating systems
R&D Goals of Advanced Power Systems employ the technologies that enable the efficient and

2000 2005 2010 2015 I environmentally superior generation of electric power.


These systems, which initially come on-line in the
mid- to late 199Os, will form the basis for responding
Efficiency 4245% 48-558 55% 60%
SO,, NOx,particulates 33% of NSPS 25% of NSPS 10% of NSPS 10%of NSPS to the energy and environmental, demands of the early
CO, reduction 29% 42% 42% 47% 21st century. The 14 advanced electric power genera-
Cost of energy 10-20% lower tion projects selected under the CCT Program will
NSPS = New Source Performance Standards
I provide the technical, environmental, and economic
performance data in a time frame consistent with most
utility expansion plans and the stringent CAAA of
The goal is to develop proof-of-concept technolo- The above product line programs are undergirded 1990 Phase II emission limits effective in 2000.
gy by 2005 for producing premium-grade liquid fuels by advanced research and technology development These technologies are characterized by high thermal
from coal at $25 per barrel-of-oil equivalent or less in (AR&TD) that provides the fundamental science and efficiencies, very low pollutant emissions, reduced
1990 dollars. In the area of cod preparation, the goal engineering basis for future ossi1energy concepts. CO,, fewer solid waste problems, and enhanced
is to develop, in coordination with EPA and the utility This program includes coal utilization science, biopro- economics. The advanced electric power generation
industry, a sound data base of coal preparation tech- cessing of coal, and multiple fossil energy technology systems may be deployed in modules, thus allowing
nologies for reducing air toxics from power generation. crosscutting research, such as materials, components, phased construction to match demand growth more
The environmental systems product line program instrumentation, and diagnosis. Another element of predictably and to meet the requirements of smaller
is directed toward the control of HAPs and particulate ARBrTD is university coal research that is focused on municipal utilities and nonutility generators.
matter which will be the subject of future EPA rulings improving the knowledge base in fundamental and There are seven generic advanced electric power
and regulations. This will require working with EPA innovative coal science and technology research and system technology approaches being demonstrated in
and the utility industry to develop a sound data base on training fossil fuel scientists and engineers in the 14 projects selected in this area under the CCT
on the effectiveness of existing and advanced control relevant disciplines. Program. Detailed descriptions of each project can be
technologies in reducing HAPS and p;miculate matter found in Section 7 project fact sheets. The results
from power generation. Further, the remaining five from the two completed advanced electric power
CCT Program environmental control (deviceprojects system projects, Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project
will be completed and the technical, environmental, Role of the Technologies and Nucla CFB Demonstration Project, can be found
and economic results disseminated to the domestic on pages 7- 14 and 7- 16, respectively.
and international marketplace. The results from the Because the ultimate level of success of the CCT The following subsections present a discussion of
24 CCTProgram HAPs monitoring projects will be Program will be measured by the degree of deplw- the generic characteristics of the seven advanced
analyzed and disseminated. ment of certain technologies in the energy market- electric power system technologies being demonstrat-
place, it is most appropriate to discuss the technolo- ed in the CCT Program.
gies and processes from a market perspective.

Program Update 1995 1-13


Fluidized-BedCombustion. Fluidized-bed higher efficiency, reduced operating costs, and less Combustion occurs at temperatures below the
combustion (FBC) reduces emissions of SO, and NOx waste product than does the atmospheric fluidized-bed ash melting point so that solids accumulation
by controlling combustion parameters and by injecting boiler. Initially, fluidized-bed combustion systems and boiler tube erosion and corrosion are
a sorbent (such as crushed limestone) into the com- were either bubbling-bed or circulating-bed configura- minimized.
bustion chamber along with the coal. Pulverized coal tions. System improvements have modified these All types of coals or coal wastes can be used,
mixed with crushed limestone is suspended on jets of earlier classifications so that current designs are
including high-ash coals, because FBC is
air (fluidized) in the combustion chamber. Sulfur designated as bubbling beds with solid recirculation, nonsensitive to feedstock.
released from the burning coal is captured by the fluid beds with internal circulation, hybrid designs
limestone before it can escape from the boiler. The combining several fluidization concepts, and full- The waste generated is a dry,benign solid that
sulfur chemically combines with the limestone to form fledged circulating (entrained) fuel flow. can be disposed of easily or usefully employed
a new solid waste product, a mixture of calcium sulfite A second-generation pressurized fluidized-bed (e.g., as material for road or building construc-
and calcium sulfate. Some of the solid waste is concept is being developed and demonstrated. This tion).
removed with the bed ash through the bottom of the concept integrates a pressurized circulating fluidized- Combined-cycle plants, in addition to increas-
boiler. Small ash particles, or fly ash, that escape the bed combustor and a pyrolyzer to fuel a gas-turbine ing the efficiency of energy production, can be
boiler are captured with dust collectors (cyclones, topping cycle and a steam-turbine bottoming cycle. composed of standardized modules. This
baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, or ceramic The integration of the pyrolyzer and turbine topping leads to ease of installation and a generally
filters). More than 90percent of the sulfur released cycle improves the efficiency when compared to first- lower cost without the usual economy-of-scale
from coal can be captured this way. generation PFBC systems by introducing the high penalties.
At combustion temperatures of 1,400-1,600 OF, efficiency inherent in gas turbines and recovery of
the fluidized mixing of the fuel and sorbent enhances heat from the gas turbine exhaust in a steam generator. In the case of repowering, any type or size of
both coal combustion and sulfur capture. The operat- Fluidized-bed combustion attributes follow: boiler can be repowered by a fluidized-bed combustor
ing temperature range is almost half that of a conven- using the existing plant area, coal and waste handling
No special coal handling is needed other than equipment, and steam turbine equipment. This repow-
tional boiler and is below the threshold where thermal-
the addition of limestone or other sorbent to ering extends the life of the plant. In many cases, such
ly induced NOxis formed. Thus, fluidized-bed
the coal feed. as where the capacity of the boiler has been reduced
combustors substantially reduce both SO, and NOx
emissions. Fluidized-bed combustion has the capabil- The fluid-like motion of the solids in the because of aging or the turbine generator has greater
ity of utilizing high-ash coal, whereas conventional combustion chamber promotes turbulent capacity than the boiler, or both, FBC can be used to
pulverized coal units must limit ash to relatively low mixing that improves combustion efficiency repower an existing boiler and, in addition to control-
levels. and the capture of SO,. ling SO, and NOxemissions, can increase the boilers
Fluidized-bedcombustion can be either atmo- capacity as much as 50 percent with the use of PFBC.
The superior mixing also permits combustion
spheric (AFBC) or pressurized (PFBC). The atmo- The costs of the additional capacity are low compared
at substantially lower and more evenly
spheric type operates at normal atmospheric pressure to the cost of a new plant.
distributed temperatures, thus reducing
while the pressurized type operates at pressure 6-16 There are six fluidized-bed combustion demon-
formation of NOx.
times higher than normal atmospheric pressure. The stration projects in the CCT Program; two are atmo-
pressurized fluidized-bed boiler offers potentially spheric and four are pressurized. One project, the
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (1 10 W e ) , in

1-14 Program Update 1995


I
four steps: (1) a fuel gas is generated by coal reacting systems, the hot coal gas is passed through a bed of
with high-temperature steam and an oxidant (oxygen metal oxide particles such as zinc ferrite. Zinc ferrite
or air)in a reducing atmosphere; (2) the gas is cooled, can absorb sulfur contaminants at temperatures in
producing steam, and then purified to further remove excess of 1,OOO OF, and the compound can be regener-
particulates and sulfurand nitrogen compounds; (3) ated and reused with little loss of effectiveness.
the clean fuel gas is combusted in a gas turbine gener- During the regeneration stage, salable sulfur is pro-
ator to produce electricity; (4) the residual heat in the duced. The technique is capable of removing more
hot exhaust gas from the turbine is recovered in a heat than 99.9 percent of the sulfur in the gas stream.
recovery steam generator, and the steam is used to High levels of nitrogen removal are also possible.
produce additional electricity in a steam turbine Some of the coals nitrogen is converted to ammonia,
generator. which can be almost totally removed by commercially
Gasification combined-cycle systems are among available chemical processes. NOxformed from the
the cleanest and most efficient of the emerging clean combustion air can be held to well within allowable
coal technologies. Sulfur, nitrogen compounds, and levels by staging the combustion process at the turbine
particulates are removed before the fuel is burned in or by addiig moisture to hold down flame temperature.
the gas turbine, that is, before combustion air is added. In repowering with IGCC, a gasifier, gas stream
For this reason, there is a much lower volume of gas cleanup unit, gas turbine, and waste heat recovery
to be treated than in a postcombustion scrubber. boiler are added; in most cases, these replace the
The gas stream must be cleaned to a high level, existing coal boiler. The remaining equipment is left
A The Ohio Power Company completedthe demonstra- not only to achieve low emissions, but to protect in place, including the coal-handling equipment, the
tion of the first utility-scale PFBC in the IJnited States at
the Tidd Plant. The 70-MWe unit represented a 13:l scale- downstream components, such as the gas turbine, from steam turbine, and electrical generator. The result is
up from the pilot facility and used the Babcock & Wilcox erosion and corrosion. In a coal gasifier, the sulfur in an extension of plant life to essentially that of a new
technology under license from ASEA Brown Boveri coal is released in the form of hydrogen sulfide rather plant, an increase in efficiency from a nominal 35
Carbon. The Tidd PFBC technology is a Ibubbling-bed
process operating at 12 atmospheres. The unit produced 55
than as SO,, which is the case in coal combustion. In percent to over 40 percent, and an increase in overall
MWe from a steam turbine and 15 MWe from a gas turbine. some integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plant output of 50-150 percent with significantly
systems, as in the case of clean combustion, much of reduced overall emissions. The incremental costs of
Nucla, Colorado, completed Operations in 1991 and the sulfur-containing gas is captured by a sorbent the additional capacity are low compared to the cost
injected into the gasifier. In addition, several com- of a new conventionalpulverized coal plant.
final project documentation in 1992 (seeSection 5).
mercial processes are capable of removing hydrogen The attributes of the IGCC are summarized as
The Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (70 MWe) in
Brilliant, Ohio, shown in the photo above, completed sulfide, whereby more than 99 percent of the sulfur is follows:
operations in 1995 (see Section 5). The four ongoing removed from the gas, making it as clean as natural gas. Sulfur removal levels of over 99 percent have
The existing commercial hydrogen sulfide remov-
fluidized-bed combustion projects are in project been demonstrated. These emissions levels
definition and design; new sites are under negotiation. al processes require the fuel gas to be cooled, with
are well below the existing NSPS emission
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. The some efficiency penalty. Therefore, hot-gas cleanup
standard of 90 percent removal for new plants.
coal gasification combined-cycle process h%sically has systems are being demonstrated. In these cleanup

Program Update IN5 1-15


Piiion Pine IGCC Power Project (99 MWe) near
Exhibit 1-5 Reno, Nevada, began in February 1995 and by year-
CCT Program IGCC Project Characteristics end was approximately 50 percent complete. Opera-
tion is expected to begin in early 1997. The two other
Gas Fact IGCC projects are in the project definition and design
Project Size Gasifier Reactant Cleanup Sheet
phase.
Indirect Fired Cycle. In an indirect-fired cycle,
Combustion Engineering IGCC 65 MWe Two-stage Air Hot gas 7-20
Repowering Project enatrained-flow the products of coal combustion do not come in
Clean Energy Demonstration Project 477 MWe Slagging fixed-bed Oxygen Cold 7-22 contact with the working components of a gas turbine.
Pifion Pine IGCC Power Project 99 MWe Fluidized-bed Air Hot 7-24 Coal, biomass, or other ash-bearing fuel is burned in a
combustor. Hot combustion gases flow on the shell
Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification 250 MWe Entrained-flow Oxygen Hot & cold 7-26
Combined-Cycle Project side of a tube-type metallic or ceramic air heater. On
Wabash River Coal Gasification 262 MWe Two-stage Oxygen Cold 7-28 the tube side of the air heater, compressed gas from a
Repowering Project entrained-flow gas turbine comlpressor is heated as it passes through
the air heater anldenters the turbine section of the gas
turbine. Exhausted flue gas from the air heater passes
NOxreductions of over 90 percent have been No special coal-handling is needed other than through a heat recovery generator where steam is
demonstrated. the potential to add limestone to the coal feed.
Salable by-products are produced, such as Five different approaches to the highly efficient
elemental sulfur or material for road or and environmentally clean IGCC technology are in
building construction. various stages in the path toward full-scale commer-
Zero wastewater discharge criteria can be met cialization. The projects cover a broad spectrum of
gasifier types, coal feedstocks, gas cleanup systems,
easily.
and operating conditions to satisfy various market
CO, emissions are reduced compared to situations. Exhibit 1-5 provides a summary of the
pulverized-coal-fired plants. major characteristics of the five IGCC projects. One
A wide variety of carbonaceous feedstock can project, the Wabash River Coal Gasification Repow-
be used. ering Project (262 MWe) in West Terre Haute, Indi-
ana, began commercial operations in November 1995.
Potentially high levels of plant availability (up Two projects are in construction. A formal ground-
to 85 percent) are achievable. breaking ceremony for the Tampa Electric Integrated A The IGCC system produces power with efficiencies
Efficiency of energy production can be Gasification Combined-Cycle Project (250 MWe) in approaching 40%, SO, reductions over 95%, and NOx
Lakeland, Florida, shown in the photo on this page, reductions of over 90%. The 250-MWe Tampa Electric
increased, while using standardized modules IGCC project, shown here, was about 70% complete on
sized for large and small utilities. was held on November 2,1994; operations are ex- December 31,1995, and construction will be completed in
pected to begin in late 1996. Construction at the the fall of 1996.

1-16 Program Update 1995


generated to power a steam turbine. Flue gas is Energy Demonstration Project described on page 7-22. where it can be removed as waste. Because ash
treated to remove SO, and particulates while NOxis As structured at the end of 1995, the project would removal efficiency is high, there is no degradation of
controlled during the combustion process. An overall demonstrate a 1.25-MWe molten carbonate fuel cell boiler tube surfaces to reduce boiler efficiency over
conversion efficiency of 5&55 percent can be ob- as part of a 477-MWe IGCC demonstration. time.
tained in an indirect-fired cycle. Coal-Fired Diesel. This technology involves Results to date show that by positioning air
The 62.5-MWe Warren Station EKternally Fired firing a diesel-enginedriven electric generating injection ports so that coal is combusted in stages,
Combined-CycleDemonstration Project described on system with a coal-oil or coal-water slurry. The hot NOxemissions can be reduced by 70-80 percent.
page 7-34 was selected to demonstrate:this technolo- exhaust from the diesel engine is routed through a Injecting limestone into the combustion chamber has the
gy. The project will use a novel, high-temperature heat-recovery steam generator to produce steam for a potential to reduce sulfur emissions by 90percent in
ceramic gas-to-air heat exchanger. The project was steam-turbine electric generating system (combined combination with a spray dryer absorber.
undergoing restructuring as of the end of 1995. cycle). Environmental control systems for SO,, NOx, Advanced combustors could replace oil-fired
Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell. A typical and particulate removal treat the cooled exhaust units in both utility and industrial applications or be
fuel cell system using coal as fuel would include a before release to the atmosphere. The diesel system is used to retrofit older, conventional cyclone boilers.
coal gasifier with a gas cleanup system, a fuel cell to expected to achieve 4 5 4 3 percent thermal efficien- The technology is being demonstrated in a nomi-
use the coal gas to generate electricity (direct current) cies. The 10-100-MWe capacity range of the tech- nal 50-MWe facility in Alaska under the Healy Clean
and heat, an inverter to convert direct current to nology would be most applicable to small utility Coal Project described on page 7-30. The unit is
altemating current, and a heat-recovery system. The (municipal) and industrial cogeneration applications. scheduled to go into operation in early 1998. Shown
heat-recovery system would be used to capture reject- This technology was selected to be demonstrated below is the precombustion module for the unit.
ed thermal energy to produce additional electrical in the Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project (see
power in a bottoming steam cycle. description, page 7-32). The 14-MWe project was
Energy conversion in fuel cells is potentially being restructured at the end of 1995.
more efficient (40-60 percent, depending on fuel and Slagging Combustor. Most of these new coal-
type of fuel cell) than traditional energy conversion burning technologies are based on the cyclone com-
devices. This is because electricity is generated bustor concept. In a cyclone combustor, coal is
directly in the fuel cell instead of going through an burned in a separate chamber outside the furnace
intermediate conversion step (i.e., burner, boiler, cavity. The hot combustion gases then pass into the
turbines, and generators). Fuel cells directly trans- boiler where the actual heat exchange takes place.
form the chemical energy of a fuel andl an oxidant The advantage of a cyclone combustor is that the
(oxygen) into electrical energy. Each fuel cell in- ash is kept out of the furnace cavity where it could
cludes an anode and a cathode separatled by an elec- collect on boiler tubes and lower heat transfer effi-
trolyte layer. In a typical fuel cell, cod gas is supplied ciency. To keep ash from being blown into the fur-
to the anode and air is supplied to the (cathodeto nace, the combustion temperature is kept so hot that
A The advanced TRW slagging combustor with staged
produce electricity and heat. mineral impurities melt and form slag, hence the name fuel and air will be used in the Healy Clean Coal Project
This advanced electric power generation system slagging combustor. A vortex of air (the cyclone) under construction in Alaska. Shown here is the
technology will be demonstrated as part of the Clean forces the slag to the outer walls of the combustor precombustionmodule being lowered into place at TRWs
San Juan Capistrano test facility.

Program Update 1995 1-17


Environmental Control Devices The use of air ports alone, which are installed in
the furnace wall above the top row of burners, permits
Environmental control devices must respond to
creation of a fuel-rich primary combustion zone with
the need for efficient, effective, and economic means
minimal hardware changes. However, NO, emissions
whereby existing coal-fired boilers can comply with
reductions, which average 15-30 percent, are lower
the CAAA of 1990 and, at the same time, mitigate
than when air ports are used in combination with low-
broader environmental concerns such as solid waste
NO, burners.
disposal. Optimal performance for these retrofit
Natural gas or coal-reburning technologies for
devices is characterized by highly efficient pollutant
NO, control also are being demonstrated in the CCT
capture, low capital and operating costs, high operat-
Program. About 10-30 percent of the total fuel input
ing efficiency and availability, and no waste products
A Babcock & Wilcoxs low-NO, cell burner (LNCB? to the boiler is injected above the normal combustion
(pollutants being either recycled or converted into
technology was one of seven demonstrated under the CCT zone, creating the fuel-rich combustion zone. NOx
salable by-products). The targeted boiler population Program and is summarized in Exhibit 1-6.
rising from the llower region of the furnace is re-
is the 929 pre-NSPS boilers, many of which will
burned in the 2:one where the secondary fuel enters
continue operation through the first quarter of the 21st SO,$VOx emissions control technologies demonstrated
and is converted to nitrogen. NO, emissions reduc-
century to meet electricity demands. under the CCT Program.
tions in the 5&65 percent range are achievable with
Technologies that would find application in this NO, Control Technology. Control of NO,
this modified system. Reburning technology can be
market include advanced NO, control technology, ad- emissions can be accomplished by modifying the
applied in conjunction with low-NO, burners.
vanced SO, control technology, and advanced com- combustion process or by postcombustion noncatalyt-
Postcombustion selective catalytic reduction
bined SO,, NO,, and particulate control technology. ic or catalytic selective reduction processes, or combi-
processes are characterized by high NO, emissions
The CCT Program includes 19 projects that are nations of the two approaches.
reductions of 80-90 percent or more. Selective
demonstrating environmental control device technolo- Modified combustion processes include the use of
catalytic reduction (SCR) involves injecting ammonia
gies. These projects are providing technical, environ- specially designed advanced low-NOxburners, alone
into the boiler flue gas and passing the gases through a
mental, and economic performance data on NO, and or in conjunction with advanced overfire air (AOFA)
catalyst bed where the NO, and ammonia react to
SO, emissions control and for combined SOx/NOx ports, AOFA ports without low-NO, burners, or
form nitrogen and water vapor. Noncatalytic process-
controls. natural gas and coal-fired reburning processes. All of
es utilize ammmia andor urea injection into the
Fourteen of these projects have completed the these technologies utilize staged combustion whereby
boiler after combustion is complete to chemically
operational phase and have provided technical and the primary combustion zone is maintained deficient
reduce NO, to nitrogen. NO, emission reductions are
environmental performance data. A summary of the in oxygen and the combustion process is completed in
results of the completed environmental control device less than with catalytic processes. However, when
stages. The more gradual mixing of fuel and air
noncatalytic tec:hnologies are combined with low-NO,
projects can be found in Section 5, pages 5-14-5-52. results in lower flame temperatures and reducing-
Descriptions of all 19 projects is provided in Section burners, NO, emissions reductions of 6&70 percent
atmosphere combustion conditions before the combus-
7,beginning on page 7-37. are predicted.
tion process is completed, which reduces the oxidation
The CCT Program contains seven NO, emissions
The following subsections present summaries of of nitrogen to NO,. Emissions reductions for NO, of
control projects; of these, five have been completed,
the generic characteristics of NO,, SO,, and combined 5&70 percent are achievable with these systems.
one is near completion, and one is under construction.

1-18 prog Update 1995


the flue gas before it exits the stack, (2) in-duct injec-
Exhibit 1-6 tion of sorbents utilizing the existing flue gas duct-
CCT Program NOX Control Technology Characteristics work, and (3) insertion of one or more separate ves-
sels into the downstream ductwork where the sorbents
Boiler Firing NO, Fact are added.
Project S i Type Reduction Shee Advanced flue gas desulfurization has significant-
ly improved the reliability of wet scrubbers through
Demonstrationof Coal Reburning for Cyclone l00MWe Cyclone 5242% 7-38
Boiler NOxControl improvements to eliminate corrosion problems and
Full-scale Demonstrationof Low-NO,Cell 605 MWe Cell burner 48-58% 7-40 designs that simplify the process. Markets (such as
Burner Retrofit wallboard manufacture) have been found for the waste
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOX 172 MWe Wall fired 3745% 7-42 gypsum sludge. The improved reliability has reduced
Burner on a Wall-Fired Boiler the requirement for spare (backup) scrubber systems,
Micronized Coal Rebuming Demonstration 148MWe Tangentiallyfired 5 0 4 0 % (goal) 7-44 contributing to significant reductions in capital costs
for NOxControl 50MWe Cyclone of modem scrubbers compared to earlier systems.
Demonstrationof Advanced CombustionTechniques 500 MWe Wall fired 5O%(goal) 7-46 The advanced flue gas desulfurization systems can
for a Wall-Fired Boiler
consistently remove more than 90percent of the SO,
Demonstrationof SelectiveCatalytic Reduction 8.7MWe Various 8O%(goal) 7-48
at half the cost of conventional systems.
Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions from
High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers Induct sorbent injection involves spraying sulfur
180-MWeDemonstrationof Advanced Tangentially 180 MWe Tangentiallyfired 3745% 7-50 absorbents, such as hydrated lime with water, into the
Fired CombustionTechniques for the Reduction of center of the existing ductwork. By controlling the
NOxEmissions from Coal-FiredBoilers humidity of the flue gas and the spray pattem for the
sorbent, SO, removal approaches 70 percent. Selec-
tive additives, such as adipic acid, may improve
The project characteristics, including size, boiler- are approaches for removal of sulfur and particulates
removal levels to around 90percent. Advantages of
firng type,and NO, reduction, are s u m a r i d in from flue gas. Examples of advanced combustion
this technology include an easily handled and readily
Exhibit 1-6. As can be seen, the NO, control technol- techniques are discussed in the previous subsection,
disposable dry,granular waste and minimal construc-
ogies are being demonstrated for the full range of Advanced Electric Power Generation. These tech-
tion because the plants existing ductwork is used.
boiler firing types, and thus the technologies provide niques (e.g., fluidized-bed combustion, slagging
This makes in-duct sorbent injection an attractive
the capability of achieving existing and future regulat- combustors, and some coal gasification processes)
option for retrofitting smaller, older plants where
ed levels as proposed by EPA for various boiler firing involve injection of calcium sorbents Fime or lime-
space availability might be limited.
types. It should be noted that EPA has used the stone) into the combustion zones.
When separate vessels are used, one or more
results from the NO, technology demonstrations to Postcombustion cleanup involves removal of SO,
process chambers are inserted in the flue gas duct-
guide its efforts in establishing NOxenmissionscontrol from the downstream flue gas after it exits the boiler.
work, and various sorbents are injected to remove the
regulations. There are three basic approaches: (1) advanced flue
pollutants. Generally the separate vessels provide a
SO, Control Technology. Advanced combus- gas desulfurization using lime or limestone (wet
longer residence time for the sorbent to react with the
tion or postcombustion flue gas cleaning techniques scrubbers) to capture 90 percent or more of the SO, in

Program Update 1995 1-19


Exhibit 1-7
CCT Program SO, Control Technology Characteristics
Coal Sulfur SO, Fact
Project Size Process Content Reduction Sheet

10-MWe Demonstrationof Gas Suspension 10 MWe Gas suspension 2.7-3.5% 60-95% 7-52
Absorption absorption
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue 73.5 MWe In-duct confined 1.5-2.5% 50% 7-54
Gas Desulfurization Demonstration
LFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization 60 MWe Sorbent injection 2.0-2.9% 70% 7-56
DemonstrationProject A Pure Air on the Lake, L.P., completed a 3-year
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization 528MWe Advanced 2.2547% 94% 7-58 demonstration of an advanced flue gas desulfurization
process at Northem Indiana Public Service Companys528-
DemonstrationProject limestone
MWe Bailly Generating Station. SO, removal efficiency
Demonstrationof Innovative Applications 100 MWe Limestone, forced 1.243% 90%+ 7-60 averaged 94%with a maximum of 98%. This is one of five
of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process oxidation SO, control projects conducted under the CCT Program.

gas, and pollutant capture is greater. Although more Regeneration of the sulfur-absorbingchemical meeting Phase 0requirements in 2000. Further, these
costly than in-duct injection, this approach has the reduces operating costs. technologies halve an added benefit in that scrubber
potential of capturing more than 90percent of the wastes normal1:y associated with the conventionalwet
Waste generation is reduced through produc-
pollutants. Due to the cost and added size require- flue gas desulfurizationprocess have been replaced
tion of dry, benign waste products or market-
ments, the use of separate vessels tends to be more with salable by-products, such as gypsum.
able by-products.
suitable to new plant applications or to plants that can Combmedl S O P O XControl Technology.
accommodate the additional size requirements. Systems can be designed to remove more than Many of the technologies discussed above can be
Depending upon process selection, advanced one pollutant. successfullycombined with particulate removal
postcombustion cleaning technologies offer several The CCT Program is demonstratingfive SO, systems to reduce emissions of SO,, NOx,and particu-
advantagesover the old conventional scrubber sys- control technologies, all of which were completed by lates. Examples of this approach being utilized in the
tems, including the following: the end of 1995. The important characteristics and CCT Program include the following processes and
performance of these demonstrationprojects is sum- systems:
High reliability and availability preclude the
need for standby spare capacity. marized in Exhibit 1-7. Several of these technologies, Selective catalytic reduction; catalytic oxida-
including the advanced flue gas desulfurizationpro- tion of SO, to SO, with condensationof the
Physical plant size requirements are reduced.
cess pictured on this page. are currently being used by SO, in ithe presence of water to produce
* Increased residence time or reactivity with the utilities to comply with the CAAA of 1990 Phase I salable sulfuric acid; baghouse particulate
sulfur sorbent leads to high levels of SO, SO, emissions requirements and will be available for removal
removal.

1-20 Program Update 199s


Low-NO, burners with sorbent injection into
the boiler or in-duct injection; conventional Exhibit 1-8
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) CCT Program Combined SOJNOx Control Technology
In-duct sorbent injection and selective
Coal Sulfur SO, NO, Fact
catalytic reduction in a baghouse where the
Prolect Size Content Reduction Reduction Sheet
catalyst is suspended in the bags
Gas reburning with induct sorbent injection; SNOXm Flue Gas Cleaning 35 MWe 3.4% 95% 94% 7-62
Demonstration Project
conventional ESP
LIMB Demonstration Project 105 MWe 1.6-3.8% 60-70% 40-50% 7-64
Regenerable dry sorbent for both SO, and NOx Extension and Coolside Demonstration
control SOX-NOx-RoxBoxm Flue Gas 5 MWe 3.4% 80-9095 90% 7-66
Cleanup Demonstration Project
Low-NOxburners supplemented with in-boiler
urea injection; noncatalytic selective reduction Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas 80MWe (tangential) 3.0% 52% 67% 7-68
Reburning and Sorbent Injection 40MWe (cyclone) 3.0% 5040% 67%
for NOxcontrol; in-duct sorbent injection for
SO,; conventional ESP Milliken Clean Coal Technology 150 MWe 1.540% 95%(goal) 62-75%(goal) 7-70
DemonstrationProject*
Formic-acid-enhanced wet limestone technol- CommercialDemonstrationof the 150MWe 3.4% 98% (goal) 75% (goal) 7-72
ogy with an advanced tile-lined scrubber for NOXSO SOPOXRemoval Flue
SO, control, including recovery of marketable Gas Cleanup System*
gypsum and calcium chloride; in-boiler urea Integrated Dry NOX/SO, Emissions 100 MWe 0.4% 70?h(goal) 70%(gOal) 7-74
injection for NOxcontrol; conventional ESP Control System*

Seven combined SOPOXemission control


* Ongoing projects
technologies are part of the CCT Program. Four of
the projects have been completed, andl the results are the existing coal-fired boilers enabling them to com- There are five CCT projects in the coal process-
summarized in Section 5; a fifth project is nearing ply with the CAAA of 1990. In addition, coal pro- ing for clean fuels application category. Two projects
completion. One project is in operational testing, and cessing creates the capability to generate substitute involve technologies for cleaning and upgrading coals
the remaining project was in the project definition and liquid fuels from coal that can replace petroleum and to produce higher-energy-density compliance fuels;
design phase at the end of 1995. The characteristics petroleum-derived fuels in a wide range of applica- one project produces a solid product fuel, which has
of the projects and the achieved or expected emission tions, thus enhancing the nations energy security. been used by utilities and industry, and a liquid
reductions are shown in Exhibit 1-8. The solid products are easily transportable fuels high product for use in industrial boilers. Another project
in energy density and low in sulfur, ash,and moisture. will demonstrate a new synthesis technology for
Coal Processing for Clean Fuels
The liquid fuels are low in sulfur and suitable for the methanol. The fifth project involves the development
Physical and chemical processes ccan be applied transportation sector, stationary power generation, or of software to predict operating performance of coals
to abundant U.S. coal reserves to transform them to an as chemical feedstocks. not previously burned at the facility in question.
economic, energy-option fuel for at least a portion of
Program Update 1995 1-21
The clean coal technologies generating products domestic coals can remove 30-50 percent of the coal. Other appiroaches involve using fungi, rather
for this market include physical and chemical coal pyritic sulfur and about 60 percent of the ash-forming than bacteria, and injecting sulfur-digesting enzymes
cleaning, mild gasification, coal gasification, and minerals. directly into the coal.
direct and indirect liquefaction. Conventional physical coal-cleaning methods Chemical or biological coal cleaning appears to
Coal Cleaning. About 40 percent of the coal include froth flotation and gravity separation tech- be capable of reimoving as much as 90 percent of the
used in U.S.utility boilers today receives some clean- niques. Advanced physical cleaning techniques are total sulfur (pyritic and organic) in coal. Some chemi-
ing before it is burned. Most commercial coal clean- expected to be significantly more effective than older cal techniques also can remove 99 percent of the ash.
ing is done on eastern and midwestem U.S.bitumi- techniques. An example would be electrostatic coal The CCT Program has two projects that employ
nous coals at more than 500 preparation plants. With cleaning, which utilizes opposite polarity charges on coal-cleaning technologies. The Advanced Coal
wider use of conventional coalcleaning processes, coal and mineral matter particles to accomplish Conversion Process Demonstration conducted by the
total nationwide SO, emissions from burning coal separation. Increased effectiveness is achieved by Rosebud SynCoal Partnership converts, at a rate of 45
could be reduced by 10-15 percent. To achieve first grinding the coal into much smaller sizes at which tons per hour, low-energy, high-moisture subbitumi-
greater reductions, however, significantimprovements the coal releases more of the ash and pyrite. New nous coal to a stable coal product having a moisture
will have to be made to coal-cleaning technology. coal-cleaning processes can remove more than 90 content as low as 1percent, a sulfur content as low as
Traditionally, research to improve precombustion percent of the pyritic sulfur and undesirable minerals 0.3 percent, and a heating value of up to 12,000Btu
cleaning has been concentrated on two major catego- from the coal. per pound. The facility, shown in the photo on this
ries of cleaning technology: physical and chemical Removing organic sulfur that is chemically bound page, has been producing product since March 1994
cleaning. Recently a new category, biological clean- to the coal is a far greater challenge than removing for testing in utility boilers. The other project is being
ing, has attracted interest as advances have been made pyritic sulfur through physical means. Current-
in microbial and enzymatic techniques for liberating ly, chemical and biological processes that react
sulfur and ash from coal. with the coal are being used to remove organic
Virtually all coal cleaning today is done with sulfur. One chemical technique that has shown
physical techniques, some of which have been used promise is molten caustic leaching. This
for more than a century. Physical cleaning typically technique exposes coal to a hot sodium- or
separates undesirable matter from coal by relying on potassium-based chemical. The chemical
differences in densities or variations in surface proper- leaches sulfur and mineral matter from the coal.
ties. When coal from the mine is crushed and then Other chemical techniques modify the chemical
washed, the heavier impurities are separated. characteristics of coal in a way that makes the
Physical cleaning can remove only matter that is coal more receptive to cleaning.
physically distinct from the coal, such as small dirt Biological cleaning represents some of the
particles, rocks, and pyritic sulfur (sulfur combined most exotic techniques in coal cleaning. A
with iron particles). Physical cleaning cannot remove potential advantage of biological techniques
organic sulfur that is chemically bound with the coal, over chemical cleaning is that biological clean- A The Rosebud SynCoal Partnership is demonstrating an
advanced thermal coal process coupled with physical cleaning
nor can it remove nitrogen, another source of pollu- ing requires less severe operating conditions.
techniques to upgrade low-rank subbituminous and lignite coals.
tion, from the coal. Currently, physical cleaning of Researchers have identified naturally occurring The 45-todhr unit is located in Colstrip, MT, and produces an
bacteria that can digest the organic sulfur in upgraded SynCoal@product for utility and industrial use.
1-22 Program Update 1995
conducted by Custom Coals Intemational to demon- terized as coal-derived liquids, gases, and solids, Coal Gasification. The basic coal gasification
strate an advanced coal-cleaning process that produc- depending on the operating conditions. The solid process was previously described in the Advanced
es two types of compliance Coals-Carefree Coalm product can be further beneficiated to remove both Electric Power Generation market subsection (see
and Self-Scrubbing Coalm. ash and pyritic sulfur. A slurry of coal-derived fuel page 1-13). The technology can be used to produce a
Carefree Coalm is designed to be a competitively and beneficiated solid has the potential of being a very low-Btu gas when air is used as the oxidant or a
priced high-Btu fuel that can be used without major versatile fuel that can be burned in both coal- and oil- medium-Btu gas when oxygen is used as the oxidant.
plant modifications or additional capital expenditures. fired boilers. If the solid product is beneficiated to a Low-Btu gas provides a clean fuel gas that can be
Self-scrubbing Coalm is produced by taking Carefree high degree, even feedstock coal with a high sulfur used locally to frre boilers, gas turbines, industrial
Coalm and adding to it sorbent, promoters, and content can be used. furnaces, and other systems. Medium-Btu gas, which
catalysts. The product is expected to achieve compli- The mild gasification technology is being demon- is essentially carbon monoxide and hydrogen with
ance with virtually any U.S. coal feedlstock through in- strated in the CCT F'rogram by the ENCOAL project some carbon dioxide, can be used as a fuel on site or
boiler absorption of SO, emissions. (see photo on this page). The technology produces transported economically by pipeline (1W200 miles)
A third project, while not involved in the demon- two products: (1)a solid fuel with higher heating for distribution to an industrial or municipal complex.
stration of a coal-cleaning technology, is included in value (about 12,000 Btu per pound) and a lower sulfur If the gas is further converted to a highly pure mixture
the coal processing for clean fuels. The project, content than the coal feedstock and (2) a low-sulfur of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, it replaces re-
Development of the Coal Quality Expert, is directed liquid product that can be directly substituted for No. formed natural gas as the feedstock for chemical
toward the development and demonstration of a 6 fuel oil. The project is descibed in the fact sheet on synthesis (e.g., methanol, ammonia, hydrogen).
computer software package that will serve as a predic- page 7-84. Besides the five integrated gasification
tion tool to assist coal-burning utilities in selecting combined-cycle technologies being demonstrated
optimum quality coal for a specific boiler based on under the CCT Program, the liquid-phase methanol
operational efficiency, cost, and environmental emis- (LPMEOHm) project has its basis in coal gasifica-
sions. The CCT Program's coal-cleaning (or prepara- tion. In this project, which could also be classified
tion) projects are described in fact sheets on pages under indirect coal liquification, methanol is produced
7-78-7-83. from a coalderived synthesis gas using Air Products
Mild GasXication. Mild gasification is a modi- and Chemicals' L P M E O P process. The fact sheet
fication of the conventional coal gasification process on page 7-86 describes the 260-ton-perday methanol
that produces gaseous, solid, and liquid products by production project.
heating coal in an oxygen-free reactor. The process Coal Liquefaction. Liquefaction of coalin-
takes an alternative approach to complete gasification volves the addition of hydrogen to coal by various
of coal by driving off the condensable volatile hydro- techniques so that the fuel's ratio of hydrogen to
carbons and leaving behind carbon, in lieu of convert- carbon is increased to a level comparable to petro-
ing the entire charge of coal to synthesis gas. leum-based fuels.
A The ENCOAL mild gasificationplant near Gillette,
Mild gasification processes generate multiple WY, processes about 500 todday of low-sulfur, low- Coprocessing, a recent development in liquefac-
fuels and chemical feedstocks by medium-temperature heating-value subbituminouscoal. The plant produces a tion technology, involves the production of liquid fuel
low-sulfur, high-heating-valuesolid fuel for utility use and
treatment of coal. The products generated are charac- from a mixture of coal and heavy petroleum residue,
a low-sulfur liquid product for industrial use.

P r o g " Update 1995 1-23


with the residual oil providing some of the hyarogen the
needed for the conversion process. Once produced, S

the coal-derived liquid can be cleaned of its sulfur and


ash before being used.
The potential advantages of direct liquefaction
include improved thermal efficiency (in the range of sulfur in the coal to be
60-70 percent), high product yield, and the potential captured by the slag and
to make products such as high-quality gasoline. hot metal. The fact sheet
Principal disadvantages stem from the severe operat- on page 7-90 describes
ing conditions (temperature and pressure) required this project.
and the lack of integration among process steps. Another project,
There are no direct coal liquification projects Clean Power from
A & There are five industrial application Integrated CoaUOre
under the CCT Program as efforts in this area are still projects totaling over $1.31 billion. Above is
in the pilot-plant stage. However, coal liquids are the Passamaquoddy Tribes cement kiln flue gas Reduction, is planned to
produced indirectly through the LPME0Hm process scrubber project that successfullydemonstrated demonstrate the integra-
greater than 90%sulfur reduction and the tion of a direct iron-
and the ENCOAL mild gasification process.
production of usable by-products. Shown on
the right is the recently completed Bethlehem making process
Industrial Applications Steel Corporationfacility to demonstrate the (COREX@)with the
injection of granulated coal directly into two coproduction of electrici-
Technologies developed for U.S. industry can blast fumaces at Bums Harbor, IN.
improve industrys productivity and efficiency while ty using various U.S.
resolving environmental issues similar to those faced operations and issued the final report at year- coals. The project,
by the electric power generation industry. Many of end 1993 (see photo this page). This success- currently in negotiation,
the technologies principally identified in the other ful cement kiln project may have broader will produce 195 MWe
marketplace application categories are applicable to applications in paper production and municipal waste (net) of electricity and 3,300 tons per day of liquid
the industrial market. These technologies include incineration. Cement kiln waste was used to achieve iron and will be sited at Geneva Steels mill in Vin-
advanced combustion, fluidized-bed combustion, coal greater than 90 percent SO, emissions reductions, yard, Utah. The fact sheet on page 7-92 describes this
gasification processes, and a variety of environmental produce fertilizer, convert kiln waste to cement project.
control systems. feedstocks, and eliminate all waste streams. A discus- The fifth project is the Demonstration of Pulse
Two industrial application projects in the CCT sion of the completed projects is contained in Section 5. Combustion in the Application for Steam Gasification
Program have completed operations. Coal Tech Bethlehem Steel Corporation completed construc- of Coal. The project is planned to produce 161
Corporations Advanced Cyclone Combustor with tion and start-up for a project to demonstrate the million Btu per hour or 325 standard cubic feet of
Integral Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control project injection of granulated coal directly into two blast medium-Btu fuel gas and 40,000 pounds per hour of
completed operations in 1990 and the final report was furnaces at Bums Harbor, Indiana (see photo on this export steam. The project, which is undergoing
issued in 1991. The Passamaquoddy Tribes Cement page). Preoperational testing began in February 1995 restructuring, is described on page 7-98.
Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber project completed and continued until November 1995 when full opera-

1-24 Program Update 1995


2. Program Implementation
construction and operation of facilities to demon- modemizing existing facilities. Projects were to be
strate the feasibility of future commercial applica- cost shared, with industry sharing at least 50 percent
Introduction tions of such technology. Title 111of this act direct- of the cost. As a result of the solicitation, a total of
The CCT Program has been implemented ed the Secretary of Energy to solicit statements of 139 expressions of interest were received by DOE in
through selecting projects in a series of five nation- interest in and proposals for clean coal projects. In January 1987.
wide competitive solicitations conducted over a keeping with this mandate, DOE issued a program On March 18,1987, the President announced the
period of 9 years, with each competition associated announcement which resulted in the receipt of 176 endorsement of the recommendations of the Special
with a specific level of government funding and proposals representing both domestic and intema- Envoys on Acid Rain including a$2.5-billion govern-
objectives. At the end of 1995, a total of 43 projects, tional projects with a total estimated cost in excess of ment share of industqdgovernmentdemonstrations of
$8 billion. innovative control technology over a 5-year period.
valued at nearly $7.21 billion and located in 18
After this significant initial expression of interest The Secretary of Energy stated that the department
states, are either already complete or imoving for-
ward. Government funding for the projects is ap- in clean coal demonstration projects, Public Law would ask Congress for an additional $350 million in
99-190, enacted December 1985, appropriated FY 1988 and an advanced appropriation of $500
proximately $2.35 billion; the private sector is
$400million to conduct cost-shared demonstration million in FY 1989. Additional appropriations of
providing nearly $4.86 billion, or 67 percent of the
projects. Of the total appropriated funds, approxi- $500 million would be requested in fiscal years 1990,
projects total value-far in excess of the congres-
mately $387 million were made available for cost- 1991, and 1992. This request was made by the
sionally mandated minimum of 50 percent.
shared projects to be selected through a competitive President on April 4,1987.
solicitation, or Program Opportunity Notice (PON), Public Law 100-202,enacted December 22,1987,
referred to as CCT-I. (The remaining funds were as amended by Public Law 100-446, appropriated a
required for program direction and the legislatively total of $575 million to conduct CCT-II. About
The Legislation mandated Small Business InnovativeResearch, or $536 million were for projects, with the remainder for
SBIR, Program.) program direction and the SBIR Program.
The legislation authorizing the CCT Program is
In a manner similar to the initiation of CCT-I, The Department of the Interior and Related
found in Public Law 98-473, Joint Resolution Making
Congress again directed DOE to solicit information Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1989 (Public
Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY)1985
from the private sector in the Department of the Law 100-446, enacted September 27, 1988) provided
and for Other Purposes. Title I set aside $750 million
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for $575 million for necessary expenses associated with
of the congressionally rescinded $5.375 billion of the
FY 1987 (Public Law 99-591, enacted October 30, clean coal technology demonstrations in the CCT-III
Synthetic Fuels Corporation into a special U.S.Trea-
1986). The information received was to be used to solicitation. Of the total funding, about $546 million
sury account entitled the Clean Coal Irechnology
establish the level of potential industrial interest in were made available for cost-sharing projects, with
Reserve. This account was dedicated to conducting
another solicitation,this time involving clean coal the remainder for program direction and the SBIR
cost-shared clean coal technology projects for the
technologies capable of retrofitting, repowering, or Program.

Program Update 1995 2-1


The technical agenda is determined by Technology that is developed is being made The 10 years of program implementation have
industry, not the government. DOE available on a nondiscriminatory basis to all demonstrated that a governmenthndustry partnership
solicitedproposals seekingprojects satisfying US.companies that seek,under reasonable can be crafted to engage the major energy, economic,
broad programmatic areas. Industry defined terms and conditions,to use the technology. and environmentalissues involved with the use of the
the specific projects. DOE selected the While the technology owner is not forced to nations most significantenergy sourc-oal. With
projects based on those that best met the divulge its know-how to a competitor, the the governmentserving as a risk-sharing partner,
programmaticcriteria. technology must be made available to a industry fundinghas been leveraged to improve the
Roles of governmentand industry are potential domestic user on reasonable commer- environment,reduce the cost of electricity, improve
cial terms. power generation efficiencies, createjobs, and position
clearly defmed. In the program, the industrial
participantis responsiblefor technical manage- Repayment of the government funds is U.S.industry to successfullycompete internationally.
ment of the project while the government required of the industrial participant. The
oversees the project through aggressive repayment obligation occurs only upon the
monitoring. Continued governmentsupport is successfulcommercializationof the technol-
assured as long as the project continues to ogy. It is limited to the governments level of Solicitation Results
meet the terms of the initial cooperative cost sharing and can be repaid over a 20-year
The CCT Program has been implemented through
agreement. The agreement identifieskey period following the end of the demonstration.
five competitive solicitations. Congress set the basic
decision points in the project at which mutually
These principles can serve as a guide for future goals for the program and for each solicitation in the
agreed upon progress and perf;ormancegoals
technology development programs. Although some of enablinglegislationand accompanyingreport lan-
are evaluated and expected to be met.
these principles cannot be adopted verbatim by other guage. DOE subsequently translated the guidance into
Cost sharing is required throughout all programs, the precepts are transferrable and concepts performance-orientedsolicitations. For each solicita-
project phases. A minimum of 50 percent underlying the CCT Program can be molded to fit. tion, evaluation criteria were defined and weighted to
cost-sharing is required. It must be tangible The experiencedevelopedin dealing with complex reflect specific congressionalguidance and the current
and directly related to the demonstration business arrangements of the CCT projects is a signifi- CCT Program objectives. This process enabled
project, with no credit given to prior work. cant asset that has contributed greatly to the CCT industry to set the technical agenda by allowing
Requiring cost sharing throughout the project Programs success-an asset that can be used in other companies to propose their own technologies as
ensured industrys commitmentof fulfilling programs as well as guiding the completionof the qualifyingprojects. This had the significant benefit of
project objectives. CCT Program. A report, The Clean Coal Technology attracting higher levels of private-sector cost-sharing
Industry retains d and intellectual Program Lessons Leamed, published in July 1994, and increasingthe likelihoodof realizing commercial-
documents the knowledge acquired over the course of izationobjectives.
property rights. Title to all real property
the program through the completion of the five solici- An important attribute to the solicitation approach
rights vests with the industrial participants.
tations. The report was based on the belief that it is of used to implement the CCT Program was the use of
Because of the level of cost shiaring, the
industrial participant also retains the intellec- mutual advantageto the private sector and govem- multiple solicitations spread over a number of years.
ment to identify those factors thought to contribute to Allowing time between solicitations made it possible
tual property rights.
the programs success and to point out what pitfalls to adjust program implementation. At the end of
were encountered and corrective actions taken.
Program Update 1995 2-3
each solicitation, Congress provided the flexibility as At year-end 1995, there were 8 CCT-I projects in ed). At the end of 1995, 11 CCT-II projects re-
needed to effectively implement the program. the CCT Program: 5 had completed operations; 2 mained in the CCT Program: 8 had completed
Each solicitation was issued as a PON. Proposals were in operation; and 1 was in project definition and operations; 1 was in operation; 2 were in design; and
for demonstration projects consistent with the objec- design. The 8 CCT-I projects included 3 demonstrat- 5 were withdrawn. The 11 CCT-11 projects included
tives of the PON were submitted to DOE by a specific ing advanced electric power generation; 2, environ- 2 demonstrating advanced electric power generation;
deadline. DOE evaluated the proposals and an- mental control devices; 2, coal processing for clean 8, environmentall control devices; and 1, industrial
nounced those projects selected for negotiation. fuels; and 1, an industrial application applications.
Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the results of the solicitation The CCT-11 PON solicited cost-shared, innova- The objective of the CCT-111 PON was to solicit
processes. Exhibit 2-2 identifies the projects currently tive clean coal technology projects to demonstrate cost-shared clean coal technology projects to demon-
in the CCT Program and the solicitation under which technologies that were capable of being commercial- strate innovative, energy-efficient technologies capa-
they were selected. (Also see Appendix B.) ized in the 199Os, more cost effective than current ble of being commercialized in the 1990s. These
The objective of the CCT-I solicitation was to technologies, and capable of achieving significant technologies were to be capable of (1) achieving
seek cost-shared projects to demonstrate the feasibility reductions in SOz andor NOxemissions from existing significant reductions in emissions of SO, and/or NOx
of clean coal technologies for commercial applications. coal-burning facilities, particularly those that contrib- from existing facilities to minimize environmental
The solicitation elicited 51 proposals. Nine projects ute to transboundary and interstate pollution. The impacts, such as transboundary and interstate pollu-
were selected and 8 alternate projects were eventually CCT-H PON was the first solicitation implementing tion, andor (2) providing for future energy needs in
selected as replacement projects when negotiations the recommendations of the U.S. and Canadian Spe- an environmentadly acceptable manner. DOE received
could not be completed on the originally selected cial Envoys report on acid rain. DOE received 55 48 proposals and selected 13 projects as best further-
projects. Projects were selected from the list of proposals and selected 16 as best furthering the goals ing the goals and objectives of the PON. On Decem-
alternates on three separate occasions. and objectives of the PON (no alternates were select- ber 31, 1995, all 13 projects remained in the CCT
Program: 5 had (completedoperations; 3 were in
operation; 3 were in construction; and 2 were in
Exhibit 2-1 design. These 13 CCT-IJJ projects included 2 demon-
CCT Program Selection Process Summary strating advanced electric power generation; 7,envi-
ronmental contnol devices; 2, coal processing for
Proposals Projects Projects in CCT Program clean fuels; and 1, industrial applications.
Solicitation PON Issued Submitted Selected as of December 31,1995 The CCT-IV PON solicited proposals to conduct
cost-shared clean coal technology projects to demon-
CCT-I February 17, 1986 51 17 8
strate innovative, energy-efficient, economically
CCT-II February 22, 1988 55 16 11
competitive technologies. These technologies were to
CCT-III May 1,1989 48 13 13
be capable of (I ) retrofitting, repowering, or replac-
CCT-IV January 17, 1991 33 9 6
ing existing facilities while achieving significant
CCT-v July 6, 1992 24 5 5
reductions in the emissions of SO, and/or NOx and/or
21 1 60 43 (2) providing for future energy needs in an environ-
mentally acceplable manner. A total of 33 proposals

2-4 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 2-2
Clean CoalTechnology Demonstration Projects, by Solicitation
I Project and Participant Location
~~
I
CCT-I
Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ, Inc.) Homer City, PA
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Lorain, OH
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) Williamsport, PA
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Hennepin and Springfield, IL
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) Brilliant, OH
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) Colstrip, MT
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) Nucla, CO
ACFB Demonstration Project (York County Energy Partners, L.P.) Under negotiation

CCT-II
Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.) Under negotiation
SNOX Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) Niles, OH
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project (The Appalachian Power Company) Under negotiation
Demonstration of Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Cassville, WI
SOx-NOx-Rox Boxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcwk & Wilcox Company) Dilles Bottom, OH
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Thomaston, ME
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Chesterton, IN
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southem Company Services, Inc.) Coosa, GA
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southem Company Services, Inc.) Newnan, GA
Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Rleduction Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers Pensacola, FL
(Southem Company Services, Inc.)
180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NO, Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers Lynn Haven, FL
1 (Southem Company Services, Inc.)

Program Update 1995 2-5


Exhibit 2-2 (continued)
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Projects, by Solicitation
Project and Participant llocation
~

CCT-Ill
Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Kingsport, TN
Company, L.P.)
10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (Airpol, Inc.) 'West Paducah, KY
Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) Healy,AK
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Aberdeen, OH
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) Seward, PA
Blast Fumace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) Burns Harbor, IN
FCFB Demonstration Project (DMEC-1 Limited Partnership) Under negotiation
ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) Gillette, WY
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOxBurners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Denver, CO
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC-North America) Richmond, IN
Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO S O P O XRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup System (NOXSO Corporation) Newburgh, IN
Integrated Dry NOiSO, Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) Denver, CO
Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) Lakeland, FL

CCT-IV
Self-scrubbing Coalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air (Custom Coals International) Central City and Lower Mt. Bethel, PA
Richmond, IN
Ashtabula, OH
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Lansing and Rochester, NY
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Lansing, NY
Pifion Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) Reno, NV
Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal (ThermoChem, Inc.) Silver Bay, MN
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) West Terre Haute, IN

2-6 Program Update I995


Exhibit 2-3
Geographic Locations of CCT Projects-Advanced Electric Power Generation

Wabash River Coal Gasification The Ohio Power Pennsylvania


RepoweringProject Joint Venture ampany Electric Company
West Terre Haute, IN Brilliant, OH Warren, PA
\ \

r sitesunder negotiation:
Yoirk County Energy Partners, L.P.
The AppalachianPower Company
ABB CombustionEngineering,Inc.
' DIVIEC-1Limited Partnership
Arthur D.Little, Inc.
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.

Tri-State&neration Tampa Electric Company


and Transmission Lakeland,FL
Asscciation,Inc.
Nucla, CO
~

2-8 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 2-4
Geographic Locations of CCT Projects-E nvironmental Control Devices

Public Service Company Energy and Environmental The Babcock & Wilcox Pure Air New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
of Colorado Research Corporation Company on the Lake, L.P. Lansing and Rochester, NY
Chesterton, IN
New York State
Electric & Gas Corporation
Lansing, NY
ABB Environmental Systems
Niles, OH
Bechtel Corporation
Seward,PA

The Babcock & Wilcox Company


Dilles Bottom, OH

The Babcock & Wilcox Company


Aberdeen, OH
LIFAC-North America
Richmond,IN

Southem Company Services, Inc.


Coosa, GA
Energy and Environmental
ResearchCorporation Southem Company Services, Inc.
Newnan, GA
Southem Company Services, Inc.
Lynn Haven, FL
Southem Company Services, Inc.
Pensamla, FL

AirPol, Inc. NOXSO Corporation


west Paducah, KY Newburgh,IN

Program Update 1995 2-9


were submitted in response to the PON. Nine recommended that Congress initially establish an The national energy policy supports clean coal
projects were selected; however, 3 have been with- International Technology Transfer Program. technology development and recognizes the contribu-
drawn. As of December 31, 1995,2 were in opera- In response to these proposals and recommenda- tion of the CCT Program and the fact that industry has
tion; 2 were in construction, and 2 were in design; tions, Senate Report 103-294 stated that the highest contributed $2 for every $1 of federal money invested.
they included 2 demonstrating advanced electric priority for this program is to complete the existing Commercial realization is being achieved by the
power generation; 2, environmental control devices; projects as promptly as possible, but with reasonable emission control technologies demonstrated under the
1, coal processing for clean fuels; and 1, industrial assurance that sufficient data are generated to sup- early solicitations, while the advanced power systems
applications. port subsequent commercialization activity. selected under the later solicitations will reach com-
The objective of the CCT-V PON was to solicit During 1995, the goals and objectives of the CCT mercial status wiithin a decade. DOE is focusing its
proposals to conduct cost-shared demonstration Program received additional support in the national coal R&D program at advanced electric power tech-
projects that significantly advance the efficiency and energy policy developed to guide markets and technol- nologies so that by 2015 these technologies achieve
environmental performance of coal-using technologies ogies toward the goals of affordable, clean, reliable, an efficiency of !if340 percent and 10-20 percent
and are applicable to either new or existing facilities. and secure energy. This is articulated in the policy lower generating costs, making a new generation of
In response to the solicitation, DOE received propos- document, Sustainable Energy Strategy: Clean and power systems available through governmenthndus-
als for 24 projects and selected 5 projects. At year- Secure Energy for a Competitive Economy. try cost-shared investments. These new technologies
end 1995,4 CCT-V projects were in design and 1 was The sustainable energy policy pursues all three are projected to account for 56 gigawatts of capacity
in negotiation. Selected projects included 4 demon- goals to meet the needs of today without compromis- per year in both domestic and export markets. How-
strating advanced electric power generation and 1, ing the ability of future generations to satisfy future ever, as noted in the national energy policy docu-
industrial applications. needs. ment, recent studies by the National Academy of
Project sites are mapped in Exhibits 2-3 through The nations policy for coal and coal technolo- Sciences and the National Coal Council conclude
2-6, which indicate the geographic locations of gies is to help industry develop cleaner and more that continued federal support is needed to ensure
projects by application category. efficient uses for coal as part of the U.S. energy that advanced technologies will be available.
portfolio. Coal policy addresses the primary risk The federal government also supports the efforts
associated with the environmental impacts of coal use. of U.S. vendors of clean coal technologies to export
This is pursued through development and deployment equipment and services. The use of clean and efficient
Future Implementation Direction of technologies to reduce environmental impacts; such U.S. generation equipment, including clean coal
technologies are critical to sustaining coals contribu- technology, will help reduce global environmental
The report, Clean Coal Technology Program tion to U.S. energy needs. The national energy policy impacts from expanded coal-fired generation and
Completing the Mission, was issued by DOE in May recognizes that technology improvements over the create U.S. jobs to develop and build these advanced
1994. It contains DOESresponse to a congressional past two decades have reduced significantly the power systems.
request that the Secretary of Energy report on avail- environmental impacts of coal use, and that trend is The electricity policies to promote competition by
able funds appropriated but not used in CCT-I-V. expected to continue for many of the conventional restructuring the industry to link competition to
DOE found that an expansion of the current demon- regulated air pollutants. Further, high-efficiency national goals and to examine the statutory framework
stration program in the form of an additional round of technologies can cost-effectively reduce carbon that enables the market to move toward greater
competition is not recommended. Further, DOE dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. competition will affect the commercial realization of

2-12 Program Update 1995


clean coal technologies. The transformation of the objectives currently served by the regulated market operating demonstrations should be pursued
industry and its regulatory institutions is being driven that may be vulnerable under more competitive as a means of facilitating commercial deploy-
by the following factors: markets. These benefits include end-use efficiency, ment through expanded operating experience.
Statutory changes, such as the Energy Policy industry-sponsored electricity R&D, reduction of
2. DOE should promote the role of CCTs in the
greenhouse gas emissions, environmental extemali-
Act of 1992, that promote increased competi- governments environmentaltechnology
ties, service to low-income consumers, and others.
tion in bulk power markets programs; CCTs can improve the global
The impact of deregulation and greater competition
Large disparities in electric rates from utility environment as well as prevent pollution.
in the electricity industry will have an impact on the
to utility, which encourage customers to seek commercial realization of clean coal technology; 3. DOE should establish a new federal Clean Coal
access to lower-cost suppliers however, the magnitude is currently unknown. Technology Incentive Program of approxi-
New low-cost generation techndogies, which During 1994 and 1995, the National Coal Coun- mately $1.4 billion over 15 years to stimulate
cil was commissioned by the Secretary of Energy to commercialdeployment.
offer cheaper power and reduce the economic
value of existing traditional generation perform two studies providing an in-depth review and 4. The DOE market assessment and communica-
equipment prioritization of coal-related development activities tions program should continue and be ex-
under way, from research to commercialization. Both panded to include all stakeholders in coal.
Successful experience with reduced regulation studies concluded that DOE plays a key role in clean
in other industries coal technology deployment and recommended that 5. DOE should evaluate the potential of convert-
the government continue its financial and technical ing old existing, but non-complyingplant sites
Many proposals for increasing competition are
support for the development and initial deployment of to new sites employing CCTs.
now being considered at the state level. The FERC is
considering changes in federal regulations to accom- clean coal technologies that are (1) highly efficient, 6. DOE should disseminate commercial cost
modate greater competition under the existing statu- (2) environmentally sound, and (3) cost competitive. information as it becomes available to facili-
tory framework. In March 1995, FERC issued a In February 1994, the National Coal Council tate assessment of each technologys economic
notice of proposed rulemaking that addressed key released its report entitled Clean Coal Technology viability.
issues involved in moving toward a Competitive for Sustainable Development. This report addressed
7. Unused CCT Program funds should be used
wholesale electricity marketplace. However, signifi- five issues: (1) the current status of industrial accep
to continue selected operating demonstrations
cant issues exist as individual state and federal tance of CCTs, (2) technical gaps in CCT, (3) the
to gain more experience, which would
regulatory reform efforts evolve. These issues in- desirability of additional federal incentives to over-
facilitate commercial deployment and obtain
clude stranded assets and stranded benefits. Stranded come market hurdles for CCTs, (4) the merits of
environmental data necessary to understand
assets refer to prudent investments incurred or con- cofunding further improvements to previously dem-
air toxics and other related issues.
tracts entered under the existing regulatory frame- onstrated CCT projects, and (5) international tech-
work, the cost of which is unlikely to be recovered nology transfer. The National Coal Council made 8. Global deployment of CCTs is a critical
under more competitive market conditions. State and the following recommendations: ingredient to both sound domestic economic
federal regulators have solicited suggestions regard- development and worldwide sustainable
1. DOE should not engage in any further
ing mechanisms for potential recovery of stranded economic and social development.
solicitations under the existing CCT Program.
assets. Stranded benefits refer to system and social Where unused funds exist, the continuation of

Program Update I995 2-13


In May 1995, the National Coal Council released To place the conclusions and recommendations Commercial assistance priorities were as follows:
A Critical Review of Eflcient and Environmentally of the National Coal Council within the context of the
1. Integrated coal gasification combined-cycle
Sound Coal Utilization Technologies, which showed CCT Program, eight technical demonstration priori-
systems will need further govemment-sup
that technology can enable coal to continue and ties and six technical commercial assistance priorities
ported risk-sharing.
perhaps expand its major role in the energy portfolio were identified. The demonstration priorities were
of the United States. In this study, 46 coal utilization identified as follows: 2. Advancedpressurizedfluidized-bed systems
technologies were comprehensivelyreviewed and will nwd further government-supported risk-
1. Thepressurized fluidized-bed demonstration sharing.
evaluated from the perspective of their potential value
program should be completed.
to industry. In addition, the report covered advanced 3. Physicallcoal-cleaningsystems need interna-
power systems and examined technologies associated 2. The integrated coal gasification combined-
tional marketing assistance.
with the conversion of coal into other usable products. cycle demonstrations should also be com-
The key conclusions of this study are as follows: pleted. 4. Low-rarlk coal beneficiation systems need
international marketing assistance.
1. All new technologies need some form of risk- 3. Advanced pulverized coal boilers should be
sharing for fmt-of-a-kind plants in order to completed under the lowemission boiler 5. By-prodluct utilization technologies need to
progress quickly from demonstration to system program. have a national utilization standard as a basis
commercial use. for cormmercialization.
4. Hazardous air pollution system controls
2. Many of the promising technologies will be should be extended to include the character- 6. Coal-fired diesel engines need international
demonstrated under the CCT Program; ization of all effluents from demonstration marketing assistance.
however, further development to reduce cost projects in the CCT Program. Future implementation direction with respect to
is critical to market acceptance. 5. The indirect-fired cycle demonstration intemational technology transfer was further defined
I

3. Many of the technologies still require funda- should be completed under the CCT Pro- in 1995. Senate Report 103-294 provided the follow-
mental research and development before their gram. ing provision: The Committee does, however,
potential applicability for future utilization support efforts by DOE in promoting exports of
6. The molten carbonate fuel cell demonstration
can be properly evaluated. CCTs, particularly to countries experiencing rapid
should be completed.
economic development. ... Accordingly, DOE is
4. As federal and state environmental require- 7. By-product utilization work should concen- directed to make the dissemination of CCTs overseas
ments are mandated, the relative importance trate on key solids streams found in the CCT an integral part of its policy to reduce greenhouse gas
of many of these technologies change. Program. emissions in deweloping countries. Further, the
5. A wide range of technologies is necessary to report directed DOE to conduct an informational
8. SOx/NOxcontrol demonstration projects
assure economically viable and environmen- solicitation. The request for expressions of interest in
under the CCT Program should be completed
tally acceptable coal options in both the short- commercial projects employing clean coal technolo-
and economics of each control system
term and the long-term. gies in foreign countries that project significant
evaluated separately.
growth in greenhouse gas emissions was distributed
on November 18,1994.

2-14 Program Update 1995


3
cy
a
e
4
3
.3 4
Y 3
s Y
8
E
s
0 0 0
In preselection project-specific environmental
Exhibit 2-7 reviews, DOE evaluates the environmental aspects of
NEPA Reviews Completed each proposed demonstrationproject. Reviews are
provided to the Source Selection Official for consider-
Number of Projects ation in the project selection process. The site-specific
14 environmental,health, safety, and socioeconomic
issues associated with each proposed project are
12 examined during the environmentalreview. As part of
the comprehensiveevaluation prior to selecting
10 projects, the strengths and weaknesses of each propos-
al are compared with the environmentalevaluation
8 criteria. To the: maximum extent possible, the environ-
mental impacts of each proposed project and practical
6 mitigating measures are considered. Also, a list of
necessary permits is prepared, to the extent known;
4
these are permits that would need to be obtained in
implementing the proposed project.
2
Upon selection, project participants are required
to prepare and submit additional environmental
-
n
1987 1988 198gqb 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 information. This detailed site- and project-specific
informationis used, along with independentinforma-
Includesan MTF (1988) and an EA (1989) Includes an EA for a project which was tion gathered by DOE, as the basis for site-specific
required for one project. withdrawn or one which was terminated
NEPA documents which are prepared by DOE for
Memoranda-to-file Categoricalexclusions each selected project. These NEPA documents are
Environmentalassessments Environmentalimpact statements
prepared, considered, and published in full conform-
ance with CEQ and DOE regulations for NEPA
compliance.
Compliance with NEPA No action, which assumed that conven-
Categorical Exclusions
In November 1989, a PEIS was completed for tional coal-fired technologies with conven-
tional flue gas desulfurization controls would Subpart ID-Typical Classes of Actions of the
the entire CCT Frogram. This PEIS addressed issues
continue to be used DOE NEPA regulations provide for categorical
such as potential global climatic modification and the
ecological and socioeconomicimpacts of the CCT Proposed action, which assumed that exclusions as ii class of actions that DOE has deter-
Program. The PEIS evaluated the following two mined do not iindividually or cumulativelyhave a
successfully demonstratedclean coal technolo-
alternatives: gies would undergo widespread commercial- significant e f f i t on the human environment. One
ization by the year 2010 project, Tennessee Valley Authoritys Micronized

2-16 Program Update 1995


Coal Rebuming Demonstration for NO, Control, was
originally covered by a categorical exclusion (NEPA Exhibit 2-8
review was completed August 13, 1992); however, a Memoranda-to-File Completed
new NEPA determination may be necessary as a result
of project restructuring. Project and Participant Completed

Memomnda-to-File CCT-I
The MTF was established when DOES NEPA Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.) 4/27/90
guidelines were first issued in 1980. The MTF was LJMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration 6/2/87
m e Babcock & Wilcox Company)
intended for circumstanceswhen the expected impacts
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur,Nitrogen, and Ash Control 3/26/87
of the proposed action were clearly insignificant, yet (Coal Tech Corporation)
the action had not been specified as a categorical Nuda CFF3 Demonstration Project (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.; now Tri-State 4/18/88
exclusion from NEPA documentation. The use of the Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.)
MTF was terminated as of September 30,1990. Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Hennepin site) 5/9/88
Exhibit 2-8 lists the 17 projects for which an MTF was (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation)
prepared. Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (he Ohio Power Company) 3/5/87

CCT-II
Environmental Assessments
S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) 1131/90
An EA has the following three functions: SOx-NOx-Rox Box Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project 9/22/89
(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)
1. To provide sufficient evidence and analysis for
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler 5/22/89
determining whether a proposedl action (Southem Company Services, Inc.)
requires preparation of an EIS or a finding of Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOx 8/16/89
no significant impact Emissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers (Southem Company Services, Inc.)
180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the 7/21/89
2. To aid an agencys compliance with NEPA Reduction of NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southem Company Services, Inc.)
when no EIS is necessary, i.e., 1.0 provide an
interdisciplinary review of proposed actions, CCT-Ill
assess potential impacts, and help identify 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) 9/21/90
better alternatives and mitigation measures Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Bumer Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 8/ 10190
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) 9/25/90
3. To facilitate preparation of an EX3 when one Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and 9/6/90
is necessary Environmental Research Corporation)
An EAS contents are determined on a case-by- LIFAC Sorbent Injection DesulfurizationDemonstration Project (LIFAC-North America) 1OIU90
case basis and depend on the nature of the action. If Integrated Dry NOX/SO, Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) 9/27/90
appropriate, a DOE EA also includes any floodplain
or wetlands assessment that has been prepared and
Program Updnte 1995 2-17
Exhibit 2-9
EnvironmentalAssessments Completed
Project and Participant Completed

CCT-I
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Sorbent Injection (Lakeside site) (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) 6/25/89
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) 3/27/91
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CCT-II
Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.) 3/27/92
Demonstration of Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control m e Babcock & Wilcox Company) 2/12/91
Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) (project terminated) 12/22/89
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) 2/16/90
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) 4/16/90
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southem Company Services, Inc.) 81loI90
Low-NOX/SO, Burner Retrofit for Utility Cyclone Boilers (TransAlta Resources Investment Corporation) (project withdrawn) 3/21/91

CCT-Ill
Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.) 6/30/95
Blast Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) 6/8/93
ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) 8/1/90
Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SOJNOxRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup System (NOXSO Corporation) 6/26/95

CCT-IV
Self-scrubbing Coalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air (Custom Coals Intemational) 2/14/94
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Company) 8/18/93
Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project (Pennsylvania Electric Company) 5118/95
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) 5/28/93

2-18 Program Update 1995


may include analyses needed for other environmental
determinations. Exhibit 2-10
If an agency determines on the basis of an EA that Environmental Impact Statements Completed
it is not necessary to prepare an EIS, a finding of no
significant impact, or FONSI, is issued. CEQ regula- Project and Participant Completed
tions describe the FONSI as a document that briefly
presents the reasons why an action will not have a CCT4
significanteffect on the human environment and for York County Energy Partners CogenerationProject (Yo& County site) 8/11/95
(York County Energy Partners, L.P.)
which an EIS therefore will not be prepared. The
FONSI includes the EA, or a summary of it, and notes CCT-Ill
any other related environmental documents. CEQ and Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska IndustrialDevelopment and Export Authority) 3/10/94
DOE regulations also provide for notification of the TampaElectricCompanyIntegrated Gasification Combined-CycleProject 8/17/94
public that a FONSI has been issued. Also, DOE (Tampa Electric Company)
provides copies of the EA and FONSI to the public on ~

request. CCT-IV
Exhibit 2-9 lists the 17 projects for which an EA Piiion Pine IGCC PowerProject (Sierra Pacific PowerCompany) 11/8/94
has been prepared. The exhibit includes EAs that were
* Completion is the date DOE issued a record of decision.
completed for one project that was subsequently
withdrawn from the program-TransAlta Resources
Investment Corporations Low-NOX/SO,Burner The CEQ regulations state that an EIS is to be Partners project located in York county, Pennsylvania,
Retrofit for Utility Cyclone Boilers project-and one more than a disclosure document; it is to be used by on August 11,1995. Because this project is being
that was terminated-Bethlehem Steel Corporations federal officials in conjunction with other relevant restructured, a new NEPA compliance document will
Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for material to plan actions and make decisions. Analy- be required. (See Exhibit 2-10).
Retrofit Applications. sis of alternatives is to encompass those to be consid-
ered by the ultimate decision-maker, including a NEPA Actions in Progress
Environmental Impact Statements
complete description of the proposed action. In Exhibit 2-1 1 lists the status of projects for which
The primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as an short, the EIS is a means of assessing the environmen- the NEPA process has not yet been completed.
action-forcing device to ensure that the policies and tal impacts of a proposed DOE action, rather than
goals defined in NEPA are infused into the programs justifying decisions already made, prior to making a Environmental Monitoring
and actions of the federal government. An EIS con- decision to proceed with the proposed action. Conse- Participants of CCT projects are required to
tains a full and fair discussion of all significant envi- quently, before a record of decision is issued, DOE develop and implement an environmental monitoring
ronmental impacts. The EIS should inform decision may not take any action that would have an adverse plan (Em) which addresses both compliance and
makers and the public of reasonable altematives that environmental effect or limit the choice of reasonable supplemental monitoring. Exhibit 2- 12 lists the status
would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance altematives. In 1995, DOE issued a record of deci- of EMPs for all 43 projects in the CCT Program. The
the quality of the human environment. sion on the EIS prepared for the York County Energy

Program Up&& 1995 2-19


Verify the implementation of any mitigative
Exhibit 2-11 measure that may have been identified in a
NEPA Reviews in Progress mitigation action plan pursuant to the provi-
sions of an EA or EIS
Project and Participant status Provide:the essential data on the environmen-
tal perfmmance of the technology needed to
CCT-I
evaluate the potential impact of future com-
ACFB Demonstration Project (new site) (York County Energy Partners, L.P.) To be determined
mercialization, including the ability of the
CCT-II technology to meet requirements of the Clean
Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project (ABBCombustion Engineering, Inc.) To be determined Air Act and the 1990 amendments
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project (The Appalachian Power Company) To be determined
The objective of the CCT Program's environmen-
CCT-Ill tal monitoring efforts is to ensure that, when commer-
PCFB Demonstration Project (DMEC-1 Limited Partnership) To be determined cially available,clean coal technologies will be capable
CCT-IV of responding h l l y to air toxics regulations which
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOxControl (New York State To be determined emerge from the CAAA of 1990, and, to the extent
Electric & Gas Corporation) possible, are in the vanguard of cost-effective solu-
Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal To be determined tions to concerns about public health and safety related
(ThennoChem,Inc.) to coal use.
CCT-v
Air Toxics
Coal Diesel Combined-CycleProject (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) To be determined
Clean Power from Integrated CoaJ/Ore Reduction (COREP) (Centerior Energy To be determined Title 111of the CAAA of 1990 lists known haz-
Corporation) ardous air pollutants (HAPS)and, among other
Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project (Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.) To be determined things, calls for EPA to establish categories of sources
Clean Energy DemonstrationProject (Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership) To be determined that emit these gases. Exploratory analyses suggest
I that HAPs may be released by conventional coal-fired
power plants and, presumably, by plants utilizing
EMP is intended to ensure collection and dissemina- data, further monitoring is required to fulfill the clean coal technologies. It is expected that emissions
tion of the significant technology, project, and site- following: standards will be proposed for the electric-power-
specific environmental data necessary for evaluation Ensure that emissions, ambient levels of production-soiurce categories. However, there are
of impacts upon health, safety, and the environment. many uncertainties as to which HAPS will be regulat-
pollutants, and environmental impacts do not
Further, the data is used to characterize and quantify ed, their prevalence in various types and sources of
exceed expectationsprojected in the NEPA
the environmental performance of the technology in coal, and their nature and fate as functions of combus-
documents
order to evaluate its commercialization and deploy- tion characten stics and the particular clean coal
ment potential. In addition to regulatory compliance * Identify any need for corrective action technology utilized.

2-20 Program Update 1995


The CCT Program recognizes the importance of focused on HAPS monitoring and analysis. Further.
monitoring HAPs in achieving widespread commer- under the DOE Coal R&D Program, two reports
cialization in the late 1990s and beyond. For all summarizing the source, distribution, and fate of
projects with existing cooperative agreements, DOE HAPs from 16 coal-fired utilities will be available in
sought to include HAPS monitoring. A total of 24 the spring of 1996. The first report includes the nine
projects contain provisions for monitoring HAPs. sites under the DOE R&D program and seven sites
The CCT-V PON acknowledged Ithe importance demonstrating CCT projects. This report provides a
of HAPS throughout the solicitation,including them as comprehensive assessment of the HAPSmeasured in
an aspect of proposal evaluation. The PON addressed the coal, across all the major pollution control devices
the control of air toxics as an environmental perfor- for the flue gas produced, and the HAPS emitted from
mance criterion. Also, in the instructions on proposal the stacks.
preparation, the PON directed proposers as follows: The second report is a summary of HAP emis-
With respect to emission of air toxics.,Proposers should sions from the nine power plants characterized under
consider. . .the particular elements and compounds [listed in the first phase of the DOE Coal R&D Program. The
Table 5- 1 of the PON, Specific Air Toxics to be Moni- report considers the quality of the data relative to
tored]. Proposers should present any informationknown
sampling and analytical protocols used and the vari-
concerningthe reduction of emissions of thiese toxics by [the
proposed] technology. Some of the toxics For which the ability of the data due to the different rank of coals,
proposed technology may offer control are likely unregulated plant configurations, pollution control, and other key
in the target market at present. The significanceand impor- variables in the study.
tance of the additional control afforded by the proposed
technology for the continued use of coal shlould be explained. During the second phase of the DOE assessment
An example of this kind would be one or more particular air program, Louisiana Gasification Technologys coal
toxic compounds controlled by a technology meant for use gasification plant, located in Plaquemine, Louisiana,
in power generation.
was fully characterized. HAPS were measured to
The CCT-V PON also stipulates that information provide data for the Wabash River gasification
on air toxics be presented in the environmental infor- project. In addition, a power plant having an onsite
mation required by DOE. Exhibit 2-1 3 lists the 24 coal preparation facility, cyclone boiler, ESP, and
projects that provide for HAPS monitadng. Ten of venturi scrubber was characterized for 16 trace ele-
these projects have completed the HAIPSmonitoring ments including mercury. Planned for the second
requirements. The objective of the HAPSmonitoring phase are assessments of trace elements, including
program is to improve the quality of H W s data being elemental and speciated forms of mercury, of three
gathered and to monitor a broader range of plant power plants equipped with wet FGD systems.
configurations and emissions control equipment.
The CCT Program is coordinating with organiza-
tions such as the Electric Power Research Institute
and the Ohio Coal Development Office in activities

Program Update 1995 2-21


Exhibit 2-12
Status of Environmental Monitoring Plans for CCT Projects
Project and Participant status

CCT-I
Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ, Inc.) Completed 7/3 1/90
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Completed 10/19/88
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur,Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) Completed 9/22/87
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.; now Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) Completed 2/27/88
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Completed 10/15/89 (Hennepin)
Completed 11/15/89 (Lakeside)
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) Completed 5/25/88
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) Completed 4/7/92
ACFB Demonstration Project (York County Energy Partners, L.P.) To be determined

CCT-II
Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.) To be determined
SNOXm Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) Completed 10/31/91
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project (The Appalachian Power Company) To be determined
Demonstration of Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NO, Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Completed 11/18/91
SOX-NOx-RoxBoxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Completed 12/31/91
Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) (project terminated) Completed 7/5/9 1
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Completed 3/26/90
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Completed 1/31/91
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southem Company Services, Inc.) Completed 9/14/90
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the (3-121 FGD Process (Southem Company Services, Inc.) Completed 12/18/90
Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NO, Emissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Completed 3/11/93
Boilers (Southem Company Services, Inc.)
1 8 0 - W e Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NO, Emissions from Completed 12/27/90
Coal-Fired Boilers (Southem Company Services, Inc.)

2-22 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 2-12 (continued)
Status of Environmental Monitoring Plans for CCT Projects
Project and Participant status

CCT-Ill
Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.) Projected 6/96
IO-MW Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) Completed 1 W 9 2
Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) Projected 8/96
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOx(CellBurner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Completed 8/9/9 1
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) Completed 6/12/91
Blast Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) Completed 12/23/94
PCm DemonstrationProject (DMEC-1 Limited Partnership) To be determined
ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) Completed 5/29/92
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and LOw-NOxBurners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Completed 7/26/90
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC-North America) Completed 6/12/92
Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SO$VOx Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System (NOXSO Corporation) Projected 2/97
Integrated Dry NOJSO, Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) Completed 8/5/93
Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification ICombined-Cycle Project flampa Electric Company) Projected 5/96

CCT-IV
Self-scrubbing Coal? An Integrated Approach to Clean Air (Custom Coals Intemational) Projected 2/96
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOxControl (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) To be determined
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Completed 12/1/94
Piiion Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) Projected 6/96
Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal (ThermoChem, Inc.) To be determined
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) Completed 7/9/93

CCT-v
Coal Diesel Combined-CycleProject (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) To be determined
Clean Power from Integrated CoavOrelteduction (COREP) (&&or Energy Corporation) To be determined
Clean Energy DemonstrationProject (Ciean Energy Partners Limited Partnership) Tobedetermid
Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project (Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.) To be determined
Warren Station Extemally Fired Combined-Cycle DemonstrationProject (Pennsylvania Electric Company) To be determined

Program Update 1995 2-23


Exhibit 2-13
CCT Projects Monitoring Hazardous Air Pollutants
Application Category Participant Project status

Advanced Electric Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Healy Clean Coal Project Planned
Power meration ~rthur D.Little, Inc. Coal Diesel Combined Cycle Project Pl&
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership Clean Energy Demonstration Project Planned
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project Planned
Pennsylvania Electric Company Warren Station Externally Fired CombinedXycle Demonstration Project Planned
The Ohio Power Company Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project Completed
Sierra Pacific Power Company pifion pine IGCC Power Project Planned
Tampa Electric Company Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project Planned
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project In progress
Project Joint Venture
York County Energy Partners, L.P. ACFB Demonstration Project Planned

Environmental ABB Environmental Systems S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project Completed
Control Devices AirPol, Inc. 10-MW Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption Completed
The Babcock & Wilcox Company Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NO, Control Completed
The Babcock & Wilcox Company SOX-NOx-RoxBoxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project Completed
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project In progress
Public Service Company of Colorado Integrated Dry NOX/SO, Emissions Control System Completed
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project Completed
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Walll-Fired Boiler Completed
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the Completed
CT-121 FGD Process
Southem Company Services, Inc. 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Conibustion Completed
Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fird Boilers

-1 Processing for Custom Coals Intemational Self-scrubbingCoalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air In progress
Clean Fuels ENCOAL, Corporation ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project In progress
Industrial Centerior Energy Corporation Clean Power from Integrated CoaYOre Reduction (COREX? Planned
Applications Thermdhem, Inc. Demonstration of pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal Planned

2-24 Program Update 1995


3. Funding and Costs
up to the full amount of the federal governments Public Law 100-446, enacted September 27,
contribution. This approach enables taxpayers to 1988, as amended by Public Law 101-164,
Summary benefit from commercially successful projects. This provided $575 million; sequestering reduced
Congress has appropriated a federal budget of is in addition to the benefits derived from the demon- this amount by $2,028.
nearly $2.55 billion for the CCT Program. These stration and commercial deployment of technologies
Public Law 101-121, enacted October 23,
funds have been committed to demonstrationprojects that improve environmental quality and promote the
1989, as amended by Public Laws 101-512,
selected through five competitive solicitations. As of efficient use of the nations energy sources.
102-154, 102-381, 103-138, and 103-332
December 3 1, 1995, the program consisted of 43 The participant has primary responsibility for
provided the final $1.2 billion for the pro-
active or completed projects, including one project the project. The federal government monitors project
gram; sequestering reduced this amount by
selected under the fifth solicitation that remains in activities, provides technical advice, assesses
$455.
negotiation. progress by periodically reviewing project perfor-
mance with the participant, and participates in Public Law 104-6, enacted April 10, 1995,
The 43 active or completed projects have result-
decision making at major project junctures negotiated rescinded $200 million of federal funds from
ed in a combined commitment by the federal govern-
into the cooperative agreement. Through these the program.
ment and the private sector of about $7.21 billion.
DOES cost share for these projects is $2.35 billion, activities, the federal government ensures the effi- Exhibit 3-1 presents the allocation of appropriat-
or approximately 33 percent of the total. The project cient use of public funds in the achievement of ed CCT Program funds (after adjustment) and the
participants (i.e., the non-federal-government partici- individual project and overall program objectives. amount available for each CCT solicitation. The five
pants) are providing the remaining $4.86 billion. Congress has provided program funding through CCT solicitations are referred to as CCT-I, CCT-11,
the following appropriation acts and adjustments due CCT-III,CCT-IV, and CCT-V. Additional activities
to sequestering requirements of the Gramm-Rudman- funded by CCT Program appropriations are the Small
Hollings Deficit Reduction Act (see Appendix A for Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program, the
excerpts from the relevant legislation):
Program Funding Small Business Technology Transfer Program
Public Law 99-190, enacted December 19, (STIR),and CCT program direction.
In the CCT Program, the federal governments 1985, appropriated $400 million to conduct The SBIR Program implements the Small Busi-
contribution can not exceed 50 percent of the total cost-shared demonstration projects; sequester- ness Innovation Development Act of 1982 and
cost of any individual project. The federal govern- ing reduced this amount by $2.4 million. provides a role for small, innovative firms in selected
ments funding commitments and other terms of research and development (RBrD) areas.
Public Law 100-202, enacted December 22,
federal assistance are represented in a cooperative The STIR Program implements the Small
agreement negotiated for each project in the pro- 1987, as amended by Public Law 100-446,
Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 that
gram. Terms of the cooperative agreement also appropriated a total of $575 million; seques-
establishes a pilot program and funding for small
include a plan for the federal government to recoup tering reduced this amount by $2,600.
business concerns performing cooperative research
and development efforts.
Program Update 1995 3-1
funds: (1) budget authority, (2) commitments, (3)
Exhibit 3-1 obligations, (4) costs, and (5) expenditures. The
Relationship between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets definition of each of these terms follows:
for the CCT Program Budget Authority. This is the legal authori-
(Dollars in Thousands) zation created by legislation (i.e., an appro-
priations act) that permits the federal govem-
SBIR Program ment tal obligate funds.
Appropriation Appropriation & STTR Direction Projects
Enacted Subprogram to DOEa Budgetsb Budget Budget Commitments. Within the context of the CCT
Program, a commitment is established when
P.L. 99-190 cm-I 397,600 4,902 41,467 35 1,23 1
DOE sekcts a project for negotiation. The
P.L. 100-202 CCT-II 574,997 6,781 32,512 535,704
commitment amount is equal to DOES share
P.L. 100-446 ccr-IJI 574,998 6,906 22,548 545,544
of the project costs contained in the approved
P.L. 101-121' CCT-N 550,000 7,913 25,000 517,087 cooperatrive agreement and the amount of funds
P.L. 101-121' CCT-v 450,000 8,233 25 ,000 4 16,767 needed for projects in negotiation.
Total 2,547,595 34,735 146,527 2,366,333
Obligations. The negotiated cooperative
FY 1991 apportionmentincrements for 0 3 - 1 1 and CCT-I11were reducedby $4,628 total due to Gramm-Rudman-
Hollingssequestering reqUirements;originalappropriationswere $575 millioneackappropriationsforCCT-IV agreement for each project establishes funding
were cut $455. Previously,sequesteringrequirementshad reduced originalCCT-I appropriationsof $400 million increments, referred to as budget periods. The
by $2.4 million.
cooperative agreement defines the tasks to be
Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR)and SmallBusiness TechnologyTransferProgram (STTR). perfomied in each budget period. An obliga-
' P.L. 101-121 W ~ revised
S by P.L. 101-512,102-154,102-381,103-138,103-332, and 104-6. tion occurs in the beginning of each budget
~
period and establishes the incremental amount
of federal funds available to the participant for
The program direction budget provides for the apportionment of funding to DOE from FY 1986, use in performing tasks as defined in the
management and administrative costs of the program when the program was initiated, through FY 1997, cooperative agreement.
and includes federal employees' salaries, benefits and when the final increment of funding is scheduled to
Costs. A request for payment submitted by
travel, site support services, and services provided by become available to DOE. Exhibit 3-2 also shows the
the project participant to the federal govem-
national laboratories and private fms. program's yearly funding profile by appropriations
act and by subprogram. Funds can be transferred ment for reimbursement of tasks performed
Avaircrbile of Funding under Ihe terms of the cooperative agreement
between subprogram budgets to meet project and
program needs. is considered a cost. Costs are equivalent to a
Although all funds necessary to implement the
bill for payment or invoice.
entire CCT Program were appropriated by Congress
prior to FY 1990, the legislation also directs that
Use of Appropriated Funds Expenditures. Expenditures represent
these funds be made available (i.e., apportioned) to There are five key financial terms used by the payment amounts to the project participant
DOE on a time-phased basis. Exhibit 3-2 depicts this govemment to track the status and use of appropriated from checks drawn upon the U.S.Treasury.

3-2 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 3-2
Annual CCT Program Funding, by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets
(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 1986877 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Totald

Adjusted Appropriations"
P.L. 99-190 248,500 149,100 397,600
P.L. 100-202 50,000 190,000 135,000 199,997 574,997
P.L. 101-446 419,000 155,998 574,998
P.L. 101-1216 35,000 315,000 0 100,000 18,000 50,000 32,000 550,000
P.L. 101-1216 100,000 0 125,000 19,121 100,000 105,879 450,000
Total 248,500 199,100 190,000 554,000 390,995 415,000 0 225,000 37,121 150,000 137,879 2,547,595

Subprogram Budgets
CCT-I Projects 241,958 145,273 (18,000) 18,000) 351,231
CCT-II Projects 31,094 173,800 133,313 197,497 535,704
CCT-IIl Projects 391,496 154,048 545,544
CCT-IV Projects 9,875 311,063 0 98,450 17,622 48,925 31,152 517,087
CCT-V Projects 74,062 0 123,063 18,719 97,850 103,073 416,767
-
Projects Subtotal 241,958 176,367 173,800 524,809 361,420 385,125 0 221,513 18,341 128,775 134,225 2,366,333
Program Direction 3,479 20,500 14,000 22,548 25,000 25,000 18,000 18,000 146,527
Fossil Energy Subtotal 245,437 196,867 187,800 547,357 386,420 410,125 0 221,513 36,341 146,775 134,225 2,512,860
SBIR & SITR' 3,063 2,233 2,200 6,643 4,575 4,875 0 3,487 779 3,225 3,654 34,735
-
DOE Totald 248,500 199,100 190,000 554,000 390,995 415,000 0 225,000 37,121 150,000 137,879 2,547,595

Shown are appropriationsless amounts sequesteredunder the Gramm-Rudman-HollingsDeficit ReductionAct.


ShownisthefiscalyearapportionmentscheduleofP.L.101-121 asrevisedbyP.L. 101-512,lM-154,1M-381,103-138,103-332,and104-6.
Small Business Innovative Research Propun (SBIR) and SmallBusiness Technology TransferProgram (STTR).
Totals may not appear to add due to rounding.

Program Update 1995 3-3


Exhibit 3-3 are based on individual project schedules
Exhibit 3-3 and budget periods as defined in the cooperative
CCT Financial Projections as of December 31,1995 agreements and modifications. The projections are
(Dollars in Millions) updated as modifications to the cooperative agree-
ments are apprcived.
$600

1 A
OBUDGET AUTHORlTY
0OBLIGATIONS
COSTS
mEXPENDI1URES
The financial status of the program through
December 31, 1995, is presented by subprogram in
Exhibit 3-4. SRIR and SlTR monies are included

$400 -
A in this exhibit to account for all funding. Exhibit 3-
4 also indicates the apportionment sequence as
modified by Pulblic Law 104-6. These values repre-
sent the amount of budget authority available for the
CCT Program.

Project Funding, Costs, and Schedules


$200 -
Information for individual CCT projects, including
funding and the status of key milestones, is provided in
the fact sheets in Section 7. An overview of project
schedules and fiinding is presented in Exhibit 3-5.
$0 -
8 6 87 88 8 9 9 0 91 9 2 9 3 9 4 95 9 6 9 1 98 9 9 00 01 0 2 0 3
Fiscal Year

Cost Sharing
Expenditures directly affect the governments This procedure limits the governments financial
cash flow. exposure and assures that DOE fully participates in A characteiristic feature of the CCT Program is
the decision to proceed with each major phase of the cooperative funding agreement between the
The full government cost-share is considered participant and the federal government referred to as
project implementation.
committed to each project upon selection for negoti- cost sharing. This cost-sharing approach, as imple-
The overall financial profile for the CCT Pro-
ation. However, DOE obligates funds for the project mented in the CCT Program, was introduced in
gram is presented in Exhibit 3-3. The graph shows
in increments. Most projects are subdivided into Public Law 99-190, An Act Making Appropriations
actual performance for FY 1986 through FY 1995
several time and funding intervals, or budget peri- for the Department of the Interior and Related Agen-
and DOE estimates for FY 1996 through program
ods. The number of budget periods is determined cies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1986,
completion. Excluded from the graph are SBIR
during negotiations and is incorporated into the and for Other Furposes. General concepts and
obligations, costs, and expenditures, as these funds
cooperative agreement. DOE obligates sufficient requirements of the cost-sharing principle as applied
are used and tracked separately from the CCT
funds at the beginning of each budget period to to the CCT Prolgram include the following elements:
Program. The financial projections presented in
cover the governments cost share for that period.
3-4 Program Update 199s
Exhibit 3-4
Financial Status of the CCT Program as of December 31,1995
(Dollars in Thousands)

Appropriations Apportionment Sequence


Allocated to Apportioned Committed Obligated cost FY Annual Cumulative
Subprogram Subprograms* to Date to Date to Date to Date

CCT-I 35 1,23 1 351,231 257,157 25 1,967 183,044 1986 99,400 99,400


CCT-I1 535,704 535,704 469,586 172,317 157,9 14 1987 149,100 248,500
CCT-I11 545,544 545,544 610,482 401,816 286,173 1988 199,100 447,600
CCT-IV 517,087 485,935 482,290 427,300 ' 288,405 1989 190,000 637,600
CCT-V 416,767 313,694 567,800 22,140 4,964 1990 554,000 1,191,600
Projects Subtotal 2,366,333 2,232,108 2,387,3 15 1,275,540 920,500 1991 390,995 1,582,595
SBIR & S'ITR" 34,735 31,081 34,735 31,081 31,081 1992 415,000 1,997,595
Program Direction 146,527 146,527 146,527 126,843 121,956 1993 0 1,997,595
Total 2,547,595 2,409,716 2,568,577 1,433,464 1,073,537 1994 225,000 2,222,595
1995 37,121 2,259,716
Small Business Innovative Research Program(SBIR) and Small Business TechnologyTransferProgram (SlTR) 1996 150,000 2,409,716
* Sums may not appear to add due to rounding. 1997 137,879 2,547,595

The federal government may noit finance more The participant's cost-sharing contribution and for the overall program, the participant contribu-
than 50 percent of the total costs of a project. must occur as p j e c t expenses are incurred and tion is over twice that of the federal government.
Cost sharing by the project participants is can not be offset or delayed based on prospec-
tive project revenues, proceeds,or royalties.
required throughout the project (design,
construction, and operation). Investment in existing facilities, equipment,
The federal government may share in project or previously expended R&D funds are not Recovery of Government Outlays
cost growth (within the scope of work defined
allowed for the purpose of cost sharing. (Recoupment)
in the original cooperative agreement) up to Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the cost-sharing status DOESpolicy objective is to recover an amount
25 percent of the originally negotiated by subprogram and by application category. The up to the government's financial contribution to each
government share of the project. projects in the advanced electric power generation project. Participants are required to submit a plan
category account for 65 percent of total project costs outlining a proposed schedule for recovering the

Program Update 1995 3-5


Exhibit 3-5
CCT Project Schedules and Funding, by Application Category

* Schedule and funding are in negotiation.


Preaward Design and Construction = operation and Reporting

3-6 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 3-5 (continued)
CCT Project Schedules and Funding, by Application Category

DOE Total
($1.OOo)

7.597 19.405
SCS--Wall-Fred 6.551 14.711
EER-GFUSI 18.738 37,589
SCS--TangentiallyFred 4.440 9.153
Bechtel -- CZD 5,206 10.412
B&W--Coal Reburning 6.341 13,647
B&W--LNCB 5,443 11,233
ABB ES--SNOX 15,719 31,438
B&W--SNRB 6,078 13.272
Pure Air on the Lake 63,913 151.708
[ F.AC 10,637 21,394
PSC of Colorado 13,706 27.41 1
AirPo1 -- GSA 2,315 7,717
EER-GR-LNB 8,896 17,807
SCS-CT-121 21,085 43,075
SCS--SCR 9,407 23,230
NYSEG -- Milliken 45,000 158,608
NYSEG -- Micronized Coal 2,701 9,096
NOXSO Corporation 41,406 82,812

ABB CE & CQ--Expert 10,864 21,746


Rosebud SynCoal 43,125 105,700
ENCOAL 45,332 90,66.1
Custom Coals 37.994 87,386
Air Roducts -- LPMEOH 92,708 213.700

Program Update 1995 3-7


government's financial contribution. The solicita-
tions have featured different sets of recoupment rules. Exhibit 3-6
Under the first solicitation, repayment was Cost Sharing of Active CCT Projects
derived from revenue streams including net revenue (Dollars in Thousands)
from operation of the demonstration plant beyond the
Total Cost Share Percent
demonstration phase and the commercial sale, lease, Project Costs % DOEb Participants DOE Participants
manufacture, licensing, or use of the demonstrated
technology. In CCT-II, repayment was limited to Subprogram
revenues realized from the future commercialization CCT-I 801,469 11 239,645 561,824 30 70
of the demonstrated technology. The government's ccr-I1 ,506,678 21 453,677 1,053,001 30 70
share would be 2 percent of gross equipment sales CCT-III ,405,856 20 610,482 795,374 43 57
and 3 percent of the royalties realized on the technol- CCT-IV ,039,175 14 477,738 561,437 46 54
ogy subsequent to the demonstration. CCT-v 2,452,750 34 567,800 1,884,950 23 77
The CCT-III repayment formula was adjusted to Total" 7,205,928 100 2,349,342 4,856,586 33 67
1/2 percent of equipment sales and 5 percent of
royalties. Limited grace periods were allowed on a Application Category
project-by-project basis. A waiver on repayment may Advanced Electric Power 4,669,390 65 1,618,259 3,051,131 35 65
be sought from the Secretary of Energy if the project Generation
participant determines that a competitive disadvan- Environmental Control Devices 703,719 10 295,191 408,528 42 58
tage would result in either the domestic or interna- Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 519,196 7 230,024 2139,172 44 56
tional marketplace. Industrial Applications 1,313,623 18 205,868 1,107,755 16 84
The recoupment provisions for CCT-IV and Total" 7,205,928 100 2,349,342 4,8156,586 33 67
CCT-V were identical to those in CCT-III.
To date, four projects have made repayments to Totalsmay not appear to add due to rounding.
the federal government: Nucla CFB Demonstration DOE share does not include $37973,23Oobligatedfor withdrawnand terminatedprojects.
Project (Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association, Inc.), Full-scale Demonstration of Low-
NOxCell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox
Company), Development of the Coal Quality Expert
(ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.)
and the 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension
Absorption (AirPol, Inc.). Additionally, recoupment
is anticipated from the Advanced Flue Gas Desulfur-
ization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake,
L.P.)based on commercial sales.

3-8 Program Update 1995


4. The Road to Commercial Realization
are moving to the forefront. Highlights included Throughout the year, the CCT Program staff
discussions on privatization from a Polish delegation; participated in over 16 domestic and international
summary dialogue on transition to competition in the domestic events involving users and vendors of technologies,
The success of the CCT Program ultimately will electric power industry and its impact on clean coal regulators, financiers, environmental groups, and
be measured by the degree to which the technologies markets; discussions on externalities and environ- other public and private institutions. Three issues of
are commercialized and by the contribution the mental regulations and their impact on clean coal the Clean Coal Today newsletter were published,
technologies make to the resolution of energy, eco- technology deployment; reports on international along with the first annual edition of the Clean Coal
nomic, and environmental issues. This contribution clean coal projects and opportunities; and frank Today Zdex, which is a cross-reference of all articles
can only be achieved if those in the public and pri- discussions about challenges posed by economic, published in the newsletter to date, presented by both
vate sectors understand that clean coal technologies political, and environmental agendas both domestic project title and participant. To meet growing de-
can increase the efficiency of energy use and enhance and international. Information was shared on con- mand for project-specific information, DOE pub-
environmental quality at costs which are competitive ducting business in international markets, from lished a mid-year update of project fact sheets in
with alternative energy options. intellectual property to financing opportunities, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
During 1995, efforts to define and understand giving attendees new insights into the expanding Project Fact Sheets. A revision of the popular Znvest-
the potential domestic and international markets for clean coal markets. ment Pays Offwas also published,
clean coal technologies were expanded. This activity Clean coal technologies are acquiring signifi-
involved interviews with electric utility executives, cantly increased importance in the export market,
public utility commissioners, and financiers. Analy- creating major opportunities for U.S. business. A
ses were made of utility integrated resource plans, number of efforts are under way to define intema-
environmental compliance strategies, state regula- tional market opportunities to promote U.S.technolo-
tions, and legislation that may impact commercial gy and to support U.S. project development work. In
deployment. 1995, international activities have concentrated on
A highlight of the continuing CCT Program providing technical support to the U.S.trade agen-
outreach effort was the Fourth Annual Clean Coal cies, organizing trade missions, conducting education
Technology Conference attended by close to 300 and training, developing financial and market analy-
persons from over a dozen countries. The theme of sis, and developing an international technology
the conference was The Global ODwrtunitv. transfer program.
placing new emphasis on the international scope of A pat MeYp Assistant secretary for Fossil Energy, Also during 1995, DOE completed analysis of
addresses global opportunities before an intemational responses to the expressions of interest in commer-
the clean coal market and opportunities; that are audience at the Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology
growing as intemational economies are becoming Conference. cial projects employing clean coal technologies in
increasingly competitive and environmental concerns countries projected to have significant growth in

Program Update 1995 4-1


greenhouse gas emissions. In June 1995, DOE information to a broad spectrum of the private sector proprietary commercial position of the technology
published Report to Congress: Expressions of Inter- and international community to allow potential owner:
est in Commercial Clean Coal Technology Projects commercial users to confidently screen the technolo- 0 The commercialization clause requires the
in Foreign Counmes. gies and to identify those meeting operational re- technology owner to meet U.S.market
quirements. The importance of commercial realiza- demand for the technology on a nondiscrimi-
tion is confumed by the requirement in the natory basis. Further, this clause flows
solicitations and the cooperative agreement that the down fiom the project participant to the
Commitment to Commercial project participant must pursue commercialization of project ream members and contractors.
Realization the technology after successful demonstration.
Each of the five solicitations contained require- The claiises concerning rights to technical
The CCT Frogram has been committed to com- ments for the project proposals to include a discus- data deal with the treatment of data developed
mercial realization since its inception. The signifi- sion of the commercialization plans and approaches jointly in the project as well as data brought
cant environmental, efficiency, and economic bene- to be used by the participants. The proposer was into the project.
fits of the technologies being demonstrated in the required to discuss the following topics: The patent clause affords protection for new
program will be realized only if the technologies The critical factors required to achieve inventions developed in the project.
achieve widespread commercial success. The impor- commercial deployment, such as financing, In addition1 to ensuring the implementation of
tance attached to commercial realization of clean coal licensing, engineering, manufacturing, and the above project-specific mechanisms, the govem-
technologies is highlighted in Senate Report 99-82
marketing ment role also includes the following functions:
which contains the following recommendation for
project evaluation criteria: The project must demon- A timetable identifying major commercializa- Developing and disseminating the technical,
strate commercial feasibility of the technology or tion goals and schedule for completion economic, and environmental knowledge base
process and be of commercial scale of such size as to Additional requirements for demonstration of necessary for federal, state, and local govem-
permit rapid commercial scale-up. the technology at other operational scales as ments to make sound policy and regulatory
The commitment to commercial realization well as significant planned parallel efforts to decisioins regarding commercial deployment
recognizes the complementary but distinctive roles of the demonstration project which may affect of clean coal technologies
the technology owner and the government. It is the the commercialization approach or schedule Improving the regulatory and institutional
technology owners role to retain and use the infor-
The priority placed by senior management on climate for deployment of demonstrated clean
mation and experience gained during the demonstra-
accomplishing the commercialization effort coal technologies at a pace consistent with
tion and to promote the utilization of the technology
and how the project fits into the various domestic and international free market
in the domestic and international marketplace. The
corporations business, marketing, or energy decision-making
detailed technical, economic, and environmental data
and experience gained during the demonstration are utilization strategies Informing the public of the increased effi-
vital to efforts to commercialize the technology. The The cooperative agreement contains three mech- ciency, enhanced environmental quality, and
governments role is to capture, assess, and transfer anisms to ensure the demonstrated technology can be improved energy security benefits that can be
sufficient technical, economic, and environmental replicated by responsible f m s while protecting the

4-2 Program Update 1995


achieved through commercial use of clean the utilitys baseload capacity for at least 25 All five SO, control technologies demonstra-
coal technologies years. The Wabash plant is recognized tions have been completed. Three demonstra-
around the world as one of the pioneers in tion hosts are continuing to use the systems in
With about 42 percent of the projects in the CCT
IGCC technology, which is expected to commercial operations. Four technology
Program completed and another 21 percent in opera-
emerge as one of the leading means of owners have reported successful commercial
tion, a number of commercialization successes
generating electric power from coal, both in sales of the systems for use in other facilities.
already have been realized. These successes are
the United States and international market-
summarized in Exhibit 4- 1. Success s,tories are Four of the seven combined NOX/SO, control
places.
highlighted below: technology demonstrations have been success-
Five of the seven NO, control technology fully completed, and three sites are retaining
Demonstration of the first utility-scale PFBC
demonstrations have been completed, and in the systems for current or future use in
system in the United States has,been success-
each case, the host utility has decided to retain commercial operations.
fully completed at Ohio Powers Tidd Plant.
the system for use in commercial operations.
Representing a 13:l scale-up from the pilot Although the five coal processing demonstra-
Furthermore, Babcock & Wilcox, Foster
facility, this project has laid important tions are still in operation or construction,
Wheeler, and ABB Combustion Engineering
groundwork for the 3 W W e PFBC Utility four of the technologies are already being
have reported successful mercial sales of
Demonstration Project, a clean coal demon- marketed successfully for use in commercial
theiir respective NO, control technologies.
stration which is expected to define the operations.
capital and operating costs of FFBC technol-
One industrial application also has had
ogy for large utility-scale applications.
commercial success. The Passamaquoddy
0 The Nucla ACFB demonstration proved the Technology Recovery Scrubberm has become
viability of scaling up to the 110-MWe size. a permanent part of the cement kiln. In
When the Nucla boiler was first sold, it was addition, a Taiwanese cement company is
41 percent larger than any other ACFB unit considering installation of the scrubber in a
sold in the world. As a result of the demon- new cement plant.
stration, Pyropower Corporation saved almost
Not only have commercial successes been real-
3 years in establishing a commercial line of
ized from demonstrated technologies, but innovative
ACFB units and now offers these units under
business concepts have also been developed. The
warranty in sizes ranging up to 400 W e .
CCT Programs Pure Air on the Lake, L.P., Ad-
The worlds l a g e t single-train IGCc power A The 1 1 0 - W e Nucla project demonstrated the vanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration
plant began operating in a fully commercial viability of *e ACFB ~ ~ o l for o utility
g ~operation. The Project is an example. Pure ~ ionrthe Lake expects
unit wntinues to be operated by Tri-StateGeneration and
setting at PSI Energys Wabasln River to specialize in pollution control activities relieving
Transmission Association. The ACFB has become the
Generating Station. The repowered 262- technology of choice by many utilities and independent electric utilities of the ownership and operation of
W e unit has the ability to produce some of power producers, particularly when fuel flexibility is an advanced flue gas desulfurization (AFGD) units.
the lowest cost electricity on PSI Energys important factor.
Under the arrangement with Northern Indiana Public
system and will continue to operate as part of Service Company, the Pure Air limited partnership

Program Update 1995 4-3


Exhibit 4-1
CCT Program: Commercialization Successes
Project and Participant Commercialization Progress

Advanced Electric Power Generation


Fluidized-Bed Combustion
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power The Tidd demonstration was the first utility-scale PFBC system in the United States. The plant represented a 13:l
Company) scale-up from the pilot facility. The project successfully demonstrated that the PFBC system could be applied to electric
power generation and led to significant refinements and understanding of the technology in the areas of turbine erosion,
sorbent utilization, sintering, post-bed combustion, and boiler materials. This project has laid important groundwork for
the 340-MWe PFBC Utility Demonstration Project, a clean coal project which is expected to define the capital and
operating costs of this technology for large utility-scale applications. Future commercial PFBC plants are likely to be
100-200 MWe in size and feature efficiencies over 40%. Compared to conventional technology, PFBC will have
superior environmental and economic performance and is a technology which will be used to meet the growing electric-
ity demand worldwide.
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State The Nucla ACFB demonstration prompted wide dissemination of the technical progress of ACFB technology and
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) showed the viability of scaling up to the 110-MWe size. When the Nucla ACFB boiler was sold, it was 44% larger than
any other ACFB that had been sold in the United States and 41% larger than any other ACFB sold anywhere in the
world. It was not until after the Nucla ACFB unit was built and the first coal firing occurred that another ACFB boiler
of comparable size was sold. As a result of the project, Pyropower Corporation was able to save almost 3 years in
establishing a commercial line of ACFB units. Pyropowers commercial units are now offered under warranty in sizes
ranging up to 400 W e . Presently, 22 ACFB units larger than 100 MWe are being planned, engineered, built, or
operated, 11 of these are in the United States. These 22 ACFBs represent about 3,800 MWe of capacity and are
estimated to be worth about $5 billion (in 1994 dollars), assuming an average told capital cost of $1,40O/kW.

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle


Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Wabash River is the worlds largest single-train IGCC power plant to be operated in a fully commercial setting.
(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Commercial operation is under way. This repowered 262-MWe unit has the abihty to produce some of the lowest cost
Project Joint Venture) electricity on PSI Energys system. The units net heat rate of about 9,000 Btu/kWh (38% efficiency) is roughly 20%
better than that of the original plant. The project is expected to continue to operate as part of PSI Energys baseload
capacity for a period of at least 25 years, including the 3-year demonstration. The plant is also designed to outperform
substantially the emissions standards for the year 2000 required by the CAAA of 1990. CO, emissions also will be
reduced by about 20% on a per kwh basis by virtue of the increased efficiency, hereby minimizing contributions to
possible global climate change. The Wabash plant is a fully commercial operating power plant, recognized around the
world as one of the pioneers in IGCC technology. This technology is expected to emerge as one of the leading means of
generating electric power from mal, both in the United States and international marketplaces.

4-4 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 4-1 (continued)
CCT Program: Commercialization Successes
Project and Participant Commercialization Progress

Environmental Control Devices

NOx Control Technologies


Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler Babcock & Wilcox's coal reburning technology has been successfully demonstrated as a NOxemissions reduction
NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) technology for cyclone boilers. The system is being retained by Wisconsin Power and Light for commercial use at
Nelson Dewey Station, Unit No. 2.
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Burner Dayton Power & Light is retaining the LNCB" bumers for use in commercial operation at the J.M. Stuart Plant.
Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Comlpany) Babcock & Wilcox has sold seven contracts for the LNCB" technology; these contracts, which involve 144 burners, have
an estimated value of $27 million and an employment benefit of 27 person-years.
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOxBurners Public Service Company of Colorado is retaining the low-NOxburners and the gas-reburning system for immediate use.
on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Erivironmental
Research Corporation)
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques Foster Wheeler's commercial sales of its low-NOxbumers have an estimated value of $20 million and represent an
for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southem Company employment impact of 140 person-years. Georgia Power is retaining the low-NOxbumers installed at Plant Hammond,
Services, Inc.) Unit No. 4 for use in commercial operation to comply with emissions regulations. The project also successfully demon-
strated the ability of the Generic NOx Control Intelligence System (GNOCIS) to optimize plant performance in terms of
NOxemissions, unburned carbon in fly ash, and overall plant efficiency. Final testing of GNOCIS in a closed-loop
configuration in early 1996 will remove plant operators from direct control of some plant functions. Several U.S.
utilities are discussing commercial GNOCIS installations with the project team, including applications to other boiler
types and for other fuels, such as natural gas. Organizations have been selected to commercialize GNOCIS domestically
and abroad.
180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially The Low-NOxConcentric Firing System (LNCFSm) is being retained by Gulf Power at its Plant Lansing Smith Unit
Fired Combustion Techniques for the ]Reduction of No. 2. The system also is being used by a number of other utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Illinois
NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southem Power, Public Service Company of Colorado, Indianapolis Power and Light, Cincinnati Gas and Electric, Virginia
Company Services, Inc.) Power, Union Electric, and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.

Program Update 1995 4-5


Exhibit 4-1 (continued)
CCT Program: Commercialization Successes
Project and Participant Commercialization Progress

SO, Control Technologies


10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension The AirPol project is the first North American demonstration of the GSA system for coal-fired FGD. As a result of this
Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) successful project, the city of Hamilton, OH, received a $5-million grant from the Ohio Coal Development Office to
install the GSA technology to control emissions from a 50-MWe coal-fired boiler at the citys municipal power plant.
The GSA technology was identified as the least-cost alternativefor the city to mect the 1997 CAAA compliance
requirements. The estimated value of this sale is $10 million and involves an employment impact of 70 person-years.
In addition, FLS miljo has been awarded a major project in Sweden for a high-perfomce GSA system to remove
sulfur from the flue gas of a 4-million-todyr iron ore sinter plant. Swedens stringent sulfur emission standard requires
a %95% removal efficiency. In Europe, where GSA was first commercially installed in 1988, there are 10 GSA units
installed on municipal solid waste incinerators. Further, AirPol has been awarded1 contracts for the supply of GSA
systems in Taiwan and India; these sales have a combined value of $33 million and a U.S. employment benefit of 10
person-years.
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstra- There are 10 full-scale LIFAC units in operation or under construction in Canada.,China, Finland, Russia, and the
tion Project (LIFAC-North America) United States. The LIFAC system is being retained by Richmond Power & Light at its Whitewater Valley Station Unit
No. 2; it is the first to be applied to a power plant using high-sulfur (2.0-2.9%) coal. The other power plant installa-
tions use bituminous or lignite coals having lower sulfur contents (0.6-1.5%).
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration In April 1994, Pure Air of Manatee, L.P., entered into a contact to provide 1,600 MWe of SO2scrubbing capacity at
Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Florida Power & Lights Manatee power plant. The estimated value of the sale is $200 million and the employment
impact is about 1,400 person-years. Pure Air on the Lake, L.P., will continue to operate the AFGD unit at Northern
Indiana Public Service Companys Bailly Generating Station for 17 years beyond the 3-year demonstration. By-product
gypsum sales produce enough wallboard to supply the construction needs of 32,500 new homes annually. Bailly
Generating Station with the AFGD unit became the first power plant on the list of CAAA of 1990 Phase-I-affected units
to meet the SO, standards using FGD technology.
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Georgia Power is retaining the CT-121 FGD system installed at its Plant Yates, Unit No. 1, for use in commercial
Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern operation. In 1994, a tar sands oil extraction facility in Murray, Canada, purchased a CT-121 scrubber.
Company Services, Inc.)

4-6 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 4-1 (continued)
CCT Program: Commercialization Successes
Project and Participant Commercialization Progress

Combined SO/NOx Control Technollogies


S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project Ohio Edison is retaining the SNOXm technology as a permanent part of the pollution control system at Niles Station to
(ABB Environmental Systems) help the utility meet its overall SO, and NO, reduction goals. Commercial SNOXm plants are operational in Denmark
and Sicily. In Denmark,a 305-MWe plant has been designed and constructed; it has operated since August 1991. The
boiler at this plant burns coals from numerous suppliers around the world, including the United States; the coals contain
up to 3.0% sulfur. The plant in Sicily, operating since March 1991, has a capacity of about 30 MWe and fires petroleum
coke.
LIMB Demonstration Project Extensioin and A commercial version of LIMB will be used in an independent power production project in Canada.
Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox
Company)
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Illinois Power retained the gas-reburning system for possible use in NOx control at its Hennepin Plant, Unit 1. City
Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Water, Light and Power retained both the gas-reburning and sorbent injection systems for future use at Lakeside Station,
Research Corporation) unit 7.
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration A software package developed as part of the Milliken project to assist the utility optimize project operations has become
Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corpora- a commercial product. There have been six sales of DHR Technologies Plant Emission Optimization Advisor (PEOAY,
tion) and another five bids are pending.

Integrated Dry N0,/S02 Emissions Control System The Colorado utility plans to continue operation of the combustion modifications and the sodium-based d q sorbent
(Public Service Company of Colorado) injection system. A final decision on the urea injection system will be made after the test program is completed.
Futhermore, Babcock & Wilcox has the DRB-XCL@low-NOxbumer for 101 boiler units (46 international and 55
domestic). These sales involve 1,829 burners or 23,664 MWe of capacity. The sales have an estimated value. of about
$240 million and an employment benefit of 1,670 person-years.

Program Update 1995 4-7


Exhibit 4-1 (continued)
CCT Program: Commercialization Successes
Project and Participant Commercialization Progress

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


Coal Preparation Technologies
Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Intensifying competition among U.S. electric power companies as a result of utilify deregulation is forcing utilities to
Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.) strive for minimal operating expenses. Because fuel constitutes about 70% of totall operating and maintenance costs for
a coal-fired power plant, the impact of coal quality on plant performance and overcalleconomics takes on special
importance. Using CQE, utilities can optimize coal selection for specific boilers biased on coal cost and quality
information, emissions requirements, and power plant design and operational data CQ Inc. and Black and Veatch have
signed a commercialization agreement which gives Black and Veatch nonexclusive worldwide rights to sell users
licenses and to offer consulting services that include the use of CQE software. lko commercial sales of the Acid Rain
Advisor software package, developed as part of CQE to help utilities make CAAA. compliance decisions, were made in
1993 and 1995. The final CQE software was released in December 1995 and is being offered commercially. Over 40
U.S. utilities and one U.K.utility have CQE through their membership in the Electric Power Research Institute. An
upgrade is planned for 1996 in response to user comments. Several non-EPRI-member U.S. and foreign utilities have
approached CQ Inc. about access to the software. Under consideration are various worldwide marketing and distribu-
tion methods for commercializing CQE abroad.
Self-Scrubbing Coalm: An Integrated Approach to This demonstration has resulted in (1) proposed agreements with domestic coal marketing companies to purchase 1
Clean Air (Custom Coals International) million tons of compliance coal annually, (2) a proposed agreement with China to build a coal cleaning plant, together
with a 500-mile underground slurry pipeline and port facility (estimated value of :$888.6million), and (3) signed letters
of intent from three Polish power plants that wish to produce 7.5 million tondyr of cleaned coal (estimated value at $75
million). The China Pipeline Project, for which final Chinese approval is pending, will link coal mines in eastem
Shanxi Province, near Shouyang, to Chinese and world markets through the port of Qingdao in Shandong Province.
Other markets in the United States include Illinois Basin and Northern Appalachian Basin coal reserves because of the
high sulfur content of the coal and the ability of the technology to reduce the pyritic sulfur content, thus reducing SO,
emissions during combustion.
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration The Rosebud SynCoal Partnership is working on two potential semi-commercial projects located in Wyoming and
(Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) Montana. These projects would range in size from 500,000 to 5 million todyr. Irhe Wyoming project is a stand-alone
mine-mouth design. The Montana project is designed either to be integrated into a power plant and fuel user or to
expand the existing demonstration facility. The partnership conducted a $2-million study for Minnkota Power Coopera-
tive to examine the merits of applying the coal processing technology to a commercial plant integrated into an existing
power plant site. The studys results have been positive, but market commitments are still necessary. Commercial
development efforts for the SynCoal* product and fines continue. Current industrial and utility users include Ash Grove
Cement, Bentonite Corporation,Empire Sand and Gravel, and Montana Power Company.

4-8 Program Update 1995


Smith in Lynn Haven, Florida. In a sister project at ogy activities. This panel was entitled the Innovative
Georgia Power Companys Plant Hammond, South- Control Technology Advisory Panel (ICTAP). As a
em Company Services is completing a demonstration part of its activities, the state and federal incentive
of Foster Wheelers low-NOxbumer with overfire air subcommittee(ofICTAP prepared a report (Report to
in a wall-fired boiler. The test results from these two the Secretary of Energy Conceming Commercializa-
CCT Program demonstrations were used by the EPA tion Incentives) on the actions that states could take
to develop CAAA of 1990 regulations for NOxcon- to provide incentives for demonstrating and deploy-
trol. Further, the hazardous air pollutant data col- ing clean coal technologies and their eventual com-
lected under DOES CCT Program and the Coal mercial successes and determined that demonstration
R&D Program are being shared with EPA so that the and deployment should be managed through both
agency will have the best available data for use in state and federal initiatives.
formulating air toxics control regulations under Title In the same time frame, the Vice Presidents
III of the CAAA of 1990. Task Force on Regulatory Relief (later referred to as
The excellent quality and importance of the CCT the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief)
projects are well recognized by the business and was established. Among other things, the task force
environmental communities. Numerous industry and was asked to examine incentives and disincentives to
environmental awards for excellence and outstanding the commercial realization of new clean coal technol-
achievement have been presented to CCT projects ogies and other cost-effective emissions reduction
since 1991. These award-winning projects and measures that might be inhibited by various federal,
honors earned are highlighted in Exhibit 4-2. state, and local regulations. An outgrowth of this
activity was the recommendation that preference be
given to projects located in states that offer certain
regulatory incentives to encourage such technologies.
Understanding the Domestic This recommendation was accepted and became part
Market of the project selection considerations beginning with
the second CCT solicitation.
Since the beginning of the program in 1985, The framers of the CAAA of 1990recognized
A The Low-NOx Concentric Firing System (LNCFS),
which combines overfire air and clustered coal nozzle there have been a number of activities aimed at the environmental benefits of widespread commercial
positioning to achieve NOxreductions, was successfully developing an understanding of the commercial deployment of clean coal technologies. A provision
demonstrated by Southem Company Services, Inc., at Gulf market for the technologies and enhancing their in the act allows a 4-year extension (to December 31,
Powers Plant Lansing Smith Unit 2. The LNCFSm is
being retained by Gulf Power and also is being used by a entry into the commercial marketplace. As a part of 2003) to comply with the requirements of Title IV if
number of other utilities, including the Tennessee Valley the response to the recommendationsof the Special one or more uinits are repowered with a qualifying
Authority, Illinois Power, Public Service Company of Envoys on Acid Rain, the President directed the clean coal tecfmology.
Colorado, Indianapolis Power and Light, Cincinnati Gas
Secretary of Energy in April 1987 to establish a An effort has been under way to gain greater
and Electric, Virginia Power, Union Electric, and New
York State Electric & Gas Corporation. panel to advise him on innovative clean coal technol- understanding of the potential domestic market for

4-10 Program Update I995


Exhibit 4-2
Award-Winning CCT Projects
Project and Participant Award

lldd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power 1992 National Energy Resource Organization award for demonstration of energy efficient technology.
Company) 1991 Powerplant Award presented by Power Magazine to American Electric Power Companys Tidd project for
demonstrating pressurized fluidized-bed-combustion combined-cycle technology. Co-recipient was The Babcock &
Wilcox Company.
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Burner 1994 R&D 100 Award presented by R&D MugQzine to the U.S.Department of Energy for development of the low-NO,
Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) cell bumer, selected as one of the 100 most technologically significant new products of the year.
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration 1993 Powerplant Award presented by Power Magazine to Northern Indiana Public Service Companys Bailly Generating
Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Station for demonstrating advanced wet limestone FGD technology with innovations in wastewater treatment and
gypsum production reuse.
1992 Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award presented by the National Society of Professional Engineers.
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of 1995 Design Award presented by the Society of Plastics Industries in recognition of the mist eliminator.
Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southem 1994 Powerplant Award presented by Power Magazine to Georgia Powers Plant Yates for large-scale demonstration of
Company Services, Inc.) an advanced scrubbing process ... and commercial application of low-NOxburners. Co-recipient was the U.S.
Department of Energy.
1994 Outstanding Achievement Award presented by the Georgia Chapter of the Air and Waste Management Association
for use of an innovative technology for air quality control.
1993 Environmental Award presented by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce in recognition of the success of the
scrubber.

clean coal technologies and the organizations and regulatory agencies, financial institutions, investment Additionally, a series of regional studies of key
factors that will influence what and when facilities bankers, insurance carriers, and equipment manufac- utilities and utility systems are under way with the
get built as well as the technologies that are used. A turers. A total of 47 seminars have been conducted. purpose of gaining a better understanding of the
DOE team has been conducting a series of executive Priority has been placed on (1) utilities with signifi- markets for clean coal technologies and the regional
seminars with the CCT P r o g r a ~ key stakeholders. cant coal utilization, projected load growth, and and state factors that have a bearing on commercial
In these meetings, DOE seeks insights from manage- existing units aged 30 years or more and (2) nonutili- deployment. Regions selected for study account for
ment and planners whose views and decisions will ty generators utilizing coal-based technologies and most of the U.S.coal-fired generating capacity.
shape the future use of clean coal technologies in having plants up to 300 MWe of capacity. Priority Detailed data and information have been compiled on
power generation. The seminars focus on the power also has been placed on states where coal is a major (1) regional and state energy use, coal use and re-
generation market and include discussions with resource, near-term growth is expected, or advanced sources, and electric power generation; (2) state
leaders in utilities, independent power producers, regulatory issues predominate. government agencies (including public utility com-

Program Update 1995 4-11


missions), regulations, legislation, and policies that deficit and unemployment by providing high-technol- The Energy Policy Act provided the Secretary of
could have a bearing on clean coal technology com- ogy engineering and manufacturing jobs. Energy with the responsibility, among others, to
mercial realization; and (3) coal-using investor- Recognizing the importance of this export encourage the export of United States clean coal
owned, rural cooperative, and municipal electric market, a number of efforts are under way to define technologies and to assist United States f m s ,
entities which are potential users of clean coal tech- market opportunities to promote U.S. technology and especially f m s that are in competition with firms in
nologies. The collected information and data are to support U.S. project development work. Interna- foreign countries, to obtain opportunities to ...
analyzed for insights into environmental compliance tional activities have concentrated on providing undertake projects in foreign countries. The Secre-
strategies, capacity planning, and other issues facing technical support to the U.S. trade agencies, organiz- tary was authorized to develop policies and pro-
state and utility stakeholders. ing trade missions, conducting education and train- grams to encourage export and promotion ... to
The insights contributed by these continuing ing, developing financial and market analysis in developing conntries of all domestic energy re-
efforts identify some of the more significant factors response to Section 1331 of the Energy Policy Act of source technologies.
and trends affecting domestic markets for CCTs and 1992, and developing an international technology In fulfillment of this congressional direction, the
relating to the contributions of CCT demonstration transfer program as directed by Section 1332. Secretary of Energy led Presidential Missions on
projects to these markets, such as issues associated Sustainable Energy and Trade Development to the
with restructuring the electric industry and new Peoples Republic of China in February 1995 and to
limits on environmental emissions. the Republic oif South Africa in August 1995. The
Office of Clean Coal Technology provided support on
both of these missions; the support involved develop-
ing forums for project development discussions with
An Emerging International industry and government. It is estimated that China
Market will need 100 gigawatts of electric power generation
in the next 10 years. The primary source of energy
Internationally, clean coal technologies are for both China and South Africa is coal. Both coun-
acquiring significant increased importance in the tries are facing, increased pollution resulting from
export market, creating major opportunities for U.S. current and increased coal use. The SO, emissions
business. The potential CCT market for new facili- from China constitute 70 percent of the SO, emis-
ties and retrofit installations outside the United States sions in Asia, i d 90 percent of Chinas SO, emis-
for the 1993-2010 period is estimated to be sions are related to the use of coal. Chinas NOx
$571-870 billion. Export of technology to meet this emissions represent over 60 percent of the NOx
demand would create a reported 69,000-109,OOO emissions in Asia, and coal is the source of 70 per-
person-years of employment. Aggressive action by A Secretary of Energy Hazel OLeary, at the dedication cent of Chinas NOx emissions. In both countries,
U.S. companies to capture a share of this market with of the Wabash River Coal GasificationRepowering the current average efficiency of power plants is
U.S. technologies from the CCT Program could lead project, discusses the magnitude of the payoff that the approximately 25-30 percent. Clean coal technology
investment in clean coal technology could have in the 2010
to a significant reduction in both the U.S. trade world market. is a tremendous prospect for both countries; however,
the main barrier to its implementation is capital cost,

4-12 Program Update 1995


even though clean coal technology is advantageous A computer model was developed by the Office Pressurized fluidized-bed combustion-8
when economic benefits based on life-cycle cost are of Clean Coal Technology as a tool for use by project
Atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion-7
taken into consideration. developers in screening technology options for
Activities that were conducted during these overseas clean coal projects. To date, the model has New fuel f o r m s 4
missions included meetings with the ministers of provided support to five U.S. companies to assist Coal preparation4
power, energy, coal, environment, and finance (as with the development of their projects.
appropriate). These meetings provided forums for DOE is making international dissemination of Advanced combustion4
U.S. industry to understand the plans of the country, clean coal technologies an integral part of its policy Industrial applications--;!
advocate technologies or projects, and establish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing
relationships for the future. Technical seminars were countries. Pursuant to Conference Report 103-740 to Miscellaneous4
conducted during the missions to educate U.S. and accompany the Department of the Interior and Relat- The 77 projects, which represent a total of
foreign leaders regarding technology options, needs, ed Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1995 (Public 58,237 MWe of generating capacity, were valued at
and problems in the country. The missions helped to Law 103-332) and the guidance contained in corre- $7.15 billion. The largest number of projects were
identify business opportunities for discussion then sponding Senate and House Report 103-294 and 103- proposed for China; 20 projects representing 6,537
and in the future. 551, respectively, DOE published an Announcement MWe were valued at $2.5 billion. Ten projects were
As a follow up to the 1994 Presidential mission to Request Expressions of Interest (EOIs) in Com- proposed for India; these represented 1,110 MWe
to India, the Secretary of Energy returned there in mercial CCT Projects in Foreign Countries in the and were valued at nearly $2.1 billion. A total of 35
1995 to fulfill commitments made during the previ- Federal Register (59 FR 59768) on November 18, projects were proposed for Eastern European coun-
ous trip. The Office of Clean Coal Technology 1994. This solicitation was conducted to provide tries and the Newly Independent States; these
participated in this mission by providing an exhibit Congress with the information it required to consider projects represented over 47,000 MWe and were
for the ENCON 95 conference. the technical, economic, and environmental aspects valued at approximately $1.48 billion.
During 1995, representatives from the Office of of various incentives to support CCTs and their Proposed government incentives included fund-
Clean Coal Technology continued to participate in a merits for potential future support. Potential respon- ing of initial project development, funding of
leadership capacity in the Asia Pacific Economic dents were advised that DOE had no monies to fund projects, financial assistance to U.S. business, gener-
Cooperation Expert Working Group on Clean Coal or otherwise provide any incentive in support of the al support and assistance to U.S. business, and
Technology and in the United Nations Economic proposed projects. technical assistance to the host country. The submis-
Community of Europe Clean Coal Telchnology By the January 13, 1995, closing date, 33 organi- sions also noted the merits of trade missions and
Expert Working Group to develop regional multilat- zations had responded with 77 expressions of interest reverse trade missions, such as the recent highly
eral policies for development and implementation of to build clean coal technology projects in 21 coun- successful DOE mission, and governmental partici-
clean coal technology in the respective regions. tries. The number of expressions of interest proposed pation in addressing regulatory and other trade
United Nations activities included a conference on for each type of clean coal technology is listed below: impediments encountered in the course of negotiating
the use of clean coal technology in residential and projects in foreign lands.
Computer software and modeling-16
commercial applications in Eastern Europe and the Detailed infomation about the solicitation, includ-
development of a multilateral program for encourag- Integrated gasification combined cycle-14 ing summaries of each submission, country-specific
ing the application of clean coal technologies in Emissions controls-10 discussions, and technology assessments, are provid-
Eastern Europe.
Program Update 1995 4-13
ed in the June 1995 publication, Report to Congress: actions from a steering committee, which has the
Expressions of Interest in Commercial Clean Coal following mission:
Technology Projects in Foreign Countries. Establish a clear understanding of the specific needs of
identified priority stakeholdedcustomersto ensure that full
access to information essential to the realization of the full
potential of clean coal technology is achieved. Provide
sufficient and timely technical, economic, and environmen-
Market Communications tal data to the priority stakeholdedcustomers so they can
make informed decisions affecting the commercial realiza-
Public involvement has been a hallmark of the tion of the technologies, and to ensure that the necessary
feedback loops exist to RLD so problem definition and
CCT Program since its inception in 1984. Program- results will enter into the technology development process.
matic interest was evaluated, first at the direction of
The steering committee has undertaken assess-
Congress, in two informational solicitations preced-
ments of outreach materials (publications, exhibits,
ing the CCT-I and CCT-II solicitations. Strong and
photographs, and electronic information, among
broad industry interest covering a wide range of
others), and is developing long-term plans to import
clean coal technologies was found to exist. Numer-
the most effective support to ensure continued suc-
ous public meetings were held prior to issuing each
cess of clean coal technology deployment and com-
of the CCT-II through CCT-V project solicitations.
mercialization.
The 12 public meetings that were held helped to
The purpose: of the outreach program is to
sharpen the solicitation objectives and procedures,
import an understanding that clean coal technologies
enabling industry to propose a technical
can increase the efficiency of coal use and
agenda that met each of the solicitations
enhance: environmental quality at competi-
broad objectives.
tive costs. Further, the outreach program
As an outgrowth of ICTAPs Report to
underscores the commitment to commercial
the Secretary of Energy Concerning Com-
realization of the technologies. Specific
mercialization Incentives, a clean coal
objectives of the outreach program include
technology outreach program was established
the following:
in 1989 to build a broad constituency for the
Achieving public and government
CCT Program and to identify the needs of
awareness of advanced coal-using technolo-
that constituency for information and data.
gies as viable energy options
The support of outreach was reemphasized in
the National Energy Strategy in 1991. As a Providing potential technology users with
result, a formal outreach organization was information that is timely and relevant to
A The CCT Program makes use of several exhibits to help communicate the
established with DOES Office of Clean Coal progress of the program and the benefits of clean coal technologies. their decision-making process
Technology. This outreach organization has
received guidance and approval of outreach

4-14 Program Updnte 1995


8 Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Appendix C is a comprehensive listing of CCT related computer servers and networks operated by
Program: Project Fact Sheets provides a mid- Program publications, and Appendix D lists recent private companies, trade associations, and other
year update on each project. papers and presentations on the CCT Program. agencies worldwide. (See Appendix C for additional
8 Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Three issues of the newsletter, Clean Coal information on how to access CCT Program informa-
Today, were published in 1995, along with the first tion electronically.)
Conference: The Global Opportunity;
annual edition of the Clean Coal Today Index which The Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology
Technical Papers contains the technical
cross-references all articles published in the newslet- Conference was held in Denver, Colorado, in Sep-
papers submitted in advance of the 1995
ter to date by both project title and participant. The tember 1995 and was cosponsored by the Center for
conference.
newsletter is distributed to approximately 4,000 Energy & Economic Development and the National
8 Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology domestic and international readers. Mining Association. There were nearly 300 partici-
Conference: The Global Opportunity; Fossil Energy TechLine is a 24-hour fax-on- pants, including 34 representatives from more than a
Proceedings contains the papers presented demand system that can provide a wide variety of dozen countries. The theme, The Global Opportuni-
during plenary and panel sessions as well as information on DOEs fossil energy programs includ- ty, emphasized international opportunities for clean
the luncheon addresses. ing the CCT Program. The TechLine system offers coal projects. A n important goal of this conference
news announcements on clean coal projects, was to assess and evaluate promising technologies
fact sheets for individual projects, and month- that will be the benchmark technologies in emissions
ly updated status reports. A computer bulle- control for 19961and into the next century. The
tin board also provides updates. conference provided a forum to review the status of
DOE also has put into operation a public CCT projects here and abroad and provided an
computer network accessible through the opportunity to evaluate CCT Program directions.
Internet World Wide Web which provides The conference provided attendees with reviews
information on federal fossil energy programs of the current status of clean coal technologies,
and serves as a gateway to other related descriptions of Ixmiers to commercialization domes-
information throughout the United States and tically and internationally, explanations of how the
the world. Once into the network, users can changing utility organizations and structure may
obtain general information and follow links to affect these technologies, and recommendations for
increasingly detailed information, ultimately support required to ensure the continuing deployment
accessing specific data on individual projects of clean coal technologies.
A The Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference held in
Denver, CO, was attended by about 300 persons from more than a and facilities. Internets electronic links Modeling the agenda and program after last
dozen countries. Energy and Environmental Research Corporation allow users to move seamlessly between head- years successful conference, the opening day was
conducted site tours of the gas rebuming and low-NOxbumer quarters and field sites. Users can also access devoted to an international orientation session,
demonstration at Cherokee Station, and the Public Service
Company of Colorado conducted site tours of the integrated dry technical abstracts and reports maintained by providing an overview of the importance of clean
NOX/SOzemissions control system at Arapahoe Station. DOEs Ofice of Scientific and Technical coal technologies internationally and an opportunity
Information at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The for trade development dialogue. This was followed
gateways link to more than a hundred energy- by tours of two Public Service Company of Colorado

4-16 Program Update 1995


in the electric power industry, and domes- including Virginia Power Electrotechnologies Expo,
tic challenges, such as externalities, DOEEH Annual NEPA Conference, EPFU-EPA-
emissions regulations, selecting technolo- DOE 1995 SO, Control Symposium, EPRVDOE
gies in the competitive era in power workshop, American Power Conference, Third
generation, alternative power marketing, AfricadAfrican American Summit, New England
and utility industry restructuring. Cogeneration Association Conference & Exhibit,
During six technical sessions, presen- PETC School Day and Open House, PowerGen
tations were given by 28 industrial partici- International, Association of Energy Engineers
pants on results and accomplishments of Competitive Power Congress, International Energy &
the projects in three categories-advanced Environmental Congress, Virginia Coal Council
emissions reduction technologies, ad- Conference & Exposition, NASA Technology 2005,
vanced technologies for power/industrial NARUC 107th Annual Convention & Regulatory
applications, and advanced NOJSO, Symposium, and PowerGen Americas.
emissions reduction technologies.
A The Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology conference was held in
Denver, CO, and focused on the global opportunities within the The final day provided affmation
intemational market for clean coal technologies. that clean coal technologies have a defi-
nite place in the global energy environ-
sites: Arapahoe Station, where an integrated dry ment. Presentations were given on specific interna-
NOJSO, emissions control system is being demon- tional projects and reports from China, India,
strated, and Cherokee Station, where gas reburning Indonesia, Russia, and the Ukraine. Some described
and low-NOxburners were evaluated. joint U.S./intemational projects, while others ex-
In the opening plenary session, (GlobalOpportu- plained energy needs, infrastructure developments,
nity, Meeting the Diverse Challenges, speakers economic and environmental factors, and increasing
addressed the world economic and energy outlook, opportunities in their respective countries. Conferees
role of clean coal technologies and coal in the ex- also heard from organizations that are actively pursu-
panding world economy, recent National Coal Coun- ing cooperative energy ventures and financing oppor-
cil studies on clean coal technologies, and technology tunities globally. A lack of infrastructure appeared to
deployment in emerging markets. be the most common impediment to such projects. It
The first of four panel sessions addressed inter- was clear that the potential for international success-
national business from the perspectives of under- es remains dependent upon continued domestic suc-
standing the markets, mechanisms for international cesses for clean coal technologies.
commercialization, international intellectual proper- During 1995, DOE made use of exhibits and
ty, and the World Bank Clean Power Technologies presentations as a means to highlight the activities
Initiative. Other panels covered transitions in the and benefits of the CCT Program. The exhibits were
international power sectors, transition to competition used in 16 maior domestic and international events

Program Update 1995 4-17


5. Results of Completed Projects
designed to address energy and environmental issues sions in the range of 0.15-0.33 pound per million
associated with the use of coal in the U.S. energy Btu. These emissions were inherent to the process
sumary portfolio. which had an operating temperature of 1,580 9.
Five projects completed operation in 1995, Except for localized erosion of the in-bed tube
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project bundle and the more general erosion of the water-
bringing to 18 the total number of projects for which
operations have been completed under the CCT The Ohio Power Company completed the dem- walls, the Tidd boiler performed extremely well and
Program. The five projects, which fall into three onstration of the first utility-scale pressurized fluid- is considered a commercially viable design. While
catagories, are as follows: ized-bed combustion (PFBC) unit in the United the gas turbine was the leading cause of unit unavail-
States at the Tidd Plant in Brilliant, Ohio. The ability during the fmt 3 years of operation, technical
Advanced Electric Power Generation Tech- improvement and revised designs are addressing the
70-MWe plant represented a 13:1 scale-up from the
nology pilot facility and used The Babcock & Wilcox Com- mechanical and erosion problems. The Tidd demon-
- Tidd pressurized fluidized-bed combustion panys PFBC technology under license from ASEA stration showed that a gas turbine could operate in
demonstration project (The Ohio Power Brown Boveri Carbon. The Tidd PFBC technology the PFBC flue gas environment and erosion was
Company) is a bubbling fluidized-bed combustion process manageable with a scheduled maintenance program.
operating at 12 atmospheres. The PFBC power As part of a research and development program,
NO, Control Technologies advanced ceramic candle filtration elements were
island was incorporated into the existing steam cycle
- Gas reburning and low-N(3~x burners on a at Tidd. The unit provided a nominal steam flow of tested on one-seventh of the gas stream for 5,854
wall-fired boiler (Energy and Environmen- 440,OOO pounds per hour at 1,300 pounds per square hours of coal-fired operation between October 1992
tal Research Corporation) inch and 925 O F and had an electrical output of 55- and March 1995. Test results showed that the design
MWe from the steam turbine and 15-MWe from an of the candle-based advanced particulate filter was
- Selective catalytic reduction technology
ASEA Stal GT-35P gas turbine. The unit accumu- structurally adequate. However, results also showed
(Southern Company Services, Inc.)
lated 11,444 hours of coal-fued operation during its that clay-based silicon carbide lost 50 percent of its
SO, Control Technologies 54 months of operation. The unit completed 95 strength after 1,00&2,OOO hours of exposure and that
- Advanced flue gas desulfurization technol- parametric tests and included continuous coal-fired a build-up of ash in the filter vessel would cause
ogy (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) runs of 28.29.30.31, and 45 days. breakage of the candles.
Test results showed that 90 percent SO, capture
- CT-121 advanced flue gas desulfurization
was achieved with a Ca/S molar ratio of 1.1 and 95
Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low-NO+
technology (Southem Company Services, Bumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler
percent SO, capture was possible with a CdS molar
InC .)
ratio of 1.5 using both Ohio bituminous coals having Energy and Environmental Research Corpora-
These five projects provide further valuable a sulfur content of 2 4 percent and Plum Run Green- tion (Em) completed an evaluation of a gas-rebum-
contributions to a growing CCT Program data base field dolomite. The unit demonstrated NOx emis- ing system combined with low-NOxburners

Program Update 1995 5-1


(GR-LNB) at Public Service Company of Colorados repaired to reduce carbon-in-ash levels and, thus, Detailed results from the SCR c.emonstration
172-MWe wall-fired boiler located at Cherokee improve the economic performance of the unit. will be available in 1996.
Station Unit 3. Parametric and long-term testing was
conducted from October 1992 to January 1995. More Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Advanced Flue Gas Desu@wkation
than 4,000 hours of operation were achieved enabling Technologyfor Control of NOx Emissions from Demonstrationr Project
EER to obtain a substantial amount of data. The High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers Pure Air on the Lake, a general partnership
results showed that for the first generation system Southem Company Services, Inc., completed a between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and
using flue gas recirculation, average NO, reduction demonstration designed to evaluate the performance Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., complet-
of 37 percent (0.46 pound per million Btu) was of eight commercially offered catalysts of various ed a 3-year demlonstration of an advimced flue gas
achievable with the LNB alone and 65 percent (0.26 shapes and composition under U.S. utility operating desulfurization ( AFGD) process at Northem Indiana
pound per million Btu) was achieved with GR-LNB conditions with high sulfur coal at Gulf Power Public Service Companys Billy Generating Station,
at an average gas input of 18 percent of total boiler Companys Plant Crist. Project objectives include Units 7 and 8. The 528-MWe demcnstration accu-
heat input. The second generation system without assessing the technical and economic viability of the mulated approximately 26,280 how of operation
flue gas recirculation showed an average NO, reduc- catalysts when applied in US. utility application with =A
over a 3-year period and achieved availability of
tions of 37 percent for LNB and 64 percent for high-sulfur coal while maintaining at least 80 per- 99.47 percent. Construction began .A April 1990,
GR-LNB at an average gas heat input of 13 percent. cent NO, reduction and acceptable ammonia slip (5 and in June 199:2 the AFGD system began to process
The boiler efficiency decreased by approximately 1 parts per million). Three large selective catalytic flue gas, thus becoming the fvst commercial scrubber
percent during gas reburning due to moisture in the reduction (SCR) reactors (2.5 MWe, 5,000 standard to meet the requirements of the CAAA of 1990.
fuel and an increase in heat loss due to moisture cubic feet per minute) and six smaller SCR reactors Tests were performed on coals ranging from 2.25
formed in combustion. There was no measurable (0.2 MWe, 400 standard cubic feet per minute) were percent to greater than 4.5 percent sulfur. During the
boiler tube wear resulting from GR-LNB operation operated in parallel. Eight of the nine reactors 3-year Operation, SO, removal efficiency averaged 94
and, in general, the tubes were free from slagging. generated with flue gas containing high particulate percent with a maximum of 98 percent or 0.382
Based on the demonstration and the data collect- loading (ESP inlet), and one small reactor received pound per million Btu. Twenty-four hour average
ed, the technology can be applied to utility and low particulate loading (ESP outlet). Each reactor power consumption was 5,275 kilowatts or 61 per-
industrial units. EER expects that most GR-LNB train had the provision to control and measure tem- cent of design expectations, and water consumption
installations will achieve 60 percent NO, reductions perature and flow. was 1,560 gallons per minute or 52 percent of design
when firing 1&15 percent gas. The capital cost for The larger trains had pilot-scale air preheaters at expectations. The project also demonstrated a unique
units of 100-MWe or larger is in the range of $15 per the SCR exit to evaluate the effect of SCR reaction gypsum agglomeration process known as Power-
kilowatt plus the cost of a gas pipeline. Operating chemistry on air preheater deposit formation. Each Chipm that converts AFGD gypsum into stable
costs are almost entirely related to the differential SCR train was operated over the long term at design/ product conduciive to transporhg and handling. The
cost of gas over coal as reduced by the value of SO, baseline conditions with parametric tests interjected production rate of the PowerChipm facility was 7
emissions credits. every 4 months. Parametric tests varied 0, tons per hour. ]During the 3-year demonstration, over
Public Service Company of Colorado retained ratio, temperature, and space velocity while measur- 210,000 tons of dry gypsum was produced with an
the gas reburning system and associated controls. ing NO, reduction efficiency, pressure drop, SO, average purity of 97.2 percent.
The low-NO, burners are also to be retained and oxidation, and ammonia slip.

5-2 Program Update 1995


The AFGD will continue to operate for an Power Companys Plant Yates. In the 19,OOO hours need for a spare reactor module. The CT-121 system
additional 17 years under a novel business concept logged over 27 months of operation, the system was demonstrated high particulate capture efficiency
whereby Pure Air is the owner of the unit and oper- able to maintain SO, removal efficiencies above 90 (97.7-99.3 percent) at flyash levels reflective of
ates the system on a service contract basis for North- percent at all loads with coals ranging from 1.2 to 4.3 marginal ESP performance (up to 1.4 pounds per
ern Indiana Public Service Company. In April 1994, percent sulfur, ash levels up to 1.4 pounds per mil- million Btu). Testing also showed the CT-121
Pure Air of Manatee, L.P., entered into a contract to lion Btu, and limestone utilization above 97 percent. system is highly efficient in the capture of hazardous
provide 1,600MWe of SO, scrubbing capability to Use of fiberglass reinforced plastic in fabricating key air pollutants which are largely borne by particulate.
Florida Power and Light Companys Manatee Power components, with its high resistance to corrosion,
Plant on the same own-and-operate basis. enabled elimination of a prerescrubber to remove Results Summaries
chlorides and flue gas reheat to prevent corrosive Exhibit 5-1 shows the number of completed
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of condensation in the chimney. The structural and projects for each application category. As can be
Technologyfor the CT-121 FGD Process chemical durability of fiberglass reinforced plastic seen, the technical, environmental, and economic
Southern Company Services, Inc., completed construction combined with the simplicity of design performance results are available for 14 of the 19
demonstration of Chiyoda Corporations CT-121 afforded by the unique jet bubbling reactor resulted in projects in the environmental control device catego-
advanced flue gas desulfurization process retrofitted high availability (97 percent at low ash levels and 95 ry-in time for potential users to have the informa-
to an existing 100-MWe coal-fired boiler at Georgia percent at elevated ash levels) and elimination of the tion necessary to make decisions on how best to
satisfy the requirements of the CAAA of 1990 for
SOz and NO, reduction.
Exhibit 5-1 Results summaries for the 18 completed projects,
Completed Projects as reported by the participants, follow for quick
~~ ~~~~ reference. More detailed results are discussed in the
Application Category Total Projects Completed Projects project summaries provided later in this section.

Advanced Electric Power Generation


Fluidized-bed combustion 6 2
Integrated gasifier combined cycle 5 0
Advanced combustionlheat engines 3 0
Environmental Control Devices
NO, control technologies 7 5
SO, control technologies 5 5
Combined SOPOXcontrol technologies 7 4
Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 5 0
Industrial Applications 5 2
- -
43 18

Program Update 1995 5-3


Exhibit 5-2
Completed Projects, by Application Category

Project and Participant page

Advanced Electric Power Generation


Fluidized-Bed Combustion
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) 5-6
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) 5-10

Environmental Control Devices


NOI Control Technology
Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 5-14
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Bumer Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 5-17
Evaluation of Gas Reburing and Low-NOx Bumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) 5-19
180-Mwe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boileirs 5-21
(Southem Company Services, Inc.)
Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers (Southem Company Services, Inc.) 5-23

SO, Control Technology


10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) 5-25
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) 5-28
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC-North America) 5-30
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) 5-33
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southem Company Services, Inc.) 5-37

SO/NOI Control Technology


SNOXm Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) 5-41
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 5-43
SOX-NOx-ROxBoxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 5-46
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) 5-49

Industrial Applications
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) 5-54
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) 5-56

5-4 Program Update 1995


Advanced Electric Power Generation

Program Updute 1995 5-5


Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project
(The Ohio Power Company)

Technology 340-MWe PFBC Utility Demonstration Project (see project


fact sheet, page 7-8) will define the capital and operating
Pressurized fluidized-bed combustion combined cycle
cost for this technology.
(12 atm)
Size
The Ohio Power Company completed Tidd PFBC Combustor Assembly
70-MWe total-(55 MWe steam turbine; 15-MWe gas
turbine) demonstration of the first utility-scale
pressurized fluidized-bed combustion
Demonstration Duration (10/91-3/95)
(PFBC) system in the United States at the
1 1,444 brs of coal-fired operation
Tidd Plant in Brilliant, Ohio. The 70-MWe
Coal unit used the Babcock & Wilcox Companys
Ohio bituminous, 2 4 % sulfur PFBC technology under license from ASEA
Sorbent Brown Boveri Carbon. The plant represent-
Both limestone and dolomite evaluated ed a 13:l scale-up from the pilot facility.
Plum Run Greenfield dolomite preferred The objective of the demonstration was to
Environmental Results verify the technologys economic, environ-
90% SO, removal efficiency at 1.1 CdS (1,580 OF) mental and technical performance in a
95% SO, removal efficiency at 1.5 CdS (1,580 O F ) combined-cycle repowering application at a
NOxemissions of 0.15-0.33 IWmillion Btu utility site. Specific objectives were to
CO emissions less than 0.01 Ib/million Btu achieve 90 percent SO, removal, NO,
Particulate emissions less than 0.02 IWmillion Btu emissions of 0.2 Ib/million Btu and an
efficiency of 35 percent in a repowering
Technical Results
mode which used the existing steam system.
Combustion efficiency-99.6%
The Tidd PFBC technology is a bub-
Heat rate-10,280 Btu/kWh (33.2% efficiency) based
on fuel HHV and gross electrical output bling fluidized-bed combustion process
Candle filter-99.99% filtration efficiency, mass basis operating at 12 atmospheres (175 pounds capacitu,b Steamhr................................... 440,800
per square inch). Fluidized combustion is %phaatw Ou(bt Pressurs. poi...................1,310
Boiler design considered commercially viable - Temperature. F.................. 925
SUpSmeater 0

Gas turbine shown to operate in PFBC flue gas inherently efficient. A pressurized environ-
environment ment further enhances combustion eficien-
A The Ohio Power Company completed the 54-month
Economic Results cy lowing very low that demonstration of the first utility-scale PFBC unit in the United States.
Because the Tidd project produced 70 MWe, economic
mitigate therm NO, generation, flue gas/ The unit accumulated over 11,400 hours of oueration and generated 55 Y

results would not be applicable to future utility-scale sorbent reactions increase sorbent utiliza- MWe from the steam turbine and 15 MWe frLm a gas turbine and is
applications of this technology. Economic results from the tion, and flue gas energy is used to drive a considered a commercially viable design.

5-6 Program Update 1995


gas turbine. The latter contributed significantly to pressure vessel and are expanded through an ASEA bed via two pneumatic feed lines, supplied from two
system efficiency because of the high efficiency of Stal GT-35P gas turbine. Heat from the turbine lock hoppers. An alternative sorbent feed system was
gas turbines and the availability of gas turbine ex- exhaust is captured in a waste heat recovery unit for added in 1993 which provided the capability of
haust heat that can be applied to the steam cycle steam generation. The cooled gas is further cleaned injecting sorbent of various sizes directly into the
(such systems are called combined cycles). in an electrostatic precipitator. coal-water paste feed system. The system provided
The boiler, cyclones, bed injection vessels, and The PFBC power island was incorporated into the means to assess a wet feed sorbent system while
associated hardware are encapsulated in a pressure the existing steam cycle at Tidd. The PFBC provid- providing the opportunity to better control sorbent
vessel 45 feet in diameter and 70 feet high. Pressur- ed a nominal steam flow of 440,OOO pounds per hour size.
ized combustion air is provided by the gas turbine at 1,300 pounds per square inch and 925 "F and had In 1992, a 10-MWe advanced hot gas cleanup
compressor. The combustion air fluidizes the bed a gross electric output of 70 MWe (55 MWe from the system was installed and commissioned as part of a
material consisting of fuel (codwater paste), coal steam turbine generator and 15 MWe from the gas research and development program and not part of
ash and sorbent (dolomite). Seven twckstage cy- turbine generator). the CCT demonstration. This system used ceramic
clones, located in the combustor vessel, remove about Coal was injected into the combustor as a c o d candle filter to clean one-seventh of the exhaust gases
98 percent of the entrained ash from the fluidized bed water paste containing 25 percent water by weight. from the PFBC system. The unit replaced one of the
exhaust gases. The clean hot gases pass from the The coal was crushed to 4! inch or less, then con- seven cyclones that was normally used for final gas
veyed to a vibratory screen, cleanup.
which controlled coal top The Tidd PFBC demonstration plant accumulat-
size and then to the coal- ed 11,444hours of coal-fired operations during its 54
water paste mixer where the months of operation. The unit completed 95 para-
appropriate amount of water metric tests and included continuous coal-fired runs
was added. The codwater of 28,29,30,31 and 45 days. Ohio bituminous coals
paste was fed into six hy- having sulfur contents of 2-4 percent were used in
draulically driven pumps, the demonstration.
each of which fed an individ- Testing indicated that 90 percent SO, capture
ual in-bed nozzle. was achievable with a CdS molar ratio of 1.1 and 95
In the process, sorbent, percent SO, capture with a CdS molar ratio of 1.5,
dolomite or limestone, is provided the size gradation of the sorbent being
used to react with the sulfur utilized was optimized. This sulfur retention was
in the coal to form calcium achieved at a bed temperature of 1,580 "F and full
sulfate, a dry granular bed- bed height. Limestone proved ineffective as a sor-
ash material which is easily bent, and as a result, testing focused on use of dolo-
disposed of or used to pro- mite. The testing showed that sulfur capture as well
A The PFBC demonstration at the repowered 70-MWe unit at Ohio Power's Tidd duce a usable by-product. as sintering was sensitive to the fineness of the
Plant,shown in this photo, led to significant refinements and understanding of the The crushed sorbent is dolomite sorbent (Plum Run Greenfield dolomite).
technology.
injected into the fluidized Sintering of fluidized bed materials, a fusing of the

Program Updnte 1995 5-7


materials rather than effective reaction, had become a retaining clips. While the tube bundle was in good the fourth year of operation showed combustion effi-
serious problem that required operation at bed tem- condition, a significant amount of erosion on each of ciencies surpassing the design or expected efficiency
peratures below the optimum for effective boiler the four water walls was observed. This occurred of 99.0 percent. The typical efficiency calculated at
operation. Tests were conducted with sorbent size approximately 5 feet above the air sparge ducts and design operation conditions was about 99.6 percent.
reduced from minus 6 mesh material to a minus 12 extended to about three feet below the top of the tube Using data for a typical full-load operating
mesh material. The result with the finer material bundle. While no operational failure occurred during condition, a heat rate of 10,280 Btu per kilowatt-hour
was a major, positive impact on process performance the demonstration, remedial action such as the use of (HHV basis) was calculated. This corresponds to a
without the expected excessive elutration of sorbent. refractory coatings should provide a solution. Such cycle thermodynamic efficiency of 33.2 percent at a
The finer material increased the fluidization activity coatings were utilized on two commercial PFBC units point where the cycle produced 70 W e of gross
as evidenced by a 10 percent improvement in heat and were shown to be effective in precluding water electrical power while burning Pittsburgh No. 8 coal.
transfer rate and an approximately 30 percent in- wall erosion. Because the Tidd plant is a repowering application at
crease in sorbent utilization. In addition, the process The gas turbine was the leading cause of unit a comparatively small scale, the measured efficiency
was much more stable as indicated by reductions in unavailability during the first 3 years of operation. does not represent what would be expected for a
temperature variations in both the bed and the evapo- The low-pressure turbine blades were replaced, once utility-scale plant using Tidd technology. Studies
rator tubes. Further, post-bed combustion and sinter- due to cracks and once due to a failure of a blade. conducted under the PFBC Utility Demonstration
ing were effectively eliminated. During the fourth year, no significant failures oc- Project show hat efficiencies of over 40 percent are
The process demonstrated NOxemissions in the curred. These failures were all related to the turbine likely for a utility-scale PFBC plant.
range of 0.15-0.33 pound per million Btu. These mechanical design, not its operation in the PFBC Testing of advanced ceramic candle filtration
emissions were inherent to the process which was plant. Erosion was a problem throughout the demon- elements on a slipstream of one-seventh of the ex-
operating at approximately 1,580 F. No NO, control stration. While erosion on the turbine blades was haust gases for over 5,800 hours of coal-- opera-
enhancements, such as ammonia injection, were relatively minor, it was significant on the variable- tion showed that the design of the particulate filter
required. Emissions of carbon monoxide and partic- pitch inlet guide vanes and the inlet guide vanes was structurally adequate. However, results also
ulates were less than 0.01 and 0.02 pound per million inner and outer rings. However, a revised design, showed that clay-bonded silicon carbide lost 50
Btu, respectively. which was not installed at Tidd due to its limited percent of its stnngth after 1,000-2.000 b u r s of
Except for localized erosion of the in-bed tube remaining life, was installed at other operating PFBC exposure and that a buildup of ash in the filter vessel
bundle and the more general erosion of the water units and was effective in addressing this problem. caused breakage of the candles. The filter operated
walls, the Tidd boiler performed extremely well and The Tidd demonstration showed that a gas turbine at a pressure drop on the order of 100 inches of water
is considered a commercially viable design. The in- could operate in a PFBC flue gas environment and it column and a firration efficiency (massbasis) of
bed tube bundle experienced no widespread erosion was concluded that erosion was manageable with a 99.99 percent.
that would require significant maintenance. There scheduled maintenance program. Because the Tidd project produced 70 W e ,
was one in-bed bundle tube leak during the first 3 The efficiency of the PFBC combustion process -
economic results would not be c h a tic of future
years of operation attributed to erosion. This was was calculated during the testing from the amount of utility-scale applications of this technology. Eco-
caused by a missing access hatch seal. Final inspec- unburned carbon in the cyclone ash and bed ash nomic results firom the 34O-We PFBC Utility
tion revealed some distortion of the superheater together with the measurements of the amount of Demonstration Project will define the capital and
uncooled support trusses and loss of a number of carbon monoxide in the flue gas. Tests conducted in operating costs for this technology.

5-8 Program Updare 1995


In summary, the Tidd PFBC Demonstration Power Service Corporation. October 1994. Contact
Project showed that the PFBC system could be ap- (Available from NTIS as DE95009729.)
Mario Marroao, Manager, PFBC Programs
-
plied to electric power generation. Finally, the
Ti& PFBC Demonstration Project Topical American Electric Power Service Corporation
demonstration project led to significant refinements
Report-First Eighteen Months of Operation. 1 Riverside Plaza
and understanding of the technology in the areas of
Report No. DOWU24132-3746. The Ohio Columbus, OH 43215
turbine erosion, sorbent utilization, sintering, post-
Power Company. March 1994. (Available (614) 223-1740
bed combustion, and boiler materials.
from NTIS as DE94004120.)
The Tidd project has received two major awards. (614) 223-2466 ( f a )
In 1992, it received the National Energy Resources Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project: Public
Organization award for demonstration of energy Final Design Report. Report No.DOEJMCI
efficienttechnology. In 1992, Power Magazine 24132-3195. The Ohio Power Company.
presented the Powerplant of the Year Award to the October 1992. (Available from IS as
project for demonstrating PFBC technology. DE93000234.)

Available Reports
Tidd PFBC Hot Gas Clean Up Program Final
Report. Report No. DOE/MC/26042-5130.
The Ohio Power Company. October 1995.
(Available from NTIS as DE96000650.) 1991
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project Final
Powe?phnt
Report, March 1, 1994March 30, 1995. Award
Report No. DOE&4C/24132-18. The Ohio
Power Company. August 1995. (Available
from NTIS as DE96004973.)
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project-First
Three Years of Operation. Report No. DOE/
MCB4132-5037-vol. 1 and -vol. 2. The Ohio
Power Company. April 1995. (Available
from NTIS as DE96000559 for vol. 1 and
DE96003781 for vol. 2.)
American Electric Power Company received Power
A Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants at the Magazines 1991 Powerplant Award and in 1992, a
Tidd PFBC Demonstratwn Plant. Report No. National Energy Resource Organization award for
demonstration of energy efficient technology.
DOE/MC/26042-4083. American Electric

Program Update 1995 5-9


Nucla CFB Demonstration Project
(Tri-State Generation andTransmission Association, Inc.)

Technology The Nucla CFB Demonstration Project was conduct- onstration test program. In July 1988, the data
Atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed (ACFB) combustion ed by Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc., owner acquisition system and software became fully opera-
Size of the project site, Nucla Station. In 1992, Colorado- tional. From August 1988 through January 1991, the
Ute Electric Association was purchased by Tri-State plant operated with an average availability of
110 MWe
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 58.3 percent and a capacity factor of 39.6 percent,
Demonstration Duration (8/88-1/91)
The original Nucla Station was built in 1959 and which are below national averages. (According to
15,700 hrs included three identical stoker-fired units, each rated the North American Reliability Council Generating
Coal at 12.5 W e . Due to the plants reduced position in Availability Data System, between 1984 and 1988,
Salt Creek & Peabody, 0 . 4 4 8 % sulfur, Dorchester, the dispatch order resulting from poor station effi- non-CFB coal-filred units in the 100-199-We size
1.4-1.8% sulfur ciency and increased maintenance costs, the decision range had average availability and capacity factors of
Sorbent was made to upgrade and repower the station with a 83.9 percent and 49.7 percent respectively.)
Limestone new 925,000-pound-per-hour ACFB boiler and a Several factors account for the differences in
Environmental Results 7 4 W e W i n e generator. Except for the old average availability and capacity factors, including
70% SO, removal efficiency with 1.5 CdS (4,620 OF) stoker-fired units, most of the equipment from the old the demonstration nature of the project and require-
95% SO, removal efficiency with 4.0 CdS (~1,620OF) plant, including the turbine-generator sets, was ments for inspection of materials at the facility,
NOx emissions less than 0.34 1Wmillion Btu; refurbished and reused, bringing the plants total equipment modification outages required for some
avg 0.18 lwmillion Btu electrical output to 110 W e . The project offered nondesign fuel Issts, and outages related to ACFB
Technical Results several advantages to the utility, including an im- technology installation.
Combustion efficiency-96.9-98.9%
provement of 15 percent in station heat rate, reduced From April 1988 through June 1990, a total of
Heat rate-12,400 BtuAcWh (50% load); fuel costs due to the inherent fuel flexibility of the 45 steady-state ]performancetests were completed.
11,600 BtukWh (100%load) ACFB design, lower emissions than required by These tests established the effects of load, excess air,
Economic Results NSPS, and life extension of 30 years beyond that of primary-to-secondary air ratio, unit operating tem-
the plants original design. peratures, coal and limestone feed configurations,
Capital cost-approx $l,123/net kW (repower cost)
Construction of the new ACFB boiler began in and coal type and size distributions on emissions
the spring of 1985 and was completed over a 2-year performance anld combustion and boiler efficiencies.
The primary objective of the Nucla project was
period. The first turbine roll was initiated in May Data were collected from these tests to quantify heat
to demonstrate!the feasibility of atmospheric circulat-
1987, followed in June by the first coal firing. &pa- transfer in the combustion chambers, tubular air heat
ing fluidized-bed ( A m ) combustion technology at
ration for the test program began in February 1987. effectiveness, and baghouse collection efficiency.
utility scale and to evaluate the economic, environ-
Cold-mode shakedown was completed by the third Between July 1990 and January 1991, an addi-
mental, and operational benefits of ACFB steam
quarter of 1988. tional 27 steady-state performance tests were con-
generators at that scale. At the conclusion of testing
The plant had accumulated more than 15,700 ducted. These tests provided new information in
in January 1991, this objective had been achieved.
hours of coal-fired operation by the end of the dem- areas with limited results during previous tests. As
5-10 Program Update 1995
part of the alternate fuels testing, Dorchester coal 1,700 OF, CdS greater than 5.0 was required to Boiler Efficiency. Efficiencies for 68
was also tested. This coal had a much higher sulfur maintain 70percent sulfur capture. performance tests varied from 85.6 to 88.6
content (approximately 1.5 percent by weight) com- percent. The contributions to boiler heat loss
The NO, emissions for all tests completed
pared to Salt Creek coal (about 0.5 percent) and a were identified as unburned carbon; sensible
were less than 0.34 pound per million Btu,
local Nucla coal used in earlier tests. In addition, heat in dry flue gas; fuel and sorbent mois-
which was well within the state-regulated
dynamic response tests were completed at rates up to ture; latent heat in burning hydrogen; sorbent
emission limit of 0.5 pound per million Btu.
7 MWe per minute. calcination, radiation, and convection; and
The average level of NO, emissions for all
In summary, a total of 72 steady-state perfor- bottom ash cooling water. Net plant heat rate
tests was 0.18 pound per million Btu. For
mance tests were completed between 1988 and 1991. decreased with increasing boiler load from
fluidized-bed boilers operating well below the
Of these tests, 8 were conducted on a Xocal Nucla coal 12,400Btu per kilowatt-hour at 50 percent of
thermal NO, formation temperature of about
and 2 on a local Dorchester coal as part of alternate full load to 11,600 Btu per kilowatt-hour at
2,500 OF, it is believed that NO, emissions
fuels testing; 62 were completed on Salt Creek coal, full load. The lowest heat rate achieved
result from fuel-bound nitrogen being con-
which was the baseline fuel used for the test pro- during a full-load steady-state test was 10,980
verted to NO,, followed by the destruction of
gram. A total of 22 tests were performed at Btu per kilowatt-hour. These values were
the NO, in the combustor.
50 percent of full load (full load being 110 W e ) , 6 affected by the absence of reheat, the presence
tests at 75 percent, 2 tests at 90 percent, and 42 tests Combustion Efficiency. The
at full load. Except for limestone sizing tests, which values obtained for combustion
were not possible with existing plant preparation efficiency ranged from 96.9 to
equipment, all independent process variables pro- 98.9 percent. Combustion
posed in the original test matrix were (completed. efficiency is a measure of the
Some key results obtained during the perfor- quantity of carbon that is fully
mance of these tests, as reported by the participant, oxidized to CO,. Carbon in the
are as follows: fly ash was the largest source
of heat loss from incomplete
Emissions Performance. Results indicated
combustion of carbon at Nucla.
strong correlations of absolute CO, SO,, and
The flue gas stream accounted
NO, emissions levels with combustor operat-
for an average of about 93
ing temperatures. Although compliance was
percent of the incompletely
maintained within NSPS for each emission
burned carbon leaving the
type, a penalty on limestone feed require-
boiler. Another 5 percent was
ments for sulfur retention was irealized at the
contained in the bottom ash
higher operating temperatures. For tempera-
stream. The contribution from
tures below 1,620 OF, 70 percent SO, retention
co in the flue gas A The 1 10-MWe Nucla ACFB demonstration enabled Pyropower
was achieved with 1.5 CdS and 95 percent
percent. Hydrocarbons in the Corporation to save almost 3 years in establishing a commercial line of ACFB
retention was achieved with 4.0 CdS. At units. Presently 22 ACFB units larger than 100 MWe are planned, under
flue gas were measured and
combustor operating temperatures around design, or built and operated; 11 of these are in the United States.
found to be negligible.
Program Update 1995 5-11
of the three older 12.5-MWe turbines in the lishing a commercial line of ACFB units. Although Nucla CFB Demonstration Project: Detailed
overall steam cycle, the number of unit the demonstration unit was the largest unit of its time Public L)esign Report. Report No. DOE/MC/
restarts, and part-load testing. By October at 110 MWe, Qropowers commercial units are now 25137-2999. Colorado-Ute Electric Associa-
1991, the Nucla ACFB unit had been re- sold under warranty in sizes ranging up to 400W e . tion, Inc. December 1990. (Available from
started almost 175 times following various NTIS as DE91002081.)
intervals of unit outage. Available Reports
Contact
Operating Temperature. Over the range of Clean Coal Reference Plants: Atmospheric
CFB. Report No. DOE/Mc/25177-3307. Marshall L.Pendergrass, Assistant General
operating temperature at which testing was
GilberKommonwealth, Inc. June 1992. Manager
performed at Nucla, bed temperature was
(Available from NTIS as DE9300025 1.) Tri-State Gieneration and Transmission
found to be the most influential operating
Association, Inc.
parameter. With the possible exception of Economic Evaluation Report: Topical
P.O. Box 1149
coal-fired configuration and excess air at Report. Report No. DOEMff25137-3127.
Montrose, CO 81402
elevated temperatures, bed temperature was Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.
the only parameter that had a measurable March 1992. (Available from NTIS as (303) 2494501
impact on emissions or efficiencies. Emis- DE93OOO2 12.)
sions of SO, and NOx were found to increase
Demonstration Program Performance Test:
with increasing combustor temperatures while
Summary Reports. Report No. DOEMff
CO emission decreased with increasing
25137-3014. Colorado-Ute Electric Associa-
temperature. Combustion efficiency also
tion, Inc. March 1992. (Available from
improved as the temperature was increased.
NTIS as DE92001299.)
An economic evaluation -indicated that the final
Nucla Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed
capital costs for the Nucla ACFB system were about
Demonstration Project: 1990 Annual Report.
$112.3 million. This represents a cost of $1,123 per
Report No. DOE/Mff25137-3089. Colorado-
net kilowatt. Total power production costs associated
Ute Electric Association, Inc. February 1992.
with test operations were about $54.7 million, which
(Available from NTIS as DE92001275.)
results in a normalized power production cost of
$63.63 per megawatt-hour. Fixed costs were about Nucla Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed
62 percent of the total, and variable costs were more Demonstration Project: Final Technical
than 38 percent. Nuclas power production costs Report for the Period F e b m r y 1987 through
proved competitive with pulverized coal units not January 1991. Report No.DOE/MC/25137-
limiting emissions as significantly. 3046. Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.
As a result of the demonstration,Pyropower October 1991. (Available from NTIS as
Corporation was able to save almost 3 years in estab- DE92001 122.)

5-12 Program Update 1995


>
C
Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NO, Control
(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)

Technology The objective of the coal-reburning demonstra- the total heat equivalent of the fuel input to the boiler
Injection of pulverized coal (20-30% of total boiler heat tion was to evaluate the applicability of the technolo- and slightly less than normal combustion air input.
input) to stage combustion in a cyclone boiler gy to full-scale cyclone-fired boilers for the reduction The balance of the coal (20-30 percent), along with
Size of NO, emissions. The goals of the project were as significantly less than the theoretically determined
100 MWe follows: requirement of air,is fed to the boiler above the
Demonstration Duration (11/91-12/92)
2,000 hrs
. Achieve a minimum 50 percent reduction in
cyclones in the ireburning combustion zone to create
an oxygen-deficient (reducing) condition in the flue
NO, emissions at full load
gas. The NO, fix- in the cyclone burners reacts
Coal Reduce NOx emissions without serious impact with the reducing flue gas and is converted into
Illinois Basin bituminous (Lamar), 1.8% sulfur avg
to cyclone operations, boiler performance, or nitrogen and water in this zone. The balance of the
Powder River Basin subbituminous, 0.6% sulfur avg
other emissions streams combustion air is introduced in the third, or burnout,
Environmental Results
~

Demonstrate a technically and


Reduction in NOx
economically feasible retrofit
I coal
Boiler Load
110MWe 82MWe 60MWe
technology

1 i z L r River
52%
62%
47%
55% 53%
Cyclone-equipped utility boilers
contribute approximately 21 percent
of the NO, emitted by utilities because
Technical Results of the inherent high-temperature,
Combustion efficiency losses at full load, due to turbulent combustion process which is
unburned carbon, were 1.5% with bituminous, 0.3%
with subbituminous. conducive to NO, formation. Typical-
ESP performance was constant even though ash loading ly, NO, levels associated with cy-
doubled (increased ash consisted of larger sized clone-fired boilers range from 1.O to
particulates). 1.8 pounds per million Btu input
Derating, normally associated with switching to
subbituminous coal, was minimized or eliminated. (No,as NO,).
Slagging and fouling were significantly reduced with The coal-reburning process for
bituminous coal-reburning. cyclone boilers, demonstrated by The
No fumace corrosion was observed over the l-yr test. Babcock & Wilcox Company, con-
Economic Results trols NO, formation in the main A Babcock & Wilcoxs demonstrationof coal reburnine at the 100 W e
Capital c o s t 4 6 5 k W at 100 MWe to $4OkW at 600 MWe furnace through the use of multiple cyclone boiler of Nelson Dewey Station achieved NOx re&ction in excess of
combustion me main corn- 50% at full load with bituminous coal and over 60% at full load with
subbituminous coal with little or no derating.
bustion mne uses 70-80 percent of

5-14 Program Update 1995


combustion zone to complete the combustion process. Reburning tests on both the Lamar and Powder performance monitoring system for heat transfer
Reburning is the only technology that has been River Basin coals indicate that varying reburn zone changes. At no time throughout the system optimi-
shown to be technically feasible for NOxcontrol for stoichiometry is the most critical factor in changing zation or long-term operation period were any slag-
cyclone boilers. NOxemissions levels. The reburn zone stoichiometry ging or fouling problems observed. In fact, during
The demonstration was conducted on an existing can be varied by alternating the air flow quantities scheduled outages, internal boiler inspections re-
100-MWe cyclone boiler in operation at Wisconsin (oxygen availability) to the reburn burners, the vealed that boiler cleanliness had actually improved.
Power and Light Companys Nelson Dewey Station percent rebum heat input, the gas recirculation flow Extensive furnace wall tube ultrasonic thickness
located at Cassville, Wisconsin. rate, or the cyclone stoichiometry. measurements were taken. No observable decrease in
Operations were initiated in November 1991. For Lamar coal, the full-, medium-, and low- tube wall thickness was measured.
Monitoring of air toxics emissions was included as load unbumed carbon boiler efficiency losses (UBCL) Another significant finding was that coal rebum-
part of the test program and was conducted in No- were 0.1, 0.25, and 1.5 percent higher, respectively, ing minimizes and possibly eliminates a 0-25 per-
vember 1992. Reburn testing of western coal and all than the baseline. Full-, medium-, and low-load cent derating normally associated with switching to
testing scheduled for Nelson Dewey Station were UBCL with Powder River Basin coal were 0.0,0.2, subbituminous coal in a cyclone unit. This derating
completed in December 1992. and 0.3 percent higher, respectively, than the base- is a result of using a lower Btu fuel in a cyclone with
The primary test coal for the demonstration was line. Reburn burner flame stability improved with a limited coal feed capacity. The reburn system
an Illinois Basin bituminous coal (Larnar). The Powder River Basin coal. transfers about 30 percent of the coal feed out of the
majority of the testing was performed firng this fuel During reburn system operation with Lamar cyclone to the reburn burners, bringing the cyclone
as it is typical of the coal used by many utilities coal, the operators continually monitored boiler feed rate down to a manageable level, while main-
operating cyclones. Subbituminous Powder River internals for increased ash deposition and the on-line taining full-load heat input to the unit.
Basin coal tests were performed to evaluate the effect
of coal switching on reburn operation. Wisconsin
Power and Lights strategy to meet Wisconsins Exhibit 5-3
sulfur emission limitations as of January 1, 1993, Coal Reburning System Test Results
was to fire low-sulfur coal. I
Three sequences of testing of the coal-reburning Boiler Load
system were used for Lamar coal. Parametric optimi- 110 MWe 82 MWe 60 MWe
zation testing was used to set up the automatic
Lamar coal
controls. Performance testing was run with the unit
NOx (lb/million Btu/% reduction) 0.394152 0.387147 0.442/36
in full automatic control at set load points. Long-
term testing was performed with reburn in operation
while the unit followed system load demand require-
I Boiler efficiency losses due to
unburned carbon (%)
0.1 0.25 1.5

ments. Powder River Basin coal was tested by


parametric optimization and performance modes. I Powder River Basin Coal
NOx (lblrnillion Btu/% reduction) 0.278162 0.287155 0.29453

Exhibit 5-3 shows changes in NO, emissions and


boiler efficiency using the reburn system for various
load conditions and coal types.
I Boiler efficiency losses due
to unburned carbon (%)
0.0 0.2 0.3

Program Update 1995 5-15


HAP testing was performed using Lamar test In conclusion, for cyclones, coal reburning offers Contact
coal. HAP emissions were generally well within a NO, reduction alternative at a cost expected to
Tony Yagida
expected levels, and emissions with reburn were range from $65 per kilowatt for a 100-MWe unit to
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
comparable to baseline operation. No major effect of $40 per kilowatt for a larger, 600-MWe unit. This
1562 Beeson Street
reburning on trace metals partitioning was discem- includes the costs for coal handling and pulverizers/
Alliance, OH 44601
ible. None of the 16 targeted polynuclear aromatic coal piping. Site-specific factors related to pulverizer
semi-volatile organics (Title III, CAAA of 1990) was location and coal supply can greatly influence overall (216) 829-7403
present in detectable concentrations, at a detection reburn system costs. However, coal reburning brings
limit of 1.2 parts per billion. with it benefits allowing increased flexibility in coal
selection which can yield significant fuel cost savings.
Coal reburning is a retrofit technology applicable
to a wide range of utility and industrial cyclone
boilers. The current U.S.rebum market is estimated
to be approximately 26,000 MWe and to consist of
about 120 units ranging from 100 to 1,750 MWe
with most in the 100-300 MWe range.
The project technology has been retained by
Wisconsin Power and Light for commercial use.

Available Reports
Demonstration of Coal Reburning for
Cyclone Boiler NO, Control: Final Project
Report Report No.DOE/PC/89659-T16.
The Babcock & Wilcox Company. February
1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94013052,
Appendix 1 as DE94013053, Appendix 2 as
DE94013054.)
8 Public Design Report: Coal Rebuming for
Cyclone Boiler NO, Control. The Babcock &
Wilcox Company. August 1991.

A Shown here is the coal pulverizer installed as part of


the Babcock & Wilcox coal-reburning system. This system
has been retained by Wisconsin Power and Light for NO,
emission control at the Nelson Dewey Station.

5-16 Program Update 1995


Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO, Cell Burner Retrofit
(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)

Technology and rapid mixing minimizes the flame size while The remainder of the air is directed to the upper port
The Babcock & Wilcox Company low-NOxcell bumer maximizing the heat release rate and unit efficiency. of each cell to delay and complete the combustion
(LNCBm) Consequently, the combustion efficiency is good, but process.
Size the high heat release rate produces relatively large The process was demonstrated at Dayton Power
605 MWe quantities of NOx. Typically NO, levels associated & Light Company's J.M.Stuart Plant located in
Demonstration Duration (12/91-4/9:3)
with cell burners range from 1.0 to 1.8 pounds per Aberdeen, Ohio, and jointly owned with Cincinnati
million Btu input (NOxas NO,). Gas & Electric and Columbus Southem Power. All
Continuous service
To reduce NOxemissions, the upper burner of
Coal the standard two-burner cell was replaced with a
KY,OH, and WV bituminous, 1.1% sulfur avg secondary air port, and the lower burner was replaced
Environmental Results with a larger burner having the same fuel input
5 6 5 8 % NO, reduction at 605 MWe (full load) capacity as the standard cell. The LNCB" operates
54% NO, reduction at 460 MWe on the principle of staged combustion to reduce NOx
48% NOxreduction at 350 MWe emissions. Approximately 70 percent of the total air
Technical Results @rimary, secondary, and excess air) is supplied
Unit efficiency essentially unchanged from baseline through or around the modified coal feed nozzle.
Flyash unburned carbon averaged 1.12% for a
0.2% loss in unbumed carbon efficiency
Boiler corrosion with LNCBm roughly equivalent to
boiler corrosion prior to retrofit
Economic Results
Capital cost--$5.50-8.00/kW at 500 mi:

The Babcock & Wilcox Company has completed


demonstration of its low-NOxcell burner (LNCB")
technology. The objective was to demonstrate the
capability of the LNCB" burner to achieve at least
50 percent NO, reduction without degradation of
boiler performance and at less cost than conventional
A The LNCB' project received R&D Magazine's 1994 A The Babcock & Wilcox L N C B O burners demonstrated
low-NOx burners. Cell burners are designed for rapid R&D 100 Award for technical excellence in a new at the 605-MWe J.M.Stuart Plant Unit No. 4 showed
mixing of fuel and oxidant. The tight burner spacing commercial product. 5 4 5 8 % NO, reduction with little change in unit
efficiency.
Program Update 1995 5-17
24 of the 605-MWe unit's two-nozzle cell burners, problem. Optimization testing was completed in drives, and assolciated electrical equipment. The
which were arranged in an opposed-firing configura- June 1992, with representative NOx emissions reduc- capital cost would be about $5.50-8.00 per kilowatt
tion with two rows of six cells on each side, were tions of 53-55 percent attained. Long-term testing in 1993 dollars for a reference 500-MWe plant. The
replaced with LNCB" burners. was completed in 1993. Results are summarized in outage time can be as short as 5 weeks because the
The LNCB" demonstration emphasized evalua- Exhibit 5-4. LNCB" is a plug-in design.
tion of boiler performance, boiler life, and environ- A corrosion test panel was installed when the The domestic market potential for the LNCB"
mental impact. Key boiler performance parameters LNCB" burners were installed. The panel consisted consists of about 26,000 MWe of utility boilers
that were measured included boiler output; flue gas of bare tube material with some of the material equipped with cell burners. This represents about
temperature at the furnace, economizer, and air aluminized, some stainless weld overlaid, and some 13 percent of the pre-NSPS coal-fired generating
heater exits; slagging tendencies of the unit; and chromized. Tube thickness wastage ranged from capacity in the lJnited States.
unburned carbon loss. Evaluation of H,S levels, 2 to 15 mils per year on the bare tubes. Over a The LNCB@project received R&D Magazine's
ultrasonic testing of lower furnace tube wall thick- 15-month exposure period, this level of corrosion is 1994 R&D 100 award for technical excellence in a
nesses, and destruction examination of a corrosion roughly equivalent to the boiler's corrosion prior to new commercial product.
test panel were mechanisms used to predict impact the retrofit. The coated material had no losses. The Dayton Power & Light is retaining the LNCB'
on remaining boiler life. NOx,CO, CO,, total hydro- project is now completing the final reporting require- burners for use in commercial operation. By the end
carbons, particulate matter, dust loadings, and pre- ments of the cooperative agreement. of 1995, there have been seven commercial sales of
cipitator collection efficiency were measured at The low cost and short outage time for an LNCB' burners,.
varying test conditions. LNCB" retrofit make the option financially attrac-
Reretrofit baseline testing was completed in tive. In a typical retrofit installation, the capital cost Available Reports
November 1990. During 1991 the 24 new LNCB" would include LNCB" hardware, coal-pipe modifica- Final Report: Full-scale Demonstration of
burners were fabricated and installed and construc- tions, hangers, support steel, sliding air-damper LQW-NGI~Cell Bumer Retrofit. Report NO.
tion was completed during a DOEYPCY90545-2. The Babcock & Wilcox
scheduled outage that began in Company. December 1995.
September 1991. Operation Exhibit 5-4
Public l3esign Report: Full-scale Demonstra-
began in late 1991. During the LNCB@Test Results
tion of l;ow-NOxCell Bumer Retrofit. Report
early testing, high levels of CO
No. DOERC&545-T4. The Babcock &
were noted in the lower furnace, Boiler Load
604MWe 460MWe 350MWe Wilcox Company. August 1991.
below the burners, when the unit
was operated to achieve high NOx Contact
NOx(1Wmillion BW% reduction) 0.53154.4 0.42/54 0.37148
removals. In May 1992, every
co (PPm) 28-55 28-45 5-27 Tony Yagiela
other lower burner and NOxport
Unbumed carbon in ash (%) 1.12 0.98 3.17 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
on the bottom rows were inverted Efficiency loss due to 0.2 0.17 0.59
and shallow-angled replacement 1562 Beescon Street
unbumed carbon (%)
impellers were installed in all of Test duration (days) 79.02 - - Alliance,OH 44601
the coal nozzles to eliminate the I I (216) 829-7403

5-18 Program Update 1995


Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler
(Energy and Environmental Research Corporation)

Technology is a balanced-draftpulverized-coalunit supplied by completed in January 1995. The parametric tests


Energy and Environmental Research Corporations gas Babcock & Wilcox. The gas reburn (GR) system were conducted by changing the process variables
reburning and low-NO, (GR-LNB) system including an overfiie air system was designed and (such as zone stoichiometrics, percent gas input,
Size installed by Energy and Environmental Research percent overfire air, load) and the effects of these
172 W e Corporation. The low-NOxburners (LNB) were variables on NOxreduction, SO, reduction, CO
designed and installed by Foster Wheeler. emissions, carbon in ash, and heat rates were ana-
Demonstration Duration (10/92-1/95)
The GR-LNB project was selected in the third lyzed. The baseline condition of the low-NOxburn-
Over 4,000 hrs of operation
solicitation and the cooperative agreement was ers was also established. At a constant load (150
Coal awarded in October 1990. Parametric testing was MWe) and a constant oxygen level at the boiler exit,
Westem bituminous, 0.35466% sulfur begun in October 1992 and completed in April 1993. both NOx and S0,emissions decrease when natural
Environmental Results Long-term testing was started in April 1993 and gas is introduced in the GR operation.
LNB alone (first generation with flue gas In general, the NO, emissions were reduced with
recirculation)-37% NO, reduction increasing gas input. At gas heat inputs greater than
GR-LNB at 18% gas heat input (first generation with 10 percent, NOx emissions were reduced marginally
flue gas recirculation)dS% NO, reduction
as gas heat input increased.
LNB alone (second generation without flue gas
Natural gas also reduces SO, emissions in pro-
recirculation)-44% NOx reduction
GR-LNB at 13% gas heat input (second generation portion to the gas input. At Cherokee Station, low-
without flue gas recirculation)-64% NO, reduction sulfur (0.4 percent) coal is used, and typical SO,
Technical Results emissions are 0.65 pound per million Btu. With a
gas heat input of 20 percent, S0,emissions are de-
Boiler efficiency decreased approximately 1%during
gas reburn creased by 20 percent to 0.52 pound per million Btu.
No measurable boiler tube wear or slagging The CO, emissions were also reduced as a result
Economic Results
of using natural gas because natural gas has a lower
carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than coal. At a gas heat
Capital cost-approx $1SkW plus gas pipeline cost
Operating cost-related to gadcoal cost differential
input of 20 percent, the CO, emissions were reduced
by 8 percent.

A gas-reburning system combined with low-NOx 4 Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
burners (GR-LNJ3) was installed and evaluated on a completed a 4,W-hour evaluation of a gas-rebuming
172-MWe (gross) wall-fied boiler. The host boiler system combined with low-NO, bumers at Public Service
Company of Colorados 172-MWe Cherokee Station Unit
was Cherokee Station Unit 3, owned imd operated by 3. A worker inspects the support ring for the Foster
the Public Service Company of Co1or;ado. The boiler Wheeler low-NO, bumer installed in the boiler wall.

Program Update 1995 5-19


made greater use of available natural gas Public S e r v h Company of Colorado, the host
Exhibit 5-5 pressure. (This modification reduces natural utility, decided to retain the low-NOxburners and the
NOX Data from Cherokee gas usage and thus operating costs.) gas-rebuming system for immediate use; however, a
Station, Unit 3 restoration was irequired to remove the flue gas
Overfire air ports were modified to provide
recirculation system.
higher jet momentum, especially at low total
Generation flows.
First Second Available Reports
Over 4,000 hours of operations were achieved Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low NO,
Baseline (1Wmillion Btu) 0.73 0.73 with the results as shown in Exhibit 5-5. Bumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Long-Term
Avg NOxreduction (%) The overall objectives of the demonstration were Testing, April 1993-January 1995). Report
LNB 37 37 met. Although the performance of the LNB was less No. DOFIPC/90547-T20. Energy and
GR-LNB 65 64 than the expected NO, reduction of 45 percent, boiler Environmental Research Corporation. June
Avg gas input (%) 18 13 efficiency only decreased by approximately 1percent 1995. (Available from NTIS as DE95017755.)
during gas reburning due to moisture in the fuel and
an increase in heat. Further, it was concluded that Evaluati(onof Gas Rebuming and Low NO,
Long-term testing was initiated in April 1993 Bumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Optimization
there was no measurable tube wear and only small
and completed in January 1995. The objectives of the Testing, November 1992-April 1993). Report
amounts of slagging occurred during the GR-LNB
test were to obtain operating data over an extended No. DOE/FW90547-T19. Energy and
demonstration.
period when the unit was under routine commercial Environinental Research Corporation. June
The GR-LNB is a retrofit technology in which
service, determine the effect of GR-LNB operation 1995. (Available from NTIS as DE95017754.)
the costs are dependent on the following site-specific
on the unit, and obtain incremental maintenance and
factors: Reduction of NO, and SO2 Using Gas Rebum-
operating costs with GR.
Gas availability at the site ing, Sorbent Injection and Zntegrated Tech-
During long-term testing, it was determined that
nologies. Topical Report No. 3, Revision 1.
flue gas recirculation had minimal effect on NOx Coal-gas cost differential Report No.DOEYFE-94007444. U.S.Depart-
emissions. A second series of tests were added to the
SO, removal requirements ment of Energy and Energy at Environmental
project to evaluate a modified or second-generation
Research Corporation. September 1993.
system. This system was as follows: Value of SO, emission credits.
(Available from "IS as DE94007444.)
The flue gas recirculation system, originally Based on the demonstration, the GR-LNB is The final rt:ports will be available in 1996.
designed to provide momentum to the natural expected to achieve at least 60 percent NOx control
gas, was removed. (This change significantly with gas heat input of 1&15 percent. The capital Contact
reduces capital costs.) cost estimate for a 1 0 0 - W e or larger installation is
Blair A. Fallsom, Senior Vice President
Natural gas injection was optimized at 10 about $15 per kilowatt plus gas pipeline costs, if
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
percent gas heat input compared to the initial required. Operating costs are almost entirely related
18 Mason
design value of 18 percent. The removal of to the differential cost of gas over coal as reduced by
b i n e CA 92718
the flue gas recirculation system required the value of the SO, emission credits received due to
absense of sulfur in the gas. (714) 859-8851
installation of high velocity injectors which
5-20 Program Update 1995
180-MWe Demonstration of AdvancedTangentially Fired CombustionTechniques for the Reduction of
NO, Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)

Technology Cost effectiveness conditions were conducted. Long-term tests, which


ABB Combustion Engineering's LOw-NOxConcentric - LNCFS I, $103/ton NOxremoved typically lasted 2-3 months for each phase, best
Firing System (LNCFSW) Levels I, 11, and 111 (advanced - LNCFS 11, W t o n NOxremoved represent the true emissions characteristics of each
overfire air, clustered coal nozzles, and oiyset air) - LNCFS 111, $4OO/ton NOxremoved technology. Results presented are based on long-
Size term test data.
180 MWe Southern Company Services, Inc., has demon- The results from the demonstration showed that,
Demonstration Duration (5/91-12/92) strated several low-NOxtechnologies on the at full load, the NOx emissions using LNCFS I, 11,
Continuous operation 1 8 0 - W e tangentially fired Unit No. 2 coal
Coal boiler at Gulf Power Company's Plant Lansing
Smith located at Lynn Haven, Florida. Tech- Exhibit 5-6
KY,IL, and WV eastern bituminous, 253.0% sulfur avg
nologies demonstrated included the Low-NOx Tangential Burner Configurations
Environmental Results
Concentric Firing System (LNCFSW), Levels I,
LNCFS Level I incorporating a close-coupled overfire
11, and III. Each level of the LNCFSn used
air (CCOFA) system-37% maximum NOx reduction at
full load various combinations of overfire air and clus-
LNCFS Level 11incorporating a separated overfire air tered coal nozzle positioning, as shown in
(SOFA) system-37% maximum NOx reduction at full Exhibit 5-6, to achieve NOxreductions. With Ai
load the LNCFSm, primary air and coal are sur- cod
LNCFS Level 111incorporating both SOFA and At
rounded by oxygen-rich secondary air that
CCOFA45% maximum NOx reduction at full load At
blankets the outer regions of the combustion
Technical Results zone. LNCFS Level I used a close-coupled cod
Increases in coal fineness increased uribwned carbon overfie air (CCOFA) system integrated directly At
levels; however, there was no effect 011NOx emissions.
into the windbox of the boiler. A separated At
CO emissions with LNCFS Level 111were double those
with LNCFS Level I, 11, or the baseline case. overfie air (SOFA) system located above the cod

Minimal impact on unbwned carbon occurred. combustion zone was featured in the LNCFS At

LNCFS Levels 11and 111required higher excess air Level 11system. This was an advanced overfire At
levels than baseline or LNCFS Level 1. air system that incorporates back pressuring cod

Economic Results and flow measurement capabilities. CCOFA At

capitalcosts and SOFA were both used in the LNCFS Level At


- LNCFSI, $5-15/kW 111tangential-firing approach. In addition to cod
- LNCFSIIIIII, $15-25/kW conducting carefully controlled short-term tests, At
long-term testing under normal load dispatch BASEUNE LNCFSI

Program Update 1995 5-21


The capital cost estimate for Key Project Findings. Report No. DO=/
LNCFS I is $5-15 per kilowatt 89653-T14. Southern Company Services,
and for LNCFS 11and 111, Inc. Fetiruary 1994. (Available from NTIS as
$15-25 per kilowatt. The cost DE9401 1174.)
effectiveness for LNCFS I was
I80-MW Demonstration of Advanced Tangen-
$103 per ton of NOxremoved;
tially Fired Combustion Techniquesfor the
LNCFS 11, $444 per ton; and
Reduction of Nitrogen Oxide (NO) Emissions
LNCFS III, $400 per ton.
from Cod-Fired Boilers: Chemical Emissions
Potential commercial
Report. Report No. DOEPC/89653-T12.
applications of this technology
Southern Company Services, Inc. October
include a wide range of tangen-
1993. (Available from NTIS as
tially fired utility and industrial
DE94005038.)
boilers throughout the United
States and abroad. There are I80-MW Demonstration of Advanced Tangen-
tially Fired Combustion Techniquesfor the
A Southern Company Services, Inc., completed a 19-monthdemonstration of three nearly 600 U.S. pulverized coal
levels of LNCFSm at Plant Lansing Smith Unit No. 2. NOxreductions ranged from tangentially fired utility units. Reduction of Nitrogen Oxide (NO) Emisswns
37% for Levels I and I1 to 45% for Level 111, all at full load. These units range from 25 to from Co(al-FiredBoilers: Public Design
950 W e . A wide range of Report. Report No. DOW89653-Tl3.
and 111were 0.39. 0.39 and 0.34 pound per million Southern Company Services, Inc. September
low-volatile bituminous through lignite coals are
Btu respectively; these levels represented emission 1993. (Available from NTIS as
being fired in these units. LNCFSW can be used in
reductions of 37 percent, 37 percent, and 45 percent DE94000218.)
retrofitting existing units as well as in new boilers.
from the baseline. These emissions are within the
Gulf Power has retained the LNCFSW at its Plant
annual average emission limit of 0.45 pound per Contact
Lansing Smith Unit No. 2. The technology also is
million Btu set for tangentially fired boilers. Simu- Robert R. Hardman, Project Manager
being used by other utilities, including the Tennessee
lated load profiles showed that only LNCFS 111could Southern Company Services, Inc.
Valley Authority, Illinois Power, Public Service
marginally meet the emission regulation at peaking
Company of Colorado, Indianapolis Power and Light, P.O. Box 2625
loads because of the significant increase in NOx
Cincinnati Gas and Electric, Virginia Power, Union Birmingham, AL 35202-2625
emission for LNCFSTM technology below 100 W e .
Electric, and New York State Electric & Gas Corpora- (205) 877-7772
Unit performance observations included in-
tion.
creased CO emissions, reduced furnace slagging but
increased back-pass fouling, and minimum impact on Available Reports
efficiency and heat rate. Further, unit operations
180-MW Demonstration of Advanced Tangen-
were not significantly affected; however, operating
tially Fired Combustion Techniquesfor the
flexibility of the unit was reduced at low loads with
Reduction of Nitrogen Oxide (NO) Emissions
LNCFS II and III.
from Coal-Fired Boilers: Final Report and

5-22 Program Update 1995


Demonstration of Selective Catalytic ReductionTechnology for the Control of NO, Emissions from
High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)

Technology efficiency NOxcontrol technology option proven in


Selective catalytic reduction (SCR); eight catalysts from Westem Europe and Japan, but not in the United
six suppliers (two U.S.,two European, two Japanese) States with its different coals and operating condi-
Size tions. This demonstration was undertaken with
8.7-MWe equivalent (three 2.5-MWe and six 0.2-MWe strong utility sponsorship to establish whether or not
SCR reactors) SCR is a U.S. NOx control option and under what
Demonstration Duration (7/93-7/95) circumstances.
Available in 1996 SCR technology consists of injecting ammonia
into boiler flue gas and passing it through a catalyst
Coal
bed where NOx and ammonia react to form nitrogen
Illinois No. 5, 3% sulfur
and water.
Environmental Results Six catalyst suppliers provided eight different
Available in 1996 catalysts. The two suppliers from Europe and the two
Technical Results from Japan provided one catalyst each with two U.S.
Available in 1996 firms providing the balance. The catalysts, listed in
Economic Results Exhibit 5-7, represent the wide variety of commercial-
ly available SCR catalysts that were tested.
Available in 1996 A This view shows the three particulate collection
Project objectives included assessing the techni- cyclones on the system. Final results from the
cal and economic viability of the catalysts when demonstration will be available in 1996.
Southem Company Services, Inc., has completed applied in U.S. utility applications with high-sulfur
a demonstration designed to evaluate the perfor- coal while maintaining at least 80 percent NOx Performance of the SCR catalysts at typical
mance of eight commercially offered catalysts of reduction and acceptable ammonia slip (5 parts per U.S. high-sulfur coal-fired utility operating
various shapes and compositions under U.S. utility million). Specific uncertainties addressed were as conditions
operating conditions with high sulfur coal at Gulf follows:
Power Companys Plant Crist. To accomplish the objectives, a slipstream from
With the advent of the CAAA of 1990, there has Potential catalyst deactivation due to poison- Plant Crist, Unit No.5 (75-MWe tangentially fired,
been increased emphasis on high-capbure-effkiency ing by trace metals species in U.S. coals dry bottom boiler) burning Illinois No.5, 3 percent
NOx control. This is driven primarily by the ozone Performance of technology and effects on the sulfur coal was provided to three 2.5-We, 5,000-
nonattainment provision in Title I that essentially standardcubic-foot-per-minuteand six 0.2-MWe,
balance-of-plant equipment in the presence of
caps NOx emissions in nonattainment areas, which 400-standardcubic-foot-per-minute SCR reactor
high amounts of SO, and SO,
represent a significant portion of the United States. trains operating in parallel. These reactor trains
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a highcapture- were calculated to be large enough to produce design

Program Update 1995 5-23


data that will allow the SCR processes to be scaled to Available Reports
commercial size. The three larger trains were
Final reports are scheduled to be available in
equipped with pilot-scale air preheaters to evaluate
mid-1996.
the effect of S C R reaction chemistry on deposit
formation that could impact air preheater perfor- Contact
mance. Eight of the nine reactors operated with flue
J.D. (Doug) Maxwell, Project Manager
gas containing high particulate loading (ESP inlet)
Southern Company Services, Inc.
and one small reactor receiving low particulate
P.O. Box 2625
loading (ESP outlet). Temperature and flow could be
Birmingham, AL 35202-2625
controlled and measured for each reactor train.
Each SCR train was operated over the long-term (205) 877-7614
at design, or baseline, conditions with parametric
tests interjected every four months. Parametric tests
varied NH,/NO, ratio, temperature, and space veloci-
ty while measuring NO, reduction efficiency, pres-
sure drop, SO, oxidation, and ammonia slip.
Detailed technical, environmental, and economic
results will be available in 1996.

Exhibit 5-7
CatalystsTested
Catalyst Supplier Reactor Size* Catalyst Configuration

Nippon Shokubai Large Honeycomb


Siemens AG Large Plate
A Eight different SCR catalysts (seven high dust and W.R. Grace Large Honeycomb
one low dust) were tested by the Southern Company
Services, Inc., during the 2 years ending in July 1995. W.R. Grace Small Honeycomb
Results indicate all catalysts were able to achieve the NO, Haldor Topsoe Small Plate
reduction target of 80% removal. This view shows the Hitachi a s e n Small Plate
large insulated reactors on the top four levels.
Cormetech Small Honeycomb
Cormetech Small Honeycomb (low dust)
* Large = 2.5 W e ; 5,000 std fi3/min Small = 0.2 W e ;400std ft3/min

5-24 Program Update 1995


10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption
(AirPol, Inc.)

Technology Technical Results Optimize design and operating parameters to


FLS miljo ds gas suspension absorption (GSA) system Demonstrated reliability of technology by remaining on- increase the SO, removal efficiency and the
for flue gas desulfurization line for entire 28-day demonstration period lime utilization
Pulse jet baghouse for particulate control Demonstrated a number of key technical attributes
including Compare the SO, removal efficiency of the
Size
- Simple and direct method of limdsolid recirculation GSA technology with existing spray dryer/
10-MWe equivalent slipstream of flue gas from a 150-
MWe boiler
- High acid gas absorption electrostatic precipitator technology
- Low lime consumptionlminimum waste by-product
The GSA process concept was developed by
Demonstration Duration (10/92-3/94) residue
AirPols parent company, FLS miljo a/s of Copen-
Air toxic t a u hrs (9/93-1W3) - Low maintenance operation
hagen, Denmark. The process was initially devel-
Factorial tests-2,200 hrs (1/93-9/93)1 - No internal buildup
oped as a cyclone preheater system for cement kiln
Demonstration-672 hrs (10/25/93-11/24/93) - Reduced space requirement
Pulse jet baghouse test-336 hrs (2/9rl-3/94) raw material. The system provided both capital and
Demonstrated pulse jet baghouse system improved SO,
removal efficiency by about 3-5 percentage points energy savings by reducing the required length of the
Coal
rotary kiln and by lowering fuel consumption. The
Bituminous, 2.7-3.5% sulfur Economic Results
GSA system also showed superior heat and mass
Simulated high-chloride (about 0.3%) coal Capital cost (1990 dollars)-$149/kW for GSA as
compared to $216/kW for wet limestone, forced- transfer characteristics. The GSA system for FGD
Sorbent oxidation (WLFO) scrubbing system (300 MWe, applications was developed later by injecting lime
Hydrated lime slurry 2.6% sulfur coal, 90% SO, removal efficiency) slurry and recycle solids into the bottom of the reac-
Environmental Results Levelized cost (miWkWh) tor to function as an acid gas absorber. In 1985, a
60% SO, removal efficiency at 28 O F approach-to-
GSA WLFO GSA pilot plant was built in Denmark to establish
saturation temperature, lime stoichiometry of 1.OO mole Fixed costs 2.3 2.81 design parameters for SO, and hydrogen chloride
Ca(OH)/mole of inlet SO,,coal chloride of 0.02-0.04% Variable costs 3.1 2.93 absorption for waste incineration applications. The
9041% SO, removal efficiency at 18 lPFapproach-ta- Capital costs 5.0 7.30 first commercial GSA unit was installed at the KARA
saturation temperature, avg 1.40-1.45 moles of Total 10.4 13.04
Ca(OH)/mole of inlet SO,, coal chloride of 0.12% waste-to-energy plant at Roskilde, Denmark, in 1988.
96% SO, removal efficiency achieved with GSNpulse Currently there are 10 GSA units in Europe, all in-
jet baghouse system The objectives of the gas suspension absorption stalled on municipal solid waste incinerators.
particulate removal efficiency-99.9+46 avg; emission (GSA) system for flue gas desulfurization demonstra- The 10-MWe demonstration project was selected
rate-O.015 lwmillion Btu avg (NSPSis 0.03 lb/million tion project were as follows: under the third solicitation, initiated in October
Btu)
1990, and completed in December 1994. The project
- 0 1 removal rate across the GSA reactor and cyclone Effectively demonstrate SO, removal in
nb- was the first North American demonstration of the
approx 100% excess of 90 percent using high-sulfur U.S.
--ds GSA system for coal-fired utility FGD. The project
Trace metals, particulates, and m-n5ii:Pal high cIu--
was im* at the Center for Emissions Research
and used a 10-MWe slipstream of flue gas from a Approximately 26 months of operating and The lower SO, removal efficiency levels were
150-MWe coal-fired boiler at the Tennessee Valley testing were conducted during the demonstration. A achieved at the higher approach-to-saturation tem-
Authority's Shawnee Fossil Plant in West Paducah, test plan was prepared to detail the procedures, perature (28 OF), lower lime stoichiometry level (CdS
Kentucky. A western Kentucky coal with about locations, and analytical methods to be used in all of 1.00), and lolwer coal chloride level (0.02-0.04
3 percent sulfur was used in the demonstration. tests. The specific objectives of the tests were as percent). The higher SO, removal efficiency levels
follows: were achieved at lower approach-to-satura~ontem-
peratures (8 and 18 OF), higher lime stoichiometry
Optimization of operating variables
level (CdS of 1.30), and higher coal chloride level
Determination of C d S stoichiometric ratios (0.12 percent). Most of the SO, removal in the GSA
for various SO, removal efficiencies system occurred in the reactor/cyclone, with only
Evaluation of erosion and corrosion at various about 2-5 percent of the overall removal occurring in
locations in the system the ESP.
An evaluation of ESP performance was also
Demonstration of 90 percent or greater SO, conducted as part of the tests. The results from the
removal efficiency when the boiler is fired particulate testing showed that the emission rate from
with high-sulfur coal the ESP was substantially below the New Source
Determination of air toxics removal perfor- Performance Standard for particulates (0.03 pound per
mance million Btu) at all test conditions evaluated. The
typical emission rate was 0.010 pound per million
Evaluation of pulse jet baghouse performance
Btu. The particulate removal efficiency was above
in conjunction with the GSA process
99.9 percent for nearly all tests and the outlet grain
Several general relationships affecting SO, loading was below 0.005 grain per cubic foot.
removal efficiency became apparent. A significant Although not part of the original GSA demon-
positive effect on SO, removal efficiency came from stration, TVA and EPRI cofunded the installation of
increasing the lime stoichiometry and other factors, a 1-MWe pulse jet baghouse (PJBH) pilot plant to be
such as increasing the coal chloride level or decreas- operated in conjunction with the existing GSA
ing the approach-to-saturation temperature. Increas- demonstration. Later, &Pol and DOE joined in the
ing the recycle rate resulted in higher SO, removal, operation and testing of the PJBH pilot-plant pro-
but the benefit appeared to reach an optimum level gram. The resulting SO, removal efficiency in the
above which further increases in the recycle rate did GSA reactorkyclonePJBH system was typically
not seem to have a significant effect on SO, removal. about 3-5 percent higher than that achieved in the
Increasing the flue gas flow rate had a negative effect reactor/cyclone/ESP system at the same test condi-
A AirPol successfully demonstrated the GSA system at on SO, removal. tions. The particulate removal efficiency in the Pez
TVA's Center for Emissions Research. The world's first The SO, removal efficiency during the tests wa? 5.7percent tor aii tests yx&M with full
full-scale, commercial GSA unit on a coal-fired boiler is
being installed on a 50-MWeboiler at the municiy; F G ~ ~ihged from about 60 percent to n&; s; percent, dust loadins f h m the GSA reactodcyclone.
plant in Hamilton, OH. depending on the SyZific test conditions.
5-26 Program 'Jiicite 1995
A total of six air toxic tests were conducted: four for the GSA process is lower than that for the WLFO system to remove sulfur from the flue gas of a 4-
with the GSA reactor operating and two with the system, but the difference is only about 20 percent million-ton-per-year iron ore sinter plant. Sweden
GSA system not operating. All tests were completed (which is not considered to be significant given the has stringent sulfur emission standards which require
while the boiler was burning high-sulfur (2.7 per- limitations on the accuracy of estimates used in the a removal efficiency of 90-95 percent.
cent), low-chloride coal and were run at the high flue analysis). The principal annual operating cost for
gas flow rate (20,000 standard cubic feet per minute) the GSA process is the cost of the pebble lime. The Available Reports
and high flyash loading (2.0 grains per cubic foot) 15-year levelized costs in mills per kilowatt-hour for I O MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
test conditions. Preliminary results suggest that the the two systems are listed below: Absorption Final Project Performance and
GSA system is capable of removing HCI, particulate, Economics Report. Report No. DOE/PC/
GSA WLFO
and trace metals. The removal rate of the HCl across 90542-T9. AirPol, Inc. June 1995. (Avail-
Fixed costs 2.3 2.81
the reactor and cyclone appears to be 100 percent. able from NTIS as DE95016681.)
Variable costs 3.1 2.93
Removal rates for trace metals, particulate, and HF
Capital costs 5.0 7.30 10 MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
also appear to be high during the six tests.
Total 10.4 13.04 Absorption Final Public Design Report.
A continuous 4-week demonstration run of the
The GSA should fulfill the need of the utility Report No. DOE/PC/!l0542-T10. AirPol, Inc.
GSA system in conjunction with only the ESP dem-
onstrated an SO, removal efficiency of 90percent or industry to meet the new SO, emission standards set June 1995.
better using a high-sulfur (2.7 percent), low-chloride forth in the CAAA of 1990. There is a particular SO2Removal Using Gas Suspension Absorp-
coal and a higher sulfur (3.5 percent) coal. The CdS need for a simple and economic FGD process, such tion Technology. Topical Report No. 4. U.S.
ratio averaged 1.4&1.45 moles of Ca(OH), per mole as GSA, by plants in the 50-250-MWe range where Department of Energy and AirPol, Inc. April
of inlet SO, during the demonstration run. wet FGD systems are not feasible. 1995.
The project demonstrated a number of key tech- Successful testing of the AirPol demonstration
IO-MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
nical attributes including a direct and simple method project has resulted in a commercial application in
Absorption Process at TVA 's Center for
of limdsolid recirculation, high acid gas adsorption, Ohio. The city of Hamilton, Ohio, has received a
Emissions Research: Final Report. Report
low lime consumption with minimal waste by-prod- $5-million grant from the Ohio Coal Development
Office to install the GSA technology to control
No.DOEIPC/90542-T10. Tennessee Valley
uct residue, low maintenance operation, no internal
Authority. March 1995. (Available from
buildup, and reduced space requirements. emissions from a 50-MWe coal-fired boiler at the
city's municipal power plant. The new system is "TIS as DE96000327.)
The relative process economics for the GSA
system were evaluated for a moderately difficult scheduled to be operational in August 1996 and wi;;
Contact
retrofit to a 300-MWe boiler burning a coal contain- be the first fu11-e: CGZiiercial GSA unit in the
-kg 2.6 Frcent sulfur. The desien W,
e
x;,ovi United States as well as the world's first GSA unit Frank E. Hsu. Vice President, Operations
pFF.l: for a coal-fired boiler. The GSA technology was AirPol, Inc.
4.LlLlencywas YO percent. The resulting capital cost
identified as the least-cost alternative for the city to 3 Century Drive
estimate (in 1990 dollars) is $149 peI kilowatt for
meet the 1997 compliance requirements under the Parsippany, NJ 07054
GSA as compared to $216 per kilowatt for the wet
limestone, forced-oxidation (WLFO) scrubbing CAAA of 1990. (201) 490-6400
system. The levelized annual revenule requirement In addition, FLS miljo has been awarded a major
project in Sweden for a high-performanceGSA
Program Update 1995 5-27
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration
(Bechtel Corporation)

Technology captures the reactive products along with


In-duct, confined zone dispersion flue gas desulfurization the fly ash entrained in the flue gas.
(CZDRGD) process The demonstration was located at
Size Pennsylvania Electric Companys
73.5 W e Seward Station in Seward, Pennsylvania.
Demonstration Duration (7/91-6/93) One-half of the flue gas capacity of the
147-Mwe Unit No. 5 was routed through
Approximately 5 months of continuous testing
a modified, longer duct between the first
Coal
and second stage electrostatic precipita-
Pennsylvania bituminous, 1.5-2.54 sulfur tors. Pennsylvania bituminous coal
Sorbent (approximately 1.2-2.5 percent sulfur)
Dry hydrated calcitic lime was used in the project.
Slaked calcitic lime Bechtel began its 18-m0nth, two-
Pressure-hydrated dolomitic lime part test program for the CZD process in
Environmental Results A Bechtel demonstrated CZDFGD technology at Pennsylvania July 1991, with the first 12 months of the
50%SO, removal efficiency Electrics Seward Station Unit No. 5. The demonstration showed that test program consisting primarily of
50% SO2removal efficiency was possible. This view pictures the parametric testing and the last 6 months
Technical Results extended duct in which lime slurry was injected.
consisting of continuous operational
About 100 ft of straight flue gas duct is required to
accommodate the 2 seconds residence time needed to testing. During the continuous opera-
the optimum process operating parameters and to
absorb SO, and dry the gas before ESP entry. tional test period, the system was operated under
determine CZDRGDs operability, reliability, and
Process responded well to automated control operation; fully automatic control by the host utility boiler
some process modifications were required to assure cost-effectiveness during long-term testing and its
operators. The new atomizing nozzles were thor-
~QE
!&
:: SC!, c$!!z a d avoid solids deposition in impact on downstream operations and emissions.
oughly tested both outside and inside the duct prior
ductwork before commercial use can i ~ $ ~ e d . The CZD/FGD process involves injecting a
Very good system availability was demonstrated.
to testing. The SO, removal parametric test program,
of reactive lime into the flue
Economic Results
finely
. ---
gas stream. The principle of the contlnea ; t o j2 ~ 0
which began in October 1991, was completed in
: ----e* 1Q03
A U ~ U J ~
aM,-i.
Capital cost-less than $30/kW at 500 MWe form a wet zone of slurry droplets in the middle of
Specific objectives were as toi;oG:
the duct confined in an envelope of hot gas between
The objective of Bechtel Corporations project the wet zone and the duct walls. The lime slurry Achieving projected SO, removal of 50
was to demonstrate SO, removal capabilities of in- reacts with part of the SO, in the gas and the reactive percent
duct confined zone dispersion flue gas desulfuriza- products dry to form solid particles. An electrostatic Realizing SO2removal costs of less than $300
tion (CZD/FGD) technology; specifically to define precipitator, downstream from the point of injection,
per ton

5-28 Program Update 1995


Eliminating negative effects on normal boiler mole of SO, removed; or assuming 92 percent lime FGD demonstration was modified to improve SO,
operations without increasing particulate purity, 1.9-2.4 tons of lime are required for every ton removal during continuous operation while following
emissions and opacity of SO, removed. In summary, the demonstration daily load cycles. Bechtel and the host utility, Penn-
showed the following results: sylvania Electric Company, continued the CZD
The parametric tests included duct injection of
demonstration for an additional year. Results
atomized lime slurry made of dry hydrated calcitic A 50 percent SO, removal efficiency with
showed that CZD operation at SO, removal rates
lime, freshly slaked calcitic lime, and pressure- CZDFGD is possible.
lower than 50 percent could be sustained over long
hydrated dolomitic lime. All three reagents remove
Drying and SO, absorption require a resi- periods without significant process problems.
SO, from the flue gas but require different feed
dence time of 2 seconds. A long and straight
concentrations of lime slurry for the same percentage Available Reports
horizontal gas duct of about 100 feet is
of SO, removed. The most efficient removals and
required to assure a residence time of 2 Confined Zone Dispersion Project: Final
easiest to operate system were obtained using pres-
seconds. Technical Report. Bechtel Corporation. June
sure-hydrated dolomitic lime. These parametric tests
indicated that SO, removals above 50 percent are The fully automated system integrated with 1994.
possible under the following conditions: flue gas the power plant operation demonstrated that Confined Zone Dispersion Project: Public
temperature of 300-310 OF; boiler load of 145-147 the CZDFGD process responded well to Design Report. Bechtel Corporation. October
W e ; residence time in the duct of 2 seconds; and automated control operation. However, 1993.
lime slurry injection rate of 52-57 gallons per modifications to the CZDFGD are required
minute. It was determined that duct injection of to assure consistent SO, removal and avoid Contact
slurry does not adversely impact stack opacity provid- deposition of solids within the gas duct
Joseph T.Newman, Project Manager
ed proper operational procedures are instituted. during upsets.
Bechtel Corporation
The percentage of lime utilization in the CZD/ Availability of the system was very good. P.O. Box 193965
FGD significantly affects the total cost of SO, remov- San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
al. An analysis of the continuous operational data At Seward Station, stack opacity was not
detrimentally affected by the CZDFGD (415) 768-1189
indicates that the percentage of lime utilization is
system. (415) 768-3580 (fax)
directly dependent on two key factors,:
Percentage of SO, removed The CZDFGD process can achieve costs of
$300 per ton of SO, removed when operating
Lime slurry feed concentration a 500-MWe unit burning 4 percent sulfur
For operating conditions at Seward Station, data coal. Based on a 500-Mwe plant retrofitted
indicate that for 4G50 percent SO, removal a with CZDFGD for 50 percent SO, removal,
6-8 percent lime or dolomitic lime slurry concentra- the total capital cost is estimated to be less
tion fed at a stoichiometricratio of 2--2.5 results in a than $30 per kilowatt.
40-50 percent lime utilization rate. Ihat is, 2-2.5 After the conclusion of the DOE-funded CZD
moles of CaO or CaO.Mg0 are required for every demonstration project at Seward Station, the CZD/

eU
Program 1995 5-29
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project
(LIFAC-N orth America)

Technology $99/kW for one LIFAC reactor (65 W e ) (compare


with $216/kW for 300-MWe wet scrubber)
LIFACs sorbent injection process with sulfur capture in a
unique, patented vertical activation reactor Operating cost-$65/ton of SO, removed, assuming
75% SO, capture, Ca/S of 2.0, limestone 95% CaCO,,
Size limestone cost of $15/ton
60 MWe
Demonstration Duration (9/92-8/94) LIFAC-North America, a joint venture partner-
2,800 hrs ship between Tampella Power Corporation and ICF
Coal Kaiser Engineers, has demonstrated the LIFAC flue
Bituminous, 2.0-2.9% sulfur gas desulfurization technology developed by Tampel-
la Power. The technology provides SO, control for
Sorbent
coal-fired power plants, especially where tight space
Fine limestone (80% minus 325 mesh)
limitations exist. SO, emissions are reduced over 75
Coarse limestone (80% minus 200 mesh)
percent by using limestone as a sorbent.
Environmental Results The LIFAC technology was developed in re-
70% SO, removal efficiency at 7-12 OF approach to sponse to Finlands acid rain legislation which
saturation, 2.0% less with coarse limestone
applied limits on SO, emissions sufficient to require
Solid waste-mixture of fly ash and calcium
compounds; quantity equal to amount of limestone that FGD systems have the capability to remove
injected (4.3 tonslton of SO, removed, assuming 75% approximately 80 percent of the SO, from the flue
capture with Ca/S of 2.0) gas. Tampella Power began developing an economi-
ESP efficiency 99.2%; stack opacity about 10% cal, alternative sorbent injection system. Process
Technical Results development first involved laboratory and pilot-plant
High operability due to few moving parts tests, followed by full-scale tests of sorbent injection
Ease of start-up and shutdown of limestone. Subsequent research and development
Automated programmable logic system to regulate by Tampella led to the addition of a humidification
process control loops, interlocking, start-ups, section after the boiler. A The LIFAC system successfully demonstrated at
shutdowns, and data collection Whitewater Valley Station Unit No. 2 is being retained by
In 1986, the first major full-scale test was per-
No negative impact on bottom ash and flyash removal Richmond Power & Light for commercial use with high-
formed at Imatron Vaimus Inkee power plant in sulfur coal. There are 10 full-scale LIFAC units in
systems
Finland using a 70-MWe side-stream from a 250- Canada, China, Finland, Russia, and the United States.
Economic Results MWe boiler burning 1.5 percent sulfur coal. A
Capital cost-$66/kW for two LIFAC reactors second W A C reactor was constructed to treat an
(300 W e ) ; $76/kW for one LIFAC reactor (150 W e ) ;
additional 125-MWe side-stream. The initial demon-

5-30 Program Update 1995


stration installations were capable of achieving Parametric Tests. Parametric tests were
removal rates of 70-80 percent using CdS molar designed to evaluate the many possible
ratios of 2-2.5. In 1988, the first tests with high- combinations of LIFAC process parameters
sulfur U.S. coals were performed at Tampellas pilot and their effect on SO, removal.
plant. A Pittsburgh No. 8 coal containing 3 percent
Optimization Tests. Optimization tests were
sulfur was evaluated and an SO, removal rate of over
performed after the parametric tests to
70 percent was achieved at a CdS molar ratio of 2.0.
evaluate the reliability and operability of the
The LIFAC project was selected in the third
LIFAC process over short, continuous
solicitation and the cooperative agreement was
operating periods.
awarded in November 1990. The demonstration was
conducted at Whitewater Valley Station Unit No. 2, a Long-Term Tests. Long-term tests were
60-MWe coal-fired power plant owned and operated performed to demonstrate LIFACs perfor-
by Richmond Power & Light and located in Rich- mance under commercial operating condi-
mond, Indiana. Operational testing was begun in tions.
September 1992 and completed in August 1994 and Post-LIFAC Tests. Post-LIFAC tests
consisted of 2,800 hours of operation. The demon- involved repeating the baseline test to identify
stration had the following four objectives: any changes caused by the LIFAC system.
Sustained high SO, removal efficiency The coals used during the demonstration varied
Ability to retrofit the LIFAC system under in sulfur content from 1.4 to 2.8 percent. However,
tight construction conditions most of the testing was conducted with the higher
sulfur coals (2.0-2.8 percent sulfur).
Compatibility of the LIFAC system with
During the parametric testing phase, the numer-
existing equipment and operation
ous LIFAC process values and their effects on sulfur
Demonstration of LIFACs competitiveness removal efficiency were evaluated. The four major
A The top of the LIFAC reactor is shown being lifted on a cost-per-ton of SO, removed parameters having the greatest influence on sulfur
into place. During 2,800 hours of Operation, it was shown
that SO,reductions of 70% or more could be maintained
removal efficiency were limestone quality, CdS
The process evaluation test plan was composed
under normal boiler operation. molar ratio, reactor bottom temperature (approach-to-
of five distinct phases each having its own objectives.
saturation), and ESP ash recycling rate. Total SO,
These tests were as follows:
capture was about 15 percent better when injecting
Baseline Tests. Baseline measurements were fine limestone (80 percent minus 325 mesh) than it
taken to characterize the operation of the host was with coarse limestone (80 percent minus 200
boiler and associated subsystems prior to mesh).
LIFAC operations. While injecting the fine limestone, the soot
blowing frequency had to be increased from 6- to

Program Update 1995 5-31


4.5-hour cycle periods. The coarse-quality limestone humidification, the grind size of the high-calcium- Crushed limestone accounts for about one half of
did not affect soot blowing but was found to be more content limestone, and recycle of spent sorbent from LIFACs operating costs. LIFAC requires 4.3 tons of
abrasive on the feed and transport hoses. the ESP. limestone to remove 1 ton of SO,, assuming 75
Parametric tests indicated that a 70 percent SO, Long-term testing showed that SO, reductions of percent SO, capture, a CdS ratio of 2.0, and lime-
reduction was achievable with a CdS molar ratio of 70 percent or more can be maintained under normal stone containing 95 percent CaCO,. Assuming
2.0. ESP ash containing unspent sorbent and fly ash boiler operating ranges. Stack opacity was low limestone costs $15 per ton, LIFACs operating cost
was recycled from the ESP hoppers back into the (about 10 percent) and ESP efficiency was high (99.2 would be $65 per ton of SO, removed.
reactor inlet duct work. Ash recycling is essential for percent). The amount of boiler bottom ash increased There are 10 full-scale LIFAC units in operation
efficient SO, capture. The large quantity of ash slightly during testing, but there was no negative or under construction in Canada, China, Finland,
removed from the LIFAC reactor bottom and the impact on the power plants bottom and flyash Russia, and the Wnited States. The LIFAC system at
small size of the ESP hoppers limited the ESP ash removal system. The solid waste generated was a Richmond Power & Light is the first to be applied to
recycling rate. As a result, the amount of material mixture of fly ash and calcium compounds and was a power plant using high-sulfur (2.0-2.9 percent)
recycled from the ESP was approximately 70 percent readily disposed of at a local landfill. coal. The LIFAC system is being retained by Rich-
less than had been anticipated. However, this low The LIFAC system proved to be highly operable mond Power & :Light at Whitewater Valley Station,
recycling rate was found to affect SO, capture. Dur- because it has few moving parts and is simple to Unit No. 2. The: other LIFAC installations on power
ing a brief test, it was found that increasing the operate. The process can be easily shut down and plants are using bituminous and lignite coals having
recycle rate by 50 percent resulted in a 5 percent restarted. The process is automated by a programma- lower sulfur contents (0.61.5 percent).
increase in SO, removal efficiency. It is anticipated ble logic system, which regulates process control
that if the reactor bottom ash is recycled along with loops, interlocking, start-up, shutdowns, and data Available Reports
ESP ash, while sustaining a reactor temperature of collection. The entire LIFAC process was easily Final reports are scheduled to be available in
5 OF above saturation temperature, an SO, reduction managed via two IBM-compatible personal comput- mid-1996.
of 85 percent could be maintained. ers located in the host utilitys control room.
Optimization testing began in March 1994 and The economic evaluation indicated that the Contact
was followed by long-term testing in June 1994. The capital cost of a LIFAC installation is lower than Jim Hervol,,Project Manager
boiler was operated at an average load of 60 MWe both spray dryers and wet scrubbers. Capital costs ICF Kaiser Engineering, Inc.
during long-term testing, although it fluctuated for LIFAC technology vary depending on unit size 4 Gateway Center
according to power demand. The W A C process and the quantity of reactors needed: Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1207
automatically adjusted to boiler load changes. A
$99 per kilowatt for one LIFAC reactor at (412) 497-:!235
CalS molar ratio of 2.0 was selected to attain SO,
Whitewater Valley Station (65 MWe) (412) 497-2298 ( f a )
reductions above 70 percent. Reactor bottom temper-
ature was about 5 OF higher than optimum to avoid $76 per kilowatt for one LIFAC reactor at
ash buildup on the steam reheaters. Atomized water Shand Station (150 W e )
droplet size was smaller than optimum for the same $66 per kilowatt for two W A C reactors at
reason. Other key process parameters held constant Shand Station (300 MWe)
during the long-term tests included the degree of

5-32 Program Update 1995


Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Project
(Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.)

Technology The project objective was to demonstrate an AFGD reaction tank combines the functions of agitation and
Advanced flue gas desulfurization process; single SO, unit retrofitted on Bailly Station's 183-MWe Unit 7 air distribution into one piece of equipment to facili-
absorber; Powerchip" gypsum agglomeration process and 345-MWe Unit 8. The goal was to achieve tate oxidation of calcium sulfite to gypsum. The
Size 90-95 percent or more SO, removal at approximately cleaned flue gas then passes through a two-stage mist
528 MWe one-half the cost of conventional scrubber technology eliminator where liquid and solid droplets are re-
Demonstration Duration (6/92-6/95) and production of commercial-gradegypsum. moved prior to exiting the scrubber.
The AFGD project was selected under the second The cocurrent design, whereby the flue gas and
26,280 hrs of operation
CCT Program solicitation in September 1988. Con- liquid slurry flow in the same direction, allows for
Coal
struction was started in April 1990, and in June higher gas velocities (up to 20 feet per second) and,
Bituminous, 2 . 2 5 4 7 % sulfur 1992, the AFGD system began to process flue gas, therefore, higher throughput than conventional
Environmental Results thus becoming the first commercial scrubber to meet systems. A large gas-liquid disengagement zone
Avg SO, removal eficiency-94% over 3 yrs the requirements of the CAAA of 1990. The demon- above the absorber tank is also conducive to high gas
Maximum SO, removal efficiency-98+% (emission of stration was conducted over a 3-year period and velocity. The high gas velocity and simplicity of the
0.382 lWmillion Btu) accumulated almost 26,280 hours of operation with AFGD design (making it inherently reliable) allowed
Gypsum production over 210,000 tons an availability of 99.47 percent. The project will a single module design for the 528-MWe Bailly
Gypsum purity-97.2% continue to operate for an additional 17 years under a Generating Station, which had very limited space
Technical Results novel business concept whereby Pure Air is the available. In addition to the single module, other
Availability-99.47% owner of the AFGD unit and operates the system for space and cost-saving features follow:
Power consumption (24 hr avg)-5,275 kW (61%of the utility under a service contract.
expected) Non-pressurized slurry distribution system,
The AFGD system consists of one resin-Iined
Water consumption-1,560 GPM (avg 52%of requiring approximately 30 percent less
absorber module and the required ancillary systems.
expected) recirculation pump power than conventional
The absorber is a co-current grid-packed tower with
Economic Results counter-current spray towers
two levels of slurry distribution and an integral
Not yet available reaction tank performing three functions in a single Fountain-like flow that does not generate a
vessel; prequencher, absorber, and oxidation of fine mist, reducing mist eliminator loading by
Pure Air on the Lake, a general partnership calcium sulfite to gypsum. Upon entering the absorb- as much as 95 percent compared to counter-
between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Mit- er module, the flue gas from Units 7 and 8 is saturat- current designs
subishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., completed a ed by contacting a C0,-enriched gypsum slurry and
3-year demonstration of an advanced flue gas des- passes through an open-faced grid. The absorber Use of a dry pulverized limestone injection
ulfurization (AFGD) process at Northern Indiana grid provides the required surface area for the flue system, eliminating the need for ball mills,
Public Service Company's Bailly Generating Station. gas and sluny to react. An air rotary sparger in the tanks, pumps, and other equipment associated
with on-site wet grinding systems

Program Update 1995 5-33


Chloride buildup in FGD system wastewater is
common and poses a disposal problem. To address Exhibit 5-8
this problem, the AFGD incorporated a wastewater Test Parameters
evaporation system that injects wastewater into the
flue gas ductwork upstream of the existing ESP. The Test Year
hot flue gas evaporates the water enabling the dissolved Parameter 1992 1993 1994/Qtr 1 199UQtr 2 199UQtr 3
solids to be captured by the ESP along with the fly ash. I
Pure Air also demonstrated a unique gypsum Coal sulfur content (%) 3.2 3.8 4.7 2.25 2.75 (blend)
agglomeration process known as Powerchip@.Un- Boiler load (%) 33,67,100 33-100 100 33,67, 100 33,67, 100
processed FGD gypsum which has the consistency of Stoichiometricratio - 1.03-1 .OO 1.05 1.015-1.056 1.015-1.065
wet sand is not conducive to transportation or han- Recirculation rate (%) 75-94 75-93 70-85 80-100 -
dling by existing equipment at wallboard or cement SO, reduction (%) 90.5-97 95 92-97 94-97.5 -
plants. This limits its marketability. The Power Gypsum purity (%) 96.7 95.6-99.7 96.7-99.7 96.3-99.4 -
Chip@process utilizes a compression mill at an
optimum compacting force with an exclusive curing I
time and temperature relationship that reformulates Exhibit 5-9
and modifies the physical structure of the by-product Operating Results
gypsum. The process produces stable, semi-dry
agglomerated flakes of calcium sulfate dihydrate Expected Achieved
(gypsum) with a range of 1/8-1/16-inch in thickness
and 3/8-1%-inch in length and width. This particle SO, emissions 90% removal or Avg 94% (during demonstration
size distribution more closely resembles that of 0.6 lwmillion Btu tests) up to 98+% or 0.382 1Wmillion Btu
natural gypsum. This makes PowerChip" gypsum I Power consumption 24-hravg (kW) 4,650 5,275
just as easy to transport and handle as natural rock Particulate emissions (@dry std ft3) No net increase 0.04 inlet
gypsum. The production rate of the Powerchip" Availability (%) 95 99.47
demonstration facility at the Bailly Station is 7 tons I Gypsum moisture (a) e10 6.64
per hour. During the 3-year demonstration over Gypsum purity (%I 93 97.2
210,000 tons of dry gypsum was produced. This Avg water consumption (GPM) 3,000 1,5160
synthetic gypsum is used by United States Gypsum
Company to produce wallboard.
I Avg wastewater flow (GPM) 275 81

Environmental Results period of 3 years to demonstrate the operation of the for the five tests. Exhibit 5-9 summarizes the opera-
Pure Air and Northem Indiana Public Service facility using coals with a wide range of sulfur con- tional results of the 3-year demonstration.
Company conducted a series of five tests over a tent. Each test lasted approximately 5-6 weeks. In summqy, the AFGD demonstration at the
Exhibit 5-8 summarizes the coal and test parameters Bailly Generating Station has established the tech-

5-34 Progmm Update 1995


Exhibit 5-10
SO, Removal Performance
(100% Boiler Load)

7 Liquid to Gas Ratio: 76% of Design A The project received Power Magazine's 1993
W Sulfur Content 2.25% 2 Sulfur Content 2.25% Powerplant Award and in 1992, the National Society of

-
0 sulfurcontent 2.75% 2 85 .I 0 Sulfurcontent 2.75% Professional Engineers' Outstanding Engineering
0 Sulfur Content 4.0% !?- 0 Sulfurcontent 4.0% Achievement Award.
0 Sulfurcontent 4.5% 0 Sulfurcontent 4.5%
80 1 1
1
1
1
1
.
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Modifications were also made to the AFGD
50 a 70 sa 90 100 system which contributed to the high availability
Absorber Recirculation Rate record. An example was the implementationof new
(% of Design) alloy technology. The C-276 alloy over carbon-steel-
clad material replaced alloy wallpaper construction
within the absorber tower weddry interface. This
nology as an efficient and reliable means of removing Operating Perform"
resulted in significant reduction in maintenance
SO,. The following relationships were established
The AFGD achieved a 99.47 percent availability costs. In another modifrcation, the high pressure
during the demonstration tests:
at the Bailly Generating Station over the 3 years of nozzles in the original wastewater evaporation
At a constant stoichiometric ratio, SO, operation. The key components of this achievement system were replaced with two-fluid nozzles which
removal efficiency increases with recircula- were the operatinglmaintenancephilosophy coupled provided better droplet size distribution and more
tion rate, as shown in Exhibit 5-10 (left with technical modifications. Critical mode analyses control of liquid being ev.wrated. This modification
graph). were used to identify equipment that, if down, would eliminated the problem of excessive accumulation of
For a given stoichiometric ratio, boiler load have the greatest impact on availability. In-line solids in the duct work.
spares were incorporated for those critical pieces of
and liquid-to-gas ratio, SO, removal e%- CommercialApplications
equipment. Productive maintenance techniques,
ciency is highest with the lowest sulfur coal
centrally located spare parts inventory, and comput- The AFGD process is attractive for both new and
(2.25 percent sulfur) and decreases as sulfur
erized maintenance systems were also used to assure retrofit applications particularly where space avail-
content increases (to 4.5 percent), as illus-
availability. ability is at a premium. The technology has been
trated in Exhibit 5-10 (right graph)

Program Update 1995 5-35


shown to be applicable to bituminous coal with sulfur Contact
contents ranging from 2.0 to 4.5 percent. The AFGD
Don Vymazal, Manager, Contract
system will continue to be used, under contract with
Administration
Pure Air,at the Bailly Generating Station where it is Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.
expected to reduce SO, emissions by 75,000 tons per 7201 Hamilton Boulevard
Year- Allentown, PA 18195-1501
The project has received two major awards. In
1993, Power Magazine presented the project the (610) 481-3687
Powerplant of the Year Award for demonstrating
advanced wet limestone FGD technology with inno-
vations in wastewater treatment and gypsum produc-
tion reuse. In 1992, the National Society of Profes-
sional Engineers presented the project its
Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award.
In April 1994, Pure Air of Manatee, L.P., en-
tered into a contract to provide 1,600-MWeof SO,
scrubbing capability to Florida Power and Light
Companys Manatee Power Plant on an own-and-
operate basis. The Manatee scrubber will feature two
800-MWe absorber vessels, Powerchip@gypsum
agglomeration, and wastewater evaporation.

Available Reports
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Project:
Public Design Report. Pure Air on the Lake,
L.P. March 1990.
The final technical report and economic evalua-
tion report are expected to be available in 1996.

W This side view shows the SO, absorber tank and duct
work, with the new 48Gft stack in the background. Pure
Air on the Lakes absorber module at Bailly Generating
Station is the largest module in the United States.

5-36 Program Update 1995


i
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process
(Southern Company Services, Inc.)

Technology Technical Results Economic Results


Chiyoda Corporations Chiyoda Thoroughbred-121 Fiberglass reinforced plastic fabricated equipment Not yet available but fiberglass reinforced plastic
(a- 121) jet-bubbling reactor (JBR)advanced flue gas proved durable both structurally and chemically, construction and elimination of a flue gas prescrubber, flue
desulfurization system eliminating need for a flue gas prescrubber and reheat. gas heat, and spare module should result in capital costs
Fiberglass reinforced plastic construction, combined far below conventional FGD systems
Size
with simplicity of design, resulted in 97% availability
100 MWe at low ash loadings and 95% at elevated ash loadings-
sufficiently high to preclude the need for a spare reactor Southern Company Services, Inc., completed
Demonstration Duration (10/92-12/94)
module. demonstration of Chiyoda Corporations CT-121
Over 14,000 hrs of scrubber operation advanced flue gas desulfurization process retrofitted
Simultaneous SO, and particulate control were achieved
Coal at flyash loadings reflective of an ESP with marginal to an existing 1WMWe pulverized coal-fired boiler
Blend of Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 bituminous coal, 2.4% perfonnance. at Georgia Power Companys Plant Yates.
sulfur avg The CT-121 process differs
Bituminous, 3.843% sulfur from the more common spray
Compliance, 1.2% sulfur tower type of flue gas desulfur-
Sorbent ization systems in that a single
Limestone process vessel is used in place
Environmental Results of the usual spray tower/
Over 90% SO, removal efficiency at SO, inlet levels of reaction Wthickener ar-
1,000-3,500 ppm and limestone utilization over 97% rangement. The single reactor
97.7-99.3% particulate removal efficiency for inlet vessel, called a jet-bubbling
mass loadings of 0.303-1.392 lbdmillion Btu for a load reactor (JBR), combines con-
range of 50-100 MWe
current reactions of SO, ab-
Capture efficiencyas a function of particle size:
sorptiodneutralization, lime-
- >lOmicrons-99% stone dissolution,sulfite
- 1-10 mimns-90%
oxidation, gypsum precipita-
- 0.5-1 microns-negligible
tion, and gypsum crystal
- 4 . 5 microns-90%
g0Wth.
* High HAPS removal efficiency demonstrated
The process is mechanical-
Gypsum stack method effective for obtaining wallboard/
cement-grade gypsum A Southem Company Services, Inc., completed demonstration of the CT-121 ly and chemically simpler than
scrubber at Georgia Power Companys 100-MWe Plant Yates. The system conventional flue gas desulfur-
maintained SO, removal efficiencies above 90% at all loads during the 19,000 hours
of operation. Shown in the center is the unique jet-bubbling reactor constructed ization processes. Cooled flue
from fiberglass reinforced plastic. gas, saturated with water and

Program Update 1995 5-37


JBR slurry, enters beneath the scrubbing solution.
The SO, in the flue gas is absorbed as it rises through Exhibit 5-11
the scrubber solution forming calcium sulfite. Air is Operation of CT-121 Scrubber
introduced into the bottom of the reaction tank to
oxidize the calcium sulfite and form gypsum. Pump- Low-Ash Elevated-Ash Cumulative
ing of reacted slurry to a gypsum transfer tank is Phase Phase for Project
intermittent. This allows crystal growth to proceed
Total test period (hrs) 1 1,750 7,250 19,Ooo
essentially uninterrupted resulting in large, easily
Scrubber available (hrs) 11,430 6,310 18,340
dewatered gypsum crystals (conventional systems
Scrubber operating (hrs) 8,600 5,210 13,810
employ large centrifugal pumps to move reacted
Scrubber called upon (hrs) 8,800 5,490 14,290
slurry causing crystal attrition and secondary nucle-
ation). After bubbling through the slurry, flue gas Reliabiliv 0.98 0.95 0.96
flows upward via large gas riser tubes into a plenum Availabilityb 0.97 0.95 0.97
where entrained scrubber solution is released as a Utilization' 0.73 0.72 0.75
consequence of abrupt velocity reduction. Further
Reliability= Hours scrubberoperateddividedby the hours called upon to operate
liquid capture is accomplished with a two-stage mist Availability=Hours Scrubberavailabledividedby the total hours in the period
eliminator before the gas passes to a wet chimney. Ufilization = Hours scrubberoperateddividedby the total hours in the period
The objectives of the project were to demonstrate
several cost-saving modifications to the CT-121
deposit into a diked area with separated water the scrubber operated for 8,600 hours. The remain-
process and associated systems, as well as 90 percent
returned to the process? ing 7,250 hours of the demonstration included 5,510
SO, removal for both high- and low-sulfur coals with
hours of scrubber operation at elevated particulate
and without simultaneous particulate capture. More Can 90 percent SO, capture and reliable
loading. Exhiblit 5-11 summarizes operating statis-
specifically, the project set out to evaluate the follow- system performance be maintained at normal
tics. Elevated ]particulate loading included a short
ing questions: and elevated particulate loadings with both
test with the elmtrostatic precipitator ESP completely
high- and lOW-Sulfur coals?
Is fiberglass reinforced plastic (FFW) effective deenergized, but the long term testing was conducted
in the construction of the JBR and other The scope of work was expanded in the latter with the ESP partially deenergized to simulate a
associated vessels? stages of the project to evaluate air toxics removal more realistic scenario, Le., a CT-121 retrofit to a
across the CT-121 process under elevated ash loading boiler with a marginally performing particulate
Can flue gas reheat be eliminated through the
conditions as well as validate or controvert findings collection device. The SO, removal efficiency was
use of an FRP wet chimney?
of earlier 1993 air toxic tests. measured under five different inlet concentrations
Will operation be sufficiently reliable to The demonstration spanned 27 months, includ- with coals averaging 2.4 percent and ranging from
eliminate a spare absorber module? ing startup and shakedown, during which approxi- 1.2 to 4.3 percent sulfur (as burned).
Can gypsum product be adequately dewatered mately 19,000 hours were logged. Of the approxi- Plant Yaks continues to operate with the
through use of a gypsum stack, i.e., slurry mately 11,750 hours of operation accumulated during CT-121 scrubber as an integral part of the site's
the low particulate test phase (including shakedown), CAAA 1990 compliance plan.

5-38 Program Update 1995


Availability of the CT-121 scrubber during the values possibly due to acid mist carryover entraining
Exhibit 5-12 low ash test phase was 97 percent. It dropped to 95 particulate in this size range. Below 0.5 micron, the
SO, Removal Efficiency percent under the elevated ash loading conditions due capture efficiency increased to over 90 percent.
largely to sparger tube plugging problems precipitat- Overall, better particulate removal efficiency was
ed by flyash agglomeration on the sparger tube walls achieved at 100 MWe than at 50 MWe. This was
during high ash loading when the ESP was deener- attributed to higher particulate momentum at the
gized. The high reliability demonstrated verified that higher load increasing the likelihood of slurry con-
a spare JBR is not required in a commercial design tact as the gas bubble passes through.
offering. Several observations emerged from air toxics
(or HAPS) testing:
Environmental Performance
The 1993 effort saw significantly more
Exhibit 5-12 shows SO, removal efficiency as a measurement error than the 1994 effort.
function of pressure drop across the JBR for five
different inlet concentrations. The greater the pres- The CT-121 JBR is highly efficient at HAP
sure drop, the greater the depth of slurry traversed by removal.
the flue gas. As the SO, concentration increased, Sampling is very sensitive to any error (e.g.,
6 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 removal efficiency decreased, but adjustments in JBR contamination) at these minimum detection
JBR Change
fluid level could maintain the efficiency above 90 levels.
(inchesof water column) percent and, at lower SO, concentration levels, above
Source apportionment identifies a significant
98 percent. Limestone utilization remained above 97
emission contribution from particulate
percent throughout the demonstration.
Operating Pe@onnance generated within the wet scrubbing process.
Particulate capture performance for long-term
Use of FRP constructionproved very successful. testing was tested with a partially deenergized ESP Calculated HAP removals across the CT-121
Because their large size precluded shipment, the JBR (approximately 90 percent efficiency) and is summa- JBR based on the measurements taken during the
and limestone slurry storage tanks were constructed rized in Exhibit 5-13. demonstration were as follows:
on site. Except for some erosion experienced at the Analysis indicated that a large percentage of the
Antimony-8 1.1 percent
JBR inlet transition duct, the FRP-fabricated equip- outlet particulate is sulfate, likely a result of acid mist
ment proved to be durable both structurally and and gypsum carryover. This reduces the estimate of Chromium-98.3 percent
chemically. Because of the high corrosion resistance, ash mass loading at the outlet to approximately 70 Manganese-94.4 percent
the need for a flue gas prescrubber to remove chlo- percent of the measured outlet particulate.
rides was eliminated. Similarly, the FRP-constructed For particulate sizes greater than 10 microns, Nickel-97.9 percent
chimney proved resistant to the corrosive condensates capture efficiency was consistently greater than 99 Arsenic-91.1 percent
in wet flue gas, precluding the need for flue gas percent. In the 1-10 micron range, capture efficiency
Lead-95.9 percent
reheat. was over 90 percent. Between 0.5 and 1 micron, the
particulate removal dropped at times to negligible Vanadium-97.6 percent

Program Update 1995 5-39


As to solids handling, the gypsum stack method
proved effective in the long term. Although chloride Exhibit 5-13
content was initially high in the stack due to the Particulate Capture Performance
closed loop nature of the process (with concentrations (ESP Marginally Operating)
often exceeding 35,000 parts per million), a year
later the chloride concentration in the gypsum JBR Pressure
dropped to less than 50 parts per million, suitable for Change (inches of Boiler Load Inlet Mass Loading Outlet Mass Loading" Removal
water column) (MWe) (IWmillion Btu) (IWmillion Btu) Efficiency (%)
wallboard and cement applications. The predomi-
nant cause was attributed to rainwater washing the 18 100 1.288 0.02 97.7
stack. 10 100 1.392 0.010 99.3
18 50 0.325 0.005 98.5
Project Awards
10 50 0.303 0.006 98.0
The CT-121 project has received four major
awards. In 1995, the Society of Plastics Industries
* Federal NSPS is 0.031WmillionBtu for units constructedafter September 18,1978. Plant Yates pennit limit is
0.24lb/million Btu as an existing unit.
presented the project its Design Award in recognition
of the mist eliminator. In 1994 Power Muguzine
presented the Powerplant of the Year Award for Contact
large-scale demonstration of an advanced scrubbing
David P. Burford, Project Manager
process and commercial application of low-NOx
Southem Company Services, Inc.
burners. The Georgia chapter of the Air and Waste
P.O. Box 2625
Management Association presented its 1994 Out-
Birmingham, AL 35202-2625
standing Achievement Award to the project for use of
an innovative technology for air quality control. In (205) 870-6329
1993, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce presented
the project with an Environmental Award in recogni-
tion of the success of the scrubber.

AvaiIable Reports
Final technical, economic evaluation, and public
design reports are e x p t e d to be available in late
1996 and the fmal report on gypsum stacking in A The project received Power Magazine's 1994
1997. Powerplant Award. The project also received a 1995
Design Award b m the society of Plastics Industries and
two other awards, one each in 1993 and 1994.

540 Program Update 1995


SNOXfMFlue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project
(ABB Environmental Systems)

Technology ABB Environmental Systems has demonstrated installed at the Ohio Edison's Niles Station. The
NOx control-selective catalytic reacior the SNOXTMprocess developed by Haldor Topsoe ds. process is treating a 35-MWe equivalent slipstream of
SO, control-Haldor Topsoe's catalytic SO, oxidizer; S N O P is a totally catalytic process for the reduc- flue gas from the 108-MWe Unit No. 2 boiler. A
WSA sulfuric acid condenser tion of SO, and NO, in gaseous streams. The SO, is high-sulfur (3.4 percent) Ohio coal is used to fire the
Particulate control-fabric filter baghouse converted to commercial grade sulfuric acid and the boiler. The project was selected under the second
Size NO, is decomposed to elemental nitrogen and water solicitation and the cooperative agreement was
35-MWe slipstream from 108-MWe boiler vapor. The objective of the project was to (1) demon- awarded in December 1989. Testing was initiated in
Demonstration Duration (=-12/94) strate the feasibility of the S N O P process as March 1992 and completed in December 1994.
applied to coal-fired power plants, (2) achieve 95 In the S N O P process. the stack gas leaving the
7,800 hrs
percent SO, removal and at least 90percent NO, boiler is cleaned of fly ash in a high-efficiency fabric
Coal
reduction at various loads, (3) demonstrate commer- filter baghouse to minimize the cleaning frequency of
Ohio bituminous, 3.4% sulfur cial quality of the sulfuric acid produced, (4) satisfy the sulfuric acid catalyst in the downstream SO,
Environmental Results all environmental monitoring plan requirements, and converter. The ash-free gas is reheated through the
SO, removal efficiency-95% ( 5 ) perform a technical and economic characteriza- primary side of a gaslgas heat exchanger. An ammo-
NOx reduction-94% tion of the technology. The demonstration unit is nia and air mixture is then added to the gas prior to
Particulate control-99+% the SCR where NOxis reduced to elemental nitrogen
Sulfuric acid purity-exceeds federal specification for and water. The DNX-932 catalyst used in the SCR is
Class I acid a high activity, titanium-oxide-based monolithic type
Air toxics-removal very high for majority of species which operates in a temperature range of 650-800 OF.
examined
As the flue gas leaves the SCR, its temperature is
Technical Results raised slightly by an in-line burner, and the flue gas
No alkali reagent required for SO, removal enters the SO, converter containing Haldor Topsoe
No generation of secondary pollution streams, e.g., VL-WSA sulfuric acid catalyst which oxidizes SO, to
solids, slurries, and liquids
sulfur trioxide (SO& The SO, laden gas is passed
Minimal or no increase in CO, emissions
through the secondary side of a gadgas heat exchang-
Reduction of CO and hydrocarbons in1 flue gas
er where it is cooled as incoming flue gas is heated.
Synergistic coupling of NO, and SO, catalysts
The processed flue gas is then passed through a
Furnace integration of recovered heat A The S N O P demonstration at Ohio Edison's Niles
Station Unit No. 2 achieved SO, removal efficiencies in falling film condenser (the WSA condenser) where it
Economic Results excess of 95% and NOxreduction effectiveness averaging is further cooled with ambient air to below the sulfu-
Capital costs-$250/kW 94%. The demonstration was completed in 1994, and ric acid dewpoint. Acid condenses out of the gas
Total operating cost-1.3 millskwh Ohio Edison is retaining the S N O P technology as part of
its environmental control system. phase on the interior of borosilicate glass tubes and is
subsequently collected, cooled, and stored. The flue

Program Update 1995 5-41


gas is discharged from the process at about 210 OF Sulfuric acid concentration and composition has are captured in the acid. For volatile species, the
and cooling air leaves the WSA condenser at approx- met or exceeded the requirements of the federal WSA condenser outlet temperature (200 OF) is lower
imately 400 OF. In a full-scale integrated S N O P specifications for Class I acid. During the design and than conventional boiler outlet temperatures (about
system, the hot air is used for process support and as construction of the SNOXTM demonstration, arrange- 300 OF) and should condense and capture more of the
boiler combustion air after increasing the tempera- ments were made with a sulfuric acid supplier to volatile species )thana plant with only an ESP or
ture through the air preheater. purchase and distribute the acid from the plant. The fabric filter.
In order to demonstrate and evaluate the perfor- acid has been sold to the agriculture industry for the The economic evaluation of the SNOXTM process
mance of the S N O P process, general operating production of diammonium phosphate fertilizer and shows a capital cost of approximately $250 per
data was collected and parametric tests conducted to to the steel industry for pickling. Ohio Edison has kilowatt and a total operating cost of approximately
characterize the process and equipment. The system also used a significant amount in boiler water de- 1.3 mills per kilowatt-hour.
has operated for over 7,800 hours and produced more mineralizer systems throughout its plants. Ohio Edisoin is retaining the plant, and funds
than 5,400 tons of commercial-grade sulfuric acid. Air toxic testing conducted at the Niles SNOXTM that were designated for dismantling were reappor-
Many tests for the S N O P system were con- plant measured the following substances: tioned into the clperating phase of the program for
ducted at three loads-75 percent, 100 percent, and testing and system modifications in addition to the
Five major and 16 trace elements including
110 percent of design capacity. Niles demonstration.
mercury, chromium, cadmium, lead, sele-
Sulfur dioxide removal in the SNOXTMprocess Commercial S N O P plants are in operation in
nium, arsenic, beryllium, and nickel
is controlled by the efficiency of the SO,-to-SO, Denmark and Sicily. In Denmark, a 3 0 5 - W e plant
oxidation which occurs as the flue gas passes through Acids and corresponding anions (hydrogen has been designled and constructed and has been in
the oxidation catalyst beds. The efficiency is con- chloride, hydrogen fluoride, chloride, fluo- operation since August 1991. The boilers at this
trolled by two factors-space velocity and bed tem- ride, phosphate, sulfate) plant burn coals from various suppliers around the
perature. Space velocity governs the amount of Ammonia and cyanide world including the United States; the coals contain
catalyst which is necessary at design flue gas flow sulfur varying from 0.5 to 3.0 percent. The plant in
conditions, and gas and bed temperature must be Elemental carbon Sicily, operating since March 1991, has a capacity of
high enough to activate the SO, oxidation reaction. Radionuclides approximately 30 W e and fires petroleum coke.
During the test program, SO, removal efficiency was
Volatile organic compounds Available Reports
normally in excess of 95 percent for inlet concentra-
tions averaging about 2,000parts per million. Semi-volatile compounds including poly- Final reports are scheduled to be available in
The SCR portion of the S N O P process can nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons March 1996.
operate at higher than typical ammonia stoichiomet-
Aldehydes
ric~ due to its location ahead of the SO, catalyst beds. Contact
The excess ammonia is oxidized to nitrogen, water For the majority of the species examined, espe-
Bill Kingston, Project Manager
vapor, and a small amount of nitrogen oxide. Nor- cially those that exit primarily as particulates at the
ABB Environmental Systems
mal operating stoichiometrics for the SCR system are S N O P fabric filter or SNOXW outlet, removal is
P.O. Box 43030
in the range of 1.02-1.05 and system reduction very high. Because of the mechanism of sulfuric acid
Birmingham, AL 35243
efficiencies averaged 94 percent with inlet NOxlevels condensation in the WSA condenser, any particulates
remaining at this point act as a nuclei for YSO, and (205) 995-5368
of approximately 500-700 parts per million.
5-42 Program Update 1995
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration
(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)

Technology Economic Results


Limestone injection multistage bumer (LIMB) Capital cost-LIMB $31-102/kW,
In-duct sorbent injection (Coolside) Coolside $69-160AcW
Annual levelized cost-LIMl3 $392-791/ton of SO,
DRB-XCL@low-NOxbumers
removed; Coolside $482-943/ton of SO, removed
Demonstration Duration
LIMB-3,521 h r ~(4/90-8/91)
Limestone injection multistage bumer (LIMB)
Coolside-l,716 hrs (7/89-2/90)
technology was the product of a series of bench-scale
Size and pilot-plant projects performed by the U.S. Envi-
105 MWe ronmental Protection Agency during the early 1980s.
Coal These studies were directed toward the development
Ohio bituminous, 1.6%, 3.0%, and 3.8% sulfur of relatively low-cost, moderately efficient SO, and
Sorbent NO, emissions control technologies for older fossil
fuel-fired utility boilers. At about the same time, the
Calcitic limestone; type-Natmospheric hydrated dolomitic
lime; calcitic hydrated lime; calcitic hydrated lime with Ohio Edison Company undertook a program to
added calcium lignosulfonate (ligno lime) participate in emerging technology development to
Environmental Results be in a better position to evaluate the technical,
LIMB-6145 SO, removal efficiency (3.8% sulfur coal, operational, and economic aspects of the newer A Babcock & Wilcox demonstrated LIMB and Coolside
processes on Ohio Edisons Edgewater Station. LIMB
ligno lime) emissions control technologies being developed. By achieved 61% SO, removal efficiency and Coolside, 70%.
Coolside-70% SO, removal efficiency (hydrated lime; 1984, the two programs led to the full-scale demon- Shown are the humidification water tower and duct work
2.0 CdS, 0.2 NdCa, and 20 O F approach to saturation) stration of the LIMB process. with guillotine dampers on the roof.
40-50% NOxremoval throughout LIMB and Coolside In 1987, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, with
testing During both LIMB and Coolside testing, Bab-
cofunding from the Ohio Coal Development Office,
Technical Results was awarded a cooperative agreement under the CCT cock & Wilcoxs DRB-XCL@low-NOxburners
LIMB and Coolside economically compelitive with wet Program to extend the full-scale demonstration of the achieved 40-50 percent NO, removal.
FGD processes-
LIMB process. The project also provided for demon-
* Up to 1.5% sulfur coal for up to 500 MWe net
stration of the Coolside process, an induct injection
LIMB Extension
Up to 2.5% sulfur coal for up to 450 hWe net (LIMB),
220 MWe net (Coolside) technology developed by ConsolidationCoal Compa- The primary purpose of the extension testing
Up to 3.5% sulfur coal for up to 240 MWe net (LIMB), ny (also a cofunder). Both LIMB and Coolside were under the CCT Program was to demonstrate the
100W e net (Coolside) demonstrated on the 105-MWe coal-fired boiler at generic applicability of LIMB technology. The
Competitiveness increases with lower plant capacity Unit No. 4 of Ohio Edison Companys Edgewater LIMB process reduces SO, by injecting dry sorbent
factor and shorter book life, and as sulfur removal Station in brain, Ohio. into the boiler at a point above the bumers. The
requirements decrease below 70%
Program Update 1995 5-43
sorbent then travels through the boiler and is re- Effect of Limestone Particle Size. While when humidification down to a 20 OF ap-
moved along with the fly ash. injecting commercial limestone with 80 proach to saturation was used.
The extended effort, which began in April 1990, percent of the particles less than 44 microns NOxRemoval. The continued use of the low-
characterized the SO, removal efficiency for the four in size, removal efficiencies of about 22
NO, buniers resulted in an overall average
sorbents. These tests were conducted over a range of percent were obtained at a stoichiometry of
NOxemissions level of 0.43 pound per
CdS and humidification conditions while burning 2.0 while burning 1.6 percent sulfur coal.
million E3tu.
Ohio coals with nominal sulfur contents of 1.6,3.0, However, removal efficiencies of about 32
and 3.8 percent by weight. Each of the different percent were achieved at a stoichiometry of Costs. Capital costs of LIMB are estimated to
sorbents was injected while burning each of the three 2.0 when using a limestone with a smaller range between $31 and $102 per kilowatt and
different coals. Other variables examined were particle size (i.e., all particles were less than annual lewelized costs between $392 and $791
stoichiometry, humidifier outlet temperature, and 44 microns). A third limestone with essen- per ton of SO, removed.
injection level. The results of these tests follow: tially all particles less than 10 microns was
used to determine what might be the removal
coolside Proccess studies
Effect of Coal Sulfur Content. The sulfur
efficiency limit. The removal efficiency for The generic: Coolside desulfurization technology
content of the coal as reflected in the SO,
this very fine limestone was approximately involves injection of dry hydrated lime (sorbent) into
concentration in the flue gas had an effect on
5-7 percent higher than that obtained at the flue gas downstream of the air preheater, fol-
SO, removal efficiency-the higher the sulfur
similar conditions for limestone with particles lowed by flue giE humidification by water sprays.
content, the greater the SO, removal for a
all sized less than 44 microns. The SO, is captiured by reaction with the entrained
given sorbent at a comparable Stoichiometry.
sorbent particles in the humidifier and with the
A 5-7 percent increase in removal was noted Effect of Injection Level. During the design
sorbent collected in the particulate removal system.
when switching to 3.8 percent from 1.6 phase, it was expected that injection at the
The humidification water serves two purposes. First,
percent sulfur coal and injecting at a stoichi- 181-foot plant elevation level inside the boiler
it activates the mbent to enhance SO, removal and,
ometry of 2.0. would permit the introduction of the lime-
Effect of Sorbent Choice. The highest stone at close to the optimum furnace tem-
perature of 2,300 OF. Testing confirmed that
removal efficiencies, without humidification
injection at this level, just above the nose of
to close approach, were attained using the
the boiler, yielded the highest SO, removal.
ligno lime. Efficiencies on the order of 61
Injection was also performed at the 187-foot
percent were achieved while burning a
level and similar removals were observed.
nominal 3.8 percent sulfur coal. Removal
Removal efficiencies while injecting at these
efficiencies for dolomitic lime were about 8
levels were about 5 percent higher than while
percent less than those for calcitic or ligno
injecting sorbent at the 191-foot level.
lime, at a stoichiometry of 2.0. All sorbents
tested were found to be capable of removing Effect on HumidiTcation. Removal efficien-
SO, although calcium utilization of even cies were enhanced by approximately 10per-
finely pulverized limestone was not nearly as cent over the range of stoichiometriestested A Water mist sprayed into the flue gas enhances sulfur
capture by the sorbent by approximately 109b.
high as those of the limes.
5-44 Program Update 1995
second, it conditions the particulate matter to main- feed was 40 percent at 0.8 fresh CdS, 0.2 fresh Shorter Remaining Boiler Life. A shorter
tain efficient electrostatic precipitator performance. NdCa, 0.5 available recycle, and 18 OF approach to remaining boiler life favors the low-capital-
Spent sorbent is removed from the gas along with the adiabatic saturation. cost Coolside process.
fly ash in the existing particulate collector. The The capital cost for the Coolside process is
sorbent activity can be significantly enhanced by estimated to range between $69 and $160 per kilo- Availuble Reports
dissolving sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or sodium watt with annual levelized cost ranging $482-943 T.R.Goots, M.J. DePero, and P.S. Nolan.
carbonate (N%CO,) in the humidification water. per ton of SO, removed. LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and
Sorbent recycling can be used to improve the An economic comparison of Coolside and wet Coolside Demonstration: Final Report.
sorbent utilization if the particulate collector can limestone FGD processes indicated the Coolside Report No. DOE/PCn9798-"27. The
handle the resulting increased solids loading. process is economically competitive with a wet Babcock & Wilcox Company. November
The demonstration of the Coolside process was limestone forced oxidation U F O ) FGD process for 1992. (Available from NTIS as DE93005979.)
conducted from late July 1989 to mid-February 1990. baseload boiler operations (65 percent capacity
D.C. McCoy et al. The Edgewater Coolside
During that period, Boiler 13, Edgewater Unit No. 4, factor) under the following conditions:
was burning compliance (1.2-1.6 percent sulfur) and Process Demonstration: A Topical Report.
1.5 percent sulfur coal, up to 350 MWe net Report No. DOE/PC/79798-"26. CONSOL,
noncompliance (2.8-3.2 percent sulfur) coals. Objec-
tives of the full-scale test program were to verify 2.5 percent sulfur coal, up to 130 MWe net Inc. February 1992. (Available from NTIS as
short-term process operability and to develop a de- DE93001722.)
In addition, process sensitivity analyses showed
sign performance database to establish process eco- the following factors favor the Coolside process for Coolside and LIMB: Sorbent Injection
nomics for Coolside. Key process vakiables--CdS, SO, control: Demonstrations Nearing Completion.
NdCa, and approach to adiabatic saturation-were Topical Report No. 2. US.Department of
evaluated in short-term (6-8-hour) parametric tests Lower Boiler Capacity Factors. The Energy and The Babcock & Wilcox Com-
and longer term (1-1 l-day) process operability tests. Coolside process can be characterized as a pany. September 1990.
The test program demonstrated that the Coolside low capital cost, high operating cost process.
When compared to high capital cost, low Public Design Report. Report No. DOE/PC/
process routinely achieved 70 percent SO, removal at
operating cost processes such as LSFO FGD, 79798-T2. The Babcock & Wilcox Company.
design conditions of 2.0 CdS, 0.2 NalCa, and 20 OF
the economic attractiveness of the Coolside December 1988. (LIMB/Coolside demonstra-
approach to adiabatic saturation temperature using
process increases with decreasing boiler tion.) (Available from NTZS as DE92016131.)
commercially available hydrated lime. Coolside SO,
removal depended on CdS, NdCa, approach to capacity factor.
Contact
adiabatic saturation, and the physical properties of Lower Required SO, Percentage Reduc-
the hydrated lime. Sorbent recycle showed signifi- Paul Nolan
tions. The base case SO, removals are 70
cant potential to improve sorbent utilization. The The Babcock & Wilcox Company
percent and 95 percent respectively for the
observed SO, removal with recycled sorbent alone P.O. Box 351
Coolside and LSFO process. As the SO,
was 22 percent at 0.5 available CdS amd 18 OF Barberton, OH 44203-0351
removal requirement falls below 70 percent,
approach to adiabatic saturation. The observed SO, the Coolside process becomes more economi- (216) 860-1074
removal with simultaneous recycle and fresh sorbent cally attractive relative to the LSFO process. (216) 860-2045 (fax)

Program Update 1995 5-45


SOX-NOx-Rox Boxw Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project
(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)

Technology appreciable physical degradation or change in catalyst Construction of the demonstration unit was
activity over the course of the demonstration. completed in November 1991 and operations were
SO,-in-duct sorbent injection
NOx- ammonia injection with selective catalytic NO excessive wear or failures occurred with the filter completed in M~~ 1993. The SWTM process was
bags tested: 3Ms Nextel ceramic fiber filter bags and
reduction (SCR) catalyst
Owens Coming Fiberglass S-Glass filter bags.
operated for approximately 2,300 hours.
Particulate-high-temperature fabric bag filters The project consisted of four primary test
Economic Results
Size programs:
Capital cost-$26McW (250 W e , 3.5% sulfur coal,
5-MWe equivalent slipstream from 156-MWe boiler 1.2 lbs N0)nillion Btu) Base demonstration project
Demonstration Duration (5/92-5/93)
Filter falmc assessment
2,300 hrs The Babcock & Wilcox Company completed the
demonstration of the SOX-NOx-RoxBoxTM Alternative bag demonstration
Coal
Ohio bituminous, 3.4% sulfur avg ( S W W ) process for the combined removal of SO,, Air toxics emissions testing
NOx,and particulates in one piece of
Sorbent
the equipment-a high-temperature
Calcium based-commercial-grade hydrated lime;
sugar hydrated lime; lignosulfonate hydrated lime baghouse. SNRBTMincorporates dry
Sodium based-sodium bicarbonate sorbent injection for SO, emissions
control, selective catalytic reduction
Environmental Results
(SCR) for reducing NOxemissions,
80% SO, removal efficiency with commercial-grade
lime at 2.0 W S (800-850 OF) and a pulse-jet baghouse operating at
90% SO, removal efficiency with hydrated lime at 450-850 OF for controlling particulate
2.0 W S (800-850 O F ) emissions.
80% SO, removal efficiency with sodium bicarbonate at The demonstration of the com-
1.0 N q S (425 OF) mercial-scale baghouse module was
90% NOxreduction with 0.9 NH,/NOx (800-850 O F ) conducted on a 5-MWe equivalent
99.89% particulate emissions removal efficiency slipstream from the 156-MWe boiler
Air toxic removal efficiency largely comparable to an located at Ohio Edison Companys
ESP but also reduced HC1 and HF emissions by over
90% R.E.Burger Plant, Unit No. 5, in
Dilles Bottom, Ohio. Gas tie-in was
Technical Results
between the economizer and the
Calcium utilization ranged from U 5 % for SO, A The Babcock & Wilcox Company SNRBM 5-MWe equivalent
removals of 85-90%
combustion air heater where the flue
demonstration at Ohio Edisons R.E. Burger Plant demonstrated the technical
Norton Companys NC-300 zeolite SCR catalyst located gas temperature was approximately and economic feasibility of achieving greater than 80% SO, removal, 90%
in filter bag to protect against erosion showed no f30-650OF. NO, reduction, and 99% particulate removal.

5-46 Program Update 1995


The overall project objective was to achieve Na/S at a significantly reduced baghouse No appreciable physical degradation or
greater than 70 percent SO, removal and 90 percent temperature of 450460 OF. change in the catalyst activity was observed
or higher reduction in NOx emissions while main- over the duration of the test program.
SO, emissions were reduced to less than 1.2
taining particulate emissions below 0.03 pound per
pounds per million Btu with a 3 4 percent The degree of oxidation of SO, to SO, over
million Btu.
sulfur coal with CalS as low as 1.5 and N a p the zeolite catalyst appeared to be less than
Four different sorbents were tested for SO,
less than 1.0. 0.5 percent. (SO, oxidation is a concern for
capture. Calcium-based sorbents included commer-
To capture NO,, ammonia was injected between SCR catalysts containing vanadium.)
cial-grade hydrated lime, sugar hydrated lime, and
lignosulfonate hydrated lime. In addition, sodium the sorbent injection point and the baghouse. The Leach potential analysis of the catalyst after
bicarbonate was tested. The optimum location for ammonia and NOxreacted to form nitrogen and completion of the field test showed that the
injecting the sorbent into the flue gas was immediate- water in the presence of Norton Companys NC-300 catalyst remained nonhazardous for disposal.
ly upstream of the baghouse. Effectively, the SO, series zeolite SCR catalyst. With the catalyst being
Key observations related to SNRBm particulate
was captured by the sorbent while it was in the form located inside the filter bags, it was well protected
collection follow:
of a filter cake on the filter bags (along with fly ash). from potential particulate erosion or fouling. The
A summary of SO, removal performance follows: sorbent reaction products, unreacted lime, and fly ash Emissions were consistently below NSPS
were collected on the filter bags and thus removed standards of 0.03 pound per million Btu,with
With the baghouse operating above 830 OF,
from the flue gas. an average over 30 baghouse particulate
injection of commercial-gradehydrated lime emission measurements of 0.018 pound per
Key SNRBm NO, reduction observations from
at CdS ratios of 1.8 and above resulted in million Btu,which corresponds to a collective
the demonstration tests follow:
SO, removals of over 80 percent.
efficiency of 99.89 percent.
90 percent NO, emissions reduction was
At a CalS of 2.0, performance of the sugar Hydrated lime injection increased the
readily achieved with ammonia slip limited to
hydrated lime and lignosulfonate hydrated baghouse inlet particulate loading from 5.6 to
less than 5 parts per million. This perfor-
lime increased performance by approximately 16.5 pounds per million Btu.
mance reduced NO, emissions to less than
8 percent for an overall removal of approxi-
0.10 pound per million Btu. Emission testing with and without the SCR
mately 90 percent.
NOx reduction was insensitive to temperatures catalyst installed revealed no apparent
SO, removals of 85-90 percent were obtained
over the catalyst design temperature range of differences in collection efficiency.
with calcium utilizations of 4 0 4 5 percent.
700-900 O F . On-line cleaning with a pulse air pressure of
Injection of the calcium-based sorbents
Catalyst space velocity (volumetric gas flow/ 3 0 4 0 pounds per square inch was sufficient
directly upstream of the baghouse at 825-900
catalyst volume) had a minimal effect on NO, for cleaning the badcatalyst assemblies.
OF resulted in higher overall SO, removal than
removal over the range evaluated. Typically, one of five baghouse modules in
injection further upstream at temperatures up
to 1,200 O F . Turndown capability for tailoring the degree service was cleaned every 30-150 minutes.
of NO, reduction by varying the rate of A comprehensive air toxics emissions monitor-
SO, removal using sodium bic,&nate was
ammonia injection was demonstrated for a ing test was performed at the end of the SNRBm
80 percent at 1.0 N q S and 98 percent at 2.0
range of 50-95 percent NO, reduction.

Program Update 1995 5-47


.
demonstration test program. Summaries of key estimated at $360-400 per kilowatt. Variable
program characteristics and test observations follow: operating costs are dominated by the cost of the
SO, sorbent for a system designed for 85-90
The targeted emissions monitored included
percent S O , removal. Fixed operating costs
trace metals, volatile organic compounds,
primarily consist of system operating labor and
semi-volatile organic compounds, aldehydes,
projected labor and material for the hot bag-
halides, and radionuclides. These species
house and ash handling systems.
were a subset of the 189 substances identified
The Babcock & Wilcox Company is
in the CAAA of 1990. Mercury speciation
pursuing commercial applications of the tech-
measurements and measurement of dioxins
nology, using the successful 5-MWe demon-
and furans were unique features of this test
stration as proof of the technical feasibility of
program.
the process. Activity to date has been focused
The flue gas and solids streams were sampled on smaller units where the cost advantages
at 12 locations in the host boiler, SNRBTM appear to be greatest. Potential applications to
facility, and host plant electrostatic precipitator. A This photo shows the SNREW duct work, propane heater, and
waste-to-energy plant emission control are also
structural steel housing.
The emissions control efficiencies achieved being investigated.
for various air toxics by the SNRBW system A 3,800-hour durability test of three fabric filters
Available Reports
were generally comparable to those of the was completed at the Filter Fabric Development Test
conventional electrostatic precipitator at the Facility in Colorado Springs in December 1992. No SOX-NQX-Rox Boxm Flue Gas Clean-up
power plant. However, the S N R B T M system signs of failure were observed. All of the demonstra- Demonstration Final Report. Report
did reduce HC1 and HF emissions by over 90 tion tests were conducted using the 3M Company No. DOE/PC/89656-T1. The Babcock &
percent, which was significantly higher than Nextel ceramic fiber filter bags or the Owens Corn- Wilcox Company. September 1995. (Avail-
that observed for the electrostatic precipitator. ing Fiberglas s-Glass filter bags. No excessive wear able from NTIS as DE96003839.)
or failures occurred in over 2,000 hours of elevated 5 MWe SNRBW Demonstration Facility:
For some sampling locations, conventional
temperature operation. Detailed Design Report. The Babcock &
sampling methods were modified to handle
A preliminary evaluation has been made of the Wilcox Company. November 1992.
higher than normal flue gas temperatures,
projected capital costs of the SNRBW system for
particulate loading, and acid gas conditions.
various utility boiler emissions control applications. Contact
Operation of the SNRBm demonstration result- For a 250-MWe boiler fired with 3.5 percent sulfur
Kevin Redinger
ed in the production of approximately 830 tons of fly coal and generating 1.2 pounds of NOxper million
The Babcwk & Wilcox Company
ash and by-product solids. An evaluation of potential Btu, the projected capital cost of a SNRBm system is
1562 Beeson Street
uses for the by-product showed that the material approximately $260 per kilowatt including various
Alliance, OH 44601
might be used for agricultural liming (if pelletized). technology and project contingency factors. A
Also, the solids potentially could be used as a partial combination of a fabric filter, SCR, and wet scrubber (216) 829-'7719
cement replacement to lower the cost of concrete. for achieving comparable emissions control has been

5-48 Program Update 1995


Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection
(Energy and Environmental Research Corporation)

Technology Heat distribution-minor changes; within normal range - 63% SO, reduction, 64% NO, reduction (64hrs at
Gas reburning (GR) No change in tube wastage, tube metallurgy, or 29 MWe, gas input 21.6%, CalS 1.75)
Sorbent injection (SI) projected boiler life Particulate emissions averaged 0.016 1Wmillion Btu,
well below the 0.1 Ib/million Btu permitted limit
HenneDin Lakeside
Technical Results
Size Size
Thermal effciency-fellO.8% due to higher moisture
80 MWe (gross), 71 MWe (net), tangentially fired 40 MWe (gross), 33 MWe (net), cyclone-fired in methane
Demonstration Duration (1Bl-1/93) Demonstration Duration (Yg3-1 O M ) Carbon-in-ash-gas rebum neither increased carbon-in-
Parametric tests-100 gas reburning tests; 25 sorbent ash nor impacted boiler efficiency
Gas reburning, 400 hrs
injection tests Flue gas temperature-increased 6 OF; sorbent
Sorbent injection, 115 hrs deposition on back pass heat transfer surfaces
Long-term tests-gas reburning, 249 hrs; combined,
Combined,76Ohrs 223 hrs Operated consistently and reliably
Baseline, 825 hrs Extended operating tests (4/94-5/94)-continuous gas Combined Economic Results
Coal reburning, 115 hrs; continuous combined, 38 hrs and
64hrs SO, removal cost effectiveness
Illinois bituminous, 3.0% sulfur - $425/ton SO, removed (1.O CdS; 29% SO, removal)
Coal
Sorbent - $514/ton so, removed (2.0 CalS; 45% SO, removal)
Illinois bituminous, 3.0% sulfur
Linwood hydrated lime NOxreduction cost effectiveness
bmiSOI2B"A Sorbent - $979/ton of NOx removed (14% gas input; 47% NO,
PromiSORBmB Limestone (CaCO,) reduction)
High-surface-area hydrated lime Hydrated lime [Ca(OH)J - $1,318/ton of NOxremoved (24% gas input; 60%
NOx reduction)
Environmental Results Environmental Results
52% avg SO, reduction at CdS of 1.76 44% SO, reduction at 33 MWe; 38% reduction at 25
MWe; 32% at 20 MWe (all at CalS of 2.0) (sorbent The Energy and Environmental Research Corpo-
67% avg NOx reduction with 18% gas input
injection only); 58% avg SO, reduction during GR-SI ration (EER) has conducted a demonstration of gas
Particulate emissions reduced by flue gas
long-term testing reburning and sorbent injection (GR-SI) at the
humidification upstream of ESP
reduction at cals >lS along with gas heat tangentially fired Illinois Power Hennepin Plant Unit
CO,, HCl, and HF emissions reduced inputs of 22-25% (combined operation)
1 and the cyclone-fired Lakeside Station Unit 7 of
Technical Results Over 60% NOxreduction with optimum achieved at
22-23% gas input (gas rebum only); 67% avg NOx City Water, Light and Power. The gas reburning
Thermal efficiency-fellO.3-1.1%; latent heat loss due
reduction during GR long-term testing (GR) process consists of injection of natural gas
to hydrogen
Carbon-in-ash-increased 0.5-1.7%; minimal impact Extended continuous combined rum: corresponding to 15-25 percent of the heat input at a
on boiler efficiency - 60% SO, reduction, 66% NOxreduction (38 hrs at location above the coal burners to create a fuel-rich
Steam temperature--no change; controlled by 29 MWe, gas input 22.4%, CdS 1.67) zone which will allow the reduction of NOx formed
attemperation

Program Update 1995 5-49


in the coal zone to molecular nitrogen. Overfire air over a wide range from 40 MWe to a maximum load
is injected at a higher elevation to bum out the fuel of 75 MWe. Over the long-term demonstration
combustibles under fuel-lean conditions. In the period, the average gross power output was 62 MWe.
sorbent injection (SI) process, a calcium-based For the long-term demonstration testing, the
sorbent such as calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH,)] is average NOxreduction was approximately 67 per-
injected into the upper furnace to react with flue gas cent. The average SO, removal efficiency was over
SO, resulting in the formation of calcium sulfate 52 percent at a Ca/S molar ratio of 1.76. (Linwood
(CaSOJ and calcium sulfite (CaSO,). These solids hydrated lime was used throughout these tests except
are carried from the boiler and captured with the fly for a few days when Marblehead lime was used.) CO
ash in the particulate collection device. emissions were below 50 parts per million in many
The GR-SI project was selected in the first cases but were higher during operation at low load.
solicitation and the cooperative agreement was A significant reduction in CO, was also mea-
awarded in July 1987. The following summary of sured. This was due to partial replacement of coal
results addresses the Hennepin and Lakeside demon- with natural gas having a lower C/Hratio. This
strations separately. cofiring with 18 percent natural gas results in a
theoretical CO, emissions reduction of nearly 8
Hennepin Plant Unit 1 percent from coal-fired baseline level. With flue gas
Hennepin Plant Unit 1 is a 71-MWe (net) or 80- humidification, ESP collection efficiencies greater
MWe (gross) tangentially fired unit designed by than 99.8 percent and particulate emissions less than
Combustion Engineering. The unit was retrofitted 0.025 pound per million Btu were measured even
with a G R S I system designed by EER. Operational with an increase in inlet particulate loading resulting
testing, which included optimization testing, and from sorbent injection. These are comparable to
long-term testing were conducted between January measured baseline emissions of 0.035 pound per A The G R S I was demonstrated at Illinois Powers
1991 and January 1993. The project goal was a million Btu and a collection efficiency greater than Hennepin Station and City Water, Light and Powers
99.5 percent. Lakeside Station. SO, removal efficiency ranged from
reduction in NOx emission by 60 percent, from a
about 52%to over 8096, depending on type and amount of
baseline of 0.75 pound per million Btu, and SO, Following the completion of the long-term tests, sorbent used. Shown herewarethe flexible limesorbent
emissions by 50 percent, from a baseline of 5.30 three specially prepared sorbents were tested. Two distribution lines that lead from the sorbent splitter to the
pounds per million Btu. were manufactured by EER and contained propri- top of the boiler at Lakeside Station.
The GR-SI long-term demonstration tests were etary additives to increase their reactivity toward SO,
carried out from January 1992 to October 1992 to and were referred to as pn>miSOREW A and B. The
verify the system performance over an extended other sorbent was developed by the Illinois State
period. The unit was operated at constant loads and Geological Survey. It was a high-sulfur and hydrated
with the system under dispatch operation where load lime which uses alcohol to form a material that gives
was varied to meet plant power output requirements. rise to a much higher than normal surface area per
With the system under dispatch, the load fluctuated unit rate than the atmospherically hydrated limes.

5-50 Program Update I995


The SO, capture, without GR, at a nominal 1.75 optimization tests. A total of 100 GR parametric tions above the 50 percent reduction goal were
Ca/S molar ratio, was 54 percent for PromiSORBm tests were conducted at boiler loads of 33,25, and 20 achieved with CdS molar ratios greater than 1.5
A, 66 percent for PromiSORBm B, 59 percent for MWe. Gas heat input varied from 5 to 26 percent. along with gas heat inputs of 22-25 percent.
high-surface-area hydrated lime, and 42 percent for The GR parametric tests achieved a NO, reduction of The primary goal of the long-term testing was to
Linwood lime. At a 2.6 Ca/S the PromiSORBm 3 approximately 60 percent at gas heat input of 22-23 operate the GR-SI during normal operating cycle of
gave 80 percent SO, removal efficiency. percent. Additional flow modeling and computer the Lakeside unit. The NO, and SO, reduction goals
Illinois Power, the host utility, has decided to modeling studies indicated that smaller reburning were to be achieved while maintaining the units
retain the gas reburning system for possible use in fuel jet nozzles could increase reburning fuel mixing operability and availability during the 9-month test
NO, control. EER states that GR, SI, and combined and thusly improve the NOxreduction performance. period. The unit typically operated in cycling service
GR-SI are ready for commercial application. A total of 25 SI parametric tests were conducted with a very low capacity factor. The average NOx
to isolate the effects of sorbent on boiler performance reduction during the long-term testing was 67 per-
Lakeside Station Unit 7 and operability. Results showed that SO, reduction cent after a total of 249 hours of GR operation. The
Lakeside Station Unit 7 is a 3 3 - W e (net) or level varied with load because of the effect of temper- average SO, reduction after 223 hours of GR-SI
40-MWe (gross) pressurized cyclone unit fired with ature on the sulfation reaction. Full load, corre- operation was 58 percent.
Illinois bituminous coal containing 3 percent sulfur. sponding to flue gas temperatures near the 2,200 OF During the demonstration program, loss on
Operational testing at Lakeside was initiated in May optimum observed at pilot scale and the full-scale ignition 6 0 1 ) for fly ash was determined only under
1993 and completed in October 1994. The opera- Hennepin GR-SI demonstration, resulted in higher GR operations. LO1 varied from 7 percent to 14
tional tests included the following elements: SO, reductions compared to the other two operating percent with GR; the baseline LO1 was in the range
loads. At a Ca/S of 2.0,44 percent SO, reduction of 3-12 percent in 1991, before this demonstration.
Parametric tests involved optimization of
was achieved at full load (33 W e ) ; 38 percent SO, LO1 varied somewhat with boiler load. Part of the
GR-SI parameters to comply with the specific
reduction was achieved at mid-load (25 W e ) ; and weight loss caused by igniting a sample to determine
operating characteristics of a cyclone unit.
32 percent SO, reduction was achieved at low load LO1 was due to the burning of carbon; the balance
Long-term tests involved operation of the (20 W e ) . was made up of other materials. The LO1 with GR
GR-SI process throughout the units normal In the GR-SI optimization tests, the two technol- was within the range of the baseline measurement.
9-month duty cycle to detemme process ogies were integrated. Modifications were made to This indicated that GR most likely did not increase
performance during normal dispatch opera- the reburning fuel injection nozzles based on the LO1 and therefore did not decrease efficiency.
tion. results of the initial GR parametric tests and flow There were two extended GR-SI runs of 38 and
modeling studies. The total cross-sectional area of 64 hours duration each. The 38-hour run was con-
Extended operation involved continuous
the reburning jets was decreased by 32 percent to ducted at 29 MWe with a gas input of 22.4 percent
operation of the GR-SI to determine effects of
increase the reburning jets penetration characteris- and a CdS molar ratio of 1.67. The average NOx
continuous operation on process performance,
tics. The decrease in nozzle diameter increased NOx emission was 0.3 11 pound per million Btu,a 66
GR-SI equipment performance, and the units
reduction by an additional 3-5 percent compared to percent reduction, and the average SO, emission was
thermal performance.
the initial parametric tests. With GRSI, total SO, 2.338 pounds per million Btu, a 60 percent reduc-
Parametric tests were conducted in three series: reductions resulted from partial replacement of coal tion. The 64-hour run was carried out at 29 MWe
GR parametric tests, SI parametric tests, and GR-SI with natural gas and sorbent injection. SO, reduc- with a gas input of 21.6 percent and a CdS molar

Program Update 1995 5-51


ratio of 1.75. The average NOxemission was 8 Enhancing the Use of Coals
0.325 pound per million Btu, a 64 percent reduction. by Gas Rebuming and
The average SO, emission was 2.18 pounds per Sorbent Injection; Volume
million Btu, a 63 percent reduction. 2: Gas ReburningSorbent
The NOxcontrol cost with gas reburning has Injection at Hennepin Unit
been calculated to be $979 per ton removed for a I , Illinois Power Company.
47 percent reduction achieved with a gas heat input Report No. DOE/PC/79796-
of 14 percent. For a gas heat input of 24 percent and "38-Vol. 2. Energy and
a 60 percent NOxreduction, the cost is $1,318 per ton Environmental Research
of NOxremoved. For sorbent injection, 29 percent Corporation. October 1994.
SO, removal costs $425 per ton at a CdS molar ratio (Available from NTIS as
of 1.0. At the 45 percent removal level, using a CalS DE95009448.)
molar ratio of 2.0, SO, removal costs $514 per ton. Enhancing the Use of Coals
The SO, removal costs given do not include the by Gas Rebuming and
substitution of natural gas for coal. Sorbent Injection; volume A This photo shows the inside of the sorbent silo. City Water, Light and
City Water, Light and Power, the host utility, Power is retaining both the gas reburning and sorbent injection system.
3: Gas Rebuming-&rbent
decided to retain both the gas reburning and sorbent Illinois Power is retaining the gas reburning portion.
Injection at Edwards Unit I ,
injection systems for future use.
Central Illinois Light
Energy and Environmental Research Corpora-
Company. Report No. DOE/PCn9796-T38-
Contact
tion is offering GR for NO, control to a variety of Vol. 3. Energy and Environmental Research Blair A. Folsom, Senior Vice President
utilities. GR in combination with agent injection, a Corporation. October 1994. (Available from Energy and Environmental Research
process called advanced gas reburning (AGR), has
NTIS as DE95009447.) Corporation1
achieved NOxreduction in excess of 80 percent at the
Reduction of NOx and SOz Using Gas 18 Mason
pilot scale. AGR and/or GR may be suitable for
Irvine, CA !a2718
many power plants in the northeast which may be Reburning, Sorbent Injection and Integrated
required to meet stringent NOxemission limits. Technologies. Topical Report No. 3. U.S. (714) 859-8851
Department of Energy and Energy and
Available Reports Environmental Research Corporation.
. Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas
Rebuming-Sorbent Injection; Long Term
September 1993.
The final technical report for Lakeside is expect-
Testing Period September I , 1991-January ed to be available in Match 1996.
15.1993. Report No. DOE/pcn9796-T40.
Energy and Environmental Research Corpo-
ration. February 1995. (Available from NTIS
as DE95011481.)

5-52 Program Upaiate 1995


h
E
a
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control
(Coal Tech Corporation)

Technology sulfur content were used throughout the demonstra-


Air-cooled cyclone slagging combustor tion. Test results obtained during operation of the
Demonstration Duration (11/87-5/90) combustor indicate that Coal Tech attained most of
the objectives contained in the cooperative agree-
900 hrs
ment. The agreement defined 10 objectives. Accom-
Size
plishments reported for each follow:
23 million B t u h
Use Pennsylvania coals with up to 4 percent
Coal
sulfur content. About eight different
8 different Pennsylvania bituminous coals, 1-3.3% sulfur
Pennsylvania bituminous coals with sulfur
Environmental Results contents ranging from 1 to 3.3 percent and
SO,-over 80% reduction with sorbent injection; at volatile matter contents ranging from 19 to 37
combustor outlet, maximum 58% reduction with
percent were tested.
limestone injection into the combustor at 2.0 Ca/S
A The demonstrationof Coal Techs advanced ceramic-
NOx-1W184 ppm (75% reduction) lined slagging combustor was completed in 1991. Shown Achieve 70-!lo percent SO, reduction at the
Solid waste-inert slag above are the slagging combustor, associated piping, and stack with maximum sulfur encapsulation
Slaglsorbent retention-55-W% in combustor control panel. in the slag. With regard to the first part of
Technical Results the objective, a maximum of over 80 percent
a wide range of industrial and utility boiler designs SO, reduction measured at the boiler outlet
Combustion eficiency-over 99%
without disturbing the boilers water-steam circuit. stack was achieved using sorbent injection in
Turndown-3-to-1 achieved
Materials-slag protection of materials achieved In this technology, NO, reduction is achieved by the furnace at various calcium-to-sulfur molar
staged combustion, and SO, is captured by injection ratios. A maximum SO, reduction of 58
Operability-omputer-controlled system for automated
combustor operation achieved of limestone into the combustor. The cyclonic action percent was measured at the stack with
inside the combustor forces the coal ash and sorbent limestone injection into the combustor at a
In Coal Techs demonstration, an air-cooled cy- to the walls where it can be collected as liquid slag. C d S of 2. A maximum of one-third of the
clone combustor was retrofitted to a 23-million-Btu- Under optimum operating conditions, the slag will coals sulfur was retained in the dry ash
per-hour, oil-designed package boiler at the Tampel- contain a significant fraction of coal sulfur. Down- removed from the combustor and fumace
la-Keeler boiler factory in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. stream sorbent injection into the boiler provides addi- hearths, and a high of 11 percent of the coals
The novel features of Coal Techs patented ceramic- tional sulfur removal capacity. sulfur was retained in the slag rejected
lined, slagging cyclone combustor include its air- The test effort consisted of 800 hours of opera- through the slag tap. Further sulfur retention
cooled walls and environmental control of NO,, SO,, tion which included five individual tests, each of in the slag is possible by increasing the slag
and solid waste emissions. Air cooling takes place in 4 days duration. An additional 100 hours were flow rate, by further improvements in fuel-
a very compact combustor which can be retrofitted to performed as part of separate ash vitrification tests. rich combustion, and by further improve-
Pennsylvania bituminous coals with 1.1-3.1 percent ments in sorbent-gas mixing.
5-54 Program Update 1995
Achieve NOxreductions to 100 parts per The maximum heat input during the tests was properly operating an air-cooled combustor
million or less. With fuel-rich operation of around 20 million Btu per hour, even through developed, but the entire operating data base
the combustor, a three-fourths reduction in the combustor was designed for 30 million was incorporated into a computer-controlled
measured boiler outlet stack NO, was ob- Btu per hour and the boiler was thermally system for automatic combustor operation.
tained, corresponding to 184 parts per mil- rated at around 25 million Btu per hour. This
In conclusion, the goal of this project was to
lion. An additional 5-10 percent reduction situation resulted from facility limits on water
validate the performance of the air-cooled combustor
was obtained by the action of the wet particu- availability for the boiler and for cooling the
at a commercial scale. While the combustor is not
late scrubber, resulting in atmospheric NOx combustor. In fact, even 20 million Btu per
yet fully ready for sale with commercial guarantees, it
emissions as low as 160 parts per million. hour was borderline, so that most of the
is believed to be ready for further major scaleup to
testing was conducted at lower rates.
Produce an inert solid waste. All the slag commercial-scale applications such as combustion of
removed from the combustor produced trace Evaluate materials compatibility and waste solid fuels, limited sulfur control in coal-fired
metal leachates well below EPAs Drinking durability. Different sections of the combus- boilers, and conversion of ash to slag.
Water Standard. tor have different materials requirements.
Suitable materials for each section have been Available Reports
Achieve 9&95 percent slag/sorbent reten-
identified. Also, the test effort has shown that The Coal Tech Advanced Cyclone Combustor
tion in the combustor, while meeting local
operational procedures are closely coupled Demonstration Project-A DOE Assessment.
stack particulate emission standards. The
with materials durability. In other words, by Report No. DOE/PCn9799-T1. U.S. Depart-
second part of this objective was met with the
implementing certain procedures, such as ment of Energy. May 1993.
wet venturi particulate scrubber. Total slag/
changing the combustor wall temperature, it
sorbent retention under efficient combustion B. Zauderer and E.S. Fleming. The Demon-
has been possible to replenish the combustor
operating conditions averaged 72 percent with stration of an Advanced Cyclone Coal Com-
refractory wall thickness with slag.
a range of 55-90 percent. Under more fuel- bustor, with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash
lean conditions, the slag retention averaged Operate the combustor on coal for approxi- Control for the Conversion of a 23 MMBW
80 percent. In post-CCT-project tests on fly mately l,o00 hours of steady state opera- Hour Oil Fired Boiler to Pulverized Coal; Vol.
ash vitrification in the combustor, modifica- tions with frequent start-up and shutdown. 1: Final Technical Report; Vol. 2: Appen-
tions to the solids injection method and The combustors total operating time during dixes I-V; Vol. 3: Appendix VI. Coal Tech
increases in the slag flow rate produced the life of the CCT project was about 900 Corporation. August 1991. (Available from
substantial increases in the slag retention rate. hours. This included approximately 100 NTIS as DE92002587 and DE92002588.)
Achieve efficient combustion under fuel- hours of operation in two other flyash
vitrification tests projects. Of the total time, Contact
rich conditions. This objective was met with
about one-third was with coal; about 125 tons Bert Zauderer, President
combustion efficiencies over 99 percent after
of coal were consumed. Coal Tech Corporation
proper operating procedures were achieved.
Develop proper combustor operating P.O. Box 154
Achieve a 340-1combustor turndown.
procedures. This was the most important Merion, PA 19066
Tumdown to 6 million Btu per hour from a
objective. Not only were procedures for (215) 667-0442
peak of 19 million Btu per hour was achieved.

Program Update 1995 5-55


Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber
(PassamaquoddyTribe)

Technology O&M cost-estimated at $500,ooo/yr offset by sale of The project was initiated as a result of the Drag-
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubberm fertilizer and avoided fuel and waste disposal costs on Products Company facing increased fuel costs in
Size response to more stringent sulfur emissions regula-
A scrubbing system that can reduce SO, emis- tions, and increased kiln dust disposal costs with the
1,450tondday of cement; 250,000 std ft3/min of kiln gas;
up to 274 tondday of coal sions from coal-burning cement kilns by more than existing landfill capacity nearly exhausted. Fuel
Demonstration Duration (8/91-9/93) 90 percent using waste kiln dust as the scrubbing sulfur would have had to be reduced by half to meet
reagent was demonstrated by the Passsamaquoddy emission regulations. The payment of premiums
5,316 hrs
Tribe. The project is located in Thomaston, Maine, associated with the lower sulfur coal were deemed
Coal
at Dragon products 470,000-ton-per-year cement untenable with fuel costs representing 3 0 4 0 percent
Pennsylvania bituminous, 3% sulfur plant which is owned by CDN U.S.A. The Passama- of operating costs. Securing permits for a new
Sorbent quoddy Technology Recovery Scrubberm is a wet landfill were viewed as too expensive and time
Water solutiodslurry containing potassium-rich dust flue gas desulfurization process that uses alkaline consuming with cement kiln dust receiving a great
recovered from kiln flue gas waste materials as scrubbing reagent. These wastes deal of attention by permitting agencies. To address
Environmental Results may include fly ash, waste cement kiln dust, inciner- these concerns, the project sought to accomplish the
S0,-90-95%, with 98% maximum reduction ator ash, biomass ash from wood-fired systems, and following objectives:
NOX-18.8% avg reduction other similar wastes in solid or liquid form. Useful
Use the cement kiln dust as the sole reagent to
Particulate-10% of permitted level by-products that minimize or eliminate the need for
reduce air emissions
Cement kiln dust waste-all250 tondday renovated landfill disposal of wastes are produced by the scrub-
and reused as feedstock bing reaction. Tipping fees for consumption of Accomplish 90-95 percent sulfur control on
HCl-98% removal wastes produced by others, sale of useful by-products high sulfur eastern bituminous coals
VOC-72-83% removal and emission credits, and fee for service pollution Convert a substantial percentage of the
C0,-2% reduction control generally allow profitable operation of the cement kiln dust to kiln feedstock
Technical Resub scrubbing process.
In 5-mo period, plant produced 140,000 tons of cement The scrubbing process was installed with mini- Produce a potentially significant commercial
while scrubber removed 70 tons of SO, and treated mum impact on the operating cement plant, being an by-product (potassium-based fertilizer)
6,000 tons of kiln dust
end of the pipeline retrofit process. The only Use waste heat for evaporation and concentra-
Scrubber became permanent part of commercial plant
operation interconnect to the cement plant that could curtail tion of the potassium-based fertilizer
operations is the physical tie-in of the flue gas han-
Economic Results Demonstrate the overall technical,economic,
dling duct. The demonstrationproject tie-in was
Capital cost410 million to control emissions from and environmentalviability of the technology
made during a routine kiln shutdown with no impact
450,ooCrton/yr plant with single payback in 3.1 yrs
from sales of fertilizer and avoided fuel and waste on kiln operations. AU objectives were met or exceeded. Further
disposal costs testing was conducted to evaluate scrubber effective

5-56 Program Update 1W5


ness in removing NOx,HC1, er (either KCl or K,SO,), scrubbed exhaust gas, and
VOCs, and particulates. The distilled water are process outputs. There is no
scrubber was evaluated over waste; nothing goes to a land fill or sewer.
three basic operating intervals Project results are summarized below:
dictated by winter shutdowns
The SO, removal efficiency averaged 94.6
for maintenance and inventory
percent over the last 3-months of operation
and 14 separate operating
and 89.2 percent for the entire operating
periods (within these basic
period. Scrubber loading varied from 2 to 10
intervals) largely determined
pounds per hour to over 200 pounds per hour.
by unforeseen host plant
Removal efficiencies in the ranges of less
maintenance and repairs and a
than 100,100-200, and greater than 200
depressed cement market.
pounds per hour were 82.0 percent, 94.1
Over the period August 1991 to
percent, and 98.5 percent, respectively.
September 1993, a total of
5,316 hours were logged, 1,400 The NOxremoval efficiency averaged nearly
hours in the first operating A The Passamaqudy Technology Recovery Scrubberm was successfully 25 percent over the last several months of
demonstrated at a cement plant in Maine. Kiln dust, once a solid waste problem, is
interval, 1,300 hours in the being used in a process to capture more than 90% of the SOz. The process also operation and 18.8 percent for the entire
second interval, and 2,600 reduces NOx emissions by 5-1596. operating period.
hours in the third interval. All of the 250-ton-per-day cement kiln dust
Sulfur loadings varied significantly over the operat- sium and other alkali constituents, is returned to the waste produced by the plant was renovated
ing periods due to variations in feedstock and operat- kiln as feedstock (it is the alkali content which makes and reused as feedstock. This resulted in a 10
ing conditions. the cement kiln dust unusable as feedstock). No percent reduction in raw feedstock require-
The technology uses the alkaline (potassium) dewatering is necessary for wet processes such as that ment and elimination of solid waste disposal
rich cement kiln dust waste to react with the acidic used at the Dragon Products plant. The liquid costs.
flue gas. This cement kiln dust, representing about fraction is passed to a crystallizer that uses waste
10 percent of the cement feedstock otherwise lost as heat in the flue gas to evaporate the water and recov- Particulate emission rates of 0.005-0.007
waste, is formed into a water-based slurry and mixed er dissolved alkali metal salts. A recouperator lowers grains per dry standard cubic feet (about 1/10
with the flue gas as the slurry passes over a perforat- the incoming flue gas temperature to prevent slurry that allowed for cement kilns) were achieved
ed tray that enables the flue gas to percolate through evaporation, enable the use of low-cost fiber glass with dust loadings of approximately 0.04
the slurry. construction material, and provide much of the grains per dry standard cubic foot.
The SO, in the flue gas reacts with the potassium process water through condensation of exhaust gas Pilot testing conducted at U.S.EPA's labora-
to form potassium sulfate which stays in solution and moisture. tories under Passamaquoddy Technology,
remains in the liquid as the slurry undergoes separa- Waste cement kiln dust, exhaust gases (includ- L.P.,sponsorship resulted in 98 percent HCl
tion into liquid and solid fractions. The solid frac- ing waste heat), and waste water are process inputs. removal.
tion, in thickened slurry form and freed of the potas- Renovated cement kiln dust, potassium-based fertiliz-

Program Update 1995 5-57


On three different runs, VOC (as represented Contact
by alpha-pinene) removal efficiencies of 72.3
Garrett Morrison, Project Manager
percent, 83.1 percent, and 74.5 percent were
Passamaquoddy Technology, L.P.
achieved.
P.O. Box 350
A reduction of approximately 2 percent in Thomaston, ME 04861-0350
CO, emissions was realized through recycling (207) 594-5555
of the cement kiln dust.

Capital costs are approximately $10 million


for a recovery scrubber to control emissions
from a 450,000-ton per year wet process
plant, with a simple payback estimated in 3.1
years. Operating and maintenance costs,
estimated at $500,000 per year, plus capital
and interest costs are generally offset by
avoided costs associated with fuel, feedstock,
and waste disposal as well as revenues from
the sale of fertilizer.

Availa&le Reports
0
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery
Scrubberm: Final Report. Volumes 1 and 2.
Passamaquoddy Tribe. February 1994. (Vol.
1 available from NTIS as DE9401 175' vO1' A The Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubberm
became a permanent part of the Dragon Products facility at
2 as DE94011176.) the project's end.
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery
Scrubberm: Public Design Report.
Report No. DOE/pc/89657-T2.
Passamaquoddy Tribe. October 1993.
(Available from NTIS as DE94008316.)
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery
Scrubberm: Topical Report. Report No.
DOE/F'C/89657-T1. PasSamaquoddy Tribe.
March 1992. (Available from NTIS as
DE92019868.)
5-58 Program Update 1995
6. Results and Accomplishments
from Ongoing Projects
Reduce the cost of electricity generation marized in Exhibits 6-2 through 6-5 at the end of
Section 6.
Introduction Improve power generation efficiencies,and
Underlining the premise that success of the CCT
Position US-based industry to export Program depends on adoption of the technologies in
By the end of 1995,the CCT Program consisted
innovative services and equipment. the energy marketplace, project information is orga-
of 43 projects. A total of 18 projects have successful-
ly completed operations and fulfilled all reporting In this section of the Program Update, highlights nized within four major product markets-advanced
requirements or are preparing the final project docu- of the results and accomplishmentsare presented for electric power generation,environmental control
mentation. An additional 8 projects are in operation, those projects now in operation or under construction devices, coal processing for clean fuels, and industrial
5 are in construction, 11 are in design and project (see Exhibit 6-1). The status of each project is sum- applications. Thus, the program can be viewed from a
market perspective.
definition, and 1 CCT-V project is in negotiation.
The true measure of the CCT Programs success
will be the degree to which the clean coal technologies Exhibit 6-1
are adopted in the energy marketplace. The majority Highlighted CCT Projects, by Application Category
of the projects involve demonstrations at full commer-
cial scale, providing the opportunity for the partici- Project and Participant Page
pants to leave the technologies in place and continue
operation as part of their strategy to comply with the Piiion Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) 6-2
CAAAof 1990. Tampa Electric Integrated GasificationCombined-Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) 6-3
Wabash River Coal GasificationRepowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering 6-4
The number of complex, capital-intensive
Project Joint Venture)
projects put in place is unprecedented, as is the degree Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) 6-5
of cost sharing achieved in this cooperative govem- Demonstrationof Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southem Company 6-6
ment and private sector technology development Services, Inc.)
Milliken Clean Coal Technology DemonstrationProject (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) 6-7
program. With government serving as a risk-sharing Integrated Dry NOX/SO,Emissions Control System (Public ServiceCompany of Colorado) 6-8
partner, industry funding has been leveraged to- Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.) 6-9
Self-scrubbingCoalw: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air (Custom Coals Intemational) 6-10
* Create jobs Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration(Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) 6-1 1
ENCOAL Mild Coal GasificationProject (ENCOALCorporation) 6-12
Improve the environment Commercial-Scale Demonstrationof the Liquid-PhaseMethanol (LPMEOHN) Process 6-13
Reduce the cost of compliance with environ- (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.)
Blast Fumace Granulated-CoalInjection System DemonstrationProject (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) 6-14
mental regulations

Program Update 1995 6-1


Advanced Electric Power Generation

PiAon Pine IGCC Power Project


(Sierra Pacific Power Company)

The Pifion Pine IGCC Power Project is demon- release of a final environmental impact statement in foundations for the coal crusher and solid wastes silo
strating the KRW air-blown, pressurized, fluidized- September and the DOE s issuance of a record of were complete; also, the steam turbine pad has been
bed IGCC technology and incorporates hot gas clean- decision on November 8,1994. By year-end 1995, poured. Further, the 42-inch cooling lines to the
up. The project evaluates a low-Btu gas combustion construction was approximately 50 percent complete. steam turbine foundation and in the cooling tower area
turbine and assesses long-term reliability, availability, Fabrication of the gasifier was complete, and structur- were complete. The public design report was issued
maintainability, and environmental performance of the al steel has been erected to the 93-foot elevation. in August 1995.
IGCC system at a scale sufficient to determine com- Foundations north of the gasifier island as well as
mercial potential.
The gasifier is being built at Sierra Pacific Power
Companys Tracy Station near Reno, Nevada. The
unit will convert 880 tons per day of coal into 107
MWe (gross), or 99 MWe (net), for export to the grid.
The design coal is western bituminous coal from Utah,
with a sulfurcontent of 0.5-0.9 percent. Tests using
eastern bituminous coal containing 2-3 percent sulfur
also are planned.
The anticipated heat rate for this IGCC system is
approximately 7,800 Btu per kilowatt-hour (43.7
percent thermal efficiency). Due to the relatively low
operating temperature of the gasifier and the injection
of steam into the combustion fuel system, the NOx
emissions are expected to be 0.069 pound per million
Btu. With the combination of in-bed sulfur capture
and hot gas cleanup, SO, emissions are expected to be
0.069 pound per million Btu (90percent reduction).
Construction was started in early 1995 and is
expected to be completed in early 1997. A 3-4-year
demonstration period is planned. AU permits needed
A This photo shows the 165-ton (without refractory) air
for plant construction were received by year-end blown, pressurized, fluidized-bed KRW gasifier mounted inside
1994. The NEPA process was completed upon the gasifier island.
Advanced Electric P o w G e n e "' n

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project


vampa Electric Company)

The TampaElectric Integrated Gasification place. All major vessels have been placed in the
Combined-Cycle Project is demonstrating a utility structure. The turnkey air separation plant is mechani-
application of IGCC using Texaco's pressurized, cally complete and undergoing checkout and q u a -
oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier and the inte- cation testing. Construction is expected to be com-

the IGCC system is approximately 8,600 Btu


per kilowatt-hour (40percent thermal efi-
ciency). SO, emissions are expected to be
below 0.21 pound per million Btu (96 percent
reduction). Thermally generated NOxis
expected to be controlled to less than 0.27
pound per million Btu by injecting nitrogen
as a dilutent in the gas turbine's combustion
section.
The final EIS was released for public
comment on June 10.1994; DOE issued a
favorable m r d of decision on the demon-
stration project on August 17.1994. A
groundbreakhg ceremony was held on
November 2,1994. Constructionwas ap-
proximately 70 percent complete by yearend
1995. Structural steel was 90percent in

hgnmUpdatC1995 6-3
Advanced Electric Power Generation

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project


(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture)

The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering recovery, combustion turbine, and associated heat
Project is demonstrating utility repowering with recovery steam generation systems.
Desbec Energys two-stage, oxygen-blown IGCC The new combustion turbine will generate 192
system. The plant is the worlds largest single-train MWe and the existing steam turbine will generate an
IGCC power plant to be operated in a fully commer- additional 104 MWe (262 MWe net) of electricity
cia1 setting. One of six units at PSI Energys Wabash using 2,544 tons per day of high-sulfur, Illinois Basin
River Generating Station located in West Terre Haute, bituminous coal. This is an increase of more than 150
Indiana, has been repowered with the addition of percent in unit capacity. The anticipated heat rate for
gasification, cold-gas cleanup, by-product sulfur the repowered unit is approximately 9,000 Btu per
kilowatt-hour (38 percent thermal efficiency),
or a 21 percent increase in station efficiency.
SO, emissions are expected to be less than 0.1
pound per million Btu (98 percent reduction).
NOxemissions are expected to be less than 0.1
pound per million Btu.
Coal was introduced into the gasifier for
the frrst time in August 1995. Plant construc-
tion is complete, and all plant systems have
been operated. Design specifications for
several vessels have been modified to incor-
porate recent experience from Destec Ener-
gys operating unit located in Plaquemine, A This photo shows the Wabash River IGCC power
island where a clean medium-Btu gas is burned in an
Louisiana. acceptance testing has advan& 192-MWe (gross) gas turbine and its exhaust is
completed, and commercial operation began used to produce high-pressure steam in a heat recovery
in November 1995. A 3-year d e m o n s e o n generator. The Steam is SUppkd to all existing 104-MWe
(gross) steam turbine.
A Shown is an aerial view of the Wabash River Coal Gasification p e r i d is under way-
Repowering Project. This 262-MWe (net) plant is the largest single-
train IGCC plant in the world to be operated in a fully commercial
setting. The gasifier can be seen in the center, the power island to the
right, with the original Wabash River plant in the background.

6-4 Program Update I995


Advanced Electric Power Generation

Healy Clean Coal Project


(Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority)

The Healy Clean Coal Project is demonstrating an


innovative power plant design featuring integration of
an advanced combustor and heat recovery system
coupled with both high- and low-temperature emis-
sions control processes. The 50-MWe facility will
consist of two pulverized-coal-firedcombustor sys-
tems. Emissions of SO, and NOxwill be controlled
using TRW s advanced entrained (slagging) combus-
tor with staged fuel and air combustion. Further, SO,
will be removed using Joy Technologies activated
recycle spray dryer absorber system. NOxemissions
are expected to be less than 0.2 pound per million Btu;
particulates, 0.015 pound per million Btu; and SO,
removal, greater than 90percent.
The project site is adjacent to the existing Healy
Unit No. 1 near Healy, Alaska. Power will go to the
Golden Valley Electric Association. The plant will
use a nominal 900 tons per day of subbituminous coal
containing a nominal 0.2 percent sulfur and waste
coal. The demonstration will yield 3 years of data,
with 2 years of data being provided at no cost to DOE.
On May 30,1995, a groundbreaking celebration
initiated construction activities. By the end of the
1995 construction season, over 30 percent of the
structural steel had been erected. Approximately
12,000 cubic yards of concrete had been poured and
over 48,000 cubic yards of structural backfll had been A me precombustion is being mounted
hauled. Construction is scheduled to be completed by into place at TRWs San Juan Capistrano test facility for
late-1997, with operation scheduled to start in early design verification testing of the slagging combustor to be
used in the 50-MWe Healy Clean Coal Project being built
1998. in Alaska.

Program Update 1995 6-5


Environmental Control Devices

Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler


(Southern Company Services, Inc.)

Southern Company Services is conducting se- with a corresponding value for flyash loss on ignition complete. However, low electricity demand has
quential demonstrations of four advanced NO, control of near 8 percent. caused the unit to be taken off line for most of Octo-
technologies applicablefor retrofitting wall-fired, However, preliminary analysis of the emissions ber and December 1995. Open- and closed-loop
pulverized-coal boilers: (1) advanced overfire air data suggests that the incremental NO, reduction testing will commence upon resumption of unit opera-
(AOFA), (2) second generation low-NOxburners effectivenessof the AOFA system (above LNB alone) tion.
(LNB), (3) combined LNB/AOFA, and (4) a d v a n d was approximately 17 percent, with additionalreduc- A report on the air toxics testing with the com-
digital control system that optimizesLNB/AOFA tions resulting from other operationalchanges. bined LNB/AOFA configuration was issued in
performance using artificial intelligencetechniques. The digital control system became operational in December 1993.
The demonstration is being accomplished with a mid- 1994. Short-and long-term test data are being Completion of the demonstration project and
single furnace, which is the SWMWe Unit No.4 used to train the neural network combustion models. issuance of the final report are scheduled for
subcritical, wall-fired boiler at Georgia Power Compa- The artificial intelligencesoftware package for opti- September 1996.
nys Plant Hammond, located in Coosa, Georgia. mizing NO, reduction and boiler efficiency is nearly
The baseline test segments for AOFA, LNB,and
combined LNB/AOFA are complete. More than 80
days of AOFA operating data collected indicated that
NO, reduction of 24 percent is achievableunder
normal long-term conditionsdepending upon load.
Analysis of the 94 days of LNB long-term data col-
lected showed the full-load NO, emission levels to be
approximately 0.65 pound per million Btu. This NO,
level represents a 48 percent reduction when com-
pared to the baseline, full-load value of 1.23 pounds
per million Btu. These reductions were sustainable
over the long-term test period and were consistent
over the entire load range. Full-load values of flyash
loss on ignition in the LNB codiguration were near 8
percent, compared to 5 percent for the baseline.
Results from the combined LNB/AOFA testing indi-
cate that full-load NO, emissions are approximately A Shown are the three rows of four IOW-NO~ bumersinstalled below the AOFA ports on
one of two opposing boiler walls. NO, emissions were reduced by 24%using AOFA, 48%
0.41 pound per million Btu (63 percent reduction) using LNB,and 63%using LNB and AOFA.
Environmental Control Devices

Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project


(New York State Electric & Gas Corporation)

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation is NOxemissions have been reduced from 0.65 to noise monitoring as required by the state of New York
demonstrating a combination of cost-effective, inno- 0.40 pound per million Btu (38 percent) by retrofitting was completed.
vative emissions reduction and efficiency improve- the two boilers with low-NOxburners (LNCFS Level A softwarepackage developed as part of the
ment technologies on Units 1and 2 (150 MWe each) m).NOxOvT"is expected to reduce NOx emissions Milliken project to assist the utility optimize project
at Milliken Station located in Lansing, New Yo&. from Unit 1 by an additional 15-20 percent. operations has become a commercial product. Six
Technologies include flue gas cleanup for SO, remov- The split module scrubber began operation for modules of DHR Technologies' Plant Emission
al using Saarberg-Holter-Umwelttechnik'sformic acid Unit 2 in January 1995. Gypsum production also optimization Advisor (PEOAm) have been sold, and
enhanced wet limestone scrubber technology; Nalco began in January 1995. Full plant operation with five bids are pending.
Fuel Tech's N O x O W urea injection system for NOx Unit 1incorporated into the split module scrubber was
removal, in conjunction with separate combustion achieved in June 1995. Low-sulfur performance
modifications, including installation of ABB Combus- testing was conducted October-November 1995;
tion Engineering's Low-NOxConcentric Firing Sys- evaluation of the data is in progress. Environmental
tem (LNCFSm) Level III; Stebbins' tile-lined split-
module absorber for decreased life-cycle costs; a
heat-pipe air heater by ABB Air Preheater, Inc., for
increased system efficiency; and an operator advisor
system developed by DHR Technologies, Inc., for
addressing economic and environmental performance.
The project is demonstrating a "totalenvironmen-
tal and energy management" concept encompassing
low emissions, low energy consumption, improved
combustion, upgraded boiler controls, and reduced
solid waste. Hazardous air pollutant monitoring is 4 Thecombh~edSOpJO~
part of the demonstration program. environmentalcontrol process
The system is designed to achieve up to 98 per- demonstration at the 300-MWe Milliken
Station (two 1SGMWe tangentially fired
cent SO, removal efficiency using limestone while
units), was begun in January 1995. The
burning high-sulfur coal. Pittsburgh, Freeport, and system is designed to achieve 98%SO,
Kittanning coals with sulfur contents ranging from removal and 38% NOxreduction. The
1 . 5 4 0 percent are being used. demonstration is also testing novel
automated control system
Environmental Control Devices

Integrated Dry NOJSO, Emissions Control System


(Public Service Company of Colorado)

The integrated dry NO/SOz emissions control fabric filter inlet to 10 parts per million. Low-load cation was only 5-8 percent at a stoichiometry of 2.0.
system was installed at Public Service Company of NOxremoval was increased from 11 to 35 percent Operation with the humidification system during
Colorados Arapahoe 4 in 1992. The 100-MWe with the addition of retractable lances that allow urea economizer injection increased SO, removal by only
demonstration combines low-NOx burners, overfire injection at a higher flue gas temperature. When used 3 4 percent.
air, and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) for with low-NOxburners, the urea-based SNCR increases Sodium bicarbonate injection before the air heater
NOx control and dry sorbent injection @SI) with total system NOxreduction to greater than 80 percent was very effective, with short-term SO, removal
humidification for SO, control. The Arapahoe 4 uses at full load, significantly exceeding the project goal of efficiencies of over 80 percent possible. Long-term
top-fired boilers fired with low-sulfur (0.4 percent) 70 percent. Further, higher NOxreduction is possible testing with sodium bicarbonate demonstrated remov-
Colorado bituminous coal. using ammonia as the SNCR chemical at lower loads. al efficiency near 70 percent at an approximate sto-
The test program involves the individual testing SO, removal with the calcium-based [Ca(OH,)] ichiometric ratio of 1 .O. Sodium sesquicarbonate
of the low-NOxburners, overfiie air, urea injection, dry sorbent injected into the boiler without humidifi- injection after the air heater also obtained 70 percent
calcium duct injection, calcium economizer SOzremoval but at a stoichiometric ratio of approxi-
injection, sodium injection, and fully integrat- mately 1.8.
ed system. Four tests were conducted to The project includes a comprehensive investiga-
determine baseline and removal capabilitiesof tion into many potential air toxic emissions. The
the system for many air toxics. fabric filter had an overall particulate removal effi-
Baseline NOxemissions before retrofit ciency of over 99.96 percent. Removal efficiency of
were nearly uniform across the load range all trace metals sampled averaged over 96.9 percent.
(60-100 W e ) at approximately 1.15 pounds Mercury removal had the lowest capture efficiency of
per million Btu. The combination of low-NOx 78 percent.
burners (Babcock & Wilcox Dual-Zone NOx Due to the successful application of the system,
Ports) and overfire air (Babcock & Wilcox the Public Service Company of Colorado plans to
Dual Register Burner-Axially Controlled continue operation of the combustion modifications
Low-NOx,or DRB-XCL@)greatly reduced and sodium-based DSI system. A final decision on
NOxemissions by 63-69 percent across the the SNCR system will be made after the test program
load range. is completed. The project has been extended through
The urea-based SNCR supplied by Noell, A The combined dry NOI/SO, emission control system installed July 1996. Arapahoe 4 has operated over 2,800 hours
at the Public Service Company of Colorados Arapahoe 4 has
Inc., reduced NOxformation by 1 1 4 5 percent achieved NOxreductions greater than 80% and SO, reductions of with an availability factor of over 91 percent.
over the load range. This performance was at 70409s. This photo shows four Babcock & Wilcox low-NOx
urea injection rates that limit NH, slip at the DRB-XCL@down-fired burners mounted in the roof of the boiler.

6-8 Program Update 1995


Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

Development of the Coal Quality Expert


(ABB Combustion Engineering, lnc., and CQ inc.)

ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc. through the end of the project. A CQE beta version
are demonstrating a personal computer software was released in May 1995 and evaluated by several
package that will serve as a predictive tool to assist utilities by July 1995. The initial commercial version
coal-burning utilities in the selection of optimum of CQE was released in December 1995. CQE has
quality coal for a specific boiler based on environmen- been distributed to about 40 U.S. utilities and 1 U.K.
tal emissions requirements, operational efficiency, and utility through their membership in EPRI.
cost. The software predicts operating performance of CQ Inc. and Black and Veatch have signed a
coals not previously burned at the facility in question. commercilizationagreement which gives Black and
Data have been obtained from bench-, pilot-, and Veatch nonexclusive worldwide rights to sell user
commercial-scaletesting of selected coals. The licenses and to offer consulting services that include
results have been used to develop algorithms for use the use of CQE software.
in a state-of-the-art software package, the Coal Quali-
ty Expert (CQE) that can run on a personal computer.
In large-scale field tests, a baseline coal (which is the
coal currently used as fuel) was burned in the boilers
of six utilities over 2-month test periods. An alternate
coal, blended or cleaned to improve quality, was also
burned in the boiler during the test period. Both the
baseline and alternate coals were concurrently tested
in bench- and pilot-scale facilities to develop data for
correlations and to determine the economics of
achieving various quality levels for the cleaned coals.
All of the full-scale field tests with supporting
bench and pilot correlation tests were completed by
A Software to enable a utility to analyze the effects of
the end of 1993. More than 100 algorithms based on coal quality on power plant performance has been
the data generated have been developed. Acid Rain developed and tested. The final CQE software, which was
Advisor software became available in 1992, with two received in December 1995, has been evaluated by four
commercial sales made in 1993 and 1995. US.utilities.
A CQE prototype was showcased in September
1993. Debugging of the CQE software proceeded

Program Update 1995 6-9


Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

Self-Scrubbing CoalTM:.An Integrated Approach to Clean Air


(Custom Coals International)

Custom Coals International is demonstrating been completed. Interlock checking was approximate- signed a cooperative agreement with the Peoples
advanced coal-cleaning unit processes to produce low- ly 75 percent complete. Roughly 1,700 tons of coal Republic of China to build a coal-cleaning plant, a
cost compliance coals. The project is using Custom were received to check out the raw coal truck scales 500-mile underground slurry pipeline, and port facili-
Coals advanced physical coal cleaning and fine and storage handling system. ty. The pipeline will bring coal from the Shanxi
magnetite separation technology as well as sorbent Combustion testing of Kittanning coal is being province in northwest China to the coastal province of
addition technology. The 500-ton-per-hour plant is conducted at Pennsylvania Power and Lights Mar- Shandong. Final Chinese approval is pending.
located near Central City, Pennsylvania. The plant tins Creek Power Station; Illinois No.5 coal is being Custom Coals has received letters of intent from
will manufacture Self-scrubbingCoalm from Illinois tested at Richmond Power & Lights Whitewater three Polish power plants that wish to produce 7.5
No. 5 and Lower Freeport Seam coals and Carefree Valley Generating Station, and Lower Freeport Seam million tons per year of cleaned coal.
Coalm using Lower Kittanning Seam coal. Carefree coal at anterior Energys Ashtabula C Power Plant. Custom Coals also has a proposed agreement
Coalmis produced by breaking and screening run-of- In August 1994, a U.S.-led consortium with with domestic coal marketing companies for produc-
mine coal and by using innovative dense-media Custom Coals Intemational as the principal partner ing 1 million tons of compliance coal annually.
cyclones and finely sized magnetite to remove up to
90 percent of the pyritic sulfur and most of the ash.
When compliance coal cannot be produced by reduc-
ing pyritic sulfur, Self-scrubbing Coalm can be
produced to achieve compliance. This coal is pro-
duced by taking Carefree Coalm and adding to it
sorbents, promoters, and catalysts. The coals re-
duced ash content permits the addition of relatively
large amounts of sorbent without exceeding the ash
specifications of the boiler or overloading the electro-
static precipitator.
Construction, initiated in December 1993, was
completed in November 1995. Plant start-up proce-
dures were initiated in November. By year-end 1995,
all but two conveyors were fully operational. All
piping was complete. Electrical work in the plant was
98 percent. All plant units have been turned over by
the contractor. All 17 of the planned loop tests have

4-10 Program Update 1995


Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration


(Rosebud SynCoal Partnership)

The Rosebud SynCoal Partnership project is rate were 130 Btu per kilowatt-hour for the 50/50 Montana Power's J. E. Corette Plant, Colstrip Units 3
demonstrating an advanced thermal coal-conversion blend and 181 Btu per kilowatt-hour for the 75/25 and 4, Minnkota Power, and the University of North
process coupled with physical cleaning techniques to blend. Dakota also have received SynCoal" products for
upgrade high-moisture, low-rank coals to produce a Project operations have been extended through testing. A total of 1,037,255 tons of SynCoal" prod-
highquality, reduced-ash, low-sulfur fuel called mid-1997. ucts were made through year-end 1995. Total sales of
SynCoal". The 1,000-ton-of-SynCoal-perdaydemon- Rosebud SynCoal Partnership has conducted a SynCoal" products during 1995 were 315,687 tons.
stration unit is located at the Rosebud Mine in Col- study for Minnkota Power Cooperativeto examine the The partnership is working on two semi-commer-
strip, Montana. The project enhances low-rank west- merits of applying the coal processing technology to a cial projects, one each in Wyoming and Montana.
em coal, which usually has a moisture content of commercial plant integrated into an existing power These projects would range in size from 500,000 to 5
2 5 4 0 percent, sulfur content of 0.5-1.5 percent, and plant site. The study results have been positive, but million tons per year.
heating value of 5,50&9,000 Btu per pound. En- market commitments are still necessary.
hancement is achieved by producing a stable, upgrad- Total sales of SynCoal" product continued strong
ed SynCoal" with a moisture content as low as 1 during 1995 with deliveries made to four industrial
percent, sulfur content as low as 0.4 percent, ash customers: Ash Grove Cement, Bentonite Corpora-
content of about 9 percent, and heating value of up to tion, Empire Sand and Gravel, and Wyoming Lime.
12,000 Btu per pound.
A test program was initiated in March 1994 at
Montana Power's J.E. Corette plant using a 50/50
blend of raw subbituminous coal and DSE-conditioned
SynCoal". Preliinary results indicate significantly
improved boiler cleanliness, efficiency, and operations
output while the SO, emissions decreased with no
noticeable effect on NOx. With higher SynCoal"
blends, SOz emissions decreased by as much as 43 4 The Rosebud SynCoal@facility is an
advanced coal-conversionprocess
percent and the plant could hold a 170-MWe load, designed to upgrade low-rank westem coal
which is well above the normal 160-MWe load. The to a low-moisture, low-sulfur, low-ash,
boiler efficiency increased from 84.9 to 85.7 percent enhanced Btu fuel called SynCoal@.
During 1995 over 42,000 tons of SynCoal@
with the 50/50 blend and to 86.2 percent with a 75/25 were delivered to utility and industrial
blend. The corresponding decreases in net unit heat customers.

Program Update 1995 611


Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project


(ENCOAL Corporation)

ENCOAL, Corporation is demonstrating the


integrated operation of a number of novel process
steps which involve heating coal under carefully
controlled conditions to produce two higher value fuel
forms from mild gasification of low-sulfur, low-
heating-value subbituminous coal. The coal is dried
and pyrolyzed in two rotary grates arranged in series.
The process produces (1) a new solid fuel with higher
heating value (about 12,000 Btu per pound) and lower
sulfur content than the coal feedstock (on a pound-
4 By year-end 1995, the ENCOAL plant had
per-million-Btu basis) and (2) low-sulfur liquid produced more than 43,000 tons of solid product
products that can be directly substituted for No. 6 fuel for utility use and 2.2 million gallons of liquid
oil. The solid product is usable in any scale industrial product mainly for industrial use.
or utility boiler.
The site for this plant is Triton Coal Companys Nebraska (92 percent blend). ENCOAL also has sulfur distribution in the products show a reduction of
Buckskin Mine located about 10 miles north of contracted with Wisconsin Power & Light for the sale over 20 percent in the SO, content per million Btu.
Gillette, Wyoming. of 30,000 tons of solid product. Test data from the Numerous feasibility studies have been per-
The plant officially entered the production mode study of initial commercial shipments and utilization formed for both domestic and international clients
in June 1994; operation has been at a coal feed rate of of both solid and liquid products show a reduction in who are primarily interested in upgrading their low-
500 tons per day. By year-end 1995, the plant had sulfur content of over 20 percent on the basis of SO, rank coal reserves. TEK-KOL and Mitsubishi Heavy
completed test runs representing more than 7,900 per million Btu. Industries are performing advanced feasibility studies
hours of operation on coal. More than 43,189 tons of Tank cars of liquid product are being shipped to regarding joint engineering, design, and construction
solid product and more than 2.2 million gallons of several customers in the Midwest for use in industrial of commercial plants in Indonesia, China, and Russia.
liquid product have been shipped to industrial and boilers. The Dakota Gasification Company tested the TEK-KOL is also negotiating with Japanese trading
utility customers. liquid products in 1992 and in 1994 purchased an companies to market both liquid and solid products in
Solid product has been tested by Westem Farm- additional 800,000gallons and continues to use it in Southeast Asia. The products are well suited for
ers Cooperatives Hugo plant in Oklahoma (15-30 the synfuel plant in Beulah, North Dakota. utility and iron-making markets normally served by
percent blends with Powder River Basin coal), by A topical report on the initial commercial s h i p low-sulfur bituminous coals, which are expected to be
Muscatine Power and Water in Iowa (40-100 percent ment and utilization of both solid and liquid products in short supply in the post-2OOO period when depen-
product), and by Omaha Public Power District in was released in March 1995. Test data with respect to dence on low-rank coals is expected to increase.

6-12 Program update 1995


Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)Process


(Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.)

The Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Construction activities started in October 1995,


Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)Process will and are scheduled to be completed in late-1996. A
demonstrate the production of methanol from coal- 4-year demonstration period will follow. By year-end
derived synthesis gas using Air Products and Chemi- 1995, site preparation was complete and foundation
cals LPMEOP process. The project will deter- installation was under way. Activities to update the
mine the suitability of methanol as produced by the off-site fuel-use test plan were initiated. Revisions
demonstration facility for use as a chemical feedstock also were being made to the environmental monitoring
or as a low-SO,, low-NOx alternative fuel in stationary plan. The demonstration test plan is also under
and transportation applications. If practical, the development.
production of dimethyl ether @ME) also will be
demonstrated.
The project site is Eastman Chemical Companys
integrated coal gasification facility at Kingsport,
Tennessee, where it will be possible to ramp up or
down to demonstrate the unique load-following
flexibility of the L P M E O P unit for coal-based
power generation applications. Methanol fuel testing
will be conducted in off-site stationary and mobile
applications, such as boilers, fuel cells, buses, and van
pools. Design verification testing for the production
of DME as a mixed coproduct with methanol for use
as a storable fuel is planned. Based on the results of
this testing, a decision to demonstrate the coproduc-
tion of DME at a commercial scale will be made.
Eastern high-sulfur bituminous coal containing 3
percent sulfur and 10 percent ash will be used.
The NEPA process has been completed. An A Construction began in October 1995 on the LPMEOHTM demonstration unit at
environmentalassessment was and a finding Eastman Chemical Companys coal gasification facility in Kingsport, TN. When
completed in late-1996, the demonstration unit will produce 80,OOO gallondday of
of no significant impact was approved on June 30, methanol.
1995.

PmgramUpdatel995 6-13
Industrial AppIications

Blast Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project


(Bethlehem Steel Corporation)

Bethlehem Steel Corporation completed construc-


tion and start-up for a project to demonstrate the
injection of granulated coal directly into two blast
fumaces at Burns Harbor, Indiana. Preoperational
testing began in February 1995 and continued until
November 1995 when full operation began. The coal
displaces up to 40 percent of the coke normally used
in the steelmaking process, thus reducing coke re-
quirements and the attendant emissions associated
with coke making. The reducing environment of the
blast furnace enables all of the sulfur in the coal to be
captured by the slag and hot metal.
Granular coal is being injected through 26 tuyeres
of both the C and D furnaces at average injection rates
of 17&225 pounds per net ton of hot metal. (The
target rate was 180pounds per net ton for each fur-
nace during start-up.) Injection rates of 235 pounds
per net ton of hot metal have been achieved. Furnace
operation has been improving as operators gain
experience. Coal is being switched on the fly from a
high-volatile Kentucky coal to a low-volatile Virginia
coal. Burden and blast conditions are being fine-
tuned on both furnaces as injection rate increases.

A Shown is the completed Bethlehem Steel Corporation


facility to demonstrate the injection of granulated coal
directly into two blast furnaces at Burns Harbor, IN.

6-14 Program Updare 1995


Exhibit 6-2
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at year-End 1995-Advanced Electric Power Generation
Project and Participant status

Fluidized-Bed Combustion
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project The participant has proposed resiting the project at the Jacksonville Electric Authoritys Northside Station in Florida.
(The Appalachian Power Company)
PCFB Demonstration Project The July 1995 merger between Midwest Resources, Inc., (parent of Midwest Power) and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric to
(DMEC-1 Limited Partnership) form MidAmerican Energy Company has impacted the project structure. A further complication has resulted from the
recent acquisition of Ahlstrom Pyropowerby Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. An extension to April 30,1996, has
been issued to provide the participant with additional time to resite the project, restructure activities, and finalize
continuation plans.
Four Rivers Energy ModernizationProject The participant has been informed that a decision on a power purchase agreement would not be made until the summer of
(Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.) 1996. An extension until April 30,1996, has been issued so that the participant can consider altemative sites.
IIdd PFBC Demonstration Project Operationaltesting was completed on March 30,1995; the final report is expected to be available in early 1996. During
(The Ohio Power Company) the 54 months of testing, the unit completed 95 parametric tests and accumulated 11,444 hours of coal-fired operations.
Test results showed that 90% SO, capture was achieved with a CdS of 1.1 and 95% SO, capture was achieved with a
CdS of 1.5 using 2 4 % sulfur Ohio bituminouscoals and dolomite sorbent. Inherent in the process were NO, emissions
in the range of 0.15-0.33 1WmillionBtu. CO and particulateemissions were less than 0.01 and 0.02 1WmillionBtu
respectively.
Nucla CFB DemonstrationProject (Iri-State Project reporting is complete. The cooperative agreement ended in April 1992.
Generation and TransmissionAssociation, Inc.)
ACFB Demonstration Project All activitieshave been put on hold while resiting options are considered. On September26,1995, York County Energy
(Yo& county Energy Partners,L.P.) Partners and MetropolitanEdison Company announced their joint decision to restructure the power-purchase agreement
to allow for developmentof a natural-gas-fired facility instead of the coal-fired cogeneration plant originally planned.
DOE will not participate in the revised natural gas project. Other options for a coal-fired plant are being considered.

Integrated Gasifkation Combined Cycle


Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project An extension to May 31,1996, has been granted to allow the participant to complete project restructuring activities,
(ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.) including changing the site to TVAs Bellefonte Plant near Scottsboro, AL,increasing the size to 375-400 W e ; changing
the technology to the Shell gasification process; and changing the project team,schedule, and total cost. No additional
DOE funds will be requested beyond the current DOE share amount.
Clean Energy Demonstration Project The cooperative agreement was awarded December 2,1994. The participant is seeking a suitable project site on the east
(Clean Energy partners Limited Partnership) coast.

Program Update 1995 615


I
Exhibit 6-2 (continued)
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at Year-End 1995-Advanced Electric Power Generation
I Project and Participant Status

Piiion Pine IGCC Power Project Constructionbegan in early 1995and by year-end was approximately 50% complete. Fabrication of the gasifier is
(Sierra Pacific Power Company) complete. Structural steel has been erected to the 93-ft elevation. Foundationsnorth of the gasifier islands as well as
foundations for the coal crusher and solid waste silo are complete; also the steam turbine mat has been poured. Further,
the 42-inch cooling lines to the steam turbine foundation and in the cooling tower area are complete. The public design
report was issued in August 1995.
Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined- Site construction is approximately 70% complete, and structural steel is 90% in place. All major vessels have been placed
Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) in the structure. The turnkey air separation plant is mechanically complete and undergoing checkout and qualification
testing. Reclamation of the area west of Rt. 37 has begun. This area was approved for development of a deep pond
fishing and recreational area by the state of Florida.
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Plant acceptancetesting has been completed, and commercial operations began in November 1995. Coal was introduced
(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project into the gasifier for the first time in August 1995. Plant construction is complete.
Joint Venture)

Advanced CombustionMeat Engines


Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Engineering and design activities are complete. A groundbreakingceremony was held May 30, 1995. By the end of the
Development and Export Authority) 1995 construction season, approximately 12,000 cubic yards of concrete had been poured and over 48,000 cubic yards of
structuralbackfill had been hauled. Erection of structuralsteel, which began in August 1995, is more than 30% complete.
Constructionwill resume in March 1996.
Coal Diesel Combined-CycleProject Full-scale single-cylinder fuel evaluation tests have been conducted on Ohio coal-water fuels at Coopers research energy
(Arthur D. Little, Inc.) facility in Mount Vernon, OH. The participant has finalized subcontract agreements with Cooper-Bessemer and CQ Inc.,
as well as its funding agreement with the Ohio Coal Development Ofice. Easton Utilities, the original host, has with-
drawn from the project. An extension to June 15,1996, has been granted to the participant to allow completion of
activities relating to resiting the project to the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.
Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle The cooperative agreement was awarded on August 1,1994. The design period has been extended because of a lack of
Demonstration Project (PennsylvaniaElectric sufticient development progress for the externally fired technology. Options for restructuring the project also are under
Company) discussion.

6-16 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 6-3
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at year-End 1995-Environmental Control Devices
Project and Participant Status

NO, Control Technologies


Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler Results of parametric and optimization testing demonstrated NO, emissions are reduced by about 52% at 110 MWe (full
NOxControl (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) load), 47% at 82 MWe, and 36% at 60 MWe. For western coal, NO, emissions were reduced by 62% at 110 MWe, 55%
at 82 MWe, and 53% at 60 W e . The project was completed as of December 31,1993, and the final report was delivered
in March 1994. The technology is being retained by Wisconsin Power and Light for commercialuse.
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NO, Cell Burner Operationaltesting was completed in April 1993. Testing indicated that the NOxemissions reduction when at full load is
Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 54-5896. The final report has been submitted.
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NO, Burners Operational testing was completed in January 1995; final reports are in preparation. The project demonstrated that, with a
on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental gas heat input of 13%, second generation GR-LNB without flue gas recirculation can achieve a NOxreduction of 64%.
Research Corporation) Restorationwork was completedin November 1995.
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration of NOx Due to plant problems and operational and environmentalstrategy changes, the original host site was no longer suitableto
Control (New York State Electric & Gas Corpora- demonstrate the technology. TVA and New York State Electric & Gas are finalizing an agreement to allow the project to
tion) be conducted at both Milliken Station in Lansing, NY,and Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, NY. The revised
project will accomplish all of the original project objectives (with no increase in the DOE cost) plus bring additional
technologies under the repayment umbrella.
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques Long-term testing of advanced overfire air (AOFA),low-NO, bumers (LNB), and LNB+AOFA has been completed. The
for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company digital control system has been installed ahd is operational. Short- and long-term test data are being used to train the
Services, Inc.) neural network combustion models. The Generic NO, Control Intelligent System software installation is virtually
complete; however, low boiler utilization has delayed debugging and testing. Full-load, long-term emission levels for the
baseline, AOFA, LNB, and LNB+AOFA configurations were 1.23,0.94,0.65, and 0.41 lWmillion Btu,respectively.
Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Operationaltesting was completed in July 1995. Dismantling efforts have been completed. Final reports are in prepara-
Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions from tion and the results are expected to be available in mid-1996.
High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company
Services, Inc.)
180-MWe Demonstrationof AdvancedTangentially Long-term test data from operating the LNCFS Level I and I1 equipment (two of three airkoal-feed test configurations)
Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of indicated NOxreductions of up to 37% at full load, compared to baseline emissions data. For Level 111, NOxreductions
NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern were as much as 45%. The project was completed as of June 30, 1994. Gulf Power has retained the LNCFS at its
Company Services, Inc.) Plant Lansing Smith.

Program Update 1995 6-17


Exhibit 6-3 (continued)
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at Year-End 1995-Environmental Control Devices
I Project and Participant status

SO, Control Technologies


10-MWe Demonstration of Gas SuspensionAbsorp Operational testing was completed in March 1994. Test results indicate that the GSA is capable of consistently maintain-
tion (AirPol, Inc.) ing 90+% S0,removal at a moderate lime requirement and at an 18F approach-to-adiabatic-saturationtemperature. The
GSA has also demonstratedhigh availabilityduring the test period. Air toxics testing conducted during October 1993
showed a removal rate of over 95%. A full-scaleunit is being installed at the 50-MWe municipal power stationin
Hamilton, OH; this unit is scheduled for operation in August 1996.
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Bechtel notified DOE on June 30,1993,that it was discontinuingthe project effective July 1,1993.The final report has
Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) been submitted.
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstra- LFAC testing was completed in June 1994;final reports are in preparation. Long-term tests showed that SO, reductions
tion Project (LIFAC-North America) above 70% can be maintained under normal boiler operating ranges. The LIFAC system has been retained by Richmond
Power & Light.
Advanced Flue Gas DesulfurizationDemonstration Operational testing was completed in June 1995. Eial reports are in preparation. During the 3-year operation, SO,
Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) removal efficiency averaged 9496,with a maximum of 98+%, or 0.382lwmillion Btu. Availability was more than 99%.
The AFGD unit will continue to be operated at Bailly Station under an own-and-operate agreement.
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Operational testing concluded in December 1994;the final report is in preparation. The system was able to maintain SO,
Technology for the (3-121FGD Process (Southem removal efficiency above 90%at all loads at SO, inlet levels of 1,000-3,500 ppm and limestoneutilization over 97%.
Company Services, Inc.) Particulate removal efficiency was 97.7-99.3% for inlet mass loadings of 0.303-1.392 lbdmillionBtu for a load range of
50-100W e . Operational responsibility for the scrubber was permanently assumed by Georgia Power in January 1995.
Reporting and gypsum investigations will continue through 1996.

I Combined SOJNO, ControlTechnologies


SNOXM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project Operational testing was completedin December 1994;final reports are in preparation. The system has operated for over
(ABB EnvironmentalSystems) 8,OOO hours and pmduced more than 5,600 tons of commercial-gradesulfuric acid The facility has routinely operatedat
full capacity, achieving removal efficienciesof 95% for SO, 94% for NO,, and 99+% for particulates. The system was
retained by Ohio Edison Company as patt of its CAAA of 1990 compliance strategy.
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Final reports on Coolside and LIMB extension testing are complete and available to the public through NTIS. The
Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox cooperative agreementended January 1993.
COmPY)
SOX-NOx-Rox BOX^ Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstra- Operational testing was completed in May 1993;the final report was issued in September 1995. SO, removal efficiencies
tion Project (TheBabcock & Wilcox Company) were 80% with commercial-gradelime and 90% with hydrated lime (both at 2.0 Ca/S and 800-850 OF) and 8096 with
sodium bicarbonate (1.0NqS, 425 OF). NOxreductions consistently exceeded 9096. Particulate removal efficiency was
99.89%.

6-18 ProgmmUpdate1995
I I
Exhibit 6-3 (continued)
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at Year-End 199SEnvironmental Control Devices
Project and Participant status

Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Long-term load-following and altematesorbent testing were completed at Hennepin in January 1993; the final report was
Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental issued in October 1994. Average emission reductions of 52% for S0,and 67% for NO, with 18% gas input were
Research Corporation) achieved. Operational testing at Lakeside was completed in October 1994. During long-term, full-load GR-SI testing at
Lakeside, the SO, reduction was 58%. During gas-rebm long-term testing, NOxreduction averaged 67%. Restoration
work has been completed at both sites. Illinois Power is retaining the gas-rebuming system for possible use in NOx
control at Hennepin Unit 1. City Water, Light and Power is retaining both the gas-reburning and sorbent injection
systems at Lakeside Station for use at a later date.
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration The split module scrubber began operation for Unit 2 in January 1995. Gypsum production also began in January 1995.
Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Full plant operation with Unit 1 incorporatedinto the split module scrubber was achieved in June 1995. Low-sulfur
performance testing was conducted October-November 1995; evaluation of the data is in progress. Environmental noise
monitoring as requiredby the state of New York was completed.
Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SO@Ox A new site-Alcoa Generating Companys Warrick Power Plant-was identified in 1994. An environmentalassessment
Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System (NOXSO and finding of no significant impact was approved June 26,1995. Detailed design activities are under way. Construction
Corporation) is pending final sale of revenue bonds which will provide the balance of NOXSOs cost share. The revenue bonds will be
issued and guaranteed by the state of Indiana.
Integrated Dry NOJSO, EmissionsControl System Parametrictesting of urea injection was completed in December 1995. The retractable lances showed a marked improve-
(Public Service Company of Colorado) ment over the original wall injectors. The best NO, reduction (50%) was obtained at 60 W e . A short test of automatic
load following was completed. After several control system modifications, the system responded correctly by switching
between various injection points as the load varied. A 4-week test of the urea injection and dry sorbent injection system
will begin in mid-February 1996.

Program Update 1995 6-19


I
Exhibit 6-4
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at year-End 1995-Coal Processing for Clean Fuels
Project and Participant status

Coal Preparation Technologies


Development of the Coal Quality Expert (ABB Over 100 algorithmsbased on data generated from 6 full-scale field tests have been developed. Acid Rain Advisor
Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.) software became available in 1992, with two sales made in 1993 and 1995. A CQE beta version was released in May
1995 and evaluated by several utilities by July 1995. The initial commercial version of CQE was released in December
1995. CQE has been distributed to about 40 U.S. utilities and 1 U.K. utility through membership in EPFU.
Self-scrubbingCoal? An Integrated Approach to Plant start-up procedures were initiated in November. By year-end 1995, all but two conveyors were fully operational.
Clean Air (Custom Coals Intemational) All piping was complete. Electrical work in the plant was 98%. All plant units have been w ed over by the contractor.
All 17 of the planned loop tests have been completed. Interlock checkingwas approximately75% complete. Approxi-
mately 1,700 tons of coal were received to check out the raw-coal truck scales and storagehandling system. In addition,
preliminary baseline testing of 10,ooO tons of low-volatile coal burned at Martin's Creek has been completed.
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration A total of 1,037,255 tons of SynCoal" products were made through year-end 1995. Total sales during 1995 were
(Rosebud SynCoalPartnership) 315,687 tons. In 1995, a total of 42,177 tons of SynCoaP products were delivered to four industrial customers: Ash
Grove Cement of Montana City, MT, has received granular SynCoal@and fines; Bentonite Corporationof Colony, WY,
regular SynCoal"; Empire Sand and Gravel of Billings, MT, granular SynCoal"; and Wyoming Lime of Warren, MT, fines
and granular SynCoal". Montana Power's J.E. Corette Plant has received a conditioned SynCoaP and DSE-conditioned
SynCoal@blend. Montana Power's ColstripUnits 3 and 4 and Minnkota Power have received SynCoal" to continuetheir
testing. The University of North Dakota has received SynCoal' blended with raw coal. "Klinker Killer" testing has been
initiated at the Minnkota Power Station and the J.E. Corette Plant. Extended kiln testing has begun at Wyoming Lime.
Mild Gasification

ENCOAL Mild Coal GasificationProject (ENCOAL By year-end 1995, the plant had logged more than 7,900 hours of operation on coal. More than 43,189 tons of solid
Corporation) product and more than 2.2 million gallons of liquid product have been shipped to industrial and utility customers. A
topical report on the initial commercial shipment and utilization of both solid and liquid products was released in March
1995. Test data with respect to sulfur distribution in the products show a reduction of over 20% in the SO, content per
million Btu.

Indirect Liquefaction
Commercial-Scale Demonstrationof the Liquid- The NEPA process has been completed. An environmentalassessment was prepared and a finding of no significant
Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air impact was approved June 30,1995. Construction started in October 1995. By year-end 1995, site preparation was
Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.) complete and foundation installation was under way. Activities to update the off-site fuel-use test plan were initiated.
Revisions also were being made to the environmentalmonitoring plan.

6-20 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 6-5
Status of CCT Demonstration Projects at Year-End 1995-Industrial Applications
Project and Participant

Blast Furnace Granulated-CoalInjection System Construction was completed in February 1995. A public design report was issued in March 1995. Start-up testing has
Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corpora- been completed, and the plant is fully commissioned. Operational testing began in November 1995. Granular coal is
tion) being injected through 26 tuyeres of both the C and D furnaces at average injection rates of 170-225 lbdnet ton of hot
metal. (The target rate was 180 lbdnet ton for each finace during start-up.) Injection rates of 235 lbdnet ton of hot
metal have been achieved. Furnace operation has been improving as operators gain experience. Coal is being switched
on the fly from a high-volatile Kentucky coal to a low-volatile Virginia coal. Burden and blast conditionsare being fine-
tuned on both fumaces as injection rate increases.
Clean Power from Integrated Coal/& Reduction The project was selected May 4,1993, and the cooperative agreement is in negotiation. In July 1994, Air Products and
(COREX@)(Centerior Energy Corporation) Chemicals,Centerior Energy, and Geneva Steel Company signed an agreement to site the project at the Geneva Steel mill
in Vineyard, UT.
Advanced CycloneCombustor with Intemal Sulfur, Project reporting is complete. The cooperative agreement ended September 1991.
Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation)
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber Project reporting is complete. The cooperative agreement ended February 1994.
(PassamaquoddyTribe)
Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Applica- The project has been resited to NorthshoreMining Companys facility located in Silver Bay, MN, and project restructur-
tion for Steam Gasification of Coal (ThermoChem, ing activities are in progress. At the new site, the ThermoChempulse combustion technology will produce fuel gas and
Inc.) char for use in a proposed direct reduction iron process.

Program Update 1995 6-21


7. Project Fact Sheets
and application categories are provided as a guide to
the fact sheets included in this section. Key to Milestone Charts in Fact Sheets
summary
Exhibit 7-1 indexes project fact sheets by
Each fact sheet contains a bar chart that high-
Included in this chapter is project-specific application category. lights major milestones-pastand planned. The bar
information for each of the 43 projects selected in chart shows a projects duration and indicatesthe time
Exhibit 7-2 indexes fact sheets by participant. periodfor three generalcategoriesof project activi-
the CCT Programs five solicitations. This informa- ties-preaward,designand construction,andopera-
tion includes, for each ongoing project, the partici- Additional project information can be obtained tion. The key providedbelow explainswhat is includ-
ed in each of these categories.
pant, team members, location, cost and schedule through publications listed in Appendixes C and D or
data, process flow diagram (technology being h m the project contacts listed in Appendix E. Full
Preaward
demonstrated is shaded), significant project features, references for the final reports listed in abbreviated
Includespreawardbriefings,negotiations,
project objectives, description of the process and its form in fact sheets for completed projects can be and other activitiesconductedduring the
performance attributes, progress and accomplish- found in Appendix C. Furthermore, progress on the period between DOESselection of the
project and award of the cooperativeagree-
ments, and commercial applications. Fact sheets for CCT projects and significant events can be tracked ment.
completed projects contain a brief overview of the through DOES quarterly newsletter, CZem Coal
Design and Construction
results of the demonstration and sources of more Today. To be included on the newsletter mailing
Includesthe NEPA process, permitting,
detailed information. list, send name and address to US. Department of design, procurement,construction,preoper-
The fact sheets are organized into four applica- Energy, -22, Washington, DC 20585. ational testing, and other activitiesconduct-
ed prior to the beginningof operationof the
tion categories: demonstration.
MTF Memo-to-file
Advanced electric power generation
CX Categoricalexclusion
Environmental control devices EA Environmentalassessment
Coal processing for clean fuels EIS Environmentalimpactstatement
Operation
Industrial applications
Begins with start-up of operationand in-
To prevent the release of project-specific cludesoperationaltesting, data collection,
analysis, evaluation,reporting,and other
information of a proprietary nature, the process flow activitiesto completethe demonstration
diagrams contained in the fact sheets are presented project.
only as illustrative of the concepts involved in the
demonstration.
For the convenience of the reader, two indexes
which cross-refererence CCT projects by participants

Program Update 1995 7-1


Exhibit 7-1
Project Fact Sheets, by Application Category
I Project Participant page

Advanced Electric Power Generation


Fluidized-Bed Combustion
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project The Appalachian Power Company 7-8
XFB Demonstration Project DMEC-1 Limited Partnership 7-10
Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. 7-12
Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project The Ohio Power Company 7-14
Nucla CFB Demonstration Project Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 7-16
ACFB Demonstration Project York County Energy Partners, L.P. 7-18
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. 7-20
Clean Energy Demonstration Project Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership 7-22
piiion pine IGCC Power Project Sierra Pacific Power Company 7-24
Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project Tampa Electric Company 7-26
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture 7-28
Advanced CombustiodHeatEngines
Healy Clean Coal Project Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 7-30
Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project Arthur D. Little, Inc. 7-32
Warren Station Fktemally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project Pennsylvania Electric Company 7-34

Environmental Control Devices


NOx Control Technologies
Demonstrationof Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control The Babcock & Wilcox Company 7-38
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit The Babcock & Wilcox Company 7-40
Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler Energy and Environmental Research Corporation 7-42
Micronized Coal Rebuming Demonstration for NOx Control New York State Electric & Gas Corporation 7-44
pmonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler Southem Company Services, Inc. 7-46
Demonstrationof Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions Southem Company Services, Inc. 7-48
from High-Sulfur-Coal-FiredBoilers
180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques Southem Company Services, Inc. 7-50
for the Reduction of NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boilers

7-2 Program Update 1995


Exhibit 7-1 (continued)
Project Fact Sheets, by Application Category
Project Participant Page

SO, Control Technologies


10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption AirPol, Inc. 7-52
Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Bechtel Corporation 7-54
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project LIFAC-North America 7-56
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. 7-58
Demonstrationof Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process Southem Company Services, Inc. 7-60
Combined S O p O l Control Technologies

Coal Processingfor Clean Fuels


Coal Preparation Technologies
Development of the Coal Quality Expert
Self-scrubbing Coalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.
Custom Coals Intemational
7-78
7-80
I
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration Rosebud SynCoal Partnership 7-82
Mild Gasification
ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project ENCOAL Corporation 7-84
Indirect Liquefaction
Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOH"') Process Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. 7-86

Industrial Applications
Blast Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project Bethlehem Steel Corporation 7-90
Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (COREX@) Centerior Energy Corporation 7-92
Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control Coal Tech Corporation 7-94
Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber Passamaquoddy Tribe 7-96
Demonstrationof Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal ThermoChem, Inc. 7-98

Program Update 1995 7-3


Exhibit 7-2
Project Fact Sheets, by Participant
Participant Project CCT Page

ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. Combustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project I1 7-20
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc. Development of the Coal Quality Expert I 7-78
ABB Environmental Systems S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project IUComplete 7-62
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOP) Process 111 7-86
AirPol, Inc. 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption IIUComplete 7-52
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Healy Clean Coal Roject 111 7-30
The Appalachian Power Company PFBC Utility Demonstration Project I1 7-8
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project V 7-32
The Babcock & Wilcox Company Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOxControl IUComplete 7-38
The Babcock & Wilcox Company Full-scale Demonstration of LOw-NOxCell Burner Retrofit IIUComplete 7-40
The Babcock & Wilcox Company LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration UComplete 7-64
The Babcock & Wilcox Company SOX-NOx-RoxBoxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project IUComplete 7-66
Bechtel Corporation Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration IIUComplete 7-54
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Blast Furnace Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project 111 7-90
Centerior Energy Corporation Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (COREX@) V 7-92
Coal Tech Corporation Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Intemal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control UComplete 7-94
Custom Coals Intemational Self-scrubbingCoal? An Integrated Approach to Clean Air IV 7-80
DMEC-1 Limited Partnership PCFB Demonstration Project 111 7-10
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership Clean Energy Demonstration Project V 7-22
ENCOAL Corporation ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project I11 7-84
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection UComplete 7-68
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler IIUComplete 7-42
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project V 7-12
LIFAC-North America LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project IIUComplete 7-56
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NO, Control IV 7-44
New YO& State Electric & Gas Corporation Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project IV 7-70

7-4 Program Update 1995


I

. .. . . ... .. . . .. .. . .

Exhibit 7-2 (continued)


Project Fact Sheets, by Participant
Participant Project CCT Page

NOXSO Corporation Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SOz/NOxRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup System 111 7-72
The Ohio Power Company Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project YComplete 7- 14
Passamaquoddy Tribe Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber IYComplete 7-96
Pennsylvania Electric Company Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project V 7-34
Public Service Company of Colorado Integrated Dry NOx/SOzEmissions Control System I11 7-74
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project IYComplete 7-58
Rosebud SynCoal Partnership Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration I 7-82
Sierra Pacific Power Company pifion pine IGCC Power Project IV 7-24
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler I1 7-46
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the (3-121 FGD Process IYComplete 7-60
Southem Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of IYComplete 7-48
NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers
Southem Company Services, Inc. 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the WComplete 7-50
Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers
Tampa Electric Company Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project 111 7-26
ThermoChem, Inc. Demonstration of Pulse Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of Coal IV 7-98
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Nucla CFB Demonstration Project YComplete 7-16
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Iv 7-28
Project Joint Venture
York County Energy Partners, L.P. ACFB Demonstration Project I 7-18

Progrm Upakzte 1995 7-5


Advanced Electric
Power Generation
Fact Sheets
PFBC Utility Demonstration
Project
Participant:
The Appalachian Power Company

Additional Team Members:


American Electric Power ServiceCorporation-
designer, constructor, and manager
The Babcock & Wilcox Company- technology supplier

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company's pressurized
fluidized-bedcombustion (PFBC)combinedxycle
system (under license from ABB Carbon) (advanced
electricpower generatiodfluidized-bedcombustion)

Plant CapacityFroduction:
340 MWe (net)

Project Funding:
Total project cost $917,944,000 100%
TechnologyProject Description: The hot combustion gases exit the bed vessel with
DOE 184,800,000 20
This project will be a greenfield facility located adjacent entrained ash particles, 98% of which are removed when
Participant 733,144,000 80
to the existing Mountaineer and Spom plants. The most the gases pass through cyclones. An option being con-
Project Objective: noticeable aspect of the unit is that the boiler, cyclones, sidered is to employ some advanced filtration devices in
To demonstrate a large utility-scale PFBC at 340 W e ; reinjection vessel, and associated hardware are encapsu- the design. The cleaned gases are then expanded
to assess long-termreliability, availability,and maintain- lated in a pressure vessel 60 ft in diameter and 100 ft through a 75-MWe gas turbine.
ability of PFBC in a commercial operating mode and the high. The reheat system turbine operatesat a state-of-the-
integration of a reheat steam cycle. The project incorporatesa bubbling fluidized-bed art pressure and temperature to produce at least
process operating at 16 atm (235 psi). Pressurized 250 MWe. Superheated steam will be produced from
combustion air is supplied by the turbine compressorto pressurized boiler-feed water in the tubes submergedin
fluidizethe bed material (consisting of a coal-waterfuel the fluidized bed. The projected heat rate for this unit is
paste, coal ash, and a dolomite or limestone sorbent). 8,500 BtuflrWh (40.2%efficiency based on HHV).SO,
Dolomite or limestone in the bed reacts with sulfur to emissionsare expected to be r e d u d by 95% and NOx
form calcium sulfate, a dry,granular bed-ash material, emissions by 80%.
which is easily disposed of or used as a by-product. A The design coal is Pittsburgh 8, high-sulfur (4%
low bed-temperatureof 1,600O F limits NOxformation. maximum), bituminous coal.

7-8 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generarion


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

I 9/88 4/90

t
llilestone schedule pending project
restructuring

"Years omitted

I dooperative agreement awarded 4/4/90


~

Project StatudAccomplishments: for repowering is the compactness of the process because


The participant has proposed resiting the project to of pressurized operation.
JacksonvilleElectric Authority'sNorthside Stationin The projected net heat rate for the commercialplant
Florida will be 8,500 Btu/kWh (based on HHV) which equates to
an efficiency of 40.2%. An advancedcycle that inte-
Commercial Applications: grates a small gasifier could yield heat rates approaching
This project will be the initial version of a commercial 7,500 Btu/kWh (45% efficiency). Environmentalat-
plant. Combined-cyclePFBC systems permit the com- tributes include in-situ sulfur reduction of 95% and NOx
bustion of a wide range of coals, including high-sulfur emissionsreduction to 0.1 lb/million Btu. Although the
coals. This technology will compete with circulating system may generate a slight increase of solid waste as
PFBC systems to repower or replace conventional power compared to conventional systems, the dry material is
plants with a technology capable of using high-sulfur either disposableor potentially usable.
coals in an environmentallysound manner. PFBC tech-
nology appears to be best suited for a wide range of
applications beginning at the 50-MWe size. Because of
modular construction capability, PFBC generating plants
permit utilities to add economical increments of capacity
to match load growth and/or to easily repower existing
plants using available coal- and waste-handlingequip-
ment, and existing steam turbines. Another advantage

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-9


PCFB Demonstration Project
Participant:
DMEC-1 Limited Partnership (a partnership among Ahl-
strom Pyropower [generalpartner], MidAmericanEnergy
[limited partner], and Dairyland Power [limited partner])

Additional Team Members:


Pyropower Corporation-technology supplier
Black and Veatch-architect and engineer

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology:
Pyropower Corporation's AHLSTROM PYROFLOW@
pressurized circulating fluidized-bed combustion (PCFB)
combined-cycle system (advancedelectric power
generatiodfluidized-bedcombustion)
WASTE
HEAT
Plant CapacityProduction: FEED WATER RECOVERY STACK
80 MWe

Project Funding:
Total project cost $202,959,000 100%
DOE 93,253,000 46 TechnologyProject Description: The project would be the world's first large-scale
Participant 109,706,000 54 In the PCFB process, coal is combusted at about demonstration of PCFB technology. The project also
1,600 OF and 12 atm in a circulating fluidized bed con- would be the first commercial application of hot gas
Project Objective: tained within a pressure vessel. Coal is pumped into the cleanup and the fiat use of a nonruggedized gas turbine
To demonstrate PCFB at sufficient scale to evaluate PCFB via a water slurry while dolomite or limestone is in a pressurized fluidized-bed application.
environmental,cost, and plant performance and to obtain added to the combustion process to absorb sulfur com-
the technical data required for commercializationof the pounds. Particulates from the hot, pressurized combus-
technology; to assess operating performance of unique tion gases are removed by a ceramic filter, and the clean
features that include an integral ceramic hot-gas filter and gases are then expanded through a gas turbine. The
slightly modified, commercially available gas turbine. solid waste (bed and fly ash) from the process is dry,
easily disposed of, and potentially usable. Steam gener-
ated within the PCFB combustor and the heat recovery
system downstream of the gas turbine is used to generate
power in an existing steam turbine.
AHLSTROM PYROFLOW is a registered trademark of Ahlstrom
Pyropwer, Inc., which is now owned by Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation.

7-10 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

I
12189
I Preaward
8/91
I Design I

I Note: Milestone schedule pending project restructuring

DOE selected
project (CCT-Ill)
l a 19/89
Cooperative agreement
awarded 8/1/91

Project StatudAccomplishments: can be used to repower or replace conventional power pared to conventional systems, but the dry material is
The July 1995 merger between Midwest Resources, Inc., plants. PCFB technology appears to be best suited for disposable or potentially usable.
parent of Midwest Power, and Iowa-IllirioisGas and utility and industrial applications of 50 MWe or larger.
Electric to form MidAmerican Energy Company has Because of modular construction capability, PCFF3 gen-
impacted the project structure. A further complication erating plants permit utilities to add economical incre-
has resulted from the recent acquisition of Ahlstrom ments of capacity to match load growth andor to re-
Pyropowerby Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. An power plants using existing coal- and waste-handling
extension to April 30, 1996, has been issued to provide equipment, and steam turbines. Another advantage for
the participant with additional time to resite the project, repowering applications is the compactness of the pro-
restructure activities, and finalize continuation plans. cess due to pressurized operation, which reduces space
NEPA actions have been placed on hold until the requirements per unit of energy generated.
participantsplans are completed. The commercial version of PCFB technology will
include the integration of a topping combustor to fully
Commercial Applications: utilize commercially available gas turbines. The pro-
By demonstrating plant reliability and performance, this jected net heat rate for this system is 7,964 Btu/kWh
project serves as a bridge for scaling up to a larger plant (based on HHV) which equates to 42.8% efficiency.
and a stepping stone toward moving PCFB to commer- Environmental attributes include in-situ sulfur
cial readiness. The combined-cyclePCFB system per- removal of 95%, NOxemissionsless than 0.3 lb/million
mits the combustion of a wide range of coals, including Btu, and particulate matter discharge less than 0.03 Ib/
high-sulfur coals, and would compete with the bubbling- million Btu. Solid waste will increase slightly as com-
bed PFBC system. Like the bubbling-bed system, PCFB

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-11


COMPRESSEDAIR 1
Four Rivers Energy I

Modernization Project
Participant:
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. (a limited partnership
between Four Rivers Energy Partners, Inc., and Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc.)

Additional Team Members:


Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation+ombustor,
carbonizer,heat exchanger supplier; engineer
Westinghouse Electric Corporation-gas turbine,
topping combustor, carbonizer filter, and alkali
removal system supplier
LLB Lurgi Lentjes Babcock EnergietechnickGmb
combustor filter, slurry feed, and ash removal system
supplier

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology:
Foster Wheelers fully integrated second-generation
pressurized circulating fluidized-bed (PCFB)
combustioncombined-cyclesystem (advancedelectric system that includes a combustor, carbonizer, ceramic combustor. A steam turbine is driven by steam generated
power generatiodfluidized-bedcombustion) hot-gas filtration systems, topping combustor, and a in (1) the heat recovery steam generator, which is located
slightly modified, commercially available gas turbine. downstream of the gas turbine, (2)an integrated ash-
Plant CapacityProduction: cooling heat exchanger, and (3)the PCFB combustor.
95 W e (equivalent if all steam were converted) TechnologyProject Description:
Coal is fed to a pressurized carbonizer that produces a
Project Funding: low-Btu fuel gas and char. After the fuel gas is cleaned
Total project cost $360,707,500 100% of particulates by a cyclone, ceramic filter, and alkali
DOE 142,460,000 39 removal system, it is bumed in a topping combustor to
Participant 218,247,500 61 drive a gas turbine. The gas turbine drives a generator
Project Objective: and a compressor that delivers air to the carbonizer and
To demonstrate PCFB technology at a sufficient scale to to a PCFB combustor. Additional coal and the
evaluate the environmental, cost, and plant performance carbonizer char and sorbent are bumed in the PCFB
technical data that is prerequisite to commercialization combustor, and the flue gas passes through ceramic
of the technology; to assess operating performance of the filtrationand alkali removal units and then is mixed with
worlds first fully integrated second-generationPCFB the carbonizer fuel gas for combustionin the topping

7-12 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 . 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 7 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

5/93 8/94
I
I
Preaward I Desian I

L I Note: Milerrtone scheduk pending project restructuring

i;ooperative agreement
awarded 7/28/94;effective
8/1/94
DOE selected project
(CCT-V) 5/4193

Project StatusJAccomplishments: KFB technology appears to be best suited for a discharge of approximately0.01 lb/million Btu. Al-
The cooperative agreement was awarded July 28,1994, wide range of utility and industrial applications begin- though the system will generate a slight increase of solid
with an effective date of August 1,1994. The partici- ning at a level of 50 W e . waste as compared to conventional systems, the material
pant has been informed that a decision on a power pur- The commercial version of PCFB technology will will be a dry,disposable, and potentially usable material.
chase agreement would not be made until the summer of have a greenfield net plant efficiency of 45%(which
1996. An extension until April 30,1996,has been issued equates to heat rates approaching 7,500 Btu/kWh, based
so that the participant can consider alternative sites. on HHV). In addition to higher plant efficiencies, the
second-generationplant will (1) have a cost of electricity
Commercial Applications: that is projected to be 20% lower than that of a conven-
This project serves as a stepping stone to move the sec- tional pulverized-coal-firedplant with flue gas desulfur-
ond-generation PCFB technology to readiness for wide- ization, (2) meet emissions limitsthat are half those
spread commercial application. The project is also in currently allowed by NSPS, (3) operate economically on
line to be one of the first commercial applications of hot- a wide range of coals, (4) be amenable to shop fabrica-
gas cleanup and one of the first to use a nonruggedized tion, and ( 5 ) be furnished in building-block modules as
gas turbine in a pressurized fluidized-bed application. large as 300 W e .
In addition to other advanced technology systems, The benefits of improved efficiency include reduced
second-generationPCFB technology will compete with costs for fuel and a reduction in CO, emissions. Other
bubbling fluidized-bed combustion systems to repower environmental attributes include in-situ sulfur reduction
or replace conventional fossil-fueled power plants with a that can meet 95%removal, NOxemissions that will be
technologycapable of using high-sulfur coals in an envi- lower than 0.3 lb/million Btu, and particulate matter
ronmentallysound manner.

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 1-13


Tidd PFBC Demonstration
Project
Project completed.

Participant:
The Ohio Power Company

Additional Team Members: DoL0Ml-l


American Electric Power Service Corporation---
COAL+
signer, constructor, and manager WATER
The Babcock & Wilcox Company--technology supplier
Ohio Coal Development Office-cofunder

Location:
Brilliant, Jefferson County, OH (Ohio Power
Companys Tidd Plant, Unit 1)

Technology:
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys pressurized fluid-
ized-bed combustion (PFBC)system (under license from
ABB Carbon) (advanced electric power generation/
fluidized-bed combustion)

Plant CapacityProduction:
TechnologyProject Description: bed-ash material which is easily disposed of or is usable
70 MWe
lidd is the first large-scaleoperational demonstrationof as a by-product. A low bed-temperatureof 1,600 O F
Project Funding: PFBC in the United States and one of only five world- limits NOxformation.
Total project cost $189,886,339 100% wide. The boiler, cyclones, bed reinjection vessels, and The hot combustion gases exit the bed vessel with
DOE 66,956,993 35 associated hardware are encapsulated in a pressure ves- entrained ash particles, 98% of which are removed when
Participant 122,929,346 65 sel 45 ft in diameter and 70 ft high. The facility was the gases pass through cyclones. The cleaned gases are
designed so that one-seventh of the hot gases produced then expanded through a 15-MWe ASEA Stal GT-35P
Project Objective: could be routed to a slipstream to test advanced filtration gas turbine. The gases exiting the turbine are cooled via
To demonstrate PFBC at a 70-MWe scale, representing a devices. a waste heat economizer and further cleaned in an elec-
13:l scaleup from the pilot plant facility; to verify ex- The Tidd facility is a bubbling fluidized-bed com- trostaticprecipitator.
pectations of the technologyseconomic, environmental, bustion process operating at 12 atm (175 psi). Pressur- The Iidd steam turbine operates at a pressure of
and technical performance in a combined-cyclerepower- ized combustion air is supplied by the turbine compres- 1,305 psi and a temperam= of 925 OF to produce ap-
ing application at a utility site; and to accomplish greater sor to fluidize the bed material which consists of a coal- proximately 55 MWe. Superheated steam is produced
than 90% SO, removal, NOxemission level of 0.2 Ibl water fuel paste, coal ash, and a dolomite or limestone from pressurized boiler feed water in the in-bed combus-
million Btu,and an efficiency of 35% in a repowering sorbent. Dolomite or limestone in the bed reacts with tor tubes. Steam generated within the combustor and the
mode using the existing steam system. sulfur to form calcium sulfate, a dry,granular heat recovery system downstreamof the gas turbine is

7-14 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


used to generate power in a previously existing steam and revised designs are addressing the mechanical and The environmental attributes of a mature system
turbine. Due to repowering, plant efficiency was im- erosion problems. The Tidd demonstration showed that a include in-situ sulfur removal of 95% and NOxemis-
proved to a heat rate of 10,280 Btu/kWh (an efficiency gas turbine could operate in the PFBC flue gas environ- sions reduction levels less than 0.1 lb/million Btu. Al-
of 33.2% based on HHV and gross electrical power ment and erosion was manageable with a scheduled though the system generates a slight increase in solid
output). maintenanceprogram. waste as compared to conventional systems, the dry
Ohio bituminous coals having sulfur contents of Because the Tidd project produced 70 MWe, eco- material is either disposableor potentially usable.
2 4 % are being used in the demonstration. nomic results would not be characteristicof future utility-
scale applications of the technology. Economic results Project Schedule:
Project ResultdAccomplishments: from the 340-MWe PFBC Utility DemonstrationProject DOE selected project (CCT-I) 7/24/86
Operational testing was completed on March 30,1995. will define the capital and operating costs for this technol- Cooperative agreement awarded 300187
During the 54 months of testing, the unit completed 95 NEPA process completed (MTF) 3/5/87
om*
parametric tests and accumulated 11,444 hours of coal- The project has received two major awards. In Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 5/25/88
fired operations, including continuous coal-fired Iuns of 1992, it received the National Energy Resource Construction 12/87-12/90
28,29,30,31, and 45 days. Organization's Award for demonstratingenergy efficient Operationaltesting 319 1-3/95
Advanced ceramic hot-gas-filtration elements have technology. In 1991, Power Magazine presented the Project completed 12/95
undergone approximately 5,800 hours of exposure to Powerplant of the Year Award to the project for demon-
one-seventh of the slipstream. Test results showed that Final Reports:
strating PFBC technology.
the design of the candle-based advanced particulate filter Final TechnicalReport 8/95
was structurally adequate. However, results also showed Commercial Applications: Public Design Report 10l92
that clay-based silicon carbide lost 50% of its strength Combined-cyclePFBC permits use of a wide range of
after 1,00&2,000 hours of exposure and that a build-up coals, including high-sulfur coals. Bubbling PFBC
of ash in the filter vessel would cause breakage of the technology, along with other advanced technologies, will
candles. compete with circulating PFBC systems to repower or
Test results showed that 90%SO, capture was replace conventional power plants. PFBC technology
achieved with a Ca/S molar ratio of 1.1 and 95% SO, appears to be best suited for applications of 50 W e or
capture with a CalS molar ratio of 1.5 using Ohio bitu- larger. Capable of being constructed modularly, PFBC
minous coals having a sulfur content of 2 4 % and Plum generating plants permit utilities to add increments of
Run Greenfield dolomite. The unit demonstrated NOx capacity economically to match load growth. Plant life
emissions in the range of 0.15433 lblmillion Btu. can be extended by repowering with PFBC using the
These emissions were inherent to the process which had existing plant area, coal- and waste-handlingequipment,
an operating temperature of 1,580 "E Emissions of and steam turbine equipment. Another advantage for
carbon monoxide and particulate were less than 0.01 and repowering applications is the compactness of the pro-
0.02 lblmillion Btu, respectively. cess due to pressurized operation, which reduces space
Except for localized erosion of the in-bed tube requirements per unit of energy generated.
bundle and the more general erosion of the waterwalls, In a fully mature system, the projected net heat rate
the lidd boiler performed extremely well and is consid- is 8,500 Btu/kWh (based on H H V ) which equates to
ered a commercially viable design. While the gas tur- 40.2% efficiency. An advanced cycle that integrates a
bine was the leading cause of unit unavailability during small gasifier could yield heat rates approaching
the first three years of operation,technical improvement 7,500 Btu/kWh (45% efficiency).

Advanced Electric Power Generation Progrm Update 1995 7-15


Nucla CFB Demonstration
Project
Project completed.

Participant:
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
(formerly Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.)

Additional Team Members: HIGt


Fyropower Corporation-technology supplier
Technical Advisory Group (potential users)-cofunder
Electric Power Research Institute-technical consultant

Location:
Nucla, Montrose County, CO (Nucla Station)

Technology:
Pyropowers atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed com-
bustion (ACFB) system (advanced electric power gen-
eratiodfluidized-bed combustion)
STEAM TURBINE
Plant CapacityProduction:
llOMWe

Project Funding: TechnoIogyProject Description: passes through a baghouse where the particulate matter
Total project cost $46,512,678 100% Nuclas circulating fluidized-bed system operates at is removed. The steam generated in the ACFB is used to
DOE 17,130,411 37 atmosphericpressure. In the combustion chamber, a generate electric power.
Participant 29,382,267 63 stream of air fluidizes and entrains a bed of coal, coal Three small, coal-fired, stoker-type boilers at Nucla
ash, and sorbent (e.g., limestone). Relatively low com- Station were replaced with a new 925,000-lbs/hr ACFB
Project Objective: bustion temperatures limit NOxformation. Calcium in steam generator capable of driving a new 74-MWe tur-
To demonstrate ACFB at a scale of 110 MWe, represent- the sorbent combines with SO, gases, and solids exit the bine generator. Extraction steam from this turbine gen-
ing a 2 1 scaleup from previously demonstrated capaci- combustion chamber and flow into a hot cyclone. The erator powers three existing turbine generators
ties; to verify expectations of the technologys eco- cyclone separates the solids from the gases, and the (12 MWe each). Three western coals were tested:
nomic, environmental, and technical performance in a solids are recycled for combustor temperature control. Peabody coal (0.448% sulfur), Dorchester coal (1.5%
repowering application at a utility site; to accomplish Continuous circulation of coal and sorbent improves sulfur), and Salt Creek coal (0.5% sulfur).
greater than 90% SO, removal; to reduce NOxemissions mixing and extends the contact time of solids and gases, In 1992, Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.,
by 60%;and to achieve an efficiency of 34% in a repow- thus promoting high utilization of the coal and high the owner of Nucla Station, was purchased by Tri-State
ering mode. sulfur capture efficiency. Heat in the flue gas exiting the Generation and TransmissionAssociation, Inc.
hot cyclone is recovered in the economizer. The flue gas

7-16 Program Update 1995 Advanced ElecmcPower Generation


Project ResuWAccomplishments: Net plant heat rate decreased with increasing boiler equipment, the life of the plant can be extended. Ben-
Between August 1988 and January 1991, a total of 72 load, from 12,400Btu/kWh at 50% of full load to efits of ACFB include 90% SO, reduction, 6040% NOx
steady-state performancetests were conducted:22 tests 11,600 Btu/kWh at full load. The lowest value reduction, and control of pollutants at lower costs than
at 50% load, 6 at 75% load, 2 at 90% load, and 42 at full achieved during a full-load steady-state test was are offered by existing technologies.
load (110 W e ) . Some key results, as reported by the 10,980Btu/kWh. These values were affected by the As a result of the Nucla demonstration,Pyropower
participant, follow: absence of reheat, the presence of the three older Corporationwas able to save almost 3 years in establish-
12.5-MWe turbiies in the overall steam cycle, the ing a commercial line of ACFB units. Pyropowers
Results indicated strong correlations of absolute CO,
number of unit restarts, and part-load testing. commercial units are now offered under warranty in
SO,, and NOxemissions levels with combustor
sizes ranging up to 400 W e . Under the terms of the
operating temperatures. Although NSPS compliance Over the range of operating temperatures at which
projects repayment plan, Tri-State is required to submit
was maintained, a penalty on limestone feed testing was performed at Nucla, bed temperature was
to DOE semiannual payments based on a percentage of
requirementsfor sulfur retention was izalized at the found to be the most influential operating parameter.
the net revenues from plant operation. This repayment
higher operating temperatures. Below 1,620 OF, 70% With the possible exception of coal-feed configura-
obligation ends in October 2011 unless DOES contribu-
sulfur retention was achieved with 1.5 Ca/S, and 95% tion and excess air at elevated temperatures, bed
tion is repaid before that time. Tri-State has made pay-
sulfur retention was achieved with 4.0 Ca/S. Around temperature was the only parameter that had a mea-
ments of $351,700under the plan.
1,700 OF, CdS greater than 5.0 was required to surable impact on emissions or efficiencies. Emis-
maintain 70% sulfur capture. sions of S q and NOxwere found to increase with Project Schedule:
increasing combustor temperatures while CO emis- DOE selected project (CCT-I) 10/7/87
The NOxemissions for all tests were less than
sions decreased with increasing temperature. Com- Cooperative agreement awarded 10/3/88
0.34 lb/million Btu, which was well within the state-
bustion efficiency also improved as the temperature NEPA process completed (MTF) 4/18/88
regulated emission limit of 0.50 lb/million Btu. The
was increased. Environmental monitoring plan completed 2/27/88
average level of NOxemissions for all tests was
0.18 lb/million Btu. An economic evaluation indicated that the final Operational testing 8/88-1/9 1
capital costs for the Nucla ACFB system were about Project completed 4/92
Combustionefficiency,a measure of the quantity of
$112.3 million. This represents a cost of $1,123/net kW.
carbon that is fully oxidized to CO,, ranged from Final Reports:
Total power production costs associated with test opera-
96.9% to 98.9%. Of the four exit sources of Final Technical Report 10191
tions were about $54.7 million, which results in a nor-
incompletely bumed carbon, the largest was carbon Economic Evaluation Report 3/92
malized power production cost of 0.064 milldkwh.
contained in the fly ash (93%). The next largest (5%) PerformanceTest Summary Reports 3/92
Fixed costs were about 62% of the total, and variable
was carbon contained in the bottom ash stream, and Public Design Report 12/90
costs were more than 38%. Nuclas power production
the remaining feed-carbon loss (2%) was
costs proved competitive with pulverized coal units not
incompletely oxidized CO in the flue gas. The fourth
limitingemissionsas significantly.
possible source, hydrocarbons in the flue gas, was
measured and found to be negligible. Commercial Applications:
Boiler efficiencies for 68 performance tests varied ACFB technology has good potential in both industrial
from 85.6% to 88.6%. The contributionsto boiler and utility sectors for new capacity additions or for
heat loss were identified as unbumed carbon; sensible repowering existing coal-fired plants. Coal of any sulfur
heat in dry flue gas; fuel and sorbent moisture; latent content can be used. Because any type or size of boiler
heat in burning hydrogen; sorbent calcination; radia- can be repowered by ACFB using the existing plant area,
tion, and convection; and bottom ash cooling water. coal- and waste-handlingequipment, and steam turbine

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-17


ACFB Demonstration Project
Participant:
York County Energy Partners, L.P. (a limited partnership
which includes Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.)
COAL

LL
Additional Team Members:
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation-technology
supplier

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology: n
Foster Wheelers atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed
(ACFB) combustor (advanced electric power generation/
fluidized-bed combustion)
Il I A
Plant CapacityProduction:
227 MWe (net) and 400,000 lbs/hr steam

Project Funding:
Total project cost $379,645,450 100%
DOE 74,733,833 20
Participant 304,911,617 80
TechnologyProjectDescription: Steam is generated in tubes placed along the
Project Objective: In this project, the circulating fluidized-bed combustor combustors walls and superheated in tube bundles
To demonstrate ACFB at 250 W e , representing a 1.7:1 operates at atmospheric pressure. Coal, primary air, and placed in the solids-circulating stream and the flue gas
scaleup from previously constructed facilities; to verify a solid sorbent, such as limestone, are introduced into stream. The steam is then used to produce power in a
expectations of the technologys economic, environmen- the lower portion of the combustor where initial combus- conventional steam cycle.
tal,and technical performance in a greenfield cogenera- tion occurs. As coal particles decrease in size due to The heat rate for this cogeneration plant is expected
tion application; and to provide cogenerators, as well as combustion and breakage, they are carried higher in the to be 9,200 Btu/kWh (37% efficiency). SO, emissions
utility and nonutility power producers, with the data combustor to an area where secondary air is introduced. are expected to be below 0.24 lb/million Btu. This
necessary for evaluating a 250-MWe ACFB as a com- As the coal particles continue to be reduced in size, the technology operates at lower temperatures than conven-
mercial alternative to accomplish greater than 90% SO, coal, along with some of the sorbent, is carried out of the tional boilers, thus reducing NOx production.
removal, to reduce NOxemissions by 60% when com- combustor, collected in a particle separator, and recycled
pared with conventional technology, and to achieve a to the lower portion of the combustor. The sorbent in
steam efficiency of 88%. the bed removes sulfur during the combustion process,
eliminating the need for scrubbers.

7-18 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1989 1990 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

V89 11/90
I Preaward I Desian I

t
DOE selected
project (CCT-I)
6/23/89

Project resited
(York) 6/93
EPA process completed (EIS York site; 8/11/95

Joperative agreement
awarded 11/30/90
"Years omitted

Project StatudAccomplishments: Commercial Applications:


All activities have been put on hold while resiting op- ACFB technology has good potential for application in
tions are considered. On September 26, 1995, York both the industrial and utility sectors, whether for use in
County Energy Partners and Metropolitan Edison Com- repowering existing plants or in new facilities. ACFB is
pany announced their joint decision to restructure the attractive for both baseload and dispatchable power
power-purchaseagreement to allow for development of a applicationsbecause it can be efficiently turned down to
natural-gas-fired facility instead of the coal-fired cogen- 25% of full load. Coal of any sulfur content can be
eration plant originally planned. DOE will not partici- used, and any type or size of a coal-fired boiler can be
pate in the revised natural gas project. Other options for repowered. In repowering applications, an existing plant
a coal-fired plant are being considered. area is used, and coal- and waste-handlingequipment as
The final EIS for the originally planned coal-fired well as steam turbine equipment are retained, thereby
cogeneration plant at the York County, PA, site was extending the life of a plant.
published in June 1995, and a record of decision was In its commercial configuration, ACFB technology
approved by DOE on August 11,1995. Public hearings offers several potential benefits when compared to con-
on the draft EIS were held in York in December 1994 ventional pulverized coal-fired systems: lower capital
and January 1995. (The NEPA process will need to be costs; reduced SO, and NOx emissions at lower costs;
repeated for any new site.) higher combustion efficiency; and dry,granular solid
waste which is easily disposed of or which may be a
salable by-product.

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-19


Combustion Engineering
IGCC Repowering Project
Participant:
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Additional Team Members:


Project is being restructured and will include new team
members.

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology:
ABB Combustion Engineering's integrated gasification
combined-cycle(IGCC) system (advancedelectric
power generatiodintegrated gasification combined
cycle)
STEAM
Plant Capacity/Production: SLAG TO DISPOSAL
65 MWe (net) II I

STEAM TURBINE
Project Funding:
Total project cost $270,700,000 100%
DOE 129,357,204 48
Technology/F+ro ject Description: moved from the coal-handling system and gas stream by
Participant 141,342,796 52
Pulverized coal is pneumaticallytransported to the pres- a combination of cyclone separators and baghouses, and
Project Objective: surized gasifier. The gasifier essentially consistsof a a high percentage of particulates are fed back to the
To demonstrate an advanced dry-feed, air-blown, two- bottom combustor section and a top reductor section. gasifier for more complete reaction and ultimate removal
stage, entrained-flow coal gasifier with a moving-bed, Coal is fed into both sections. A slag tap at the bottom of with the slag.
zinc titanate, hot-gas cleanup system; to assess long- the combustor allows molten slag to flow into a water- The cleaned liow-Btu gas is routed to a combined-
term reliability and maintainability of the system at a filled quench tank. cycle system for electric power production. About
sufficient scale to determine commercial potential. The raw, low-Btu gas and char leave the gasifier at 40 MWe (net) are generated by a gas turbine. Extracted
approximately 2,000 O F and are reduced in temperature air from the gas turbine is used to meet the high-pressure
to about 1,000 O F in a heat exchanger. Char in the gas air requirements of the gasifier and the zinc titanate
stream is captured by a high-efficiency cyclone, as well desulfurization system. Exhaust gases from the gas
as by a subsequent fine-particulateremoval system, and turbine are used to produce steam which is fed to a bot-
recycled back to the gasifier. toming cycle to generate an additional 25 W e (net).
A newly developed process consisting of a moving
bed of zinc titanate sorbent is being used to remove
sulfur from the hot gas. Particulateemissions are re-

7-20 Program Update 1995 Advanced Elechic Power Generation


1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

19/88 11/90
I I Preaward I Desian I

I 4 4 4 INote: Milestone schedule m d i n "


a

bOE selected project (CCT-II)


I I I project mstructuring

9/28/88

Environmental monitoring plan completed 5/W3

I NEPA process completed (EA) 3/27/92

Cooperative agreement awarded 1lEQ190

Project StatudAccomplishments: and natural resource needs, the IGCC system is also a
An extension to May 31,1996, has been granted to allow strong contenderfor new electric power generating facili-
the participant to complete project restructuring, includ- ties. Further, without the need for an oxygen plant, the
ing changing the site to WASBellefonte Plant near ABB CombustionEngineering technology represents a
Scottsboro, AL,increasingthe size to 375-400 W e ; potentially simplerapproach to gasification-basedpower
changingthe gasification technologyto Shell;and chang- generation. A single-train IGCC system based on this
ing the project team, schedule, and total cost. The par- gasifier is capable of producing more than 150 MWe. A
ticipant has indicated that no additional DOE funds will commercial-scalefacility based on the ABB Combustion
be required beyond the current DOE cost share. Engineering technology is expected to have a heat rate
less than 8,OOO Btu/kWh (efficiency greater than 43%).
Commercial Applications: This heat rate is expected to realize at least a 20% im-
The IGCC system being demonstrated in this project is provementin efficiency comparedto a conventional
suitable for both repowering and new power plant appli- pulverized-coal-firedplant with flue gas desulfurization.
cations. Repowering aging plants with this technology The improved system efficiency also results in a similar
will improve plant efficiency and reduce emissions of decrease in CO, emissions.
SO,, NOx,and CO,. Also, the modular design of the
gasifier will permit a range of units to be considered for
repowering.
Due to the advantages of modularity, rapid and
staged on-line generation capability, high efficiency, fuel
flexibility,environmentalcontrollability,and reduced land

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-21


Clean Energy Demonstration
Project
Participant:
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership (a limited
partnership consisting of Clean Energy Genco, Inc., an
affiliate of Duke Energy Corp.; Makowski Clean Energy
Investors, Inc.; British Gas Americas, Inc.; and an affili-
ate of the General Electric Company)

Additional Team Members:


Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.-engineer and
constructor
General Electric Company-power island designer and
supplier
British Gas Americas, Inc., affiliate in conjunction with
Lurgi Energie and Umwelt GmbH-gasification
island designer
Fuel Cell Engineering Corporation-molten carbonate
fuel cell designer and supplier; cofunder
Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association-
cofunder
Deutsche Aerospace AG-cofunder and limestone to produce a raw coal gas rich in hydrogen
Project Funding:
Location: Total project cost $841,096,189 100% and carbon monoxide. Raw coal gas exiting the gasifier
An east coast site DOE 183,300,000 22 is washed and cooled. Hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur
Participant 657,796,189 78 compounds are removed. Elemental sulfur is reclaimed
Technology: and disposed of as a by-product. Tars,oils, and dust are
Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC)using Project Objective: recycled to extinction in the gasifier. The resulting clean,
British GasiLurgi (BG/L) slagging fixed-bed gasification To demonstrate and assess the reliability, availability, medium-Btu fuel gas is used to fuel the gas turbine in the
system coupled with Fuel Cell Engineering's molten and maintainability of a utility-scale IGCC system using IGCC power island. A small portion of the clean gas is
carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) (advanced electric power high-sulfur bituminous coal in an oxygen-blown,fixed- used for the MCFC.
generatiodintegrated gasificationcombined cycle) bed, slagging gasifier and the operability of a molten The MCFC is composed of a molten carbonate
carbonate fuel cell fueled by coal gas, by an independent electrolytesandwichedbetween porous anode and cath-
Plant CapacityProduction: power producer under commercial terms and conditions. ode plates. Fuel (desulfurized, heated medium-Btu gas)
477-MWe (net) IGCC, 1.25-MWe MCFC and steam are fed continuously into the cathode. Electri-
TechnologyProject Description:
cal reactions produce direct electric current which is
The BG/L gasifier is supplied with steam, oxygen, lime-
converted to alternating power in an inverter.
stone flux,and coals having a high fines content. Dur-
ing gasification, the oxygen and steam react with the coal
7-22 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Genenation
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2ooo 2001 2o(M 2003
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

93 12/94

Cooperative agreement
awarded 12/2/94

OE selected project
;cT-V) 5/4/93

The project is demonstratingthe use of eastem U.S. The heat rate of the IGCC demonstration facility is
bituminous coal in a commercial-scaleIGCC system and 8,560 Btu/kWh (40% efficiency) and the commercial
integrated MCFC module. embodiment of the system has a projected heat rate of
8,035 Btu/kWh (42.5% efficiety). The commercial
Project StatudAccomplishments:
version of the molten carbonate fuel cell fueled by a
The cooperative agreement was awarded December 2,
BGL gasifier is anticipated to have a heat rate of 7,379
1994. The participant is looking for an east coast site.
Btu/kWh (46.2% efficiency). These efficiencies repre-
Commercial Applications: sent greater than 20% reduction in emissions of CO,
The IGCC system being demonstrated in this project is when compared to a conventional pulverized coal plant
suitable for both repowering applications and new power equipped with a scrubber. SO, emissionsfrom the IGCC
plants. The technology is expected to be adaptable to a system are expected to be less than 0.1 lb/million Btu
wide variety of potential market applicationsbecause of (99% reduction); NOxemissions, less than 0.15 lb/mil-
several factors. First,the BGL gasification technology lion Btu (90% reduction).
has successfully used a wide variety of U.S. coals. Also, Also, the slagging characteristic of the gasifier
the highly modular approach to system design makes the produces a nonleaching, glass-like slag that can be mar-
BGL-based IGCC and molten carbonate fuel cell com- keted as a usable by-product.
petitive in a wide range of plant sizes. In addition, the
high efficiency and excellent environmentalperformance
of the system are competitive with or superior to other
fossil-fuel-fired power generation technologies.

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Updatc 1995 7-23


PiAon Pine IGCC Power
Project
Participant:
Sierra Pacific Power Company

Additional Team Members:


Foster Wheeler USA Corporatior+axhitect, engineer,
and constructor
The M.W.Kellogg Company+hnology supplier

Location:
Reno, Storey County, NV (Sierra Pacific Power
Company's Tracy Station)

Technology:
Integrated gasification combined-cycle(IGCC) using the
KRW air-blown pressurized fluidized-bed coal
gasification system (advanced electric power generation/
integrated gasification combined cycle)

Plant CapacityProduction:
99 MWe (net)

Project Funding:
Total project cost $308,551,000 100%
TechnologyProject Description: sulfur are removed by reaction with metal oxide sorbent
DOE 154,275,500 50 Dried and crushed coal and limestone are introduced into in a transport reactor.
Participant 154,275,500 50 a pressurize& air-blown, fluidized-bed gasifier. Crushed The hot, cleaned gas then enters the combustion
limestone is used to capture a portion of the sulfur and to turbine which is coupled to a generator designed to
Project Objective: inhibit conversionof fuel nitrogen to ammonia. The produce 61 MWe (gross). Exhaust gas is used to pro-
TOdemonstrate air-blown, pressurized, fluidized-bed sulfur reacts with the limestone to form calcium sulfide duce steam in a heat recovery steam generator. Super-
IGCC technology incorporating hot gas cleanup; to which, after oxidation, exits as calcium sulfate along with heated high-pressure steam drives a condensing steam
evaluate a low-Btu gas combustion turbine; and to assess the coal ash in the form of agglomeratedparticles suitable turbine-generator designed to produce about 46 MWe
long-term reliability, availability,maintainability,and forlandfill. (gross).
environmentalperformanceat a scale sufficient to deter- Hot, lowBtu coal gas leaving the gasifier passes Due to the relatively low operating temperature of
mine commercial potential. through cyclones which return most of the entrained the gasifier and the injection of steam into the combus-
particulate matter to the gasifier. The gas, which leaves tion fuel stream, the NOxemissions are 0.069 lblmillion
the gasifier at about 1,700 OF, is cooled to about 1,100 O F Btu (94% reduction). Due to the combination of in-bed
before entering the hot-gas cleanup system. During sulfur capture and hot gas cleanup, SO, emissions are
cleanup, virtually all of the remaining particulates are 0.069 lb/million Btu (90% reduction).
removed by ceramic candle filters, and final traces of

Advanced Electric Power Generation


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 x)o 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/91 8/92 2/97 7/00


I Pmaward I Design and Construction I Operation I

t A A
t t t Operationinitiated 2/97
t
Preoperational tests initiated 11/96

l3lvhmi monitoring Plan proiect


comoleted 8196 report isured 7/00.

v~operativeagreement awarded 8/1192


EPA procegs completed (EIS) llllty94 Projmed date

In the demonstration project, 880 tondday of coal Commercial Applications: significantprocess waste streams that require
are converted into 107 MWe (gross), or 99 MWe (net), The Piiion Pine IGCC system concept is suitablefor new remediation. The only solid waste f the plant is a
for export to the grid. Westem bituminous coal power generation, repowering needs, and cogeneration mix- of ash and calcium sulfate, a nonhamdous
(0.549% sulfur) from Utah is the design cod, tests applications. The net effective heat rate for a proposed waste.
using eastem bituminous coal containing 2-3% sulfur greenfield plant using this technology is projected to be
also are planned. The integrated gasification system is 7,800 Btu/kWh (43.7% efficiency), repsenting a 20%
being built at Sierra Pacific Power Companys Tracy increase in thermal efficiency as compared to a conven-
Station, near Reno, NV. tional pulverized coal plant with a scrubber and a com-
parable reduction in CO, emissions. The compactness of
Project StatudAccomplishments: IGCC systems reduces space requirements per unit of
The participant started constructionactivities in early energy generated relative to other coal-based power
1995 and, by yearend 1995, construction was approxi- generation systems, and the advantages provided by
mately 50% complete. Fabrication of the gasifier island modular construction reduce the financial risk associated
as well as foundations for the coal crusher and solid with new capacity additions.
waste silo are complete; also the steam turbine pad has The KRW IGCC technology is capable of gasifying
been poured. Further, the 42-inchcooling lines to the all types of coals, including high-sulfur and high-swell-
steam turbine foundation and in the cooling tower area ing coals, as well as bio- or refuse-derived waste, with
are complete. The public design report was issued in minimalenvironmentalimpact. This versatility provides
August 1995. numerous economic advantages for the depressed min-
eral extraction and cleanup industries. There are no

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-25


Tampa Electric Integrated
Gasification Combined-Cycle
Project
Participant:
Tampa Electric Company

Additional Team Members:


Texaco Development Corporation-gasification
technology supplier
General Electric Company-combined-cy cle technology
supplier
GE Environmental Systems, Inc.-hot-gas cleanup
technology supplier
TECO Power ServicesCorporation-project manager
and marketer
Bechtel Power Corporation-architect and engineer

Location:
Lakeland, Polk County, FL (Tampa Electric Companys
Polk Power Station, Unit 1)

Technology:
Integrated gasification combined-cycle(IGCC) system
using Texacos pressurized, oxygen-blown,entrained- size with a Texaco gasifier. To demonstratethe inte- The cooled gases flow to a particulate-removal
flow gasifier technologyand incorporating both conven- grated performance of a metal oxide hot-gas cleanup section before entering gas-cleanup trains. A portion of
tional, low-temperatureacid-gas removal and hot-gas system, conventional cold-gas cleanup, and an advanced the syngas is passed through a moving bed of metal
moving-bed desulfurization (advanced electric power gas turbine with nitrogen injection (from the air separa- oxide absorbent to remove sulfur. The remaining syngas
generatiodintegrated gasification combined cycle) tion plant) for power augmentation and NOx control. is further cooled through a series of heat exchangers
before entering a conventional gas-cleanup train where
Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProject Description: sulfur is removed by an acid-gas removal system. These
250 MWe (net) Texacos pressurized, oxygen-blown,entrained-flow cleanup systems combined are expected to maintain
gasifier is used to produce a medium-Btu fuel gas. Coal/ sulfur levels below 0.21 lb/million Btu (96% capture).
Project Funding: water slurry and oxygen are reacted at high temperature The cleaned gases are then muted to a combined-cycle
Total project cost $285,988,446 100% and pressure to produce a high-temperaturesyngas. system for power generation. A gas turbine generates
DOE 142,994,223 50 Molten coal-ash flows out of the bottom of the vessel and about 192 W e . Thermally generated NOxis controlled
Participant 142,994,223 50 into a water-filled quench tank where it is tumed into a to below 0.27 lb/million Btu by injecting nitrogen as a
solid slag. The syngas from the gasifier moves to a high- dilutent in the tuhines combustion section. A heat-
Project Objective:
temperature heat-recoveryunit which cools the gases. recovery steam-generatoruses heat from the gas-turbine
To demonstrate the IGCC technology in a greenfield,
commercial, electric utility application at the 250-MWe exhaust to produce high-pressure steam. This steam,

7-26 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1988 1989 1990 1991 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2OoO
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/89 3/91 1OB6 lOlO1


I Preaward I Desian and Construction I Omration I

Operation initiated 10/96' Project completedlfinal report


issued 10101'
Construction completed 7/96' Operation completed 10101
Preoperational tests initiated 6/96.
Environmental monitoring plan completed 5/96'
Design completed 8/94
NEPA process completed (EIS) 8/17/94
Construction started 8/94

along with the steam generated in the gasification pro- Project StatudAccomplishments: In January 1994, all state permits for the plant were
cess, is routed to the steam turbine to generate an addi- Tampa Electric held a formal groundbreakingceremony approved by the govemor.
tional 120 MWe (gross). The IGCC heat rate for this at the Polk County site on November 2,1994. Construc-
demonstration is expected to be approximately tion was approximately 70% complete by year-end 1995. Commercial Applications:
8,600 Btu/kWh (40% efficient). Structural steel is 90% in place. All major vessels have The IGCC being in this Project is
The demonstration project involves only the been placed in the structure. The turnkey air separation suitable for new electric power generation, repowering
first 250 MWe (net) of the planned 1,150-MWePolk plant is mechanically complete and undergoing checkout needs, and Cogeneration applications. The net effective
Power Station. Coals being used in the demonstration and qualification testing. Construction is expected to be heat rate for the Texaco-based IGCC is expected to be
are Illinois 6 and Pittsburgh 8 bituminous coals having completed by mid-1996 and will be followed by a 4-5- below 8,500 Btu/kWh, which makes it very attractive for
sulfur contents ranging 2.5-3.5%. year demonstration period. Reclamation of the area west baseload applications. Commercial IGCCs should
By-products from the process-sulfuric acid and of Rt. 37 has begun. This area was approved for devel- achieve better than 98% SO, capture with NOxemissions
slag-can be sold commercially, sulfuric acid by-prod- opment of a deep pond fishing and recreational area by reduced by 90%.
ucts as a raw material to make agricultural fertilizer and the state of Florida. The Texaco-based system has already been proven
the nonleachable slag for use in roofing shingles and EPA (the lead agency) released the final EIS for capable of handling both subbituminous and bituminous
asphalt roads and as a structural fill in construction public comment on June 10, 1994. Favorable records of coals. This demonstration project is scaling up the tech-
projects. decision were issued by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps nology from Cool Water's 100-MWeto the 250-MWe
of Engineers in July 1994. DOE issued a record of size.
decision on the demonstration portion on August 17,
1994.

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-27


Wabash River Coal
Gasification Repowering
Project
Participant:
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project
Joint Venture (a joint venture of Destec Energy, Inc., and
PSI Energy, Inc.)

Additional Team Members:


PSI Energy, Inc.-host
Destec Energy, Inc.-engineer, gas plant operator, and
technology supplier

Location:
West Terre Haute, Wgo County, IN (PSI Energys
Wabash River Generating Station, Unit 1)

Technology: t
Integrated gasification combined-cycle(IGCC) using
Destecs two-stage, entrained-flow gasification system
(advanced electric power generatiodintegraml
STEAM TURBINE t
FEED WATER
gasification combined cycle)

Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProject Description: The process has the following subsystems: a coal-
-
262 MWe (net) Coal is ground, slurried with water, and gasified in a gxinding and slurry system, an entrained-flowcoal gas-
pressurized, two-stage (slagging first stage and non- ifier, a syngas heat recovery system, a cold gas cleanup
Project Funding:
slagging entrained flow second stage), oxygen-blown, system which produces a marketable sulfur by-product, a
Total Project cost $438,200,000 100%
gasifier. The product gas is cooled through heat ex- combustion turbine capable of using coal-derived fuel
DOE 2 19,100,000 50
changers and passed through a conventional cold gas gas, a heat recovery steam generator, and a repowered
Participant 2 19,100,000 50
cleanup system which removes particulates, ammonia, steam turbine.
Project Objective: and sulfur. The clean, medium-Btu gas is then reheated One of six units at PSI Energys Wabash River
To demonstrate utility repowering with a two-stage, and bumed in an advanced 192-MWe (gross) gas tur- Generating Station, located in West Terre Haute, IN, is
oxygen-blownIGCC system, including advancementsin bine. Hot exhaust from the gas turbine is passed through being repowered. The demonstration unit will be de-
the technology relevant to the use of high-sulfur bitumi- a heat recovery steam generator to produce high-pressure signed to generate 262 MWe (net) using 2,544 tondday
nous coal, and to assess long-term reliability, availability, steam. High-pressure steam is also produced from the of high-sulfur (2.3-5.9% sulfur), Illinois Basin bitumi-
and maintainability of the system at a fully commercial gasification plant and superheated in the heat recovery nous coal. The anticipated heat rate for the repowered
scale. steam generator. The combined high-pressure steam unit is approximately 9,000 BWkWh (38% efficiency).
flow is supplied to an existing 104-MWe (gross) steam Using high-sulfur bituminous coal, SO, emissions a~
turbine.

7-28 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Genemtion


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2Mw) 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/91 7/92 11/95 2/99

DOE selected
A

t Operation initiated 11/95


~tNctionoompleted 11/95
project (CCT-IV)
9112/91 I
Design Completed 5/94
Preoperational tests initiated 8/95

Environmental monitoring plan completed 7/9/93


I Project completedninal report issued 2/99
Operation completed 11/98

Groundbreaking ceremony 7/7/93

EPA process completed (EA) 5/28/93

Cooperative agreemenu awarded 7/28/92 Projected date

expected to be less than 0.1 lb/million Btu (98% reduc- Commercial Applications: land and natural resource needs, the IGCC system is also
tion). NOxemissions are expected to be less than Throughoutthe United States, particularly in the Midwest a strong contender for new electric power generating
0.1 lb/million Btu (90% reduction). Upon completion, and East, there are more than 95,000 MWe of existing facilities. Commercialofferingsof the technology will be
the project will represent the largest single-train IGCC coal-fired utility boileis that will be over 30 years old in based on a 300-MWe train which is ideally suited to
plant in operation in the United States. 1996. Many of these aging plants are without air pollu- utility-scale power generation applications. The system
tion controls and are candidates for repowering with heat rate for a new power plant based on this technology
Project StatudAccomplishments: IGCC technology. Repowering of these plants with is expected to realize at least a 20% improvementin
Plant construction is complete, and all plant systems have IGCC systems will improve plant efficienciesand reduce efficiency compared to a conventional pulverized-coal-
been operated. Design specifications for several vessels SO,, NOx, and CO, emissions. The modularity of the fired plant with flue gas desulfurization. The improved
were modified to incorporate recent experience from gasifier technology will permit a range of units to be system efficiency also results in a similar decrease in
Destec Energys operating unit at the Louisiana Gasifica- considered for repowering and the relatively short con- emissions of CO,.
tion Technology, Inc., facility in Plaquemine, LA. Coal struction schedule for the technology will allow utilities
was introduced into the gasifier for the first time in Au- greater flexibility in designing strategiesto meet load
gust 1995. Plant acceptance testing has been completed, requirements. Also, the high degree of fuel flexibility
and commercialoperation began in November 1995. inherent in the gasifier design allows utilities greater
An environmentalassessment was completed, and choices in fuel supplies to meet increasingly stringent air
DOE issued a finding of no significant impact on quality regulations.
May 28, 1993. All required environmental permits have Due to the advantages of modularity, rapid and
been granted. staged on-line generation capability, high efficiency, fuel
flexibility, environmentalcontrollability, and reduced

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-29


Healy Clean Coal Project
Participant:
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

Additional Team Members:


Golden Valley Electric Association-host utility
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.-engineer
TRW, Inc.-technology supplier
Joy Technologies,Inc.-technology supplier

Location:
Healy, Den& Borough, AK (adjacent to Healy Unit #1)

Technology:
TRWs advanced entrained (slagging) combustor
Joy Technologiesspray dryer absorber with sorbent
recycle
(advanced electric power generatiodadvanced
combustionheat engines)

Plant CapacityProduction:
ISPOSAL
50 MWe (nominal electric output)

Project Funding:
Total project cost $242,058,000 100% Technology/Project Description: TRW slagging combustors are bottom-mountedon the
DOE 117,327,000 48 The project is to be a nominal 5 0 - W e facility consisting boiler hopper. The main slagging combustor consistsof a
Participant 124,731,000 52 of two pulverized-coal-firedcombustor systems. Emis- water-cooled cylinder which slopes toward a slag open-
sions of SO, and NO, will be controlled using TRWs ing. The precombustorbums 2540%of the total coal
Project Objective: slagging combustion systems with staged fuel and air, a input. The remaining coal is injected axially into the
To demonstrate an innovative new power plant design boiler that controls fuel- and thermal-relatedconditions, combustor,rapidly entrained by the swirling precom-
featuring integration of an advanced combustor and heat and limestone injection. Additional SO, will be removed bustor gases and additional air flow, and burned under
recovery system coupled with both high- and low-tem- using Joys activated recycle spray dryer absorber sys- substoichiometric(fuel-rich) conditions for NOxcontrol.
perature emissions control processes. tem. Performance goals are NO, emissions of less than The ash forms molten slag which accumulates on the
0.2 lb/million Btu, particulates of 0.015 lb/million Btu, water-cooledwalls and is driven by aerodynamicand
and SO, removal greater than 90%. The performance gravitational forces through a slot into the slag recovery
coal consists of 37%run-of-mine and 65% waste coal, section. About 7040%ofthe coals ash is removed as
with the waste coal having a lower heating value and molten slag. The hot gas is then ducted to the fumace
significantlymore ash. where, to ensure complete combustion, additional air is
A coal-fired precombustor increases the air inlet supplied from the tertiary air windbox to NOx ports and
temperature for optimum slagging performance. The to final overfireair ports.

7-30 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


3
1990

1189

T t
Design
4 1

started 7/90
1991
2 3

4/91
4

Cooperative
agreement
1

awarded 411 1/91

OE selected project
:CT-III) 12/19/69
1993
2 3 4

A
1 2
1994

Pulverized limestone (CaCO,) for SO, control is fed


into the combustor where most is flash calcined. The
mixture of this lime (CaO) and the ash not slagged, called
flash-calcined material, is removed in the fabric filter
(baghouse) system. A small part of the flash-calcined
material is disposed of, but most is conveyed to a mixing
tank where water is added to form a 45% flash-calcined-
material solids slurry. The slurry leaving the mixing tank
is pumped to a grinding mill where it is mechanically
activated by abrasive grinding. Feed slurry is pumped
from the feed tank to the spray dryer absorber where the
slurry is atomizedusing Joy dry scrubbing technology.
SO, in the flue gas reacts with the slurry as water is
simultaneouslyevaporated. SO, is further removed from
the flue gas by reacting with the dry flash-calcined mate-
rial on the baghouse filter bags.
The project site is adjacent to the existing Healy
3 4 1 2
1995

t
3 4

started 5/30/95
1

&PA process completed (EIS) 3410194


Design completed 10/93
1996
2 3

T
4

8/96'

Ground breakinglconstruction
1

Environmental
1997
2

monitoring plan
completed
3 4

will collect performance data for 3 years, with 2 years of


data being provided at no cost to DOE. A hazardous air
pollutant monitoringprogram will also be implemented.
To address concerns about potential impact to the
nearby Denali National Park and Preserve, DOE, the
National Park Service, GVEA, and the project participant
entered into an agreement to reduce the emissions from
Unit #1 reducing the combined emissions from the two
units to only slightly greater than those currently emitted
from Unit #1 alone. Total site emissions will be further
reduced to current levels if necessary to protect the park.

Project StatudAccomplishments:
Design and engineering is complete; the general con-
struction contractor was issued full notice to proceed,
and major equipment suppliers were released to begin
fabrication. A groundbreakingcelebration was held May
1

1/98
1998
2 3 4 1

)peration initiated 1/98.

dnstruction completed 6/97.


Preoperational tests initiated 6/97'
2
1999

6/99
3 4 1 2
2000
3

tProject completedlfinal
reportissued 6/99'
DOE cost-shared operation
completed 6/99'
4
2001
1 2

6/01

2 yrs of operational
data ~rovidedat no
iddiional cost

This technology has a wide range of applications. It is


6/01.

'Projected date
"Years omitted

A final EIS was signed on December 15,1993, and


a record of decision was signed on March 10, 1994. A
final visibility monitoringplan has been submittedto the
Alaska Departmentof EnvironmentalConservation.

Commercial Applications:

appropriate for any size utility or industrial boiler in new


and retrofit uses. It can be used in coal-fired boilers as
well as in oil- and gas-fired boilers because of its high
ash removal capability. However, cyclone boilers may
be the most amenable type to retrofit with the slagging
combustor because of the limited supply of high-Btu,
low-sulfur, low-ash-fusion-temperaturecoal that cyclone
boilers require. The commercial availability of cost-
effective and reliable systems for SO,, NOx,and particu-
late control is important to potential users planning new
.
Unit #1 near Healy, AK. Power will go to the Golden 30, 1995. By the end of the 1995 construction season, capacity, repowering, or retrofits to existing capacity in
Valley Electric Association (GVEA). The plant will use approximately 12,000 cubic yards of concrete had been order to comply with CAAA of 1990 requirements.
a nominal 900 tondday of subbituminous coal contain- poured and over 48,000 cubic yards of structural backfill
ing a nominal 0.2% sulfur and waste coal. The project has been hauled and completed. Erection of structural
steel, which began in August 1995, is 30% complete.
Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 199s 7-31
Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle
Project
Participant:
Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Additional Team Members:


-i STACK

Ohio Coal Development Office-cofunder


Cooper Energy Services (Cooper-Bessemer
COAL
Reciprocating Products Division is a division of WATER
Cooper Energy Services which is owned by Cooper
Industries.)+mgine supplier and commercializer
CQ Inc.-coal-slurry supplier
PSI-cleanup system designer
M A C Intemational-coal-water fuel injection system
components supplier

Location:
Site under negotiation

Technology:
Cooper-Bessemers coal-fueled diesel engine combined-
cycle (CDCC) system (advanced electric power genera-
tionladvanced combustionheatengines)
Technology/ProjectDescription: generator to supply an additional 1.4 W e . Critical data
Plant Capacity/Production:
The project involves modifying two Cooper-Bessemer on performance, reliability, and wear are being collected
14 MWe (net)
mediumspeed (400rpm) diesel engines (6.3 MWe each) for all major subsystems including the coal-water fuel
Project Funding: to operate on coal-water fuel. Engine modifications metering and injection system, medium-speed diesel,
Total project cost $38,309,516 100% include a larger camshaft and fuel cams, modified engine lube oil protection system, exhaust cyclone, turbo-
DOE 19,154,758 50 block, hardened piston rings and liners, and hardened charger, heat recovery steam boiler, steam turbine, and
Participant 19,154,758 50 turbocharger blades. The CDCC system utilizes a coal- exhaust emission cleanup system.
water fuel with a nominal 50% solids loading with a 2% The exhaust emission cleanup system incorporates
Project Objective: ash cleaned coal. The cleaned coal is ground and slumed cyclones to remove the larger particulates, a selective
To demonstrate an advanced, coal-fueled diesel engine with water and then injected into each of the engines 20 catalytic recovery system for NOxcontrol, a duct sorbent
combined-cycle system based on Cooper-Bessemers cylinders. The exhaust gases from the engine pass injection system for SO, control, and baghouse for final
LSBkSVB diesel engine series. To provide critical data through an integrated emission-control system capable of collection of ash particulates and spent sorbent.
on the performance, reliability, and wear information of reducing pollutants while protecting the engines turbo-
all major subsystems. charger and maintaining high engine and overall system
efficiency (45%). The exhaust gases pass through a heat
recovery steam boiler coupled to a steam turbine and

7-32 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2Ooo 2001 2002 2003
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

93 7/94
Preaward I Desian I

,ooperalive agreement awarded 7f12/94

Project StatuslAccomplishments: ing applicationsfor small coal-fired boilers. The net


The cooperative agreement was awarded July 12,1994. effective heat rate for the mature CDCC is expected to
Design is in progress. Full-scale single-cylinder fuel be 6,830 Btu/kWh (48%), which makes it very competi-
evaluation tests have been conducted on Ohio coal-water tive with similarly sized coal- and fuel-oil-fired installa-
fuels at Coopers research engine facility in Mount tions. Environmentalemissions from commercial
Vernon, OH. The participant has finalized its subcon- CDCCs should be reduced to levels between 50% and
tract arrangementswith Cooper-Bessemerand CQ, Inc., 70% below NSPS.
as well as its funding agreement with the Ohio Coal The CDCC system has already achieved over 200
Development ORice. hours of operationusing coal-water fuel in a 6-cylinder
Easton Utilities, the original host, has withdrawn engine at Coopers test facilitiesin Ohio. Over 6,000
from the project after reevaluating its long-term need for hours of coal-water fuel operation in 20-cylinder engines
power. An extension to June 15,1996, has been granted are planned for this project. Demonstrationof the long-
to the participants to allow completion of activities term reliabilityof the critical componentsin the CDCC
relating to resiting the project to the University of Alaska system will provide power generatorswith an efficient
in Fairbanks. and environmentallysuperioroption for future power.

Commercial Applications:
The CDCC system is particularly suited for small (below
50 W e ) electric power generation markets. Projected
markets include small nonutility generators and repower-

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 199s 7-33


Warren Station Externally
Fired Combined-Cycle
Demonstration Project
Participant:
Pennsylvania Electric Company

Additional Team Members:


tSTACK
Hague International-technology developer and supplier
Black & Veatch-ngineer and construction manager

Location:
Warren, Warren County, PA (Pennsylvania Electric
Company's Warren Station, Unit 2)

Technology:
Hague International's externally fired combined-cycle
(EFCC) system using a novel, high-temperature,ceramic
gas-to-& heat exchanger (advanced electric power
generatiodadvanced combustionlheat engines)

Plant CapacityProduction:
62.4 MWe (net)

Project Funding:
the integration of the above with a gas turbine and a gas in the CerHx". The product gas is then passed
Total project cost $146,832,000 100%
steam turbine. through a heat recovery steam generator, where more
DOE 73,416,000 50
heat is extracted to drive a steam turbine generator and
Participant 73,416,000 50 TechnologylProject Description: produce electricity. The product gas is finally passed
In this project, an existing coal-fueled steam plant is through a gas cleanup system consisting of a flue gas
Project Objective:
being repowered by adding an extemally fired gas tur- desulfurizer and a fabric filter before exiting to the atmo-
To demonstrate an extemally fired combined-cyclesys-
bine to form a combined-cycle system. The central sphere through the stack. The hot air from the CerHx" is
tem through the use of a novel ceramic heat exchanger
feature of the EFCC is a ceramic air heater or heat ex- passed through a gas turbine to produce additional elec-
and to assess the system's environmental and economic
changer (CerHx") and an atmospheric combustor which tricity before firing the combustor.
performance for meeting future energy needs. Along
together replace a conventional combustion system in an The attractiveness of the EFCC lies in its ability to
with the heat exchanger, the system will demonstrate a
open-cycle gas turbine. eliminate the need for a hot gas cleanup system to pro-
ceramic slag screen for removal of combustion by-prod-
Coal is first combusted in a staged combustor for tect the costly gas turbine gas-path components from the
ucts from the product gas prior to entering the heat ex-
NOxcontrol. Particulate-laden gases exit the combustor corrosive and abrasive elements in the combustion prod-
changer; a staged, wet bottom, low-NOxcombustor; and
and enter the slag screen where all particles larger than uct gas. Instead, the gas turbine operates on indirectly
about 10 microns are collected. Air from the turbine heated clean air and the gas path is never exposed to the
CerHx is a registered trademark of Hague International compressor is heated by exchange with the hot product corrosive elements in the fuel or product gas. The

7-34 Program Update 1995 Advanced Electric Power Generation


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

93 8/94

restructuring

NEPA process completed (EA) 5/18/95

-ooperative agreement awarded 8/1/94


OE selected project (CCT-V) 5/4/93

CerHx" raises the temperature of the air to the turbine ing on the mine. A secondary test coal is Pennsylvania mal efficiency compared to a conventionalpulverized
inlet conditions using tube elements that are manufac- bituminous coal containing 1.6%sulfur. coal plant with a scrubber.
tured from corrosion resistant, toughened, ceramic mate- SO, is expected to be below 0.08 1 lb/million Btu,
rials. Project StatudAccomplishments: which is a reduction of over 90%for most coals. NOx
About 225,000 tons/yr of bituminous coal will be The cooperative agreement was awarded on August 1, emissions are expected to be less than 0.15 lb/million
combusted to produce 62.4 MWe. The gas turbine will 1994. Design efforts are in PrOWSS- The desi@ Perid tu and particulate emissions (pM10) are expected to be
generate 18.3 MWe with a small amount of steam has been extended because of a lack of development below 0.015 lb/million Btu.
injection and the existing steam turbine will generate progress for the externally fired technology. Options for
47.7 MWe, for a total gross output of 66 MWe. Ap- restructuring the project also are under consideration.
proximately 3.6 MWe will be consumed intemdy. The An environmental assessment was completed, and
heat rate of the demonstration facility will be 9,650 Btu/ DOE issued a finding of no significant impact on May
kWh (HHV), which is a 3 1.3%improvement over the 18, 1995.
existing Warren Station unit. Potential SOxrelease is Commercial Applications:
reduced by over 90%through capture in the flue gas The Warren Station EFCC system concept is suitable for
desulfurization system. NOxemissions are expected to new electric power generation, repowering needs, and
be below 0.13 lb/million Btu. cogeneration applications. The potential commercial
The facility being repowered is Pennsylvania Elec- market for such systems is expected to be about 24 GWe
tric Company's Warren Station Unit 2 near Warren, PA. by 2010. The net effective heat rate for a 300-MWe
The primary coal for the project is Pennsylvania bitumi- greenfield plant using this technology is projected to be
nous coal containing either 1 .O% or 2.3%sulfur, depend- 7,790 BtukWh. This represents a 20% increase in ther-

Advanced Electric Power Generation Program Update 1995 7-35


Environmental Control
Devices
Fact Sheets
Demonstration of Coal
Reburning for Cyclone Boiler
NOX Control
Project completed.

Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Additional Team Members:


Wisconsin Power and Light Company-cofunder and
host
Sargent and Lundy-engineer for coal handler
Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder
State of Illinois, Department of Energy and Natural
3-
Resources-cofunder
Utility companies (14 cyclone boiler operatorst DRY WASTE TO DISPOSAL-

cofunders

Location:
Cassville, Grant County, WI,Wisconsin Power and Light
Companys (Nelson Dewey Station, Unit No. 2)

Technology:
The Babcock & Wilcox Companyscoal-reburning achieve greater than 50% reduction in NOxemissions process occurs in the third zone, called the bumout zone,
system (environmentalcontrol devices/NOxcontrol with no serious impact on cyclone combustor operation, where the balance of the combustion air is introduced.
technologies) boiler efficiency, boiler fireside performance (corrosion The combined production of boiler slag and dry waste
and deposition), or ash removal system performance. from the electrostatic precipitator remains unchanged
Plant CapacityProduction:
with coal reburning because the required coal input for
100 MWe TechnologyProject Description: the same boiler load is the same.
The coal-reburning process reduces NOxin the fumace The coal-rebuming technology can be applied with
Project Funding:
through the use of multiple combustion zones. The main the cyclone bumers operating within their normal, non-
Total project cost $13,646,609 100%
combustion zone uses 7040% of the total heat equiva- corrosive, oxidizing conditions,thereby minimizing any
DOE 6,340,788 46
lent fuel input to the boiler and slightly less than normal adverse effects of rebum on the cyclone combustor and
Participant 7,305,821 54
combustion air input. The balance of the coal (20-30%), boiler performance.
Project Objective: along with significantlyless than the theoretically deter- This project involved retrofitting an existing
To evaluate the applicability of reburning technology for mined requirement of air, is fed to the reburning zone 100-MWe cyclone boiler that is representative of a large
reducing NOxemissions from a full-scale coal-fired above the cyclones to create an oxygen-deficientcondi- population of cyclone units. The boiler is located at
cyclone boiler, pulverizing a portion of the primary coal tion. The NOxformed in the cyclone bumers reacts with Wisconsin Power and Lights Nelson Dewey Station in
fuel to use as the secondary, reburning fuel; and to the resultant reducing flue gas and is converted into Cassville, WI.
nitrogen in this zone. The completion of the combustion
7-38 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices
Project ResultdAccomplishments: rebum zone stoichiometryis the most critical factor in Commercial Applications:
Coal-rebum tests were conducted to determine the reduc- controlling NO,. Rebum zone stoichiometrycan be The current rebum market is nearly 26,000 MWe and
tion in NO, emissions for the coal-reburningtechnology varied by altering air flow quantities to the rebum bum- consistsof about 120 units ranging from 100 MWe to
over a range of boiler loads varying from 37 MWe to ers, percent rebum heat input, flue gas recirculation flow 1,150 MWe, with most in the 100-3OO-MWerange.
118 MWe (nominal maximum boiler load is 110 M e ) . rate, or cyclone stoichiometry. Coal reburning is a retrofit technology applicable across
Two coals were tested, namely, the design Illinois Basin Burning subbituminouscoal produced lower overall the size range of utility and industrialcyclone boilers.
bituminous coal (Lamar, 1.8% sulfur) and a westem NO, emissions levels and higher NO, emissionsreduc- The principal environmentalbenefit is reduced NO,
subbituminouscoal (Powder River Basin, 0.5% sulfur). tions. This result is probably due to the higher volatile emissions. A secondarybenefit may be reduced SO,
The bituminouscoal tests evaluated a fuel typical of the content of the westem coal. The higher volatile content emissions by enabling greater use of lower sulfur westem
coals fired by utilities operating cyclones. The subbitu- generates higher concentrationsof hydrocarbonradicals coal; due to its lower Btu content, westem coals limit
minous coal tests evaluated coal switching for SO, in the rebum zone. With the rebum system contributing cyclone capacity. With the additional firing capacity of
reduction. additionalbuming capacity for the cycloneboiler, the the rebum system, full-load performanceon westem coal
As a part of the test program, several parameters lower Btu content westem fuel could be fired up to the may be possible for some cyclone units.
were optimized over the load range to achieve the opti- full boiler load rating. For cyclone boilers, coal rebuming offers a NO,
mum NO, reduction while keeping other variables, such Additionaleffects of coal reburning on the retrofitted reduction altemativeat a cost expected to be in the range
as unbumed carbon and carbon monoxide emissions, boiler follow: of f65kW for 100 Mwe units to HOkW for a larger
within reasonable limits. The optimized parameters 600 MWe unit. This includes costs for coal handling and
Loss of combustionefficiency, due to increased un-
included the split of boiler fuel between the rebum sys- pulverizerdcoalpiping. Coal's cost differential and
bumed carbon, amounted to 1.5% at full load with
tem and the cyclone bumers, the rebum bumer and the dependabilityof supply give it the long-run advantage
bituminous coal and 0.3% with subbituminouscoal.
rebum zone stoichiometries,the rebum bumer pulverized over natural gas. Another advantage of the rebum sys-
coal fineness, flue gas recirculation, and economizer The performanceof the ESP remained constant even tem is its ability to utilize different coals.
outlet 0,content. Also, adjustments were made to the though its ash loading doubled. The increased ash
rebum bumers and the over-fire air ports during the tests. consisted of larger sizes of particulates. Project Schedule:
With the Lamar coal, the boiler NOxemissions were DOE selected project ((33-II) 9/28/88
The fumace exit gas temperature decreased by more Cooperative agreement awarded 4/2/90
reduced as follows: than 100OF at full load, contrary to expectations, and NEPA process completed (EA) 2/12/91
52% (to 290 ppm or 0.394 lb/million Btu) at 110 MWe thus improved the boiler heat absorptionefficiency Environmental monitoring plan completed 11/18/9 1
correspondingly. Construction 11/90-11/91
47% (to 285 ppm or 0.387 lblmillion Btu) at 82 MWe
Slagging and fouling were significantly reduced with Operational testing 11/91-12/92
36% (325 ppm or 0.442 lb/million Btu) at 60 MWe
bituminous coal rebuming. The subbituminousrebum Project completed 3/94
With Powder River Basin coal, the NO, emissions operations were too short in duration to make a rea-
Final Reports:
were reduced as follows: sonableobservation.
Final Technical Report 2/94
62% (to 208 ppm or 0.278 lb/milliorw Btu) at 110 MWe No fumace corrosion was observed over the 1-year (includeseconomicinformation)
55% (to 215 ppm or 0.287 lb/millioii Btu) at 82 MWe test period. Public Design Report 8/9 1

53% (to 220 ppm or 0.294 lb/million Btu) at 60 MWe


Hazardous air pollutants (HAP)testing was performed
using Lamar test coal. HAP emissions were generally
Rebum testing with both coals indicated that varying well within expected levels and emissions with rebum
comparableto baseline operations.

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-39


Full-Scale Demonstration of
Low-NOX Cell Burner Retrofit
Project completed.

Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Additional Team Members:


The Dayton Power and Light Company--cofunder nd
host
Electric Power Research Instituaofunder
Ohio CoalDevelopmentOffice-cofunder
TennesseeValley Authority-funder
New England Power Company+fmder
Duke Power Company-funder
AlleghenyPower System-cofunder
CenteriorEnergyCorporation-funder

Location:
Aberdeen, Adams County, OH (Dayton Power and Light
Company's J.M. Stuar&Plant, Unit No. 4)

Technology:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company's low-NO, cell bumer large base-load coal-fired utility boiler with LNCB' gen compounds are converted to nitrogen gas, and the
(LNCFP) system (environmentalcontroldevices/No, technology; and to achieve at least a 50% NOxreduction reduced flame temperature minimizes the formation of
controltechnologies) without degradation of boiler performanceat less cost thermal NO,.
than conventional low-NO, burners. The net effect of this technology is greaterthan 50%
Plant CapacityFroduction: reduction in NOxformation with no boiler pressure part
605 MWe TechnologyFroject Description: changes and no impact on boiler operation or perfor-
The LNCB" technology replaces the upper coal nozzle of mance. In addition, the technology is compatible with
Project Funding: the standard two-nozzle cell burner with a secondary-air most commercialand emerging SO, control technologies,
Total project cost $11,233,392 100% port. The lower burner coal nozzle is enlarged to the
DOE 5,442,800 48 including confined zone dispersion,gas suspensionab-
same fuel input capacity as the two standard coal nozzles. sorption, duct injection, and advanced wet scrubbers.
Participant 5,790,592 52 The LNCB" operates on the principle of staged combus- The demonstmtion was conducted at a large-scale
Project Objective: tion to reduce NOxemissions. Approximately70% of the power plant operated by The Dayton Power and Light
To demonstratethrough the first commercial-scalefull total air (primary, secondary,and excess air) is supplied Company and jointly owned with the Cincinnati Gas and
bumer retrofit the cost-effective reduction of NOxfrom a through or around the coal-feed nozzle. The remainder Electric Company and the Columbus Southem Power
of the air is directed to the upper port of each cell to Company. The boiler unit is a Babcock & Wilcox-de-
LNCB is a registered trademark of The Babcock & Wilcox Company. complete the combustionprocess. The fuel-bound nitro- signed, supercritical, once-throughboiler equipped with

740 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


an electrostaticprecipitator. This unit contained 24 ranged from 28 to 55 ppm. Flyash unburned carbon as short as 5 weeks because of the "plug-in" design. The
two-nozzle cell burners arranged in an opposed-firing averaged 1.12%, for a 0.2% loss unburned carbon effi- LNCB" system can be installed at about half the cost and
configuration. 'helve burners (arranged in two rows of ciency. This is a 56% improvementover baseline un- outage time for other commercial low-NO, burner instal-
six burners each) were mounted on each of two opposing burned carbon losses, probably resulting from improved lations.
walls of the boiler. All 24 standard cell burners were air flow distributionachieved by the LNCB' retrofit. At Dayton Power & Light has retained the LNCB"
removed, and 24 new LNCB" were installed. Alternate reduced loads of 460 MWe and 350 MWe, the NOx burners for use in commercialoperation at the unit.
LNCB" on the bottom rows were inverted, with the air emissions reductions were 54% and 48% respectively, There have been seven commercial sales of LNCB"
port then being on the bottom to insure complete com- and CO emissions and unburned carbon values were burners.
bustion in the lower furnace. commrablewith baseline emissions.
Long-term NO, emissionsdata were accumulated Project Schedule:
Project ResultdAccomplishmenb: DOE selected project (CCT-III) 12/19/89
using- a third-uarty
- - continuous emissions monitor over an Cooperative agreement awarded 10/11/90
The initial test results on the LNCB" were disappointing. 8-month test period that followed the parametric and
Reducing gases containing high concentrationsof carbon ootimizah 'on test mriods. On davs when the boiler was NEPA process completed 0 8/10/90
-r K

- 8/9/91
~

monoxide and hydrogen sulfide accumulatedin the lower oDeratine at 590 MWe or above, and with all mills in Environmental monitoring plan completed
furnace below the burners, and the NOx emissionsreduc- &vice, NOxemissions averaged 0.49 lb/millionBtu, a construction 9/91-11/91
tion was only about 35%. By numerically modelling 58% reduction from baseline emissions. This data set operational testing 12/91493
several possible burner configurations,Babcock & Wil- covered 79 days. Project completed 12/95
cox was able to select an optimum new burner arrange- Overall unit efficiencyremainedessentiallyun- Final Reports:
ment. On the lower row of burners, alternate LNCB" changed from baseline to optimized LNCB" burner Final TechnicalRemrt 12/95
were inverted so that the air ports integral to thesebum- operation. The demonstrationboiler is operating at a (includeseconomicinformation
ers directed air into the lower furnace. Also, a design lower overall excess air since the optimization testing, and corrosiontest results)
change for the burners' coal impellers increased the NOx which has reduced the dry gas loss and increased the Public Design Report 8/91
reduction to above the design goal. boilerefficiencyslightly.
The LNCBBdemonstrationemphasized evaluation A corrosiontest panel was installed when the
of boiler performance,boiler life, and environmental LNCB" burner were installed. The panel consisted of
impact. Key boiler performanceparameters included SA-213T2bare tube material with some of this material
boiler output (steam temperatures); flue gas temperatures aluminized some stainlessweld overlaid, and some
at the furnace,economizer, and air heat exits; the chromized. The level of corrosion is roughly equivalent
slagging tendencies of the unit; and unburned carbon to the boiler's comsion prior to the retrofit. The coated
losses. Boiler life potentials (corrosion tendencies) were materials had no loss.
measured by gas sampling for high YS concentrations in The LNCB" project received the 1994 R&D 100
the furnace,ultrasonic testing of lower furnace tube Award for technical excellence in a new commercial
walls, and destructive examination of a corrosiontest product.
panel. Environmentally,NOx,CO, CO,, total hydrocar-
bons, and particulate matter were measured at varying Commercial Applications:
test conditions. The low cost and short outage time for retrofit make the
At full load (605 W e ) with all mills in service, LNCB" design attractive. 'Qpically, the retrofit capital-
average NO, emissions were 0.53 lb/million Btu, a cost will be $5.50-$8.00/kW in 1993 dollars, based upon
54.4% reduction from the baseline. CO emissions DOES 500-MWe reference unit. The outage time can be

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-41


Evaluation of Gas Reburning
and Low-NO, Burners on a
Wall-Fired Boiler
Project completed.

Participant:
Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Corporation

Additional Team Members:


Public Service Company of Coloradwofunder and host
Gas Research Institute-cofunder
Colorado InterstateGas Company-+ofunder
Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder

Location:
Denver, Adams County, CO (Public ServiceCompany of
ColoradosCherokee Station,Unit No. 3) v
ASH
Technology:
Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Corporationsgas
reburning and low-NOxburner (GR-LNB) system
(environmentalcontrol devices/NOxcontroltechnologies)

Plant CapacityProduction:
TechnologyProject Description: The project site is Public ServiceCompany of
172 MWe
Gas reburning involves firing natural gas (up to 20% of Colorados Cherokee Station, Unit No. 3, in Denver, CO.
Project Funding: total fuel input) above the main coal combustion zone in a This project combines gas reburning and low-NOxbum-
Total project cost $17,807,258 100% boiler. This upper-level firing creates a slightly fuel-rich ers on a 172-MWe wall-fired utility boiler. Westem
DOE 8,895,790 50 zone. NOxdrifting upward from the lower region of the bituminous coals containing0.35466% sulfur were
Participant 8,911,468 50 fumace is rebumed in this zone and converted to mo- used in this demonstration.
lecular nitrogen. Low-NOxbumers positioned in the coal
Project Objective: combustion zone retard the production of NOxby staging
To attain up to a 70% decrease in the emissionsof NO, the burning process so that the coal-air mixture can be
from an existing wall-firedutility boiler firing low-sulfur carefully controlled at each stage. The synergisticeffect
coal using both gas reburning and low-NOxbumers. of adding a reburning stage to wall-fired boilers equipped
with low-NOxburners bwers NOxemissionsby up to
70%. Gas reburning was demonstrated with and without
the use of recirculated flue gas, on a gadgas firing mode
and with optimized ov& air.

7-42 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project Results/Accomplishments: Specific features of this technology that increaseits Final Reports:
Parametric and long-term testing was conducted from potential for commercializationare that it can be retrofit- Final Technical Report 2/96
October 1992to January 1994 achieving over 4,000 ted to existing units, duces NO, emissions by 70%or EconomicEvaluationReport 4/96
hours of operation. The results showed that for the first more, is suitable for use with a wide range of coals, has Public Design Report 4/96
generation GR-LNB, average NO, reductions of 37% the potentialto improve boiler operability and reduce the
(0.46 lblmillion Btu) was achieved with the LNB alone cost of electricity,consists of commerciallyavailable
and 65%(0.26 lbimillion Btu) with GR--LNB at an aver- components, and requires minimal space.
age gas input of 18%of total heat input. The second Current estimates indicate that about 35 existing
generation system shows average NO, reductions of 37% wall-firdutility installations,plus industrialboilers,
for LNB and 64% for GR-LNJ3 at an average gas heat could make immediateuse of this technology. The tech-
input of 13%. The boiler efficiency decreased by ap- nology would apply to retrofit, repowering or to new,
proximately 1% during gas reburning due to moisture in greenfield installations. There is no known limit to the
the fuel and an increase in heat loss due to moisture size or scope of the applicationof this technology combi-
formed in combustion. There was no measurableboiler nation. Presently,the largest existing utility boiler is
tube wear resulting from GR-LNB operation and, in estimated at about 1,300 M e . The GR-LNB combina-
general, the tubes were free from slagging. tion could be applied directly to this size boiler because
Based on the demonstrationand the data collected, the equipment is an integral part of the unit. For this
the technology can be applied to utility and industrial reason, GR-LNB is expected to be less capital intensive,
units. The participant expects that most GR-LNB instal- or less costly, than a scrubber,selectivecatalytic reduc-
lations will achieve 60% NOxreductions when firing 10- tion, or other technology approaches. GR-LNB func-
15% gas. The capital cost for units of 100 Mwe or larger tions equally well with any kind of coal. NO, emissions
is in the range of $15kW plus the cost a4 a gas pipeline. are reduced with intemally staged low-NO, bumers,
Operatingcosts are almost entirely related to the differen- followed by gas rebuming. As a side benefit, S0,is
tial cost of gas over coal as reduced by tRe value of SO, decreased in direct proportion to the amount of natural
emissions credits. gas that is substituted for coal.
The Public Service Company of Colorado retained
the gas-reburningsystem and associated controls. The Project Schedule:
low-NO, burners were also retained and repaired to DOE selected project (CCT-III) 1Ul9/89
reduce carbon-in-ash levels and thus improve the eco- Cooperative agreement awarded 10/31/90
nomic performanceof the unit. The flue gas recirculation Environmentalmonitoring plan completed 7/26/90
system was removed. NEPA process completed 0 9/6/90
Construction 6191-6/92
Commercial Applications: Operationaltesting 10192-1 195
Gas reburning in combination with low-NO, burners is Restorationcompleted 1 1/95
applicableto wall-fired utility and industrialboilers. The Project completed 6/96
technology can be used in new and pre-NSPS wall-fired
boilers.

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-43


Micronized Coal Reburning
Demonstration for NOx
Control
Participants:
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation

Additional Team Members:


Eastman Kodak Company-host and cofunder
Consol- tester
D.B. Riley-technology supplier
Fuller Company-technology supplier
Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Corporation-
rebum system designer

Locations:
Lansing, Tompkins County, NY (New York State Electric
& Gas CorporationsMilliken Station,Unit 1)
Rochester, Monroe County, NY (Eastman Kodak
CompanysUtility Power House, Unit 15)

Technology:
Advanced NOxcontrol using D.B. Rileys MIS mill and
Fullers MicroMillm technologiesfor producing
micronizedcoal (environmental- control devices/NOx Project Objective: conventional pulverized coal because heat rate, carbon
controltechnologies) To reduce NOxemissionsby 5040% using micronized loss, boiler efficiency,and NOxformation are affectedby
coal as the reburning fuel combined with advancedcoal- coal fineness.
Plant CapacityProduction: rebumingtechnology. The combinationof micronized coal, supplying30%
148 W e (Milliken Station); 50 MWe (Eastman Kodak of the total furnace fuel requirements, and advanced
Company) TechnologylProject Description: reburningutilizing that requirementin conjunctionwith
The rebuming coal, which can comprise up to 30% of the fueYair staging, provides flexibleoptionsfor significant
Project Funding: total fuel, is micronized (80% below 325 mesh) and combustionoperations and environmentalimprovements.
Total project cost $9,096,486 100% injected into a pulverized-coal-fhd furnaceabove the These options can prevent higher operating costs or
DOE 2,701,011 30 main burner, the region where NOxformation occurs. furnace performancederating often associated with con-
Participant 6,395,475 70 Micronized coal has the surface area and combus- ventionalenvironmentalcontrols.
tion characteristicsof an atomized oil flame,which al- New York State Electric & Gas Milliken Station,
lows carbon conversion within millisecondsand release Unit 2, a 148-MWe tangentially fired boiler, is one host
of volatiles at a more even rate. This uniform, compact site, and Eastman Kodak Utility Power House Unit 15, a
combustion envelope allows for complete combustion of 50-MWe cyclone boiler, is the other host site. The
MicmMdl is a trademark of the Fuller Company. the coal/& mixture in a smaller furnacevolume than Milliken site will use the D.B. Riley M P S mill with dy-

7-44 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2ooo 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/91 7/92 4/96 4/99


I Preaward

tDOE selected
p a & (CCT-IV Injector testing completed (Lansing) 10198'
9112/91
Ground breaking/construction statted. Operation completed (Rochester) 12/97.
Injector testing s t a d (Lansing) 10197'
Environmental monitoring plan completed (Lansing) 4/96.
Construction completed (Lansing) 10197'
CCOFA rebum testing started (Lansing) 4/96.
CCOFA rebum testing completed (Lansing) 10197'

EPA proces~completed (CX) 8/13/92


tperative agreement awarded 7/26/92
~~dbreaking/- . start@
(Rochester) 9/96
Design completed (Rochester) 9/96'
I jperation initiated (Rochester) 1197.
Preoperationaltests initiated (Rochester) 1197.
Environmental monitoring plan completed (Rochester) 12/96' 'Projected date
Construction completed (Rochester) 12/96'

namic classifiersto produce the micronized coal. The The project has been restructured to include two their maximum continuous rating. NO, emissions
coal will be reburned for N0,control using two methods. sites, Milliken Stationnear Lansing,NY,and Eastman reductions will enable lost capacity to be restored,
One method is close-coupledoverfire air (CCOFA) Kodak Company in Rochester, NY. The revised project creating a very economic source of generation. For both
reburning in which the top burner of the existing Low- will accomplish the original project objectives plus bring retrofit and greenfield facilities, reburn burners also can
NO,Concentric Firing System (LNCFSW) burners are additionaltechnologiesinto the project serve as low-load burners, and commercial units can
used for burning the micronized coal and the remaining achieve a turndown of 8: 1 on nights and weekends
burners are re-aimed. The second method is more stan- Commercial Applications: without consuming expensive auxiliary fuel. Existing
dard and will use injectorsto input micronized coal into Micronizdaal-reburning technologycan be applied to pulverizers can be operated on a variety of coals with
the boiler. At the Eastman Kodak site, the Fuller existing and greenfield cyclone-fired, wall-fired and improved performance. The combination of micronized-
MicroMillm will be used to produce the micronizedcoal, tangential-firedpulverizedcoal units. The technology coal-reburning fuel and better pulverizer performance
and injectors or burners, depending on boiler characteris- reduces NOxemissionsby 50450% with minimal furnace will increase overall pulverized-fuel surface area for
tics, will be used for the reburning. Overfire air also will modificationsfor existing units. For greenfield units, the better carbon burnout.
be installed. Both the injectorshurnersand the overfire technology can be designed as an integral part of the This demonstration will provide methods for NO,
air will be installedat the optimum point (downstreamof system. Either way, the technology enhances boiler
control at a low capital cost for utilities and industrial
the cyclone burners. performancewith the improved burning characteristicsof users to meet the current and upcoming NOxregulations.
micronized coal. About 25% of the more than 1,OOO Utilities that install low-NOxburners to meet CAAA
Project StatudAccomplishments: existing units could benefit from use of this technology.
Title I requirements and must also meet Title IV
Due to plant problems and operationaland environmental The availability of a coal-reburning fuel, as an requirements will have a low-cost option to choose.
strategy changes, the original host site, the Tennessee additional fuel to the fumace, solves several problems Industrial users being pressured by states to reduce NOx
Valley Authority's Shawnee Fossil Plant, was no longer concurrently. Existing units unable to switch fuels also will be provided a low-cost option, particularly
suitable to demonstratethe technology. because of limited mill capacity would be able to reach cyclone users who are without low-NO, burners.

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-45


Demonstration of Advanced
Combustion Techniques for a
Wall-Fired Boiler
Participant:
Southem Company Services,Inc.

Additional Team Members:


Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder
Foster WheelerEnergy Corporation-technology
supplier
GeorgiaPower Company-host

Location:
Coosa, Floyd County, GA (Georgia Power Companys
Plant Hammond, Unit No. 4)

Technology:
Foster Wheelers low-NOxbumer (LNB) with advanced
overfireair (AOFA) (environmentalcontrol devices/NOx
controltechnologies) t
ASH
Plant CapacitylProduction:
500 MWe
TechnologylProject Description: utilities indicate that LNB technology is capable of reduc-
Project Funding:
AOFA involves (1) improving the mixing of overfireair ing NOxemissionsby about 45%.
Total project cost $14,7 10,909 100%
with the furnace gases to achieve complete combustion, Based on earlier experience, the use of AOFA in
DOE 6,553,526 45
(2) depleting the air from the burner zone to minimize conjunction with LNB can reduce NOxemissions by as
Participant 8,157,383 55
NOxformation, and (3) supplying air over furnace wall much as 65% compared with conventional burners.
(Of the total project cost, $523,680 are for toxics testing.)
tube surfaces to prevent slagging and fumace corrosion. The demonstrationis located at the Georgia Power
Project Objective: The AOFA technique is expected to reduce NOxemis- Companys Plant Hammond, Unit No. 4. The boiler is a
To achieve 50% NOxreduction with the AOFALNB sions by about 35%. nominal 5OO-MWepulverized coal, wall-fired unit, which
system; to determine the contributionsof AOFA and the In an LNB, fuel and air mixing is controlled to pre- is representative of most of the existing pre-NSPS wall-
LNB to NOxreduction and the parameters determining clude the formation of NOx. This is accomplishedby fired utility boilers in the United States. The project also
optimum AOFALNB system performance; and to assess regulating the initial fuel-air mixture, velocities, and includesinstallationand testing of an advanceddigital
the long-term effects of AOFA, LNB, and combined turbulence to create a fuel-rich flame core and by control- control system that optimizes LNB/AOFA performance
AOFALNB and advanced digital controls on NOxreduc- ling the rate at which additional air required to complete using artificialintelligence techniques. The project is
tion and boiler performance. combustion is mixed with the flame solids and gases so using bituminous coal containing 3%sulfur.
as to maintain a deficiency of oxygen. s p i c a l results for

7-46 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/88
I Preaward
12/89
I
I
Design and Construction
6/90
I Owration
9/96
I

1
t T '1
DOE selected
project (CCT-II)
9/28/88

NEPA process
completed (MTF)
W 8 9
T'
L
Operation initiated, LNB 4/91
Constructioncompleted, LNB 4/91

Constructionstarted, LNB 3/91


Operation completed, AOFA 3/91
Environmental monitoring plan completed 9/14/90
Operation initiated, AOFA 6/90
onstruction completed, AOFA 5/90
'I
&ration
tProject completed/final report
issued 9/96'
Operation completed, LNWAOFA with digital
control system 12/95
Operation initiated, LNB/AOFA with digital control system 6/94
O p e r a t i completed, LNBIAOFA 8/93
initiated, LNB/AOFA 5/93

peration completed, LNB 1/92


onstruction started, AOFA 4/90
Design impleted 3/90
'Projected date
ooperative agreement awarded 1W 8 9

Project StatudAccomplishmentsi ever, preliminary analysis of emissions data suggests that Commercial Applications:
Baseline, AOFA, LNB, and LNBIAOFA test segments the incremental NOxreduction effectiveness of the AOFA The technology is applicable in the United States for
have been completed. Analysis of more than 80 days of system (beyond the use of the LNB) was approximately retrofitting the 422 existing pre-NSPS wall-fired boilers;
AOFA operating data has provided statistically reliable 17%with additional reductions resulting from other op- these boilers bum a variety of coals, including bitumi-
results indicating that, depending upon load, NOxreduc- erationalchanges. nous, subbituminous, and lignite coal.
tions of 24% are achievable under normal long-term The digital control system became operational in Commercializationof the technology will be aided
operation. Analysis of the 94 days of LNB long-term mid- 1994, and installation of the artificialintelligence by the following characteristics: reduced NOxemissions
data collected show the full-load NOxemission levels to software package for optimizing NOxreduction and boiler by as much as 65%; competitive capital and operating
be approximately0.65 IbImillion Btu. This NOxlevel efficiency is nearly complete. Short- and long-term test costs; relatively easy retrofit; little or no derating of the
represents a 48% reduction when compared to the data are being used to train the neural network combus- boiler; use of commerciallyavailable components;and
baseline, full-load value of 1.23 lb/million Btu. These tion models. However, the unit was taken off line in the automaticcontrol of boiler efficiency and maximum
reductions were sustainable over the long-term test pe- fall of 1995, due to low electricity demand. Testing will pollution abatementthrough use of artificial intelligence
riod and were consistent over the entire Road range. Full- commenceupon resumptionof unit operation. technologyin conjunctionwith a digital control system.
load, flyash loss-on-ignitionvalues in the LNB configura- Pre-retrofit LNB air toxics testing was performed to
tion were near 8%. compared to 5% for baseline. Initial establish a baseline. Additional air toxics testing with the
results from the LNBIAOFA testing indicate that full- combined LNB/AOFA configuration has been completed.
load NOxemissions are approximately0.41 lb/million A report on this work was issued the end of December
Btu with a correspondingflyash loss-on-ignitionvalue of 1993.
nearly 8%. Full-load, long-term NOxemission reductions
in the LNB/AOFA configuration are abcat 63%. How-

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-47


BOILER
Demonstration of Selective
Catalytic Reduction
Technology for the Control
of NO Emissions from High-
Sulfu6Coal-Fired Boilers
Project completed.
COAL
Participant: AIR

Southern Company Services,Inc.

Additional Team Members:


Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder
Ontario Hydm-cofunder
Gulf Power Company-host

Location:
Pensacola, Escambia County, FL (Gulf Power
CompanysPlant Crist, Unit 4)

Technology: TO DISPOSAL
=a
Selectivecatalyticreduction (SCR) (environmental
controldevices/NOxcontroltechnologies)

Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProject Description: The project is demonstrating,at high- and low-dust
8.7-MWe equivalent (three 2.5-MWe and six 0.2-MWe The SCR technology consistsof injectingammoniainto loadings of flue gas, the applicabilityof SCR technology
equivalent SCR reactor plants) boiler flue gas and passing it through a catalyst bed to provide a cost-effective means of reducing NOxemis-
where the NOxand ammonia react to form nitrogen and sions from power plants burning U.S. high-sulfur coal.
Project Funding:
water vapor. The demonstrationplant, located at Gulf Power
Total project cost $23,229,729 100%
In this demonstrationproject, the SCR facility con- CompanysPlant Crist near Pensacola, FL, utilizes flue
DOE 9,406,673 40
sists of three 2.5-MWe-equivalent SCR reactors, sup- gas from the burning of principally Illinois No. 5 coal
Participant 13,823,056 60
plied by separate 5,000 std ft3/minflue gas slipstreams, with approximately3% sulfur under various NOxand
Project Objective: and six 0.20-We-equivalent SCR reactors. These particulatelevels.
To evaluatethe performanceof commerciallyavailable reactors were calculated to be large enough to produce
SCR catalysts when applied to operating conditions design data that will allow the SCR process to be scaled
found in U.S. pulverized coal-fired utility boilers using up to commercial size. Catalyst suppliers (two U.S.,two
U.S. high-sulfur coal under various operating conditions European, and two Japanese) provided eight catalysts
while achieving as much as 80% NOxremoval. with various shapes and chemical compositionsfor evalu-
ation of process chemistry and economicsof operation
during the operation.

7-48 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project ResuItdAccomplishments: market for SCR technology is 154,560 MWe
Preliminarydesign engineeringfor the SCR test facility (642 boilers). In addition,SCR technology could be
was concluded at the end of February 1991. Construc- applicable to 34,700 MWe (70 boilers) of new firm
tion began in late-March 1992; a dedicaticw ceremony (i.e., announced, sited, and committedin terms of service
was held on July 1,1992. Detailed engineering was date or under construction)and 144,500 MWe (290 boil-
completed in December 1992. Flue gas was first passed ers) of planned dry-bottom electric generating capacity in
through the SCR facility during equipment checkout on the United States.
January 10,1993. Construction was completed in Febru-
ary 1993. Commissioningtests without catalystsbegan Project Schedule:
the first week of March 1993, and the 2-year-long opera- DOE selected project (CCr-II) 9/28/88
tions phase began on July 1,1993. NEPA process completed (MTF) 8/16/89
Upon completionof the initial parametric testing in Cooperative agreement awarded 6/14/90
December 1993, baseline ammonia slip measurements Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 3111/93
were repeated. These tests were completed during De- Construction 3/92-2/93
cember 1993 and the results indicate all catalysts were Operationaltesting 7193-7/95
performing well at the targeted NOxremoval rates with Projectcompleted 6/96
slip less than 2 ppm under baseline conditions (80% NOx
removal) and in many cases the measured slip was below Final Reports:
the 1ppm detection limit Final TechnicalReport 6/96
Results of parametric tests through December 1994 EconomicEvaluationReport 6/96
indicated that the eight different catalysts (seven high Public Design Report 6/96
dust and one low dust), supplied by six different compa-
nies, performed within or exceeded designed specifica-
tions, both with respect to activity and life. However,
differenceshave been noted in NOxreduction activity,
SO, oxidation, physical fouling, and pressure drop.

Commercial Applications:
SCR technologycan be applied to existing and new
utility applicationsfor removal of NOxfrom flue gas for
virtually any size boiler. There are approximately
1,041 coal-fired utility boilers in active commercial ser-
vice in the United States; these boilers represent a total
generating capacity of 296,000 MWe. Assuming that
SCR technologyis installed on dry-bottomboilers that
are not equipped with low-NOxcombustion technologies
(i.e., low-NOxbumers, overfire air, and atmospheric
fluidized-bedcombustion),the potential total retrofit

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-49


180-MWe Demonstration of
Advanced Tangentially Fired
Combustion Techniques for the
Reduction of NO, Emissions
from Coal-Fired Boilers
Project completed.

Participant:
Southern Company Services, Inc.

Additional Team Members:


Gulf Power Company-cofunder and host
Electric Power Research Institute-cofunder
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.-cofunder and
technology supplier

Location:
Lynn Haven, Bay County, FL (Gulf Power Companys
Plant Lansing Smith, Unit No. 2)
ASH
Technology:
ABB Combustion Engineerings Low-NOxConcentric
Firing System (LNCFSm) with advanced overfire air
Project Objective: highest coal nozzle with an air nozzle immediatelybe-
(AOFA), clustered coal nozzles, and offset air
To demonstrate in a stepwise fashion the short- and low it. This configuration provides the NOxreducing
(environmentalcontrol devices/NOxcontrol
long-term NOxreduction capabilitiesof Low-NOxCon- advantages of an overfire air system without pressure
technologies)
centric Firing System Levels I, II,and III on a single part modifications to the boiler.
Plant CapacityProduction: reference boiler under typical dynamic operating condi- In LNCFS Level 11, a separated overfire air (SOFA)
180 W e tions, and evaluate the cost effectiveness of each system is used. This advanced overfire air system has
low-NOxcombustion technique. backpressuring and flow measurement capabilities. The
Project Funding: air supply ductwork for the SOFA is taken off from the
Total project cost $9,153,383 100% Technology/Project Description: secondary air duct and routed to the comers of the fur-
DOE 4,440,184 49 Three different low-NOxcombustion technologies for nace above the existing windbox. The inlet pressure to
Participant 4,713,199 51 tangentially fired boilers were demonstrated. The con- the SOFA system can be increased above windbox pres-
cept of overfire air was demonstratedin all of these sys- sure using dampers downstreamof the takeoff in the
tems. In LNCFS Level I, a close-coupled overfire air secondary air duct. Operating at a higher pressure in-
(CCOFA) system is integrated directly into the windbox creases the quantity and injection velocity of the overfire
of the boiler. Compared to the baseline windbox configu- air into the fumace. A multicell venturi is used to
LNCFS is a trademark of ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. ration, LNCFS Level I is arranged by exchanging the

7-50 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


-

IO-MWe Demonstration of Gas


Suspension Absorption
Project completed.

Participant:
AirPol, Inc.

Additional Team Members:


FLS miljo a/s (parent company of AirPol, Inc).-
technology owner
TeMeSSee Valley Authority--cofunder and site owner

Location:
West Paducah, McCracken County, KY (Tennessee
Valley AuthoritysCenter for Emissions Research)

Technology:
FLS miljo a/s Gas Suspension Absorption (GSA)
system for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) (environmental
controldevices/SO, controltechnologies)
+
DRY ASH
SLUICE TO
ASH POND

Plant CapacitylProduction:
10-MWe equivalent slipstream of flue gas from a
150-MWe boiler
TechnologyDroject Description: device are combined and disposed of in an existing site
Project Funding: The GSA system consists of a vertical reactor in which disposal area.
Total project cost $7,7 17,189 100% flue gas comes into contact with suspended solids con- GSA can remove in excess of 90%of the SO, as
DOE 2,315,259 30 sisting of lime, reaction products, and fly ash. About well as increaselime utilization efficiency with solids
Participant 5,401,930 70 99% of the solids are recycled to the reactor via a cyclone recycle.
while the exit gas stream passes through an electrostatic This project is located at the Center for Emissions
Project Objective: precipitator (ESP)before being released to the atmos- Research, utibing a 10-MWe slipstream of flue gas from
To demonstratethe applicability of Gas SuspensionAb- phere. The lime slurry, prepared from hydrated lime, is a 150-MWecoal-fired boiler at the Tennessee Valley
sorption for flue gas desulfurizationusing high-sulfur injected through a spray nozzle at the bottom of the reac- Authoritys ShawneeFossil Plant in West Paducah, KY.
U.S.coals by installing and testing a 10-MWe GSA tor. The volume of lime slurry is regulated with a vari- A westem Kentucky coal containing about 3% sulfur was
demonstrationsystem. able-speed pump controlled by the measurementof the used.
acid content in the inlet and outlet gas streams. The
dilution water added to the lime slurry is controlled by Project ResuItdAccomplishments:
on-line measurementsof the flue gas exit temperature. Optimizationtesting was conducted to determine the
Solids collected from the cycloneand particulate control effect of the process design variables on the SO, removal
efficiency in the reactorlcycloneand the ESP. The testing

7-52 Program Update 199s Environmental Control Devices


indicated that the order of importanceof the key variables 300-MWe boiler burning a coal containing 2.6%sulfur. in the United States as well as the world's first GSA unit
is (1) CdS, (2) approach-to-adiabatic-saturationtem- The design SO, removal efficiency was 90%. The result- for a coal-fired boiler. The GSA technology was identi-
perature, and (3) coal chloride content. ing capital cost estimate (in 1990 $) is $149kW for GSA fied as the least-cost alternativefor the city to meet
The SO, removal efficiencyfor the overall system as compared to $216/kWfor a wet limestone, forced- CAAA compliancerequirementsfor 1997.
ranged from slightly more than 60%to nearly 95%, oxidation (WLFO) scrubbing system. The levelized In addition, FLS miljo has been awarded a major
depending on the specific test conditions. The lower SO, annual revenue requirementfor the GSA process is lower project in Sweden for a high-performanceGSA system to
removal efficiency levels were achieved at the higher than that for the WLFO system, but the difference is only remove sulfurfrom the flue gas of a Cmillion-tonlyear
approach-to-saturationtemperature (28 OF), the lower about 20%(which is not considered to be significant iron ore sinter plant. Sweden's stringentstandards re-
lime stoichiometrylevel (CdS of 1.00),and lower coal given the limitationson the accuracy of estimatesused in quire an SO, removal efficiency of 90-95%.
chloride level (0.02-0.04%). The higher SO, removal the analysis). The principal annual operating cost for the The GSA should fulfill the need of the utility indus-
efficiency levels were achieved at the closer approach-to- GSA process is the cost of the pebble lime. The 15-year try to meet the new SO, emission standard as set forth by
saturation temperatures (8 and 18 OF), the higher lime levelized costs in millskwh for the two systems are the CAAA of 1990. Based on a comparison of GSA
stoichiometrylevel (CdS of 1.30), and higher coal chlo- listedbelow: capital and operating costs with other FGD processes, the
ride level (0.12%). Most of the SO, removal in the GSA GSA WLFO GSA is especially suited for 50-250-MWe utility plants.
system occurred in the reactor/cyclone,with only about Fixed costs 2.3 2.81 Simplicity in GSA design and operationplus modest
2-5% of the overall removal occumng in the ESP. Variable costs 3.1 2.93 space requirements make GSA ideal for retrofitting to
Results of a 4-week around-the-clockdemonstration Capital costs 59 zur existing plants as well as for greenfield plants. One
run of the GSA system with the ESP indicatedthat the Total 10.4 13.04 major advantage of the GSA, as compared to other semi-
GSNESP is capable of consistently maintaining 90%or dry scrubbing processes, is that operation of the GSA
better SO, removal at a moderate lime requirement. A Commercial Applications: will not result in excessive dust loading to the gas stream,
14-day pulse jet baghouse (PJBH) run was successfully The GSA process offers severaladvantages over conven- thus minimizing the cost for upgrading the existing dust
completed in March 1994. SO, removal efficiency in the tional FGD technologies: (1) GSA is 30%cheaper than collector. The potential market for the GSA is estimated
GSARJBH system averaged more than 95%during the wet FGD and 20%cheaper than spray drying; (2) GSA is at $300 million within the next 20 years.
demonstration;this was typically about 3-5 percentage much simpler to build and operate than wet FGD and
points higher than that achieved in the GSA/ESP system regenerable processes and requires much less space; Project Schedule:
at the same test conditions. (3) space requirements,operability, and ease of installa- DOE selected project (CCT-111) 12/19/89
The project demonstrated a number of key technical tion are comparableto spray dryers and duct injection; NEPA process completed (MTF) 9/21/90
attributes, including a simple and direct method of lime/ and (4) the SO, removal capability (90%)compares to Cooperative agreement awarded 10/11/90
solid recirculation, high acid gas adsorption, low lime that of wet FGD and the regenerable processes. This Construction 5/92-9192
consumptionwith minimal waste by-product residue, low high removal rate makes the GSA process suitable for Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 10/2/92
maintenanceoperation, no internalbuildup, and reduced use with high-Sulfur coal. Operationaltesting 10/92-3/94
space requirement. In addition, the project demonstrated Successfultesting of the AirPol demonstration Project completed 6/95
that a pulse jet baghouse system improved SO, removal project has resulted in a commercialapplication in Ohio.
The city of Hamilton, OH, received a $5-million grant Final Reports:
efficiency by about 3-5 percentage points. Also, air
from the Ohio Coal DevelopmentOffice to install the Final Project Performance and Economic Report 1/95
toxics testing showed that a removal rate of over 95%
GSA technologyto control emissions from a 50-MWe Air Toxics CharacterizationFinal Report 3/95
could be achieved by the GSA.
coal-fired boiler at the city's municipal power plant. The Public Design Report 6/95
The relative process economics far the GSA system
were evaluated for a moderately difficult retrofit to a new system is scheduledto be operationalin August
1996 and will be the first full-scalecommercial GSA unit

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-53


Confined Zone Dispersion
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Demonstration
Project completed.

Participant:
- BOILER

BechtelCorporation

Additional Team Members:


PennsylvaniaElectric Company-cofunder and host
PennsylvaniaEnergy DevelopmentAuthority-ofunder
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation-cofunder
RockwellLime Company-cofunder

Location:
Seward, Indiana County, PA (PennsylvaniaElectric
Companys Seward Station, Unit No. 5) SOLID WASTE

Technology:
Bechtel Corporationsin-duct, confined zone dispersion SOLID WASTE TO DISPOSAL
flue gas desulfurization (CZDFGD) process
(environmentalcontrol devicedS0, control technologies)

Plant CapacitylProduction:
TechnologyProject Description: alternative to conventionalFGD processes, requiring less
73.5 Mwe
In Bechtels CZDFGD process, a finely atomized slurry physical space and lower capital, operating, and mainte-
Project Funding: of reactive lime is sprayed into the flue gas stream be- nance costs.
Total project cost* $10,411,600 100% tween the boiler air heater and the electrostatic precipita- This project includesinjectionof different types of
DOE 5,205,800 50 tor (ESP). The lime slurry is injected into the center of sorbents (dolomiticand calcitic limes) with several atom-
Participant 5,205,800 50 the duct by spray nozzles designed to produce a cone of izer designs using low- and high-sulfurcoals to verify the
fine spray. As the spray moves downstream and ex- effects on SO, removal and the capability of the ESP to
Project Objective: pands, the gas within the cone cools and the SO, is rap- control particulates. The demonstrationis located at
To demonstrate SO, removal capabilitiesof in-duct idly absorbed in the liquid droplets. The droplets mix PennsylvaniaElectric Companys Seward Stationin
CZDFGD technology; specifically,to define the opti- with the hot flue gas, and the water evaporates rapidly. Seward, PA. One-half of the flue gas capacity of the
mum process operating parameters and to determine Fast drying precludes wet particle buildup in the duct and 147-MWe Unit No. 5 is being routed through a modified,
CZDFGDs operability,reliability,and cost-effectiveness aids the flue gas in carrying the dry reaction products and longer duct between the first- and second-stageESPs.
during long-term testing and its impact on downstream the unreacted lime to the ESP. Pennsylvaniabituminous coal (approximately1.2-2.5%
operations and emissions. The CZDFGD process is expected to remove up to sulfur) is being used in the project.
*Additional project overrun costs were funded 100% by the participant 50%of the SO, emissions from coal-- boilers. If
for a final total project cost of $12,173,000. successfully demonstrated,this technology would be an

7-54 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project Results/Accomplishmentts: fitted with CZD/FGD for a 50% rate of SO, removal,
Bechtel began its 1 8-month,two-part test program for the the total capital cost is estimated to be less than
CZD process in July 1991. The first 12 months of the $30kW.
test program consisted primarily of parametric testing.
Bechtel notified DOE on June 30,1993, that it was
The latter 6-monthsinvolvedcontinuousoperational
discontinuingthe demonstrationproject effective July 1,
testing with the system being operated under fully auto-
1993.
matic control by the host utility boiler operators. The
new atomizing nozzles were thoroughly tested both Commercial Applications:
outside and inside the duct prior to testing. The lime CZD can be used for retrofit of existing and installationin
slurry injection parametric test program, which began in new utility boiler flue gas facilitiesto remove SO, de-
October 1991, was completed in August 1992. rived from a wide variety of sulfur-containingcoals.
In summary, the demonstration showed the A CZD system can be added to a utility boiler with a
following: capital investment of about $25-50kW of installedca-
A 50% SO, removal efficiency with CZDFGD is pacity, or approximatelyone-fourth the cost of building a
conventional wet scrubber. In addition to low capital
possible, and continuous operation at removal rates
lower than 50%can be maintainedover long periods cost, other advantages include small space requirements,
without significant process problems. ease of retrofit, low energy requirements,fully automated
operation, and productionof only nontoxic, disposable
The process requires that drying and SO, absorption waste. The CZD technology is particularly well suited
take place within 2 seconds. A long and straight for retrofitting existing boilers, independentof type, age,
horizontal gas duct of about 100 feet is required to or size. The CZD installationdoes not require major
assure residence time of 2 seconds. power station alterations and can be easily and economi-
During normal operations, no deposits of fly ash or cally integrated into existing power plants.
reaction products took place in the flue gas duct. Project Schedule:
The fully automatedsystem, fully integrated with DOE selected project (CCT-III) 12/19/89
power plant operation, demonstratedthat the Cooperative agreement awarded 10/13/90
CZDFGD process responded well to automated NEPA process completed (MTF) 9/25/90
controloperation. Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 6/12/91
Construction 3/91 4 91
Availability of the system was very good.
Operationaltesting 71914/93
At Seward Station, stack opacity W ~ I Snot detrimen- Project discontinued 7/93
tally affected by the CZDFGD system.
Final Reports:
Results of the demonstrationindicated that the Final TechnicalReport 6/94
CZDFGD process can achieve costs of $300/ton of Public Design Report 10/93
SO, removed when operating a 500-MWe unit bum-
ing 4% sulfur coal. Based on a 500-MWe plant retro-

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-55


LIFAC Sorbent Injection
DesuIfurization
Demonstration Project
Project completed.

Participant:
WAC-North America (ajoint venture partnership
between Tampella Power Corporation and ICF Kaiser
Engineers,Inc.)

Additional Team Members: STACK


ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.-cofunder and project
manager
TampellaPower Corporation-cofunder
Tampella, Ltd.--teChnolog~
Richmond Power & Light-cofunder and host
Electric Power Research Institumofunder
Black Beauty Coal Company+x$under
State of Indiana--cofunder DRY
ASH
Location:
Richmond, Wayne County, IN (Richmond Power &
Light's Whitewater Valley Station,Unit No.2)
Project Objective: ing to SO, capture. After leaving the chamber, the sor-
Technology: To demonstratethat electric power plants-especially bent is easily separatedfrom the flue gas along with the
WAC'S sorbentinjection process with sulfur capture in those with space limitations-burning high-sulfur fly ash in the electrostaticprecipitator (ESP). The sor-
a unique, patented vertical mivation reactor coals can be retrofitted successfully with the LIFAC bent material from the reactor and electrostatic@pita-
(environmentalcontroldevices/SO, controltechnologies) limestone injection process to remove 75-8596 of the SO, tor is recirculated back through the reactor for increased
from flue gas and producea dry solid waste product for efficiency. The waste is dry, making it easier to handle
Plant Capacitylproduction:
disposal in a landfill. thanthe wet scrubber sludge produced by conventional
60 Mwe
wet limestone m b b e r systems.
TechnologyProject Description: 'ktechnology enables power plants with space
Project Funding:
Pulverized limestone is pneumaticallyblown into the limitations to use high-sulfur midwestemcoals by provid-
Total project cost $21,393,772 100%
upper part of the boiler near the superheater where it ing an injection process that removes 7 5 4 5 % of the SO,
DOE 10,636,864 50
absorbs some of the SO, in the boiler flue gas. The from flue gas and produces a dry solid waste product
Participant 10,756,908 50
limestoneis calcined into calcium oxide and is available suitablefor disposalin a landfill.
for capme of additionalSO, downstream in the activa- The process was demonstrated at the Whitewater
tion, or humidification,reactor. In the vertical chamber, Valley Station, 60-MWe Unit No. 2. This coal-fired unit
water sprays initiate a series of chemical reactions lead- is owned and operated by Richmond Power & Light and

7-56 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


is located in Richmond, IN. Bituminouscoal containing boiler load changes. A CdS ratio of 2.0 was selected to Commercial Applications:
2.0-2.8% sulfur was used for the majority of system attain SOzreductions above 70%. Reactor bottom tem- This process is suitablefor application to all coal-fired
testing. perature was about 5 O F higher than optimum to avoid utility or industrialboilers, especially those with tight
ash buildup on the steam reheaters. Atomized water space limitations. The LIFAC process is less expensive
Project ResuItdAccomplishments: droplet size was smaller than optimum for the same to install than conventional wet flue gas desulfurization
The total duration of the project was 2,800 hours of reason. Other key process parameters held constant processes, uses dry limestone instead of more costly lime,
operation over a 2-year period. during the long-term tests included the degree of humidi- is relatively simple to operate, produces a dry, readily
LIFAC process values and their effects on sulfur fication, the grind sue of the high-calcium-contentlime- disposablewaste, and can handle all types of coal.
removal efficiency were evaluatedduring parametric stone, and recycle ratio of spent sorbent from the ESP. The benign waste material can be disposed of in a
testing. The four major parameters having the greatest Long-term testing showed that SO, reductions of landfill along with the fly ash. Commercialuse of the
influenceon sulfurremoval efficiencywere limestone 70% or more can be maintainedunder normal boiler LIFAC by-product in the manufactureof construction
quality, CdS ratio, reactor bottom temperature (ap- operating ranges. Stack opacity was low (about 10%) materials is currently being investigated in Finland,
proach-to-saturation),and ESP ash recycling rate. Total and ESP efficiency was high (99.2%). The solid waste There are 10 full-scaleLIFAC units in operationor
SO, capture was about 15 percentage points better when generated was a mixture of fly ash and calcium com- under construction in Canada, China, Finland, Russia,
injecting fine limestone (80% minus 325 mesh) than it pounds and was readily disposed of at a local landfill. and the United States. The LIFAC system at Richmond
was with coarse limestone (80% minus 200 mesh). The LIFAC system proved to be highly operable Power & Light is being retained and is the first to be
Parametric tests indicated that a 710% SO, reduction because it has few moving parts and is simple to operate. applied to a power plant using high-sulfur (2.0-2.9%)
was achievable with a CdS ratio of 2.0. ESP ash con- The process can be easily shutdown and restarted. The coal. The other LIFAC installationson power plants use
taining unspent sorbent and fly ash waq recycled from the process is automatedby a programmablelogic system, low-sulfur (0.6-1.5%) coals.
ESP hoppers back into the reactor inlet duct work. Ash which regulates process control loops, interlocking, start-
recycling is essentialfor efficient SO, capture. The large up, shut downs, and data collection. The entire W A C Project Schedule:
quantity of ash removed from the LIFAC reactor bottom, DOE selected project (CCT-III) 12/19/89
process was easily managed via two personal computers
and the small size of the ESP hoppers limited the ESP Cooperative agrement awarded 11/20/90
located in the host utilitys controlmom.
ash recycling rate. As a result, the amount of material IWPA process completed (MTF) 1onJ90
The economicevaluation indicated that the capital
recycled from the ESP was approximately70% less than Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 6/12/92
cost of a LIFAC installation is lower than both spray
had been anticipated. However, this low recycling rate Construction 5/91492
dryers and wet scrubbers. Capital costs for LIFAC tech-
contributed an additional 15 percentage points to total Operationaltesting 9/92494
nology vary depending on unit size and the quantity of
SO, capture. During a brief test, it was found that in- Project completed 6/96
reactors needed:
creasing the recycle rate by 50% result& in a 5 percent-
$99/kW for one LIFAC reactor at Whitewater Valley Final Reports:
age point increase in SO, removal efficiency. It is antici-
Station (65 MWe) Final TechnicalReport 6/96
pated that if the reactor bottom ash is recycled along with
EconomicEvaluationReport 6/96
ESP ash, while sustaining a reactor temperature of 5 OF $76/kW for one LIFAC reactor at Shand Station
Public Design Report 6/96
above saturation temperature, an SO, reduction of 85% (150 MWe)
could be maintained.
$66kW for two LIFAC reactors at Shand Station (300
Optimizationtesting began in March 1994 and was
followed by long-term testing in June 1994. The boiler We)
was operated at an average load of 60 W e during long-
term testing, although it fluctuated according to power
demand. The LIFAC process automatically adjusted to

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-57


Advanced Flue Gas
ELECTROSTATIC
Desulfurization PRECIPITATOR
Demonstration Project
Project completed.

Participant:
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. (a project company of Pure
Air which is a general partnership between Air Products
and Chemicals, Inc., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
America, Inc.)

Additional Team Members:


Northem Indiana Public ServiceCompany-cofunder
and host
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,Ltd.-process designer
United Engineers and Constructors (Steams-Roger
Division)-facility designer
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.-constructor and op-
erator

Location:
Chesterton, Porter County, IN (Northem Indiana Public
Service Company's Bailly Generating Station,Units 7
and 8) Project Objective: and at a relatively high velocity comparedto conventional
To demonstrate removal of 90-95% or more of the SO, scrubbers. These features all combine to yield a state-of-
Technology: at approximatelyone-half the cost of conventional scrub- the-art SO, absorber that is more compact and less ex-
Pure Air's advanced flue gas desulfurization(AFGD) bing technology; and to demonstrate significant reduction pensive than conventionalscrubbers.
process (environmentalcontrol devicedS0, control tech- of space requirements. Technicalfeaturesincludethe injectionof pulverized
nologies) limestone directly into the absorber, a device called an air
TechnologyProject Description: rotary sparger located within the base of the absorber,
Plant CapacityProduction: In this project, Pure Air has built a single SO, absorber and a novel wastewater evaporation system. The air
528 MWe for a 528-MWe power plant. Although this is the largest rotary sparger combines the functionsof agitation and air
capacity absorber module in the United States, it has distribution into one piece of equipment to facilitatethe
Project Funding:
relatively modest space requirementsbecause no spare or oxidation of calcium sulfiteto gypsum.
Total project cost $151,707,898 100%
backup absorber modules are required. The absorber Pure Air also demonstrateda unique gypsum
DOE 63,913,200 42
performs three functions in a single vessel: prequencher, agglomerationprocess that produces PowexChip@'
Participant 87,794,698 58
absorber, and oxidation of sludge to gypsum. Addition-
gypsum.
ally, the absorber is of a co-current design, in which the
Powerchip is a registered trademark of Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. flue gas and scrubbing slurry move in the same direction

7-58 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project ResultdAccomplishments: control can occur without increased solid waste or waste-
The 528-MWe demonstration accumulatedapproxi- water production.
mately 26,280 hours of operation over a 3-year period All this can be accomplishedwith costs (and space
and achieved an availability of 99.47%. Construction requirements)that are roughly one-half of those associ-
began in April 1990, and in June 1992 the AFGD system ated with a conventional scrubber.
began to process flue gas, thus becoming the first com- In April 1994, Pure Air of Manatee, L.P., entered
mercial scrubber to meet the requirementsof the CAAA into a contract to provide 1,600MWe of SOz scrubbing
of 1990. Tests were on coals ranging f "2.25% sulfur capability at Florida Power & Light Company's Manatee
to greater than 4.5% sulfur. During the 3-year operation, power plant on the same own-and-operatebasis. The
SO, removal efficiency averaged 94% with a maximum Manatee scrubber will feature two 800-MWe absorber
of 98+% or 0.382 lblmillion Btu. Twenty-four-hour vessels, Powerchip" gypsum recycling, and wastewater
average power consumption was 5,275 kW,or 61% of evaporation.
expected consumption, and water consumption was
1,560gallonstminute,or 52% of expeckd consumption. Project Schedule:
The production rate of the Powerchip' facility was 7 DOE selected project (CCT-IT) 9/28/88
tons/hr. During the 3-year demonstration,over 210,000 Cooperative agreement awarded 12120189
tons of dry gypsum were produced, with an average NEPA process completed (EA) 4116/90
purity of 97.2%. Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 1131/91
In 1993, Power Magazine presented the Powerplant Construction 4190-9192
of the Year Award to the generating station for demon- Operationaltesting 6/92-6195
strating advanced wet limestone FGD technology with Project completed 12/96
innovations in wastewatertreatment and gypsum produc-
tion. In 1992,the National Society of Professional Engi- Final Reports:
neers presented its OutstandingEngineering Achieve- Final TechnicalReport 1996
ment Award to the project. EconomicEvaluationReport 1996
Public Design Report 3/90
Commercial Applications:
The AFGD process is attractive for both new and retrofit
utility applications. The demonstrationproject is using
bituminouscoals primarily from the Indiana-Illinoiscoal
basin, with sulfur content ranging from 2.0% to 4.5%.
The AFGD unit at Bailly Station will continue to
operate for an additional 17 years under a novel business
concept whereby Pure Air is the owner of the unit and
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., is the operator. This
AFGD facility will reduce SO, emissions by approxi-
mately 75,000 tonslyr. Further, the gypsum by-product
and wastewater evaporation will demonstrate that SO,

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-59


Demonstration of Innovative
Applications of Technology
for the CT-121 FGD Process
Project completed. COAL

Participant:
SouthernCompany Services,Inc.
AIR
Additional Team Members:
Georgia Power Company-host
Electric Power Research Institute--cofunder
RadianCorporation-environmental and analytical
consultant
Ershigs, Inc.-fiberglass fabricator
CompositeConstruction and Equipment-fiberglass
sustainmentconsultant
Acentech-flow modelingconsultant
Ardaman-gypsum stacking consultant
University of Georgia ResearchFoundation-
POND
by-productutilization studiesconsultant

Location:
Newnan, Coweta County, GA (Georgia Power
Companys Plant Yates, Unit NQ. 1) Project Objective: The flue gas enters undemeath the scrubbing solution
To demonstrate the CT-121 flue gas desulfurization in the jet-bubbling reactor. The SO, in the flue gas is
Technology: system,includingseveraldesign innovations,at the absorbed and forms calcium sulfite (CaSO3. Air is
ChiyodaCorporationsChiyodaThoroughbred-121 1 0 0 - W e scale; more specifically,to demonstrate 90% bubbled into the bottom of the solutionto oxidize the
(CT-121) advanced flue gas desulfurization (FGD) SO,control at high reliability with and without calcium sulfite to form gypsum. The slurry is dewatered
process (environmentalcontroldevicedS0, control simultaneousparticulatecontrol with possible additional in a gypsum stack, which involvesfilling a dyked area
technologies) reductions in operatingcosts. with gypsum slurry. Gypsum solids settle in the dyked
area by gravity, and clear water flows to a retention pond.
Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProject Description: The clear water from the pond is returned to the process.
lo0 MWe The project is demonstrating the CT-121 FGD process, The project is also evaluatingprocess innovationsto
which uses a unique absorber design known as the jet- determine whether costs can be reduced further by using
Project Funding:
bubbling reactor (JBR). The process combines limestone fiberglass-reinforcedplastic (FRP) vessels, eliminating
Total project cost $43,074,996 100%
FGD reaction, forced oxidation, and gypsum crystalliza- flue gas reheat and spare absorber modules, and stacking
DOE 21,085,211 49
tion in one process vessel. The process is mechanically gypsum to reduce waste management costs. The ability
Participant 21,989,785 51
and chemically simplerthan conventionalFGD processes of this technology to capture SO, and particulates simul-
and can be expected to exhibit lower cost characteristics. taneously is also being evaluated.

7-60 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Bituminouscoals containing 1.2-4.31 sulfur were and Waste ManagementAssociation for the use of an Project Schedule:
used to demonstrate 90% SO,control with high reliabil- innovative technologyfor air quality control. In 1993, DOE selected project (CCT-TI) 9/28/88
ity, with and without simultaneousparticulate control. Plant Yates received an environmentalaward from the Cooperative agreement awarded 4/2/90
Georgia Chamber of Commerce, based on the success of NEPA process completed (EA) 8110190
Project ResuItdAccomplishments: the CT-121scrubber. Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 12/18/90
Parametric testing was completed in Mach 1993,and Construction 8/90-10192
long-term testing began in May 1993. DOE-sponsored Commercial Applications: Operationaltesting 10192-12/94
air-toxics testing was done in June 1993. The CT-121FGD system is applicable to both new and Project completed 1I97
During the 19,000hours or 27 months available for pre-NSPS utility and industrialboilers.
the demonstration, the scrubber was operated for 14,000 Specific featuresof this technologythat will enhance Final Reports:
hours. The coal bumed during the demonstration was a its potential for commercializationfollow: (1) fiberglass Final TechnicalReport 12/96
blend of Illinois No.5 and 6that averaged 2.4% sulfur. construction can be used,eliminating the need for rubber- EconomicEvaluationReport 12/96
Other tests were conducted on coals varying from 1.2% lined carbon steel or costly alloys; (2)no space absorber Public Design Report 12/96
to 4.3% sulfur. The system demonstratedthe ability to is required because the system is at least 97% reliable; Final Report on Gypsum Stacking 1197
exceed 98% SO,removal efficiency with high-sulfur coal (3) reheating of the flue gas is not necessary; (4)both
while at maximum boiler load and limestoneutilizationof SO, and particulates are removed from flue gas; (5) more
97%. Use of FRP fabrication of key components,with its than 99% of the calcium in the limestone reagent is used,
high resistance to corrosion, enabled eliminationof a (6)the gypsum by-product can be stored safely and easily
rescrubber to remove chlorides and flue gas reheat to or used in commercial 9pplications;(7)the CT-121oper-
prevent corrosivecondensationin the chimney (con- ating costs are the lowest for state-of-the-artFGD sys-
structed of FRP). The structuraland chemical durability tems; (8) there is no known size @nit for this technology;
of FRPconstruction combined with the simplicity of (9)utilities and industrialconcems could make immedi-
design afforded by the unique JBR resulted in high avail- ate use of this technology; and (10)the system is not
ability (97% at low ash levels and 95% at elevated ash sensitiveto the type of coal used, its sulfurcontent, or the
levels) and eliminationof the need for a space reactor limeSt0neUtilized.
module. The CT-121system demonstrated high particu- Involvementof the Southem Company (which owns
late capture efficiency (97.7-99.3%) at flyash levels SouthemCompany Services, Inc.), with its utility system
reflective of marginal ESP performance (up to that has over 20,OOO MWe of coal-fired generating ca-
1.14 Ibdmillion Bar). Testing also showed the pacity, is expected to enhance the confidenceof other
CT-121to be highly efficient in the capture of hazardous large, high-sulfur coal boiler users in the CT-121 process.
air pollutants ( W s ) which are largely bome by This process will be applicable to 370,000MWe of new
particulates. and existing generating capacity by the year 2010. A
In 1995,the project won the Society of Plastics 90% reduction in SO, emissions from only the retrofit
Industries Design Award for the mist eliminator. The portion of this capacity represents over 10,500,000tons/yr
project received two awards in 1994:Power Muguzines of potential SO,control.
1994 Powerplant of the Year Award and an Outstanding In 1994a tar sands oil extraction facility in Murray,
AchievementAward from the Georgia chapter of the Air Canada, purchased the CT-121scrubber.

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-61


SNOXTMFlue Gas Cleaning
Demonstration Project
Project completed.

Participant:
ABB EnvironmentalSystems

Additional Team Members:


Ohio Coal DevelopmentOffice--cofunder
Ohio Edison Company+ofunder and host
Haldor Topsoe ak-patent owner for process technology,
catalysts, and WSA Tower
Snamprogetti,U.S.A.+ofunder and process designer

Location:
Niles, Trumbull County, OH (OhioEdisons Niles
Station, Unit No. 2)

Technology:
Haldor TopsoesS N O P catalytic advanced flue gas
cleanup system (environmentalcontrol devicedcombined
SOPOXcontrol technologies)

Plant CapacityProduction:
Technology/Project Description: by-product. This is accomplishedwithout using sorbents
35-MWe equivalent slipstream from a 108-MWe boiler
In the S N O P process, the stack gas leaving the boiler and without creating waste by-products.
Project Funding: is cleaned of fly ash in a high-efficiencyfabric filter The demonstrationwas conducted at Ohio Edisons
Total project cost $31,438,408 100% baghouse to minimizethe cleaning frequency of the Niles Station in Niles, OH. The demonstration unit
DOE 15,719,200 50 sulfuric acid catalyst in the downstream SO, converter. treated a 35-MWe equivalent slipstream of flue gas from
Participant 15,719,208 50 The ash-free gas is reheated, and NOxis reacted with the 108-MWe Unit No. 2 boiler which burned a 3.4%
small quantities of ammoniain the first of two catalytic sulfur Ohio coal. The process steps were virtually the
Project Objective: reactors where the NOxis converted to harmless nitrogen same as for a commercial full-scale plant, and commer-
To demonstrateon U.S. coals at an electric power plant and water vapor. The SO, is oxidized to SO, in a second cial-scale componentswere installed and operated.
that S N O P technology will catalytically remove 95% catalytic converter. The gas then passes through a novel
of SO, and more than 90% of NOxfrom flue gas and glass-tube condenser which allows SO, to hydrolyze to
produce a salable by-product of concentrated sulfuric concentratedsulfuricacid.
acid. The technology,while using U.S.coals, is designed
to remove 95% of the SO, and more than 90% of the
NOxfrom flue gas and produce a salable sulfuric acid
SNOX is a trademark of Haldor Topwe ds.

7-62 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project ResultdAccomplishments: Commercial Applications:
Operationaltesting was initiated in March 1992 and The S N O P technologyis applicable to all electric
completed in December 1994. The system has operated power plants and industrialhmstitutional boilers firing
for over 8,000 hours and produced more than 5,600 tons coal, oil, or gas. The high removal efficiency for NOxand
of commercial-gradesulfuricacid. The facility has rou- SO, will make the process attractivein many applica-
tinely operated at full capacity,achieving removal effi- tions. Elimination of d d i t i o ~solid
l waste (except ash)
ciencies of 96%for SO,, 94%for NO, and 99.9%for enhances the marketability in urban and other areas
particulates. where solid waste disposal issues are a significant im-
Many tests for the S N O P system were designed mment.
to be conducted at 75%,100%,and 110%of design The host utility, Ohio Edison, is retaining the
capacity. During the test program, SO, removal efficien- SNOXW technology as a permanent part of the pollution
cies were normally in excess of 95%for inlet concentra- control system at Niles Station and to help Ohio Edison
tions which averaged about 2,000 ppm. System NOx meet its overall S O P O Xreduction goals.
reduction efficienciesaveraged 94%with inlet NOx lev- Commercial S N O P plants also have been started
els of approximately500-700 ppm. up in Denmark and Sicily. In Denmark, a 305-MWe
Sulfuricacid concentrationsand composition have plant has operated since August 1991. The boiler at this
met or exceeded federal specifications for class I acid. plant bums coals from various suppliers around the
The acid from the plant has been sold to the agriculture world, including the United States; the coals contain
industry for the production of diammoniiim phosphate 0.5-3.0%sulfur. The plant in Sicily, operating since
fertilizerand to the steel industry for pickling. Ohio March 1991, has a capacity of about 30 MWe and fires
Edison has used a significant amount in its boiler water petroleum coke.
demineralizer system throughout its plants.
Air toxics testing at the plant indicated that, for the Project Schedule:
majority of the species examined, especially those that DOE selected project (CCT-II) 9/28/88
exit primarily as particulates at the S N O P fabric filter Cooperative agreement awarded 12/20/89
or S N O P outlet, removal is very high. Because of the NEPA process completed (MTF) 1/31/90
mechanism of sulfuric acid condensation in the WSA Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 10/31/91
condenser, any particulates remaining at this point act as Construction 1/91-1291
nuclei for %SO, and are captured in the acid. For vola- Operationaltesting 3192-1 294
tile species, the WSA condenser outlet temperature is Project completed 5/96
lower than conventionalboiler outlet temperatures and
Final Reports:
should condense and capture more of the volatile species
Final TechnicalReport 5/96
than a plant with only an ESP or fabric filter. EconomicEvaluationReport 5/96
The economic evaluation of the SNOXm process
Public Design Report 5/96
showed a capital cost of approximately$250/kW and a
total operating cost of approximately 1.3 millskWh.

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-63


-

LIMB Demonstration Project LIMB COOLSIDE LlMWCOOLSlDE


Extension and Coolside
Demonstration
Project completed.

Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Additional Team Members:


Ohio Coal DevelopmentOffice-cofunder
ConsolidationCoal Company-ofunder and technology
supplier
Ohio Edison Company-host

Location:
Lorain, OH (Ohio Edisons Edgewater Station, Unit 4)

Technology:
t
ASH
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys limestone injection
AND OISPOSAL
multistageburner (LIMB)system; Babcock & Wilcox
DRB-XCL@low-NOxburners
ConsolidationCoal CompanysCoolside duct injectionof
lime sorbents
(environmentalcontrol deviceskombined SO,/NOx to test alternate sorbent and coal combinations,using the In the Coolside process, dry sorbent is injected into
controltechnologies) Coolside process, to demonstratein-duct sorbent injec- the flue gas downstreamof the air preheater, followed by
tion upstream of the humidifier and precipitator and to flue gas humidification. HumidificationenhancesESP
Plant CapacityProduction: show SO, removal of up to 70%. performance and SO, absorption. SO, absorption is
105 MWe improved by dissolving NaOH or N%CO, in the
TechnologyProject Description: humidification water. The spent sorbent is collected with
Project Funding: The LIMB process reduces SO, by injecting dry sorbent the fly ash, as in the LIMB process. An eastem bitumi-
Total project cost $19,404,940 100% into the boiler at a point above the burners. The sorbent
nous coal with 3.0% sulfur was used in testing.
DOE 7,597,026 39 then travels through the boiler and is removed along with
The same low-NOxbumers (Babcock & Wilcox
Participant 11,807,914 61 fly ash in an electrostaticprecipitator (ESP) or baghouse. DRB-XCL@low-NOxburners), which control NOx
Humidificationof the flue gas before it enters an ESP is
Project Objective: through staged combustion, were used in demonstrating
necessary to maintain normal ESP operation and to en-
To demonstrate, with a variety of coals and sorbents, the both LIMB and Coolside technologies.
hance SO, removal. Combinationsof three eastern bitu-
LIMB process as a retrofit system for simultaneouscon- This project was conducted at Ohio EdisonsEdge-
minous coals (1.6%,3.0%,and 3.8% sulfur) and four
trol of NOxand SO, in the combustion process, and that water Plant in Lorain, OH, on a commercial,Babcock &
sorbents were tested. Other variables examined were
LIMB can achieve up to 70% NO, and SO, reductions; Wilcox Carolina-design,wall-fired 105-MWe boiler.
stoichiometry,humidifier outlettemperature, and injec-
DRB-XCL is a regktered trademark of The Babcock & Wilcox Company. tion level.

7-64 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


Project ResuWAccomplishments: stoichiometry of 2.0 when using a limestone with all Commercial Applications:
LIMB tests were conducted over a range of CdS ratios particles less than 44 microns. For a third limestone Both LIMB and Coolside technologies are applicable to
and humidificationconditions. Each of four sorbents with essentially all particles less than 10microns,the most utility and industrial coal-fired units and provide
(calciticlimestone,type-N atmosphericallyhydrated removal efficiency was about 5-7% higher than that altemativesto conventionalwet flue gas desulfurization
dolomitic lime, calcitichydrated lime, and calcitichydrat- obtained at similar conditions for limestone with all (FGD) processes. They can be retrofitted with modest
ed lime with added calcium lignosulfonate)was injected particles less than 44 microns. capital investment and downtime, and their space require-
while burning each of three coals (Ohio bituminous, ments are substantially less. Dependingon the plant
Sorbent injection at the 1 8 1 4 plant elevation level
1.6%,3.0%.and 3.8% sulfur). Tests were conducted capacity factor and the coal's sulfur content, they can be
inside the boiler,just above the boiler's nose, yielded
under minimal humidification,defined as operation at a economicallycompetitive with FGD systems. For ex-
the highest SO, removal rates. Here, the sorbent was
humidifier outlet temperature sufficient to maintain ESP ample, using 2.5%sulfur coal at a 65%plant capacity
injected at close to the optimum furnace temperature
performance. That temperature was typically 250-275 factor, LIMB can be cost competitive with conventional
of 2,300 OF.
OF. Tests were also conducted at a 20 OF approach to the wet FGD up to 450 MWe and Coolside up to 220 W e .
adiabatic saturation temperature of the flue gas to en- SO, removal efficiencies were enhancedby about The environmentalbenefits for LIMB are 40-50% lower
hance SO, removal of the LIMB system. Close-approach 10%over the range of stoichiometriestested when NOxand more than 20%lower SO, emissions, and for
operation typically meant controlling the flue gas tem- humidification down to a 20 OF approach to saturation Coolside up to 70%lower SO, emissions. The waste
perature at the humidifier outlet (ESPinlet) to about 145 was used. from each of these processes is dry and easily handled
OF. Other variables were stoichiometryand injection and containsunreacted lime that has potential commercial
During the Coolside demonstration,compliance
level. Highlights of reported test results follow: application. Both processes can handle all coal types,
(1.2-1.6% sulfur) and noncompliance(3.0%sulfur) coals
especially low- to medium-sulfurcoals.
The coal's sulfur content, as reflected in the SO, con- were bumed. Key process Variables-CdS,
centration in the flue gas, affected SO, removal effi- NdCa, and approach to adiabatic saturation-were Project Schedule:
ciency-the higher the sulfurcontent, the greater the evaluated in short-term (6-8-hr)parametrictests and DOE selected project (CCT-I) 7/24/86
SO, removal for a given sorbent at a comparable longer term (1-1 1-day) process operability tests. Cooperative agreement awarded 6/25/87
stoichiometry. A 5 7 %increase in removal occurred The Coolside process routinely achieved 70%SO, NEPA process completed (MTF) 6l2J87
when switching to 3.8%from 1.6%sulfurcoal and removal at design conditions(2.0 CdS, 0.2 NdCa, and Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 10119/88
injecting at a stoichiometryof 2.0. 20 OF approach to adiabatic saturation temperature) using Construction t"ta9
The highest sulfur removal efficiencies, without commercial hydrated lime. SO, removal depended on Coolsideoperationaltesting 7/89-U90
CdS, NdCa, approach to adiabatic saturation, and the LIMB extension operational testing 4/90-8/9 1
humidificationto close approach, were attained using
physical properties of the hydrated lime. Sorbent recycle Project completed 11/92
the ligno l i m e 4 1% SO, removal was achieved while
showed significant potential to improve sorbent utiliza-
burning 3.8% sulfurcoal. All sorbents tested were
tion. Observed SO, removal with recycle sorbent alone Final Reports:
capable of removing SO, although calcium utilization
was 22%at 0.5 available CdS and 18 OF approach to Final Report (LIMB/Coolside) 11/92
of even finely pulverized limestone was not nearly as
adiabatic saturation. Observed SO, removal with simul- Topical Report (Coolside) 2/92
high as those of the limes.
taneous recycle and fresh sorbent feed was 40%at 0.8 Topical Report (LIMB/Coolside) 9/90
While injecting commercial limestone with 80%of the Eresh CdS, 0.2 fresh NdCa, 0.5 available recycle, and Public Design Report 12/88
particles less than 44 microns in size, removal effi- 18 OF approach to adiabatic saturation.
ciencies of about 22%were obtained at a stoichiom- NOxremoval was in the W 5 0 % range throughout
etry of 2.0 while buming 1.6%sulfur coal. However, both LIMB and Coolside testing.
removal efficienciesof about 32%were achieved at a

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-65


HSV
muoa

tlnloa
Project ResultdAccomplishments: Fiberglass S-Glass filter bags. All of the test work was Project Schedule:
SNRBW demonstration tests were conducted for emis- carried out at air-to-cloth ratios of 3-4 Wmin. No exces- DOE selected project (CCT-II) 9/28/88
sions control of SO,, NOx,and particulates. Four differ- sive wear or failures occurred in over 2,000hours of NEPA process completed (MTF) 9/22/89
ent sorbents were tested for SO, capture. Calcium-based elevated temperature operation. Cooperative agreement awarded 1a20189
sorbents included commercial-gradehydrated lime, A preliminary evaluation has been made of the pro- Construction 519 1-1W9 1
sugar hydrated lime, and lignosulfonate hydrated lime. jected capital cost of the SNRBm system for various Environmentalmonitoringplan completed 12/3 119 1
In addition, sodium bicarbonate was tested. The opti- utility boilers. For a 250-MWe boiler fired with 3.5% Operationaltesting 5/92-5193
mum location for injecting the sorbent into the flue gas sulfur coal and generating NOxemissions of 1.2 lbd Project completed 9/95
was immediately upstream of the baghouse. Effectively, million Btu, the projected cost of a SNRBm system is
the SO, was captured by the sorbent while the sorbent approximately$260/kW including various standard tech- Final Reports:
was in the form of a filter cake on the filter bags (along nology and project contingencyfactors. A combination Final TechnicalReport 9/95
with fly ash). To capture NOx, ammonia was injected of fabric filter, SCR, and wet scrubber for achieving (includeseconomicinformation)
between the sorbent injection point and the baghouse. comparable emissions control has been estimated at Detailed Design Report 11/92
The ammonia and NOxreacted to form nitrogen and $360-400kW.
water in the presence of Norton Companys NC-300
series zeolite SCR catalyst. With the catalyst being Commercial Applications:
located inside the filter bags, it was well protected from Commercialapplication of the technologyoffers the
potential particulate erosion or fouling. The sorbent potential for significantreductionsof multiple pollutants
reaction products, unreacted lime, and fly ash were from fossil-fired plants with the potential for increasing
collected on the filter bags and thus removed from the thermal efficiency. SNRBm offers the potential for
flue gas. lower capital and operating costs and smaller space re-
With commercial-gradelime, at a Ca/S ratio of 2, quirementsthan a combinationof conventional,high-
and with the baghouse temperature between 800 and efficiency control technologies. SNRFP is capable of
850 OF, sulfur capture was well above 80%. With the reducing emissionsfrom plants buming high- or low-
modified hydrated limes, at the same operating tempera- sulfur coal. In retrofit applications, SNRBm provides a
ture range, sulfur capture approached 90%. With an means of improving particulate emissionscontrol with
NI-$VOx ratio of 0.9, the reduction in NOxemissions the addition of SO,and NOxemissionscontrol capacity.
was consistently above 90%and the ammonia slip was Commercializationof the technologyis expected to
consistently below 5 ppm. Particulate emissions were develop with an initial larger scale applicationequivalent
always below 0.03 lblmillion Btu, the NSPS for particu- to 50-100 MWe. The focus of marketing efforts will be
lates. Particulate emissionsaveraged0.018 lblmillion tailored to match the specificneeds of potential industrial,
Btu (0.009 graindstd ft3), correspondingto a collection utility, and independent power producers for both retrofit
efficiency of 99.89%. and new plant construction. SNRBm is a flexible tech-
High SO, removal efficiency was demonstratedin a nology which can be tailored to maximizecontrol of SO,,
brief test program with sodium bicarbonate injection. NOx,or combined emissions to meet current performance
Removal efficiency increased from 80%to 98% and the requirements while providing flexibility to address future
ratio of NdS was increased from 1 to 2. needs.
All of the demonstrationtests were conducted using
3Ms Nextel ceramic fiber filter bags or Owens Coming

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-67


Enhancing the Use of Coals
by Gas Reburning and
Sorbent Injection
Project completed.

Participant:
Energy and EnvironmentalResearchCorporation

Additional Team Members:


Gas Research Institute-cofunder
State of Illinois, Departmentof Energy and Natural Re-
sources-cofunder
IllinoisPower Company-host
City Water, Light and PowerAost

Locations:
Hennepin, Putnam County, IL,(IllinoisPower
Companys,HennepinPlant, Unit 1)
Springfield, SangamonCounty, E (City Water, Light and
Powers Lakeside Station,Unit 7) BOlTOM ASH

Technology:
EnergyandEnvironmentalResearchCorporations g a K+
~
bumingand ~ i n j e u i o(GR4l) n ~ (e-l TechnologyProject Description: (gross)boiler at Illinois Power Companys Hennepin
c o n m l d es ~ o p~o x ~ l ~ ~ l o g i e s ) In this process, 80435% of the fuel is coal and is supplied Plant in Hennepin, IL, and a cyclone-fired,40-MWe
to the main combustionzone. The remaining (gross) boiler at City Water, Light and Powers Lakeside
Plant CapacityProduction:
1540% of the fuel, generally natural gas or a hydrocar- Station in Springfield,IL.Illinoisbituminous coal con-
Hennepin. tangential-fired 80 MWe (gross), 71MWe (net)
bon, bypasses the main combustion zone and is injected taining 3% sulfur was the test coal for both Hennepin and
Lakeside: cyclone-fired 40 MWe (gross), 33 MWe (net)
above the main burners to form a reducing zone in which Lakeside.
Project Funding: NO, is converted to nitrogen. A calcium compound
(sorbent) is injected in the form of dry,fine particulates Project ResultdAccomplishments:
Total project cost $37,588,955 100%
above the reburning zone in the boiler or even further A matrix of 32 gas reburn tests were completed on the
DOE 18,747,816 50
downstream. The calcium compound tested is Ca(OH), tangentially fired boiler at the HennepinPlant. NOx
Participant 18,841,139 50
(lime). The goal was to achieve at least 60%NO, reduc- reductions of up to 77% were achieved, with 65% being
Project Objective: tion and at least 50% SO, reduction on differentboiler routin-xceeding the project objective of 60%. Evalu-
To demonstrate gas reburning to attain 60%NOxreduc- configurationsat power plants buming high-sulfur ation of 20 over-fire air tests indicated substantial NOx
tion along with sorbent injection to capture 50% of the midwestem coal. This project demonstratedthe GR-SI reduction was achievable at low power generation loads,
SO, on two differentboiler configurations:tangentially process on two separate boilers representing two differ- with lesser reductions as load increased. Sorbent injec-
fired and cyclone-fired. ent firing configurations--a tangentially fired, 8 0 - W e tion reduced SO, emissions as much as 624, with 52%

7-68 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


reduction being routine-also exceedingthe project and operability were completed. Tests indicated that SO, Commercial Applications:
objective of 50%. The W S was about 1.75. reduction level varied with load because of the effect of Gas reburning and sorbent injection is the unique combi-
Three proprietary sorbents (including PromisorbA, temperature on the sulfurhation reaction. At a CalS of nation of two separate technologies. The commercial
Promisorb B, and high surface area hydrated lime) were 2.0, fullload (33 W e ) achieved a 44% SO, reduction; applicationsfor these technologies,both separatelyand
also tested at Hennepin. The sorbents showed higher mid-load (25 M e ) , 38%reduction; and low load combined, extend to both utility companiesand industry
SO, capture and higher calcium utilization than the regu- (20 W e ) , 32%reduction at Lakeside. in the United States and abroad. In the United States
lar hydrated lime. In the G R S I optimization tests, the two technolo- alone, these two technologies can be applied to over 900
The GR-SI process reduced CO,, HCl, and HF gies were integrated. Modifications were made to the pre-NSPS utility boilers; the technologies also can be
emissions as well as NOxand SO,. During sorbent injec- reburning fuel injection nozzles based on the results of applied to new utility boilers. With NOxand SO, re-
tion, particulate emissionswere reduced by flue gas the initial gas reburning parametric tests. Tests did not moval exceeding 60%and SO%, respectively,these tech-
humidificationupstream of the ESP. indicate any adverse effect of the change in the thermal nologies have the potential to extend the life of a boiler or
The system installed at Hennepin operated for more profile. SO, reductions of over 50%could be achieved power plant and also provide a way to use higher sulfur
than 2,100 hours, of which about 400 hours were gas with CalS greater than 1.25 along with gas heat inputs of coals.
reburning; 115 hours, sorbent injection; and nearly 22-25%. The total SO, reduction from the combined
760 hours, combined operation (the remainder was effect of fuel replacement and sorbent injection exceeded Project Schedule:
baseline testing). the project goal of 50% reduction. DOE selected project (CCT-I) 7/24/86
After reviewing the operational performance,boiler The primary goal of the long-term testing was to Cooperative agreement awarded 7/14/87
impact, and economics, Illinois Power retained the gas operate GR-SI during the normal operating cycle of the NEPA process completed, Hennepin (MTF) 5/9/88
burning portion of the GR-SI system for possible use for Lakeside u n i ~The unit typically operated in cycling Environmentalmonitoringplan completed
NOx control. service with a very low capacity factor, so testing was Hennepin 10/15/89
Parametric testing on the cyclone boiler at the conducted whenever the unit was operated. The average Lakeside 11115/89
Lakeside Station was conducted in three series: gas NOxreduction was 67%after a total of 249 hours of gas Construction,Hennepin 5l89-8191
reburning parametric testing, sorbent injection parametric reburning operation. The average SO, reduction after Operationaltesting, Hennepin 1D1-1/93
testing, and GR-SI optimization tests. The goal of the 221 hours of GR-SI operation was 58%. During GR-SI Restoration completed,Hennepin 12/93
parametric test series was to define the optimum GR-SI operation there was a 0.8%drop in thermal efficiency NEPA process completed, Lakeside (EA) 6/25/89
operating conditionswith minimaldegradationof the due to the fuel switch and a small increase in the exit flue Construction,Lakeside 6/9&5/92
thermal performance of the boiler and to evaluate the gas temperature. Operationaltesting, Lakeside 5/93-10194
GR-SI process over a wide range of representative oper- During extended tests that included a 38-hr G R S I Restoration completed, Lakeside 12J95
ating conditions. continuousrun, a 115-hrGR-only continuous run,and a Project completed 5/96
A total of 100 gas reburning parametric tests were 66-hr continuous GR-SI run,process operation with
Final Reports:
conducted at boiler loads of 33 MWe, 25 MWe, and variable load met the project goals of 60% NOxreduction
Final TechnicalReport, Hennepin 10194
20 W e . The rebum parametric tests achieved NOx and 50%SO, reduction. No significantboiler or ESP
Final TechnicalReport, Edwards 1OD4
reduction levels either at or just marginally above the impacts were observed. Compliance test results for
Final TechnicalReport, Lakeside 5/96
60%reduction goal. Additional flow modeling and particulate emissions averaged 0.016 lblmillion Btu, well
EconomicEvaluationReport 5/96
computer modeling studies indicated that smaller below the limit of 0.1 IblmillionBtu.
Public Design Report 5/96
reburning fueljet nozzles could increase reburning fuel City Water, Light and Power is retaining the equip-
mixing and improve NOxreduction performance. ment for possible future use. Restoration involves pre-
A total of 25 sorbent injection parametric tests to paring the system for long-term storage.
isolate the effects of the sorbent on boiler performance

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-69


Milliken Clean Coal COAL
Technology Demonstration
Project
Participant:
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation

Additional Team Members:


i%
AIR-

New York State Energy Research and Development


Administration-cofunder
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation-
cofunder COAL
ConsolidationCoalCompany-technical consultant
Saarberg-H6lter-Umwelttechnik,GmbH-technology
supplier
The Stebbins Engineering and Manufacturing
Company-technology supplier
Nalco Fuel Tech-technology supplier
ABB Air Freheater, Inc.-technology supplier
DHR Technologies,Inc.-operator of advisor system

Location:
Lansing, Tompkins County, NY (New York State Electric
& Gas CorporationsMilliken Station,Units 1 and 2)
Project Funding: results in very high SO, removal with low energy con-
Technology: Total Project Cost $158,607,807 100% sumption and the production of commercial-grade
Flue gas cleanup using Saaherg-Holter-Umwelttechniks DOE 45,000,000 28 gypsum.
(S-H-U) formic-acid-enhanced,wet limestone scrubber Participant 113,607,807 72 The flue gas desulfurization absorber is a Stebbins
technology;ABB CombustionEngineerings Low-NOx tile-lined split-modulevessel which has superior corro-
ProjectObjective: sion and abrasion resistance, leading to decreased life-
Concentric Firing System (LNCFSm)Level IfI;Nalco
To demonstrate at a 300-MWe utility-scale a combination cycle costs and reduced maintenance. The split-module
Fuel Techs N O x O W urea injection system; Stebbins
of cost-effective and innovativeemission reduction and design is constructed below the stack to save space and
tile-lined split-moduleabsorber; and ABB Air
efficiency improvement technologies, including the provideoperationalflexibility.
Preheaters heat-pipe air-heater system (environmental
S-H-U wet scrubber system enhanced with formic acid The Nalco Fuel Tech N O X O Wsystem is being
control devicedcombinedSO,/NOxcontrol technologies).
to increase SO, removal in a Stebbins tile-lined scrubber, used to remove NOxby the injection of urea into the
Plant CapacitylProduction: low-NOxburner, urea injection for NOxremoval, and a boiler gas. This facet of the project, in conjunction with
300 MWe heat-pipe air preheater. other combustion modifications,includingLNCFS Level
III (low-NOxburner system), will reduce NOxemissions
NO OUTis a registered trademark of Nalco Fuel Tech. LNCFS is a TechnologyProject Description:
aademark of ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and produce marketablefly ash.
The S-H-U wet flue gas desulfurization process is a
PEOA is a trademark of DHR Technologies,Inc.
formic-acid-enhanced,wet limestoneprocess which
7-70 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2Ooo 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 : 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9191 om
1 6/95 8/98
I Preaward I h s i a n and Construction I Omration I

I
W E selected Environmentai
monitoring
t ttProject completedlfinal report issued 8/98'
project (CCT-IV)
9112/91 plan completed Operation completed 7/98'
12/1/94 Construction completed 6/95
I
NEPA process completed Fully integrated operation of Units 1 and 2 initiated 6/95
(EA) 8/18/93
)peration initiated on Unit 2 1/95
,round breakinglconstructionstarted 4/93
Design completed 4/93

ooperative agreement awarded 10/20/92 'Projected date

A heat-pipe air-heater system by ABB Air Preheater, zero wastewater discharge and produces marketable by- Commercial Applications:
Inc., will be used to reduce both air leakage and the air products (e.g., commercial-grade gypsum, calcium chlo- The S-H-U SO, removal process, the Nalco N O X O W
heater's flue gas exit temperature. DHR Technologies, ride, and fly ash), minimizing solid waste. noncatalytic reduction process, Stebbins' tile-lined split-
Inc., will provide a state-of-the-artboiler and plant artifi- New York State Electric & Gas is demonstrating module absorber, and heat-pipe air-heater technology are
cial-intelligence-basedcontrol system. Ultimate emis- these technologies at Units 1 and 2 of its Milliken Sta- applicable to virtually all electric utility power plants.
sions reductions with increased boiler efficiencies will tion located in Lansing, NY. Pittsburgh, Freeport, and Commercialization of all technologies in both retrofit and
result. Kittanning coals, with sulfur contents of 1.5%,2.9%, greenfield applicationsof virtually any megawatt size is
The project is designed for "total environmental and and 4.0%, will be used. expected. The space-saving design features of the tech-
energy management," a concept encompassing low emis- nologies, combined with the production of marketable by-
sions, low energy consumption, improved combustion, Project StatudAccomplishments: products, offer significantincentives to generating sta-
upgraded boiler controls, and reduced solid waste. The The split module scrubber at Milliken Station began tions with limited on-site space.
scrubbing operations for Unit 2 in January 1995. Gyp- A software package developed as part of the
system is being designed to achieve at least a 95% SO,
sum production also began in January 1995. Full plant
removal efficiency (or up to 98%)using limestone while Milliken project to assist the utility optimize project
burning high-sulfur coal. NOxreductions will be operation with Unit 1 incorporated into the split module operations has become a commercial product. There
achieved using selective noncatalyticreduction technol- scrubber was completed in June 1995. Low-sulfur per- have been six sales of DHR Technologies' Plant Emis-
ogy and separate combustion modifications. NOxemis- formance testing was conducted October-November sion Optimization Advisor (PEOAm), and another five
1995; data evaluation is in progress. A 3-year operating bids are pending.
sions have been reduced from 0.65 to 0.40 lb/million Btu
(38%) by retrofitting the two boilers with low-NOxbum- period is planned for the fully integrated system.
ers. NOxOUT@is expected to reduce NOxemissions
from Unit 1 by an additional 15-20%. The system has

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-71


Commercial Demonstration of BOILER
the NOXSO SOJNO, Removal
Flue Gas Cleanup System
Participant:
NOXSO Corporation

Additional Team Members:


Alcoa Generating Company-cofunder and host
SouthernIndiana Gas and Electric Company-cofunder
^=I
AIR

and operator
W.R. Grace and Company-ofunder
Gas Research Institute-cofunder
ElectricPower Research Institute-cofunder
AkH
Location:
Newburgh, Warrick County, IN (Alcoa Generating
Companys Warrick Power Plant, Unit 2)

Technology:
NOXSO Corporationsdry, regenerable flue gas cleanup
process (environmentalcontrol devicedcombined
S O P O Xcontrol technologies)

Plant CapacityFroduction: TechnologyProject Description: erator where it reacts with methane at high temperature
150 MWe (net) The NOXSO process is a dry,regenerable system ca- to produce an offgas with high concentrations of SO,
pable of removing both SO, and NOxin flue gas from and hydrogen sulfide (&S). This offgas is processed to
Project Funding:
coal-fired utility boilers burning medium- to high-sulfur produce elemental sulfur. The elemental sulfur is further
Total project cost $82,8 12,120 100%
coals. In the basic process, the flue gas passes through a processed to produce liquid SO,, a higher valued by-
DOE 41,406,060 50
fluidized-bed absorber located downstreamof the pre- product.
Participant 4 1,406,060 50
cipitator; the SO, and NO, are absorbed by the sorbent. The process is expected to achieve SO, reductions
Project Objective: The sorbent consists of sphericalbeads of high-surface- of 98% and NOxreductions of 75%.
To demonstrate removal of 98%of the SO, and 75% of area alumina impregnated with sodium carbonate. The The NOXSO Corporation is demonstrating a full-
the NOxfrom a coal-fired boilers flue gas using the cleaned flue gas then passes through a baghouse to the scale commercialNOXSO unit on a 150-MWe (net)
NOXSO process. Stack pulverized coal boiler at Alcoa Generating Companys
The NOxis desorbed from the NOXSO sorbent Warrick Power Plant, Unit 2, in Newburgh, IN. The fuel
when heated by a stream of hot air. The hot air contain- coal is Indianabituminous coal containing an average of
ing the desorbed NOxis recycled to the boiler where 3.4% sulfur. Data from the proof-of-conceptfacility at
equilibrium processes cause destructionof the NOx. The
absorbed sulfur is recovered from the sorbent in a regen-

7-72 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/89 3/91 3/97 3 9


I Preaward I Design and Construction I Omration

r Operationinitiated 3/97'
A
1
Environmental monitoring plan
completed 2/97.
Preoperational tests
initiated 2/97'
Construction completed 2/97.
constructionstaIted 3/96.
"ooperative agreement awarded 3/11/91 Design completed 3/96. Operation completed 12A

DOE selected project (CCT-Ill) 12/19/89


I ..EPA process completed (EA) 6/26/95
Proiect definition phase completed 10/94
Project complete(
finalreportissued 3%
ovakn of cooperaiive a g r e e k t with NOXSO Cop. 8/94 'Projected date
Selectednewhostsite 8/94

Ohio Edison Company's Toronto Station is being incor- coal is being used in the demonstration; however, the
porated into the plant design. process is adaptable to coals with medium- to high-
sulfur content.
Project StatudAccomplishments: The process produces one of the following as a
The NEPA process is complete. An environmental as- salable by-product: elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, or
sessment and finding of no significant impact was ap- liquid sulfur dioxide. A readily available market exists
proved June 26,1995. for these products.
Detailed design activitiesare continuing. Construc- The technology is expected to be especially attrac-
tion is pending final sale of revenue bonds which will tive to utilities that requirehigh removal efficienciesfor
provide the balance of NOXSO's cost share. The rev- both SO, and NOxand/or need to eliminate solid wastes.
enue bonds will be issued and guaranteed by the state of
Indiana.
All front-end engineeringand environmentalevalua-
tion activities are complete. Detailed design and procure-
ment activitipsare ongoing.

Commercial Applications:
The NOXSO process is applicable for retrofit or new
facilities. The process is suitablefor utility and industrial
coal-fired boilers of 75 MWe or larger. A high-sulfur

Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-73


Integrated Dry NOJSO,
Emissions Control System
Participant:
Public ServiceCompany of Colorado

Additional Team Members:


Electric Power Research Institute4ofunder
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.-engineer
The Babcock & Wilcox Company-bumer developer
Fossil Energy Research Corporation-operational
tester
Westem Research Institute-flyash evaluator
Colorado Schoolof Mines-bench-scale engineering
researcher and tester
Noell, Inc.-urea-injection systemprovider

Location:
Denver, Denver County, CO (Public ServiceCompany of
ColoradosArapahoe Station, Unit No. 4)

Technology:
The Babcock & Wilcox CompanysDRB-XCL@low-
NOxburners, in-duct sorbent injection, and furnace (urea)
injection(environmentalcontroldevicedcombinedSO,/ additional NOxremoval and dry sorbent in-duct injection ho types of dry sorbents are being injected into the
NOxcontroltechnologies) with humidificationfor SO, removal. ductwork downstream of the boiler to reduce SO, emis-
sions. Either calcium is injected upstream of the boiler
Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProjectDescription: economizer or sodium or calcium is injected downstream
100 MWe All of the testing is using Babcock & Wilcoxs low-NOx of the air heater. Humidification downstreamof the dry
DRB-XCL@down-fired burners with overfire air. These sorbent injection aids SO, capture and lowers flue gas
Project Funding: burners control NOxby injectingthe coal and the com- temperature and gas flow, which can decrease pressure
Total project cost $27,411,462 100% bustion air in an oxygen-deficientenvironment. Addi- drop at the fabric filter dust collector.
DOE 13,705,731 50 tional air is introduced via overfire air ports to complete
Participant 13,705,731 50 The three basic technology systems have been in-
the combustion process and further enhance NO, re- stalled on Public Service Company of Colorados Arapa-
Project Objective: moval. The low-NOxburners are expected to reduce hoe Station Unit No. 4,a 100-MWe down-fired, pulver-
To demonstratethe integrationof three technologies to NOxemissionsby up to 50%, and, with added air, by up ized-coalboiler with roof-mountedburners. Testing is
achieve up to 70% reduction in NOxand SO, emissions; to 70%. Further, in-furnace urea injection is being tested being conducted using a low-sulfur (0.4%) bituminous
more specifically,to assess the integrationof a down- to determine how much additional NOxcan be removed Colorado coal, with a short test using low-sulfur(0.35%)
fired low-NOxburner with in-furnace urea injection for from the combustion gas. subbituminousWyoming coal.
DRB-XCL is a registered trademark of The Babcock C Wilcox Company.

7-74 Program Update 1995 Environmental Control Devices


1988 1989 1990 I991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/89 3/91 Wianand 8/92 7/96

11 1
tt tL L
tI
TTI
A A
fEnvironmental
monitoring plan
DOE selected project
DOEselectedprojj completed 8/5/93
(CCT-Ill) 12/19/89
Project compietMnd report issued 7/96'
Design initiated 6/90

NEPA process completed (MTF) 9/27/90


I Ib, ration initiated 8/92
Constructioncompleted 8/92
Preoperational tests initiated 6/92
Urea injection and all operations
completed 5/96'
-esign completed 342 .etractable urea injection lances added 4/95
I ,round breakh~construdonstarted 5/21/91
I

mg-term sodium testing completed 3/95


Cooperative agreement awarded 3/11/91
'Projected date

Project StatudAccomplishments: A 2-week test bum of Power River Basin coal was organic compounds,and dioxins/furans were below or
Operational testing of the boiler with low-NOxburners completed during November 1995. SO, emissionswere very near their detection limit.
and overfire air started in early August 1992. While reduced about 20% due to the lower sulfur content of the Arapahoe 4 has operated over 28,800 hours since
firing westem bituminous coal, NOxwas reduced from coal. NOxemissions decreased by 25-30% at both 60 combustionmodifications were completed in May 1992.
an originalbaseline of 1.15 lbdmillion Btu to about 0.4 and 80 W e . Flyash unburned carbon decreased to less The availability factor during this period was over 91%.
Ib/millionBtu-a 65% reduction-with no operating than 1% due to the higher volatility of this coal. Perfor- Due to the successfulapplication of the system, the
problems. In-furnace urea injectionresulted in a 44% mance of the sodium injection was not affected by the Public Service Company of Colorado plans to continue
NOxreduction at full load with a 10-ppm ammonia slip, test coal. The coal did increase exit flue gas temperature operation of the combustionmodifications and the so-
but at low load, only 11% NOxreduction was obtained. slightly and thus changed operationof the urea injection dium-based dry sorbent injection system. A final deci-
New retractable injection lances were installed in April system. NOxremoval increased at low loads but de- sion on the selectivenoncatalytic reduction system will be
1995, and NOxreductionat low load was improved to creased slightly at high loads. made after the test program is completed.
35% at 10-ppm slip. Sodium-bicarbonateinjection The project has been extended through July 1996 to
allow for additional modifications and testing of the re- Commercial Applications:
achieved over 70% SO, removal at a stoichiometric ratio
tractableurea injection lances, additionallong-term SO, Either the entire integrated dry NOJSO, emissions con-
of approximately 1.O. Sodium sesquicarbonateinjection
after the air heater also obtained a 70% SO, removal but removal testing, and integrated testing of the low-NOx trol system or the individualtechnologies are applicable
at a stoichiometricratio of approximately 1.8. Calcium- burners with overfire air,sodium injection, and urea to most utility and industrial coal-fired units. They pro-
injection with the retractablelances. vide a lower capital-costaltemativeto conventional wet
based dry reagent injection achieved a maximum of 40%
SO, removal and caused some operationalconcerns. Four sehes of air toxics testing have been com- flue gas desulfurization processes. They can be retrofit-
Overall NOxreduction of 80% has been demonstrated at pleted. Results indicate that the baghouse successfully ted with modest capital investment and downtime, and
full load with the integrated sodium and urea injection removes nearly all trace metal emissions and nearly 80% their space requirements are substantiallyless. They can
system. of the mercury emissions. Radionuclides, semi-volatile be applied to any unit size but are mostly applicable to
the older, small- to mid-size units.
Environmental Control Devices Program Update 1995 7-75
Coal Processing
for Clean Fuels
Fact Sheets
Development of the Coal
Quality Expert
Participants:
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.
CQ Xnc.

Additional Team Members:


Black and Veatch-cofunder and software
developer
ElectricPower Research Institute-cofunder
The Babcock & Wilcox Company--cofunder and
pilot-scale tester
Electric Power Technologies, Inc.-field tester
University of North Dakota, Energy and Environmental
Research Center-bench-scale tester
Alabama Power Company-host
Mississippi Power Company-host
New England Power Company-host
Northem States Power Company-host
Public Service Company of Oklahoma-host

Locations:
Alliance, Columbiana County, OH (pilot-scale tests)
Windsor, Hartford County, CT (pilot-scale tests) Plant CapacityProduction: TechnologyProject Description:
Grand Forks, Grand Forks County, ND (bench tests) Full-scale testing took place at six utility sites ranging in Data derived from bench-, pilot-, and full-scaletesting
Wilsonville, Shelby County, AL (Gatson, Unit 5) size from 250 to 880 W e . were used to develop algorithms for inclusion into a
Gulfport, Harrison County, MS (Watson, Unit 4) state-of-the-art software package, the Coal Quality Ex-
Project Funding: pert, that can be run on a personal computer. Utilities
Somerset, Bristol County, MA (Brayton Point, Units 2 Total project cost $21,746,004 . 100%
and 3) may use CQE to predict the operating performance and
DOE 10,863,911 50 cost of coals not previously bumed at a particular
Bayport, Washington County, MN (King Station) Participants 10,882,093 50
Oologah, Rogers County, OK (Northeastem, Unit 4) facility.
Six large-scale field tests consisted of burning a
Project Objective:
Technology: baseline coal and an altemate coal over a 2-month pe-
To develop and demonstrate a personal computer soft-
CQ Inc.s EPRI Coal Quality Expert (CQE) computer riod. The baseline coal was used to characterize the
ware package that will serve as a predictive tool to assist
software (coal processing for clean fueldcoal preparation operating performance of the boiler. The altemate coal, a
coal-burning utilities in the selection of optimum quality
technologies) blended or cleaned coal of improved quality, was bumed
coal for a specific boiler based on operational efficiency,
in the boiler for the remaining test period.
cost, and environmentalemissions.

7-78 Program Update 1995 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


1
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

1/36

Operation initiated8/90
t
Project completedlfind report issued 1/96'
Final CQE software released 1/96'
Environmental monitoring plan completed 7/31/90
beta version reieased ~ 9 5
agreement swam 6/14/90
:ieM testing completed 4/93
NEPA process completed (MTF) 4/27/90

'Projected date

The baseline and alternate coals for each test site Project StatudAccomplishments: verized coal. The system can predict the operational
also were burned in bench- and pilot-scale facilities Over 100 algorithms based on data generated from six benefits of using altemative or cleaned coals.
under similar conditions. The alternate coal was cleaned full-scale field tests have been developed. Acid Rain CQ Inc. and Black and Veatch have signed a com-
at CQ Inc. to determine what quality levels of clean coal Advisor software became available in 1992, with two mercialization agreement which gives Black and Veatch
can be produced economically and then transported to commercial sales made in 1993 and 1995. nonexclusive worldwide rights to sell users' licenses and
the bench- and pilot-scale facilities for testing. All data Debugging of the CQE software proceeded through to offer consulting services that include the use of CQE
from bench-, pilot-, and full-scale facilities were evalu- the end of the project. A CQE beta version was released software.
ated and correlated to formulate algorithms being used to in May 1995 and evaluated by several utilities by July
develop the model. 1995. The initial commercial version of CQE was re-
Bench-scale testing was performed at ABB Com- leased in December 1995. CQE has been distributed to
bustion Engineering's facilities in Windsor, CT, and the about 40 U.S. utilities and 1 U.K. utility through mem-
University of North Dakota's Energy and Environmental bership in EPRI.
Research Center in Grand Forks, ND,pilot-scale testing
was performed at ABB Combustion Engineering's facili- Commercial Applications:
ties in Windsor, CT, and Alliance, OH. The six field test The software will enable coal-fired utilities to select the
sites were Gatson, Unit 5 (880 W e ) , Wilsonville, AL, optimum quality coals for their specific boilers to reduce
Watson, Unit 4 (250 W e ) , Gulfport, MS; Brayton SO,, NOx,and particulate emissions and to achieve the
Point, Unit 2 (285 MWe) and Unit 3 (615 W e ) , lowest operating costs.
Somerset, MA; King Station (560 M e ) , Bayport, MN; The CQE system is applicable to all electric power
and Northeastem, Unit 4 (445W e ) , Oologah, OK. plants and industrialhstitutional boilers that bum pul-

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Program Update 1995 7-79


Self-scrubbing Coal? An
Integrated Approach to Clean
Air
Participant:
Custom Coals Intemational (a joint venture between
Genesis Coals Limited Partnership and Genesis Research
Corporation)

Additional Team Members:


Pennsylvania Power & Light Company-host
Richmond Power & Light-host
Centerior Service Company-host
CQ Inc.-operator

Locations:
Central City, Somerset County, PA (advanced
coal-cleaning plant)
Lower Mt. Bethel Township, Northampton County, PA
(combustion tests at Pennsylvania Power & Lights
Martins Creek Power Station, Unit 2)
Richmond, Wayne County, IN (combustion tests at
Richmond Power & Lights Whitewater Valley
Generating Station, Unit No. 2)
Project Objective: to 90% of the pyritic sulfur and most of the ash. Care-
Ashtabula, Trumbull County, OH (combustion tests at
To demonstrate advanced coal-cleaning unit processes to free Coalm is designed to be a competitively priced,
Centerior Energys Ashtabula C)
produce low-cost compliance coals that can meet full high-Btu fuel that can be used without major plant modi-
Technology: requirements for commercial-scale utility power plants to fications or additional capital expenditures. While many
Coal preparation using Custom Coals advanced physical satisfy CAAA of 1990 provisions. utilities can use Carefree Coal to comply with SO,
coal cleaning and fine magnetite separation technology emissions limits, others cannot due to the high content of
TechnologyProject Description: organic sulfur in their coal feedstocks. When compli-
plus sorbent addition technology (coal processing for
An advanced coal-cleaning plant will be designed, ance coal cannot be produced by reducing pyritic sulfur,
clean fuelskoal preparation technologies)
blending existing and new processes, to produce, from Self-scrubbing C O Pcan be produced to achieve
Plant Capacity/Production: high-sulfur bituminous feedstocks, two types of compli- compliance.
500 tons/hr ance coaldarefree C o a P and Self-scrubbing CoaP. Self-scrubbing Coalm is produced by taking Care-
Carefree Coal is produced by breaking and screen- free CoapM, with its reduced pyritic sulfur and ash con-
Project Funding: ing run-of-mine coal and by using innovative dense- tent, and adding to it sorbents, promoters, and catalysts.
Total project cost $87,386,102 100% media cyclones and finely sized magnetite to remove up Self-scrubbing Coalm is expected to achieve compliance
DOE 37,994,437 43
with virtually any U.S.coal feedstock through in-boiler
Participant 49,39 1,665 57
absorption of SO, emissions. The reduced ash content of

7-80 Program Updote 1995 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


I
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2OOo 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/91 1OB2 2/96 11196


I Pmward I Desianand Construction I Owrstion I

A A A
t t t k--.--- Projectcompletedlfinalreport issued 11/96.

I'
Operationcompleted 11/96'
&E selected Operationinitiated 2/96'
p@& (CCT-IV)
9112/91 Environmental monitoring plan completed 2/96.
Preoperational tests initiated 11/95
c o n s ~ c o m p l e t e d11/95
Designcompleted 12/94

NEPA procas~completed (EA) 2/14/94


m&ructionstarted 12/93
VJOperative agreement awarded 10/29/92 'Projected date

the Self-scrubbing Coalm permits the addition of rela- Project StatudAccomplishments: sents over 38%of the bituminous coal burned in
tively large amounts of sorbent without exceeding the Plant start-upprocedures were initiated in November, by 50-MWe or larger U.S. generating stations.
ash specifications of the boiler or overloading the electro- month's end, 10% of the units had been started manually The technology produces coal products that can be
static precipitator. throughthe programmable logic control system, and used to reduce a utility or industrialpower plant's total
A 5w-ton/hr advanced coal-cleaning plant is being several analog functions were verified. By year-end sulfur emissions 8040%.
designed and constructed at a site near Central City, PA. 1995, all but two conveyors were fully operational. All In August 1994, a U.S.-led consortium with Custom
The advanced coal-cleaning plant will manufacture Self- piping was complete. Electrical work in the plant was Coals Corporation as the principal partner signed a coop-
Scrubbing Coalm and Carefree Coalm. ' b o medium- to 98%. All plant units have been turned over by the con- erative agreement with the People's Republic of China to
high-sulfur coals-Illinois No. 5 (2.7% sulfur) from tractor. All 17 of the planned loop tests have been com- build a coal-cleaning plant, a 500-mile underground
Wabash County, IL, and Lower Freeport Seam coal pleted. Interlock checking was approximately 75% slurry pipeline, and port facility. The pipeline will bring
(3.9% sulfur) from Belmont County, OH-will be used complete. Roughly 1,700 tons of coal were received to coal from the ShanXi province in northwest China to the
to produce Self-scrubbing Coalm. Carefree Coalm will check out the raw coal truck scales and storage handling coastal province of Shandong. The work included under
be made using Lower Kittanning Seam coal (1.8% sul- system. In addition, preliminary baseline testing of the agreement is valued at $888.6 million.
fur) from Somerset County, PA. The Lower Kittanning 10,OOO tons of low-volatile coal burned at Martin's Custom Coals is aggressively marketing the tech-
coal is being tested at Pennsylvania Power & Light's Creek has been completed. nology in Eastem Europe and has received letters of
Martin's Creek Power Station located in Lower Mt. intent from three Polish power plants that wish to pro-
Bethel Township, PA. The Illinois No. 5 coal is being Commercial Applications: duce 7.5 million tondyr of cleaned coal.
tested at Richmond Power & Light's Whitewater Valley Commercialization of Self-scrubbing Coalm has the Custom Coals also has a proposed agreement with
Generating Station Unit No. 2 located in Richmond, IN; potential of bringing into compliance about 164 million domestic coal-marketing companies for 1 million tons of
and the Lower Freeport Seam coal is being tested at tons/yr of bituminous coal that cannot meet emissions compliance coal annually.
Centerior Energy's Ashtabula C Power Plant near limitsthrough conventional coal cleaning. This repre-
Ashtabula, OH.
Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Program Update 1995 7-81
Advanced Coal Conversion
Process Demonstration
Participant:
Rosebud SynCoalPartnership (a partnership between
Westem Energy Company and the NRG Group, a
nonregulated subsidiary of Northem States Power
Company)
Additional Team Member:
None

Location:
Colstrip,Rosebud County, MT (adjacent to Westem
Energy Company's Rosebud Mine)

Technology:
Rosebud SynCoalPartnership's advanced coal
conversion process for upgrading low-rank
subbituminous and lignite coals (clean processing for
clean fuelskoal preparation technologies)
1

Plant CapacityProduction: ASH


45 tons/hr of SynCoal" product (300,000 tondyr)

Project Funding: TechnologyProject Description: The 45-ton/hr unit is located adjacent to a unit train
Total project cost $105,700,000 100% Being demonstrated is an advanced thermal coal conver- loadout facility at Westem Energy Company's Rosebud
DOE 43,125,000 41 sion process coupled with physical cleaning techniques to coal mine in Colstrip, MT. The demonstration plant is
Participant 62,575,000 59 upgrade high-moisture, low-rank coals to produce a high- one-tenth the size of a commercial facility. However, the
quality, low-sulfur fuel. The coal is processed through process equipment is at 1B-1/2 commercial scale be-
Project Objective: two fluidized-bed reactors that remove loosely held water cause a full-sized commercial plant will have multiple
To demonstrate Rosebud SynCoal's advanced coal con- and then chemically bound water, carboxyl groups, and process trains.
version process to produce SynCoal", a stable coal prod- volatile sulfur compounds. After conversion, the coal is
uct having a moisture content as low as 1%, sulfur con- put through a deep-bed stratifiercleaning process to
tent as low as 0.3%,and heating value up to 12,000 effect separation of the ash.
BWlb. The technology enhances low-rank westem coals,
usually with a moisture content of 25-40%, sulfur con-
tent of 0.5-1.5%, and heating value of 5,500-9,OOO
Bhdlb, by producing an upgraded SynCoal" product with
a moisture content as low as 1%, sulfur content as low as
SynCoal is a registered trademark of the Rosebud SynCoalPartnership. 0.3%, and heating value up to 12,000 Bhdlb.

7-82 Program Update 1995 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/88 9/90 6/92 11M7


I Preaward I Desianand Constr

DOE selected project


(CCT-I) 12/9/88
ttI
I
Test operation initiated 6/92

'Environmental monitoring plan completed 4/7/92 Operation completed 6/97'


T fI I
Construction completed 2/92 Project completed/final
Cooperative agreement report issued 11/97'
awarded 9/21/90 moperational tests initiated 12/91
Design completed 8/91
,round breaking/constructionstarted 3/28/91
NEPA process completed (EA) 3/27/91
'Projected date

Project StatudAccomplishments: Killer" testing has been initiated at the Minnkota Power impact on SO, reduction and provide an economical
The demonstration facility continues reliable operation. Station and Montana Power's J.E. Corettte Plant. Ex- clean altemative fuel to many regional industrial facili-
It has produced a total of 1,037,255 tons of SynCoaP tended kiln testing has begun at Wyoming Lime. ties and small utilities being forced to use fuel oil and
products through year-end 1995. Rosebud continues to natural gas. Rosebud SynCoal's process, therefore, will
supply different products to a range of customers, includ- Commercial Applications: be attractive to industry and utilities because the up-
ing industrial, institutional, and utility users. Total sales Rosebud SynCoal"'s advanced coal conversion process graded fuel will be less costly to use than would the
of SynCoal" product during 1995 were 315,687 tons. has the potential to enhance the use of low-rank westem construction and use of flue gas desulfurization equip-
Two different products have been delivered to four subbituminous and lignite coals. Many of the power ment. This will allow plants that would otherwise be
industrial customers. Ash Grove Cement of Montana plants located throughout the upper Midwest have cy- closed to remain in operation.
City, MT, has received granular SynCoal" and fines; clone boilers, which bum low-ash-fusion-temperature Rosebud SynCoal Partnership conducted a
Bentonite Corporation of Colony, WY, regular SynCoal@; coals. Presently, most of these plants bum Illinois Basin $2-million study for Minnkota Power Cooperative to
Empire Sand and Gravel of Billings, MT, granular high-sulfur coal. SynCoal@is an ideal low-sulfur coal examine the merits of applying the coal-processing tech-
SynCoal'; and Wyoming Lime of Warren, MT, fines and substitutefor these and other plants because it allows nology to a commercial plant integrated into an existing
granular SynCoal". operation under more restrictiveemissions guidelines power plant site. The study's results have been positive,
Montana Power's J.E. Corette Plant has received a without requiring derating of the units or the addition of but market commitments are still necessary. The part-
conditioned SynCoal' and DSE-conditioned SynCoal" costly flue gas desulfurization systems. The advanced nership is working on plans for two semi-commercial
blend. Montana Power's Colstrip Units 3 and 4 and coal conversion process produces SynCoal" which has a projects, one each in Wyoming and Montana.
Minnkota Power have received SynCoal" to continue consistently low moisture content, a low sulfur content, a
their testing. The University of North Dakota has re- high heating value, and a high volatile content. Because
ceived SynCoal" blended with raw coal. "Klinker of these characteristics, SynCoal" could have significant

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Program Update 1995 7-83


ENCOAL Mild Coal
Gasification Project
Participant:
ENCOAL Corporation (a subsidiary of SMC
Mining Company, which is a unit of Zeigler Coal
Holding Company)

Additional Team Members:


SMC Mining Company+ofunder
TEK-KOL (partnership between SMC Mining Company
and SGI Intemational)-technology owner, supplier,
and licenser
SGIIntemational-technology developer
Triton Coal Company (subsidiary of SMC Mining
Company>-host and coal supplier
The M.W. Kellogg Company-engineer and
constructor

Location:
Near Gillette, Campbell County, WY (Triton Coal
Companys Buckskin Mine)

Technology:
SGI Intemationals liquids from coal process (coal Technology/Project Description: The gas produced in the pyrolyzer is sent through a
preparation for clean fueldmild gasification) The ENCOAL mild coal gasificationprocess involves cyclone for removal of the particulates and then cooled
heating coal under carefully controlled conditions. Coal to condense the liquid-fuel products. Most of the gas
Plant Capacity/Production: is fed into a rotary grate dryer where it is heated by a hot from the condensation unit is recycled to the pyrolyzer.
1,000 tondday of subbituminous coal feed
gas stream to reduce the coals moisture content. The The rest of the gas is bumed in combustors to provide
Project Funding: solid bulk temperature is controlled so that no significant heat for the pyrolyzer and the dryer. NOxemissions are
Total project cost $90,664,000 100% amounts of methane, CO, or CO, are released from the controlled by staged air injection.
DOE 45,332,000 50 coal. The solids from the dryer are conveyed to the pyro- The offgas from the dryer is treated in a wet venturi
Participant 45,332,000 50 lyzer where the rate of heating of the solids and residence scrubber to remove particulates and a horizontal scrubber
time are controlled to achieve desired properties of the to remove SO,, both using a sodium carbonate solution.
Project Objective: fuel products. During processing in the pyrolyzer, all The treated gas is vented to a stack, and the spent solu-
To demonstrate the integrated operation of a number of remaining free water is removed, and a chemical reaction tion is discharged into a pond for evaporation.
novel processing steps to produce two higher value fuel occurs that results in the release of volatile gaseous The ENCOAL project is located within Campbell
forms from mild gasificationof low-sulfur subbitumi- material. Solids exiting the pyrolyzer are quenched, County, WY, at Triton Coal Companys Buckskin Mine,
nous coal; and to provide sufficientproducts for potential cooled, and transferred to a surge bin. 10 miles north of Gillette. The plant makes use of the
end users to conduct bum tests.

7-84 Program Update 1995 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


1
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

Preaward
12/89
I I I DesignandConstruction
9/90
7/92
I
9/96
I

.).
Projectcutnpletedmnal report
issued 9196
Operation completed 9/96

Preoperationaltests initiated 4/92


(CCT-I11)
12/19/89 Designcompleted 7/91

I cooperative agreement awarded 9/17/90

NEPA process completed (EA) 8/1/90


Projected date

present coal-handling facilities at the mine. Subbitumi- chased 800,000 gallons for use in its synfuel plant in lower sulfur content (per unit of fuel value) of the new
nous coal with 0 . 4 4 9 % sulfur content is being used. Beulah, ND. solid-fuel product compared to the low-rank coal feed-
The project has been extended to resolve problems stock, and the production of low-sulfur liquid products
Project StatudAccomplishments: with the in-process stabilizationof the solid product and requiring no M e r treatment for the fuel oil market.
The plant officially entered the production mode in June to conduct and analyze utility test bums of solid product. The product fuels are expected to be used economically
1994; operation has been at a coal feed rate of 500 tons/ A topical report on the initial commercial shipment in commercial boilers and furnaces and to reduce signifi-
day. By year-end 1995, the plant had logged more than and utilization of both solid and liquid products was cantly SO, emissions at industrial and utility facilities
7,900 hours of operation on coal. To date,more than released in March 1995. Test data with respect to sulfur currently buming high-sulfurbituminous coals or fuel oils.
43,189 tons of solid product and more than 2.2 million distributionin the products show a reduction in SO, of Numerous feasibility studies have been performed
gallons of liquid product have been shipped to industrial over 20% on a lblmillion Btu basis. for both domestic and intemational clients who are pri-
and utility customers. marily interested in upgrading their low-rank coal re-
Solid product has been tested by Western Farmers Commercial Applications: serves. TEK-KOL and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are
Cooperatives Hugo plant in Oklahoma, by Muscatine The liquid products from mild coal gasificationcan be performing advanced feasibility studies regarding joint
Power and Water in Iowa, and by the Omaha Public used in existing markets in place of No.6 fuel oil. The engineering, design, and construction of commercial
Power District in Nebraska. Wisconsin Power & Light solid product can be used in most industrialor utility plants in Indonesia, China, and Russia. TEK-KOL is
also has contracted for 30,000 tons of pure solid product boilers and also shows promise for iron ore reduction also negotiating with Japanese trading companies to
to test storage stability and to do test burns. applications. The feedstock for mild gasification is market both liquid and solid products in Southeast Asia.
Tank cars of liquid product are being shipped to being limited to high-moisture, low-heating-value coals.
several customers in the Midwest for use in industrial The potential benefits of this mild gasificationtech-
boilers. The Dakota Gasification Company has pur- nology in its commercial configuration are attributable to
the increased heating value (about 12,000 Btullb) and

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Program Update 1995 7-85


Commercial-Scale 4I
Demonstration of the Liquid- OXYGEN

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHm) r s l SYNTHESISGAS

Process
Participant:
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. (a
limited partnership between Air Products and Chemi-
cals, Inc., the general partner, and Eastman Chemical
Company)

Additional Team Members:


Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.--technology supplier
and cofunder
Eastman Chemical Company-host; synthesis gas and
servicesprovider
Acurex Environmental Corporation-fuel methanol tester
and cofunder
Electric Power Research Institute-fuel methanol tester
and cofunder

Location:
Kingsport, Sullivan County, TN (Eastman Chemical
Companys Integrated Coal Gasification Facility)
Project Objective: methanol processes. The liquid phase not only suspends
Technology: To demonstrate on a commercial scale the production of the catalystbut functions as an efficient means to remove
Air Products and Chemicals liquid-phase methanol methanol from coal-derived synthesis gas using the the heat of reaction away from the catalyst surface. This
(LPMEOP) process (coal processing for clean fuels/ L P M E O P process; and to determine the suitability of feature permits the direct use of synthesis gas streams as
indirectliquefaction) methanol produced during this demonstration for use as feed to the reactor without the need for shift conversion.
a chemical feedstock or as a low-SOx,low-NOxaltema- The Eastman Chemical Companys integrated coal
Plant CapacityDroduction: tive fuel in stationary and transportation applications. If gasificationfacility at Kingsport, TN,has operated com-
260 tondday of methanol (nominal) practical, the production of dimethyl ether @ME) as a mercially since 1983. At this site, it will be possible to
mixed coproduct with methanol also will be demon- ramp up and down to demonstrate the unique load-fol-
Project Funding:
strated. lowing flexibility of the L P M E O P unit for application
Total project cost: $213,700,000 100%
to coal-based electric power generation facilities. Metha-
DOE 92,708,370 43 TechnologyDroject Description: nol fuel testing will be conducted in off-site stationary
Participant 120,991,630 57 This project is demonstrating, at commercial scale, the and mobile applications, such as boilers, fuel cells,
L P M E O P process to produce methanol from coal- buses, and van pools. Design verification testing for the
derived synthesis gas. The combined reactor and heat production of DME as a mixed coproduct with methanol
LPMEOH is a trademark of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. removal system is different from other commercial for use as a storable fuel is planned, and a decision to

7-86 Program Update 1995 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/89 1om2 12/96 12/01

Operation initiated 12/96,


W E selected
prqect (CCT-Ill) / I
la19/89 Preoperational tests initiated 11/96' Operatin completed 2/01'
constructioncompleted 11196' Project completedifinal report *sSued 12/01
Design completed 6/96'
Environmental monitoring plan completed 6/96.

"3nstructionstarted lam5
IEPA process completed (EA) W/95
-mtive agreement awarded 1011W92
'Projectd date

demonstrate will be made. Eastem high-sulfur bitumi- Commercial Applications: stock for the synthesis of chemicals or new, oxygenate
nous coal (Mason seam) containing 3% sulfur (5%maxi- The L P M E O P process has been developed to enhance fuel additives. Pure DME has been gaining acceptance
mum) and 10%ash will be used. integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power as an environmentally friendly aerosol in personal
generation by producing a clean burning, storable liquid products.
Project StatudAccomplishments: fuel-methanol-from the clean coal-derived gas. Qpical commercial-scale LF'MEOHTM units are
To provide a contractual basis to manage and execute the Methanol also has a broad range of commercial applica- expected to range in size from 150 to 1,OOO tons/day of
L P M E O F demonstration project, Air Products and tions, can be substituted for conventional fuels in station- methanol produced when associated with commercial
Chemicals and the Eastman Chemicals Company have ary and mobile combustion applications, is an excellent IGCC power generation trains of 2W350 MWe. Air
formed the limited partnership, Air Products Liquid fuel for peak power production, contains no sulfur, and Products and Chemicals expects to market the
Phase Conversion Company. Project definitionactivities has exceptionally low-NOxcharacteristicswhen bumed. LPMEOHTM technology through licensing, owning/
were completed in September 1994 and design was Methanol can be produced from coal as a coproduct in an operating, and tolling arrangements.
initiated. The NEPA process has been completed. An IGCC facility.
environmental assessment was prepared, and a finding of DME has several commercial uses. In a storable
no significant impact was signed June 30, 1995. Con- blend with methanol, the mixture can be used as peaking
struction started in October 1995. By year-end 1995, site fuel in IGCC electric power generating facilities. DME
preparation was complete and foundation installation can also be used to increase the vapor pressure of a
was under way. Activitiesto update the off-site fuel-use methanol blend. The resulting higher volatility is ex-
test plan were initiated. Revisions also were being made pected to provide beneficial "cold start" properties to
to the environmental monitoring plan. The demonstra- methanol being used as a diesel engine fuel. Blends of
tion test plan is also under development. methanol and DME can also be used as a chemical feed-

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Program Update 1995 7-87


Industrial Applications
Fact Sheets
Blast Furnace Granulated-
Coal Injection System
Demonstration Project
Participant:
Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Additional Team Members:


British Steel Consultants Overseas Services, Inc.
(marketing arm of British Steel Corporation)-
technology owner
Simon-Macawber, Ltd.-equipment supplier
Fluor Daniel, Inc.-architect and engineer
ATSI, Inc.4njection equipment engineer
(U.S. technology licensee)

Location:
Burns Harbor, Porter County, IN (Bethlehem Steel's
Bums Harbor Plant, Blast Fumace Units C and D)
TO STEELMAKING
Technology:
British Steel's blast fumace granulated-coal injection
(BFGCI) process (industrial applications)

Plant CapacitylProduction: TechnologyProject Description: tuyeres displaces coke, the primary blast furnace fuel and
7,000 net tondday of hoE metal (each blast fumace) In the BFGCI process, both granulated and pulverized reductant (reducing agent), on approximately a pound-for-
coal is injected into the blast furnace in place of natural pound basis. Because coke production results in signifi-
Project Funding:
gas (or oil) as a blast furnace fuel supplement. The coal cant emissions of NO,, SO,, and air toxics and coal could
Total project cost $191,700,000 100%
along with heated air is blown into the barrel-shaped replace up to 40% of the coke requirement, BFGCI tech-
DOE 31,259,530 16
section in the lower part of the blast furnace through nology has significant potential to reduce emissions and
Participant 160,440,470 84
passages called tuyeres, which creates swept zones in enhance blast fumace production.
Project Objective: the fumace called raceways. The size of a raceway is Emissions generated by the blast fumace itself re-
To demonstrate that existing iron-making blast fumaces important and is dependent upon many factorsincluding main virtually unchanged by the injected coal; the gas
can be retrofitted with blast fumace granulated-coal temperature. Lowering of a raceway temperature, exiting the blast fumace is clean, containing no measur-
injection technology; and to demonstrate sustained which can occur with gas injection, reduces blast fur- able SO, or NOx. Sulfur from the coal is removed by the
operation with a variety of coal particle sizes, coal injec- nace production rates. Coal, with a lower hydrogen limestone flux and bound up in the slag, which is a salable
tion rates, and coal types, and to assess the interactive content than either gas or oil, does not cause as severe a by-product. In addition to the net emissions reduction
nature of these parameters. reduction in raceway temperatures. In addition to dis- realized by coke displacement, blast fumace production is
placing injected natural gas, the coal injected through the increased by maintaining high raceway temperatures.

7-90 Program Update 1995 Industrial Applications


1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 8 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

12/89 11/90 11/95 9/98

f
I
DOE selected
prqect (CCT-Ill)
tt Tt 'Operation initiated 11/95

breoperationai tests initiated 2/95


Construction completed 2/95
la19/89 Environmental monitoring pian completed 12/23&4
Design completed 12/93
construction started 9/93 Project completedninal repori
issued 9/98'
EPA p m s s completed (EA)6/8/93
Operation completed 9/98'
umperative agreement awarded 11/26/90
'Projected date

Two high-capacity blast furnaces, Units C and D at The target rate was 180 lbshet ton for each fumace
Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Bums Harbor Plant, are during the start-up. Bethlehem Steel has achieved coal
being retrofitted with BFGCI technology. Each unit has a injection rates of 235 lbshet ton of hot metal. Furnace
production capacity of 7.000 net tonslday of hot metal. operation has been improving as operators gain experi-
The two units will use about 2,800 tons/day of coal dur- ence.
ing full operation. Bituminouscoals with sulfur content Bethelem Steel has switched on the fly from a high-
ranging from 0.8%to 2.8%from West Virginia, Pennsyl- volatile Kentucky coal to a low-volatile Virginiacoal.
vania, Illinois, and Kentucky are to be used. A westem Burden and blast conditions are being fine-tuned on both
subbituminouscoal having 0.449%sulfur might be fumacesas injection rate increases.
tested also.
Commercial Applications:
Project StatudAccomplishments: BFGCI technology can be applied to essentially all U.S.
Construction was completed in February 1995. blast fumaces. The technology should be applicable to
Bethlehem Steel submitted a public design report in any rank coal commercially available in the United
March 1995. Start-up testing has been completed, and States that has a moisture content no higher than 12%.
the plant is fully commissioned. Operational testing The environmentalimpacts of commercial application
began in November 1995. are primarily indirect and consist of a significant reduc-
Bethlehem Steel has been injecting granular coal tion of emissions resulting from diminished coke-mak-
through 26 tuyeres of both the C and D fumaces at aver- ing requirements.
age injection rates of 170-225 lbshet ton of hot metal.

Industrial Applications Program Update 1995 7-91


Clean Power from Integrated
CoaVOre Reduction (COREX@)
Participant:
Centerior Energy Corporation

Additional Team Members:


Geneva Steel Company-site owner; constructor and
operator of COREX" unit
Air products and Chemicals, Inc.-designer, engineer,
constructor, and operator of air separation and
combined-cycle units
Deutsche Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GmbH-
COREX" developer/supplier; designer and engineer
of COREX" unit

Location:
Vineyard, Utah County, UT (Geneva Steel Company's
mill)

Technology:
Integration of Deutsche Voest-Alpine
Industrieanlagenbau's COREX" iron-making process
with a combined-cycle power generation system
(industrial applications) Project Objective: iron. The gasification process generates the reducing gas
-
To demonstrate the integration of a direct iron-making for use in the reduction fumace as well as sufficient heat
Plant Capacity/Production: process (COREX") with the co-production of electricity to melt the resulting iron in the melter-gasifier.
195 MWe (net) and 3,300 tonslday of hot metal (liquid using various U.S.coals in an efficient and environmen- Excess reducing gas exiting the reduction fumace is
iron) tally responsible manner. cooled, cleaned, compressed, mixed with air, and bumed
in a gas W i n e generator system capable of combusting
Project Funding: TechnologyProject Description: low-Btu gas to make electric power. The hot exhaust
Total project cost $1,065,805,OOO 100% The clean power from integrated coallore reduction from the turbine is then delivered to a heat recovery
DOE 149,469,242 14 (CPICORY process integratestwo historically distinct steam generator where process steam is made for utiliza-
Participant 916,335,758 86 processes-iron-making and electric power generation. tion in a steam turbine generator system to produce
Funding amounts are preliminary and subject to COREX" is a novel iron-making technology which additional electric power.
negotiation, pending award of a cooperative agreement.) eliminates the need for coke production. The key inno- During the demonstration, about 3,400 tondday of a
vative features of the COREP process include the bituminous coal blend containing about 0.5% sulfur will
reduction shaft furnace, which is used to reduce the iron be utilized. The project will produce 3,300 tons/day of
COREX is a registered trademark of Deutsche Voest-Alpine ore to iron, and the melter-gasifier, located beneath the hot metal and 195 MWe for sale.
Industrieanlagenbau GmbH.
reduction furnace, which gasifies the coal and melts the

7-92 Program Update 1995 Industrial Applications


1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

193
Preaward I

INote: Mihtone schedulepending award of


cooperative agnrement

OE selected pmjed
XT-V) 5/4/93

~~

CPICORm technology is less complex and environ- July 1994, Air Products and Chemicals, Centerior En- ized coal power plant with flue gas desulfurization.
mentally superior than competing iron-making and ergy, and Geneva Steel Comp.any signed an agreement to Similarly, the total emissions of SO, from the commer-
power-generating technologies. Criteria air pollutants develop and site the project at Geneva Steel's mill in cial facility are expected to be 0.024 lb/million Btu, a
are reduced substantially largely due to (1) the inherent Vineyard, UT (near Orem). reduction of more than 90%. The net electricalgenerat-
desulfurizing capability of the COREXB process wherein ing efficiency of the commercial facility is estimated to
the limestone fed to the reduction furnace captures the Commercial Applications: be 47% (a net effective heat rate of 7,262 Btu/kWh on
sulfur present in the coal and (2) the efficient control The CPICORm technology is a direct replacement for an LHV basis). This compares to a net efficiency of
systems within the combined-cycle power generation existing blast furnace and coke-making capacity with the 32% for comparably sized conventional facilities.
process. Because coke is not used, coke plants and their additional benefit of combined-cycle power generation. Overall, a CPICORm commercial plant would
associated pollutants can be eliminated. A full-scale commercial plant based on the CF'ICORm produce minimal solid or liquid impacts to the environ-
The energy efficiencyof the CPICORm technology demonstration project will produce nearly 200 MWe (net ment, especially when compared to existing competing
is much greater than competing commercial technology. exportable) and 1,200,000 tondyr of hot metal while facilities. All solid wastes are expected to be exempt
This efficiency advantage is gained by more effective expanding the type of coals that can be used to produce from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
use of both the sensible heat in the process and the vola-
hot metal into the much larger noncoking range. requirements. The majority of solid wastes are benefi-
tile matter in the coal, as well as by incorporation of the The total emissions of NOx from a future commer- cially reused, which increases the economic benefit of
combmedcycle power generation system. cial plant are expected to be 0.012 lbhillion Btu of coal, the technology and avoids burdening landfills. Most of
which is a reduction of more than 97% from the combi- the solid waste is slag from the iron-making process,
Project StatudAccomplishments: nation of a comparably sized blast fumace, associated which is usable in applications such as ballast for road
The project is in negotiation. In April 1994, LTV Steel coke-making facilities, and a comparably sized pulver- construction and foundations.
elected to withdraw from the proposed project. In

Industriul Applicm'ons Program Update 1995 7-93


Advanced Cyclone Combustor
with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen,
and Ash Control
Project completed.

Participant:
Coal Tech Corporation

Additional Team Members:


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Energy Development
Authority--cofunder
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company-supplier of
test coals
Tampella Power Corporation-host

Location:
Williamsport, Lycoming County, PA (Tampella Power
Corporation boiler manufacturing plant)

Technology:
Coal Techs advanced, air-cooled, slagging combustor
(industrial applications)

Plant CepacityProduction; TechnoIogyProject Description: the balance burned on or near the wall. This improves
23 million Btu/hr Coal Techs horizontal cyclone combustor is intemally combustion in the fuel-rich chamber, as well as slag
& Project Funding: lined with ceramic that is air-cooled. Pulverized coal, retention. The slag contains over 80% of the ash and
Total project cost $984,394 100% air, and sorbent are injected tangentially toward the wall sorbent fed to the combustor. For NOxcontrol, the com-
DOE 490,149 50 through tubes in the annular region of the combustor to bustor is operated fuel rich, with final combustion taking
Participant 494,245 50 cause cyclonic action. In this manner, coal-particle place in the boiler furnace to which the combustor is
combustion takes place in a swirling flame in a region attached.
Project Objective: favorable to particle retention in the combustor. Second- In Coal Techs demonstration, an advanced, air-
To demonstrate that an advanced cyclone combustor can ary air is used to adjust the overall combustor stoichiom- cooled, cyclone coal combustor was retrofitted to a
be retrofitted to an industrial boiler and that it can simul- etry. The ceramic liner is cooled by the secondary air 23-million-Btu/hr, oil-designed package boiler located at
taneously remove up to 90% of the SO, and 90-95% of and maintained at a temperature high enough to keep the the Tampella Power Corporation boiler factory in
the ash within the combustor and reduce NOxby up to slag in a liquid, free-flowing state. The secondary air is Williamsport, PA. Air cooling in this combustor takes
100 ppm. preheated by the combustor walls to attain efficient place in a very compact combustor which can be retrofit-
combustion of the coal particles in the fuel-rich ted to a wide range of industrial and utility boiler designs
cumbustor. Fine coal pulverization allows combustion without disturbing the boilers water-steam circuit. NOx
of most of the coal particles near the cyclone wall, with reduction is achieved by staged combustion, and SO, is

7-94 Program Update 1995 Industrial Applications


captured by injection of limestone into the combustor. the coal sulfur was retained in the dry ash removed Coal Techs advanced, air-cooled, slagging combus-
The cyclonic action inside the combustor forces the coal from the combustor and furnace hearths, and a high tor can use a wide range of U.S. coals and can be retro-
ash and sorbent to the walls where it can be collected as of 11% of the coal sulfur was retained in the slag fitted to existing or new units. The target market is
liquid slag. Under optimum operating conditions, the rejected through the slag tap. industrial and utility boilers sized 20-100 million Btu/hr
slag contains a significant fraction of vitrified coal sul- or more; multiple combustors can be attached to larger
Local stack particulate emission standards were met
fur. Downstream sorbent injection into the boiler pro- boilers. The near-term focus is on using the combustor
with the wet venturi particulate scrubber.
vides additional sulfur removal capacity. in combined-cycle industrial and small utility power
Total slagtsorbent retention in the combustor, under plants in the 10-50-MWe range. The combustor is ca-
Project ResulWAccomplishments: efficient combustion operating conditions, averaged pable of using pulverized coal, coal-water slurry, cofired
The test effort consisted of 800 hours of operation which 72% and ranged from 55% to 90%. Under more fuel- pulverized coal, and refuse-derived fuels (e.g.. industrial
included five individual tests, each of 4 days duration, lean conditions, the slag retention averaged 80%. In sludge and coal-mine waste).
plus another 100 hours of operation as part of separate post-CCT-project tests on flyash vitrification in the
ash vitrification tests. Eight Pennsylvania bituminous combustor, modifications to the solids injection Project Schedule:
coals with sulfur contents ranging from 1% to 3.3% and method and increases in the slag flow rate produced DOE selected project (CCT-I) 7/24/86
volatile matter ranging from 19% to 37% were tested. substantial increases in the slag retention rate. Cooperative agreement awarded 3/20/87
Under fuel-rich conditions, combustion efficiencies NEPA process completed 3/26/87
All slag removed from the combustor produced trace Environmental monitoring plan completed 9/22/87
exceeding 99% after proper operating procedures were
metal leachates well below the EPA drinking water Construction 7187-1 1/87
achieved. Turndown to 6 million Btuihr from a peak of
standard. Operational testing 11187-5/90
19 million BWhr was achieved. Due to facility limits on
water availability for the boiler and for cooling the com- Different sections of the combustor had different Project completed 9191
bustor, the maximum heat input during the tests was materials requirements. Sujtable materials for each
Final Reports:
around 20 million Btu/hr even though the combustor section were identified. Also,the test effort showed
Final Technical Report 8191
was designed for 30 million Btu/hr and the boiler was that operational procedures were closely coupled with
DOE Assessment 5/93
thermally rated at around 25 million Btulhr. materials durability. By implementing certain proce-
Coal Tech reported the following test results: dures, such as changing the combustor wall tempera-
With fuel-rich operation of the combustor, a 75% ture, it was possible to replenish the combustor re-
fractory wall thickness with slag.
reduction in boiler-outlet-stack NOx was obtained,
corresponding to 0.3 lblmillion Btu (184 ppmv). An Procedures for properly operating an air-cooled com-
additional 5-10% NOxreduction was obtained by the bustor were developed, and the entire operating data-
action of the wet particulate scrubber, resulting in base was incorporated into a computer-controlled
atmospheric NOxemissions as low as 0.26 lb/million system for automatic combustor operation.
Btu (160 ppmv).
Commercial Applications:
Over 80% SO, reduction measured at the boiler outlet Coal Tech has concluded that, while the combustor is not
stack was achieved using sorbent injection in the yet fully ready for sale with commercial guarantees, it is
furnace at various calcium-to-sulfur molar ratios ready to be further scaled up for commercial applications
(Cats). A maximum SO, reduction of 58% was (100 million Btu/hr), such as combustion of waste solid
measured at the stack with limestone injection into fuels, limited sulfur control in coal-fired boilers, and
the combustor at a Ca/S of 2. A maximum of 33% of conversion of ash to slag.

Industrial Applications Program Update 1995 7-95


Cement Kiln Flue Gas
Recovery Scrubber
Project completed.

Participant:
Passamaquoddy Tribe

AdditionalTeam Members:
Dragon Products Company-project manager and sst
E.C. Jordan Company+ngineer for overall scrubber
system
HPD, Incorporated-designer and fabricator of tanks
and heat exchanger
Cianbro Corporation-constructor

Location:
Thomaston, Knox County, ME (Dragon Products
Companys coal-fried cement kiln)

Technology:
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubberm
(industrial applications)

Plant CapacityProduction:
1,450 tondday of cement; 250,000 std ft3/minof kiln eastem coals and to produce a commercial by-product, The Passamaquoddy Tribes recovery scrubber was
potassium-based fertilizer. constructed at the Dragon Products Companys cement
gas; and up to 274 tondday of coal
plant in Thomaston, ME, a plant that processes approxi-
Project Funding: Technology/Project Description: mately 470,000 tondyr of cement. The process was
Total project cost $17,800,000 100% The Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubberm developed by the Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe while it
DOE 5,982,592 34 uses a water solutiodslurry containing potassium-rich was seeking ways to solve landfill problems, which
Participant 11,817,408 66 dust recovered from the kiln flue gas, which serves as resulted from the need to dispose of waste kiln dust from
the scrubbing medium. No other chemicals are required the cement-making process.
Project Objective: for the process. After scrubbing the gas, the slurry is The kiln bums Pennsylvania bituminous coal con-
To retrofit and demonstrate a full-scale industrial scrub- separated into liquid and solid fractions. The solid frac- taining approximately 3% sulfur.
ber and waste recovery system for a coal-burning wet tion is retumed to the cement plant as renovated and
process cement kiln using waste dust as the reagent to usable raw feed material. The liquid fraction is passed
accomplish 90-95% SO, reduction using high-sulfur to a crystallizerthat uses waste heat in the exhaust gas to
evaporate the water and recover dissolved alkali metal
Salts.
PassamaquoddyTechnologyRecovery Scrubber is a trademark of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe.

7-96 Program Update 1995 Industrial Applications


Project ResulWAccomplishments: Water usage might or might not increase depending
The recovery scrubber began operations in August 1991 on the configuration of the existing kiln facility. How-
and has continued operations with several temporary ever, the quality of wastewater would be improved and
shutdowns for normal kiln repairs and maintenance and the amount reduced because the technology produces
a more lengthy shutdown from January to May 1992 due distilled water either for sale or discharge.
to poor economic conditions in the area. In a 5-month The waste dust that previously would have been
period from May to September 1992, the plant produced sent to a landfill would be recovered for recycling to the
approximately 140,000tons of cement while the scrub- kiln and to produce by-product fertilizer. Essentially,
ber removed 70 tons of SO, and treated 6,000 tons of the solid waste stream would be eliminated through
kiln dust for return to the kiln as raw feed. Initial testing recovery.
of the scrubbing system achieved the project objective of
%95% SO, emission reduction, with a maximum re- Project Schedule:
duction of 98%. The effect on NOxemissions also was DOE selected project (CCT-11) 9/28/88
detennined during the demonstration. NOxemissions Cooperative agreement awarded 12l20189
were reduced 5-15%. Operations have totaled 5,316 NEPA process completed @A) 2/16/90
hours. Capital costs are approximately $10 million for a Environmental monitoring plan completed 3/26/90
450,000-tonlyr plant, with a simple payback in about Construction 4/90-5/91
3-4 years. Project operations continued through Sep- Operational testing 8/91-9/93
tember 1993 when the scrubber became a permanent part Project completed 2/94
of the Dragon Products facility. Final Reports:
Commercial Applications: Final Technical Report
The recovery scrubber permits the use of high-sulfur (including economic assessment) 2/94
coal in cement kilns using available waste dust as the Topical Report 3/92
reagent, without requiring the purchase of other materi- Public Design Report 10/93
als as scrubber reactant.
There are over 250 cement kiln installationsin the
United States and along the St. Lawrence River in
Canada emitting approximately 230,000 tondyr of SO,.
Based upon the characteristicsof the technology, the
applicable market would include approximately 75% of
these installations. If the technology were installed in
the applicable market facilities, SO, emissions could be
reduced by approximately 150,000 tondyr. Commercial-
ization of the technology may be spurred on when EPA
issues emissions limits on cement kilns under the CAAA
of 1990. The technology may also have broader applica-
tions in paper production and municipal waste incinera-
tion in the United States and abroad.

Industrial Applications Program Up&te 1995 7-97


Demonstration of Pulse
Combustion in an Application
for Steam Gasification of Coal
Participant:
ThermoChem,Inc.

Additional Team Member:


Manufacturing and Technology Conversion
Intemational, Inc.-technology supplier

Location:
Silver Bay, Lake County, MN (Northshore Mining Com-
pany facility)

Technology:
Advanced combustion using Manufacturing and
Technology Conversion Internationals (MTCI) pulse
combustor/gasifier (industrial applications)

Plant Capacity/Production:
161 million Btu/hr of 325 Btdstd ft3 medium-Btu fuel
gas plus 40,000 1bhr of export steam

Project Funding:
Technology/Project Description: SO, emissions are controlled by scrubbing the prod-
Total project cost $37,333,474 100%
The MTCI fluidized-bed gasifier incorporates an innova- uct gas using commercially available processes. A mar-
DOE 18,666,737 50
tive indirect heating process for thermochemical steam ket for the by-product sulfur is being sought, and dis-
Participant 18,666,737 50
gasification of coal to produce hydrogen-rich, clean, posal methods are being evaluated.
Project Objective: medium-Btu fuel gas without the need for an oxygen
To demonstrate the MTCI pulse combust rinan pplica- plant. The indirect heat transfer is provided by MTCIs
tion for steam gasification of coal to produce a medium- multiple resonance tube pulse combustor technology
Btu fuel gas from subbituminous coal. with the resonance tubes comprising the heat exchanger
immersed in the fluidized-bed reactor. Heat transfer is
3-5 times greater than other indirectly heated gasifier
concepts, allowing the heat transfer surface to be
minimized.
The demonstration plants overall efficiency is
expected to be 72%or more. In major commercial ap-
plications, char combustion and heat recovery operations
can be included to enhance overall plant efficiency.

7-98 Program Update I995 Industrial Applications


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

9/91 1OB2
I Preaward I Design I

I Note: Milestone schedule pending project restructuring


tIWE selected
t
kooperative agreement
awarded 10/27/92
project (CCT-IV)
9/12/91

Projected date

Project StatudAccomplishments: ing 99% are possible. Particulateemissions are also ket for MTCI gasifiers in this application alone is 28
The cooperative agreement was awarded on October 27, controlled in highly efficient scrubbers. Finally, the units annually.
1992. Design verification tests at MTCIs Baltimore MTCI pulse combustion technology that provides the Another potential application for the technology is
facility are continuing. The design tests include the required gasifier heat is an inherently low-NOxcombus- in industrial coal gasification because of its modularity
construction and test firing of one full-size pulse com- tion process, thereby assuring that NO, emissions are and ability to produce a medium-Btu gas without requir-
bustor tube bundle. Fabrication of the design-verifica- substantially below acceptable limits. ing an oxygen plant.
tion-scale 252-tube pulse combustor has been com- Because of its potential for reducing emissions
pleted. On October 26, 1994, ThermoChem, Inc., re- while producing a clean-buming, hydrogen-rich fuel gas,
quested that DOE consider relocating the project to an the MTCI fluidized-bed gasifier is expected to have
alternative host site-Northshore Mining Companys considerable commercial potential. Some of the early
facility in Silver Bay, MN. A planning conference on industrial applications of this technology are expected to
changing sites was held in December 1994. Project be waste-to-energy or waste and coal cofired facilities
restructuring activities for the Silver Bay site are con- for power and steam generation. One of the more prom-
tinuing. ising non-coal applications is processing of kraft black
liquor.
Commercial Applications: The processing of pulp results in the production of
The MTCI fluidized-bed gasifier is expected to provide about 88 million tons of by-product black liquor. The
the exceptional environmental performance exhibited by current practice of using black liquor recovery boilers to
coal gasification in general. SO, emissions are con- produce steam and electricity is inefficient. Replacing
trolled by removing hydrogen sulfide from the product these boilers with MTCI gasifiers would significantly
gas prior to combustion; removal efficiencies approach- improve the conversion efficiency. The estimated mar-
Industrial Applications Program Update 1995 7-99
Appendix A: Relevant Legislation
Conference Report (H. Rep. 99-450)
Public Law 99-190 CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
The managers have agreed to a $400,000,000 Clean Coal Technol-
CLEAN COAL T E C H N O m Y ogy program as described under the Department of the Treasury,
Energy Security Reserve. Bill language is included which provides
Within 60 days following enactment of this Act, the Secretary of for the selection of projects no later than August 1, 1986. Within
Energy shall, pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research that period, a general request for proposals must be issued within
and Development Act of 1974 (42U.S.C.5901,et seq.),issue a general 60 days and proposals must be submitted to the Department within
request for proposals for clean coal technology projects for which the 60 days after issuance of the general request for proposals. Lan-
Secretary of Energy upon review may provide financial assistance guage is also included allowing the Secretary of Energy to vest title
awards. Proposals for clean coal technology projects under this in interests acquired under agreements in any entity, including the
section shall be submitted to the Department of Energy within 60 United States, and delineating cost-sharing requirements. Funds
days after issuance of the general request for proposals. The Sec- for these activities and projects are made available to the Clean
retary of Energy shall make any project selections no later than Coal Technology program in the Energy Security program.
August 1, 1986: prOuid4d, That the Secretary may vest fee title or It is the intent of the managers that contributions in the form of
other property interests acquired under costshared clean coal tech- facilities and equipment be considered only to the extent that they
nology agreements in any entity, including the United States: Pro- would be amortized, depreciated or expensed in normal business
vided further, That the Secretary shall not finance more than 50 per practice. Normal business practice shall be determined by the Sec-
centum of the total costs of a project as estimated by the Secretary retary and is not necessarily the practice of any single proposer.
as of the date of award of financial assistance: Provided further, Property which has been fully depreciated would not receive any
That cost-sharing by project sponsors is required in each of the cost-sharing value except to the extent that it has been in continu-
design, construction, and operating phases proposed to be included ous use by the proposer during the calendar year immediately pre-
in a project: Prouided further, That financial assistance for costs in ceding the enactment of this Act. For this property, a fair use
excess of those estimated as of the date of award of original financial value f w the life of the project may be assigned. Property offered
assistance may not be provided in excess of the proportion of costs as a cost-share by the proposer that is currently being depreciated
borne by the Government in the original agreement and only up to would be limited in its cost-share value to the depreciation claimed
25 per centum of the original financial assistance: Provided further, during the life of the demonstration project. Furthermore, in deter-
That revenues or royalties from prospective operation of projects mining normal business practice, the Secretary should not accept
beyond the time considered in the award of financial assistance, or valuation for property sold, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise
proceeds from prospective sale of the assets of the project, or reve- manipulated to acquire a new basis for depreciation purposes or to
nues or royalties from replication of technology in future projects or establish a rental value in circumstances which would amount to a
plants are not cost-sharing for the purposes of this appropriation: transaction for the mere purpose of participating in this program.
hui&d further, That other appropriated Federal funds are not The managers agree that, with respect to cost-sharing, tax impli-
cost-sharing for the purposes of this appropriation: Prouided further. cations of proposals and tax advantages available to individual pro-
That existing facilities, equipment, and supplies, or previously ex- posers should not be considered in determining the percentage of
pended research or development funds are not cost-sharing for the Federal cost-sharing. This is consistent with current and historical
practices in Department of Energy procurements.
purposes of this appropriation, except as amortized, depreciated, or It is the intent of the managers that there be full and open com-
expensed in normal business practice. petition and that the solicitation be open to all markets utilizing

Program Update 1995 A-I


the entire coal resource base. However, projects should be limited That pre-award costs are to be reimbursed only upon signing of the
to the use of United States mined coal as the feedstock and demon- project agreement and only in the same ratio as the cost-sharing for
stration sites should be located within the United States. the total project: Provided further, That re rts on projects selected
The managers agree that no more than $1,500,000 shall be avail-
able in FY 1986 and $2,000,000 each year thereafter for contract-
R
by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to aut ority granted under the
heading Clean coal technology in the Department of the Interior
ing, travel, and ancillary costs of the program, and that manpower and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in
costs are to be funded under the fossil energy research and develop Public Law 99-190, which are received by the Speaker of the House
ment program. of Representatives and the President of the Senate prior to the end
The managers direct the Department, after projects are selected, of the first session of the 100th Congress shall be deemed to have
to provide a comprehensive report to the Congress on proposals r e met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragraph under
ceived. the heading Administrative provisions, Department of Energy in
The managers also expect the request for proposals to be for the the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropria-
full $400,000,000 program, and not only for the first $100,000,000 tions Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration
available in fiscal year 1986. of 30 calendar days from receipt of the report by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.

Conference Report (H. Rep. 100-498)


Public Law 100-202 CLEAN COAL TECHNOLBGY
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLQGY
Appropriates $575,000,000 for clean coal technology instead of
For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Tech- $350,000,000 as proposed by the House and $850,000,000 as pre
nolo demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq., posed by the Senate. The comparison by year is as follows:
$50,80,000are appropriated for the f d year beginning October 1
1987, and shall remain available until expended, and $525,000,006
are appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988, and F S:Iyear
shall remain available until expended. a 1958 S50.000.000 5350 000 001: f50 (lLS 101:
No later than sixty days following enactment of this Act, the 1989 200 000.000 500 ooc 000 525 000 cr;:
Secretary of Energy shall, pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear i990 __
100 003
.
-
000 - - __ -
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5901 et Tolal 350 OOC 000 850.000 000 515 O X Q l S
seq.), issue a general request for proposals for emerging clean coal
technologies which are capable of retrofitting or repowering existing Bill language, proposed by the House, which would have prohib-
facilities, for which the Secretary of Energy upon review may
provide financial assistance awards. Proposals under this section ited using grants has been deleted. The managers agree that
shall be submitted to the Department of Energy no later than ninety project funding is expected to be based on cooperative agreements,
days after issuance of the general request for proposals required but that grants might be applicable to support work also funded
herein, and the Secretary of Energy shall make any project selec- from this account.
tions no later than one hundred and sixty days after receipt of The managers agree to delete Senate language providing person-
proposals: Provided, That projects selected are subject to all provisos nel floors for Clean Coal Technology. The managers further agree
contained under this head in Public Law 99-190: Provided further, that the budget estimates for personnel and contract support are to
That pre-award costs incurred by project sponsors after selection be followed. The agreement includes .58 new positions above cur-
and before signing a n agreement are allowable to the extent that rent employment floors for the fossil energy organization a n d 30
they are related to (1) the preparation of material requested by the positions within the floors. Out of clean coal technology funds, up
Department of Energy and identified as required for the negotiation; to $3,980,000 is for fiscal year 1988 personnel-related costs and up
or (2) the preparation and submission of environmental data re- to .$16,520,000 is for all contract costs needed to make project selec-
quested by the Department of Energy to complete National Environ- tions and complete negotiations for both clean coal procurements.
mental Policy Act requirements for the projects: Provided further, Contract costs necessary to monitor approved projects should be re-
quested in the fiscal year 1989 budget. Increases above those

A- 2 Program Update 1995


amounts are subject to reprogramming procedures. No funds other under this head in Public Law 100-202, as amended by this Act, may
than personnel related costs for the 30 positions included in pro- not exceed $15,500,000: Provided further, That these actions are
gram direction are to be provided from the fossil energy research taken pursuant to section 202(bX1) of Public law 100-119 (2 U.S.C.
anddevelopment account. 909).
The length of time for selection of projects by the Secretary of For the purposes of the sixth proviso under this head in Public
Energy has been extended from 120 days to 160 days based on ex- Law 99-190, funds derived by the Tennessee Valley Authority from
perience from the original clean coal procurement. Once projects its power program are hereafter not to be precluded from qualifying
have been selected the Secretary should establish project mile- as all or part of any cost-sharing requirement, except to the extent
stones and guidelines for project negotiations in order to expedite that such funds are provided by annual appropriations Acts: Pro-
the negotiation process to the extent feasible. vided, That unexpended balances of funds made available in the
The managers agree that the funds provided are available for Energy Security Reserve account in the Treasury for The Clean
non-utility applications as well as for utility applications. Coal Technology Program by the Department of the Interior and
The managers agree that no funds are provided for the demon- Related Agencies Appro riations Act, 1986, as contained in section
stration of clean coal technologies which are intended solely for B
101(d) of Public Law 9 -190, shall be merged with this account:
Provided further, That for the purposes of the sixth proviso in Public
new, stand alone, applications. The Senate had proposed up to 2.55
of the funds be available for this purpose. Law 99-190 under this heading, funds provided under section 306 of
Bill language has been included which provides that reports on Public Law 93-32 shall be considered non-Federal: Provided further,
projects selected in the first round of clean coal procurements that That reports on projects selected by the Secretary of Energy pursu-
are received before the end of the first session of the 100th Con- ant to authority granted under the heading Clean coal technology
gress will satisfy reporting requirements 30 calendar days after re- in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropria-
ceipt by Congress. This provision applies to a maximum of two tions Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 99-190, which are
project reports. received by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate prior to the end of the second session of the
100th Congress shall be deemed to have met the criteria in the third
proviso of the fourth paragraph under the heading Administrative
provisions, Department Energy in the Department of the Interior
Public Law 100-446 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLQGY Public Law 99-190, upon expiration of 30 calendar days from receipt
of the report by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Tech- President of the Senate.
nology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.,
$575,000,000 shall be made available on October 1, 1989, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That projects selected Conference Report (H. Rep. 100-862)
pursuant to a general request for proposals issued pursuant to this CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
appropriation shall demonstrate technologies capable of retrofitting
or repowering existing facilities and shall be subject to all provisos Amendment No. 131: Reported in technical disagreement. The
contained under this head in Public Laws 99-190 and 100-202 as managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
amended by this Act. and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment as
The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 100-202 is follows:
amended by striking and $525,000,000 are appropriated for the In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment insert the fol-
fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988 and inserting $190,000,000 lowing: For necessary expenses OK and associated with, Clean Coal
are appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988, and Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq..
shall remain available until expended, $135,000,000 are appro- $57;5,000,000 shall be made available on October 1, 1989, and shall
priated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1989, and shall remain available until expended: Provided, That projects selected
remain available until expended, and $200,000,000 are appropriated pursuant to a general request for proposals issued pursuant to this
for the fiscal year beginning Odober 1, 1990: Provided, That out- appropriation shall demonstrate technologies capable of retrofitting
lays in fiscal year 1989 resulting from the use of funds appropriated or repowering existing facilities and shall be subject to all procisos

Program Update 1995 A-3


contained under this head in Public Laws 99-190 and 100-202 as program, as is evidenced by additional appropriations provided for
amended by this Act. a thrid procurement of technologies.
The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in The managers agree that administrative contract expenses may
the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. The be incurred up to the budget level of $9,820,000, but caution that
amendment provides $575,000,000 in fiscal year 1990 for a third close control of such expenditures is necessary to assure that the
Clean Coal Technology procurement as proposed by the Senate, outlay ceiling provided will be sufficient to cover project costs.
and clarifies that the procurement is for retrofit and repowering Amendment No. 133: Modifies public law citation as proposed by
technologies and is subject to the cost-sharing provisions of the pre- the Senate.
vious two procurements. Amendment No. 134: Reported in technical disagreement. The
The managers agree that a request for porposals should be issued managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
by May 1, 1989, with proposals due no later than 120 days after is- and concur in the amendment of the Senate which clarifies that
suance of the request for proposals, and that the Secretary of funds borrowed by REA Electric Cooperatives from the Federal Fi-
Energy should make project selections no later than 120 days after nancing Bank are eligible as cost-sharing in the clean coal technol-
receipt of proposals. ogy program.
Amendment No. 132: Reported in technical disagreement. The Amendment No. 135: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment as and concur in the amendment of the Senate which specifies clean
follows: coal projects may proceed 30 calendar days after receipt by Con-
Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to gress of required reports, provided the reports are received prior to
read as follow: The first paragraph under this head in Public Lau. the end of the 100th Congress.
100-202 ius amended by striking and $525,000,000 are appropri-
ated for the fiscal year beginning October I , 1988 and inserting
$190.000,OOO are appropriated for the fiscal year be inning October
f
1. 1988, and shall remain available until expended, 135,000,000ure
appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October I , 1989, and shull
Public Law 101-45
remain available until expended, and $200,000,000are appropriated CLEANCOAL TEZHNOL~~Y
for the fiscal year beginning October I , 1.9*90.-Provided, That out- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds originally
l a y in fiscal year-1989 resulting from the use of funds appropriated appropriated under this head in the Department of the Interior and
under this head in Public Law 100-202, as amended by this Act, Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989, shall be available for a
may not exceed $15,500,000: Provided further, That these actions are third solicitation of clean coal technology demonstration projects,
taken pursuant to section 20%bM1/ of Public Law 100-11.9/.2 U.S.C. which projects are to be selected by the Department not later than
909). January 1,1990.
The mansgers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in
the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. The
amendment changes the availability of $525,000,000 originally
made available for fiscal year 1989 in Public Law 100-202 by
making $190,000,000 available in 1989, $13.~,000,000available in Public Law 101-121
1990, and $200,000,000 available in 1991 and also provides a n
CLEAN COAL TECHNOUXY
outlay ceiling in fiscal year 1989. The House had proposed
$100,000,000 in fiscal year 1989, $225,000,000 in fiscal year 1990, For neceSSary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Tech-
and $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1991, and the Senate struck the nology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.,
House language. $600,000,000 shall be made available on October 1, 1990, and shall
Both of these changes are necessary because of budget allocation remain available until expended, and $600,000,000 shall be made
constraints, but neither action has an effect on the execution of the available on October 1, 1991, and shall remain available until
Clean Coal program, or on the Congress overall support for the expended: Prouided, That projects selected p r s u a n t to a separate
general request for proPogals issued pursuant to each of these

A- 4 Program Update I995


appropriations shall demonstrate technologies capable of replacing, and concur in the amendment of the Senate which adds the word
a
retrofitting or repowering existin facilities and shall be subject to
all provisos contained under this ead in Public Laws 99-190, 100-
202, and 100-446 as amended by this Act: Provided further, That the
replacing to the definition of clean coal technology. The manag-
ers agree that the inclusion of replacing for clean coal IV and V
is intended to cover the complete replacement of an existing facili-
general request for proposals using funds becoming available on ty if, because of design or site specific limitations, repowering or
October 1,1990, under this paragraph shall be issued no later than retrofitting of the plant is not a desirable option.
June 1,1990, and projects resulting from such a solicitation must be Amendment No. 113: Appropriates $450,000,000 for fiscal year
selected no later than February 1, 1991: Provided further, That the 1990 for clean coal technology instead of $500,000,000 as proposed
general request for proposals using funds becoming available on by the House and $325,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. This ap-
October 1,1991, under this paragraph shall be issued no later than propriation along with $125,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1991 in
September 1, 1991, and projects resulting from such a solicitation Amendment 114 fully funds the third round of clean coal technolo-
must be selected no later than May 1,1992. gy projects. The managers agree that additional manpower is re-
The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 100-446 is quired, particularly at the Departments Energy Technology Cen-
amended by striking $575,000,000 shall be made available on O c b ters, in order to manage adequately the increased workload from
ber 1,1989 and inserting $450,000,000 shall be made available on the accumulation of active clean coal technology projects and the
October 1, 1989, and shall remain available until expended, and inclusion of additional procurements in this bill. Although a legis-
$125,000,000 shall be made available on October 1, 1990: Provided, lative floor is not included, the managers agree that a t least eighty
That these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(bX1) of Public personnel will be required in addition to the approximately thirty
Law 100-119 (2 U.S.C.909). FTEs now included in the fossil energy research and development
With regard to funds made available under this head in this and appropriation. The managers agree further that funds from the
previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances excess to the fossil energy research and development appropriation should not
needs of the procurement for which they originally were made be used to pay the cost of more than the equivalent FTEs paid
available may be applied to other procurements for which requests under that account in fiscal year 1989.
for proposals have not yet been issued: Provided, That for all Amendment No. 114: Reported in technical disagreement. The
pracurements for which project selections have not been made as of managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
the date of enactment of this Act no supplemental, backup, or and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment as
contingent selection of projects shall be made over and above follows:
projects originally selected for negotiation and utilization of avail- In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment,
able funds Provided further, That rep& on projects sekted by the insert: and shall remain available until expended, and $125,000,000
Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under this head- The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in
ing which are received by the Speaker of the House of Representa- the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. The
tives and the President of the Senate less than 30 legislative days amendment provides $125,000,000 in fiscal year 1991 for the third
prior to the end of the fvst session of the lOlst Congress shall be clean coal technology procurement instead of $75,000,000 as pro-
deemed to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth posed by the House and $100,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
paragraph under the heading Administrative provisions, Depart- Amendment No. 115: Deletes Senate proposed appropriation of
ment of Energy in the Department of the Interior and Related $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 for clean coal technology. The
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 99- House proposed no such appropriation.
190, upon expkation of 30 calendar days from receipt of the report Amendment No. 116: Restores House language stricken by the
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of Senate which prohibits the use of supplemental, backup, or contin-
the Senate or at the end of the session, whichever occurs later. gent project selections in clean coal technology procurements.
Amendment No. 117: Restores the word further stricken by the
Senate.
Conference Report (H. Rep. 101-264)
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Amendment No. 112: Reported in technical disagreement. The


managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
Program Update 1995 A-5
Public Law 101-164 Public Law 101-302
CLEANCOALTECHNOLOGY CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The second paragraph under this head contained in the Act Funds previously appropriated under this head for clean coal
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and technology solicitations to be issued no later than June 1, 1990, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, is no later than September 1, 1991, respectively, shall not be obligated
amended by striking $450,000,000 and inserting $419,000,000 until September 1, 1991: Provided, That the aforementioned solicita-
and by striking $125,000,000 and inserting $156,000,000. tions shall not be conducted prior to the ability to obligate these
funds: Provided further, That pursuant to section 2026) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act
Conference Report (H. Rep. IO1 -315) of 1987, this action is a necessary (but secondary) result of a signifi-
The managers have agreed to reduce the funds appropriated by cant policy change: Provided further, That for the clean coal solicita-
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal tions identified herein, provisions included for the repayment of
Year 1990 (Public Law 101-101) for the Nuclear Waste Disposal government contributions to individual projects shall be identical to
Fund by $46,000,000. This reduction will make funds available for those included in the Program Opportunity Notice (PON) for Clean
the drug prevention effort. Coal Technology I11 (CCT-111) Demonstration Projects (solicitation
The managers have agreed to reductions to the Interior and Re- number DE-PS01-89 FE 618251, issued by the Department of
lated Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (Public Law Energy on May 1,1989.
101-121) in order to accommodate additional drug related appro- Conference Report (H. Rep. 101-493)
priations.
The reductions are in three areas. The new budget authority for CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
Clean Coal Technology of $450,000,000 for fiscal year 1990 is re- Amendment No. 89. Reported in technical disagreement. The
duced by $31,000,000 with this same amount added to the advance managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
appropriation for fiscal year 1991. With this change the new and concur in the amendment of the Senate with a n amendment as
amount for fiscal year 1990 is $419,000,000 while fiscal year 1991 follows:
increases to $156,000,000. The second area of change is the imposi- In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment insert:
tion of an outlay ceiling on Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil acquisi-
tion. Outlays will be reduced from an estimated $169,945,000 to DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
$147,125,000 and will decrease the fill rate from approximately
50,000 barrels per day to approximately 46,000 or 47,000 barrels per CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
day. The third reduction relates to the Pennsylvania Avenue Devel- Fundi previously appropriated under this head for clean coal
opment Corporation. The borrowing authority is reduced from technology solicitations to be issued no later than June 1, 1990, and
$5,000,000 to $100,000. no later than September 1, 1991, respectively, shall not be obligated
The conference agreement includes bill language reducing the until September 1, 1991: Provided, That the aforementioned solicita-
amount of funds transferred from trust funds to the Health Care tions shall not be conducted prior to the ability to obligate these
Financing Administration Program Management account by funds: Provided further, That pursuant to section Z02(b) of the Bal-
$32,000,000, from $1,917,172,000 to $1,885,172,000. This reduction, anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of
along with the outlays reserved from the regular 1990 Labor, 198c this action is a necessary (but secondary) result of a signifi-
Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, cant policy change: Provided further, That for the clean coal solici-
will be sufficient to support the Subcommittees share of the cost of
anti-drug abuse funding. The conferees intend that the reduction in tations identified herein, provisions included for the repayment of
trust fund transfers be associated with activities to implement cat- government contributions to individual projects shall be identical to
astrophic health insurance, where funding needs may be dimin- those included in the P r o g Opportunity Notice PON) for Clean
ished. Coal Technology III (CCT-III) Demonstration Projects (solicitation
A- 6 Program Update 1995
number DE-PSOI-89 FE 618251, issued by the Department of Energy $600,000,000shall be made available on Odober 1, 1991, and ahall
on Ma.y 1. 1989.
The-managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in
the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.
r
remain available until ex nded and inserting $soO,OOO,OOO ahall
be made available as fo OWB: $35,000,000 on September 1, 1991,
$315,000,000on October 1,1991,and $250,000,000on October 1,1992,
The amendment delays the fourth and fifth clean coal technology all such sum^ to remain available until expended for use in co me
solicitations as proposed by the Senate and specifies that, when tion with a separate eneral request for ropods, and $ s o O , ~ , O O O
issued, these solicitations must use repayment provisions used suc- shall be made availa%le as follows: $150,a00,OOO on October 1,1991,
cessfully in the third solicitation. This provision was included in $225,000,000on October 1,1992,and $225,000,000on October 1,1993,
the House introduced bill (H.R. 4828) and modifies a Senate amend- all such sums to remain available until expended for use in co me
ment to the original Dire Emergency Supplemental. tion with a separate general request for ~ ~ ~ p o e a lPmu-%t
s:
The managers agree that changes to the clean air bill, proposed these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(bXl)of Public Law
by a House authorizing committee, that would modify the clean 100-119 (2 U.S.C. 909): A.0uid.d urther, That a fourth general
r uest for proposals shall be issue lnot later than Februarp 1,1991,
coal technology program must be resolved before a reasonable solic-
itation can be issued. The proposed delay will allow such resolu- 3 a fihh general request for proposals shall be issued not later
than March 1,1992:R v u W urther, That project roposals resulb
tion.
The managers have added language to ensure that provisions f P
ing from such solicitations s all be selected not ater than e ht
months after the date of the general request for ropods: h u &
dealing with the repayment of government provided funds will firther, That for clean coal solicitations requi
remain the same as in the third round of procurements. These pro-
re8
herein, provisione
included for the re p e n t of government contributions to individ-
visions were developed over a four year period based on the experi-
ual projects shall
ence of previous procurements and negotiations, and input from in-
dustrial participants, Congress, and the managers of the program.
They appear to be working well.
E
identical to those included in the
opportunity Notice (porn for clean coal Technology m
Demonstration Projecte (solicitation number DE-PSO1-89 FE 6182!5),
issued b the De artment of Ene
(z
on May 1, 1989: A o u i d e d
Based on this long-term experience, and the clear fact that the
fitrther, h a t fun& rovided under% head in this or any other
implementation of this type of technology will become even more appropriations Act s
important with the passage of clean air legislation, the managers
Kall
be expended only in accordance with the
revisions governing the use of such funds contained under this
reject proposals put forth by the Department of Energy to increase
repayment rates substantially. Such proposals, while they might
E s
ead in this or any other a p ropriations Act.
With regard to fun& ma e available under this head in this and
previous a propriations Acta, unobligated balances excese to the
increase the recovery of government-provided funds over periods of
up to twenty years, might also act as a deterrent to industrial par- tg
needs of e rocurement for which they originally were made
available m a y L applied to other procuremen& for uae on projects
ticipation in the program, which is already over 50 percent cost-
for which cooperative agreements are in place, within the limita-
shared by industry. The purpose of the program is to accelerate the
introduction of clean uses of coal in a more efficient manner intions and proportions of Government financing increases currently
allowed by law: hvidecl: That the Department of Energy, for a
compliance with stringent new air quality standards, not the provi-
sion of investment returns to the Government at the expense of period of up to five (5) years after completion of the operationsphase
nascent markets. of a cooperative agreement may provide appropriate protections,
incluciin exemptions from subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5,
united L t e s me, against the dissemination of information that
results from demonstration activities conducted under the Clean
Public Law 101-5 12 Coal Techno1 Program and that would be a trade secret or
commercial or %
ancial information that is privil ed or confiden-
$rst
cL&AN COAL TECHNOIAGY tial if the information had been obtained from and produced by
a non-Federal participating in a Clean coal Technology
The fvst paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-121 is project. h u lad-further, That, in addition to the full-time perma-
amended b striking $soO,OOO,OOOshall be made available on Octe nent Federal employeea specified in section 303 of Public Law 97-
B
ber 1, 19 0, and shall remain available until expended, and 257, as amended, no less than 90 full-time Federal employees ohall

Program Update 1995 A-7


be assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Ehe are more than seventy-five percent dependent on one fuel form for
3?
out the programa under thie head using funds avail lefor m m total energy requirements.
head in thk and an other a propriatiom Act and of which 35 shall Amendment No. 145 Requires selection of projects within eight
I
be for PETC and 0 shall for ME;Tc: Rvuided firtheq That
reporta on projpcta eelected by the Seere* of Energy pursuant to
months of the requests for proposals required by Amendment No.
144 as proposed by the Senate. The House had no such provision.
authority granted under this heading whch are received by the Amendment No. 146: Requires repayment of government contri-
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Preaident of the butions to projects under conditions identical to the most recent
Senate lesa than 30 1
e ative days prior to the end of the second
session of the l O l s t ngres~shall be deemed to have met the
criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragra h under the
heading Administrative provisions, Department of Epnergy in the
clean coal solicitation as proposed by the Senate. The House had no
such provision.
Amendment No. 147: Provides that funds for clean coal technolo-
gy may be expended only under conditions contained in appropria-
Department of the Interior and Related Agenciea Appropriations tions Acts. The Senate language had prohibited geographic restric-
Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 99-190, u n equation of 30
3: F
tions on the expenditure of funds. The House had no such provi-
calendar daye frecei of the report b the peaker of the Houee sion. The managers direct that no preferential consideration be
p1
of Repreeentativea and t e President of e Senate or at the end of given to any project referenced. explicitly or implicitly in other leg-
the session, whichever occuls later. islation.
The managers agree to delete bill language dealing with geo-
graphic restrictions based on such restrictions being deleted from
Conference Report (H. Rep. 101-971) clean air legislation.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY Amendment No. 148: Earmarks employees to two fossil energy
technology centers as proposed by the Senate. The House had no
Amendment No. 142: Provides $35,000,000 for clean coal technol- such provision. The managers agree that the earmarks for PETC
ogy on September 1, 1991 as proposed by the House instead of and MET(: are minimum levels and may be increased as necessary.
$100,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. This amendment and The managers agree that no more than the current 30 fulltime
Amendment No. 143 shift the availability of $65,000,000 from fLscal equivalent positions from fossil energy research and development
year 1991 to fiscal year 1992. may be used in the clean coal program in f d year 1991.
Amendment No. 143: Provides $315,000,000 for clean coal tech-
nology on October 1, 1991 as proposed by the House instead of
$250,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. This amendment and
Amendment No. 142 shift the availability of $65,000,000 from fiscal Public Law 102-154
year 1991 to fiscal year 1992.
Amendment No. 144: Provides dates for two solicitations for
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
clean coal technology as proposed by the Senate. The date for CCT-
IV is amended to February 1,1991 from January 1,1991. The date The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 101412 is
for CCT-V is not changed from the Senate date of March 1, 1992. amended by striking the phrase $150,000,000 on October 1, 1991,
The managers have agreed to a February 1, 1991 date for the $225,000,000 on October 1, 1992 and inserting $100,000,000 on
next solicitation to enable the Department to publish a draft solici- October 1,1991,$275,000,000 on October 1,1992.
tation for comment by interested parties. It is expected that there Notwithstanding the issuance date for the fifth general request
will be changes to evaluation criteria and other factors that make for proposals under this head in Public Law 101-512, such request
it imperative that potential proposers have an opportunity to com- for proposals shall be issued not later than July 6, 1992, and
ment on the content of the solicitation. notwithstanding the proviso under this head in Public Law 101-512
The managers urge the Department to include potential benefits regarding the time interval for selection of proposals resulting from
to remote, importdependent sites as a program policy factor in such solicitation, project proposals resulting from the fifth general
evaluating proposals. The Department should also consider projects request for proposals shall be selected not later than ten months
which can provide multiple fuel resource options for regions which after the issuance date of the fifth general request for proposals:

A- 8 Program Update 1995


Provided, That hereafter the fifth general request for proposals 3U legislative days prior to the end of each session of Congress shall
shall be subject to all provisos contained under this head in previous be deemed to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth
appropriations Acts unless amended by this Act. paragraph under the heading Administrative provisions, Depart-
Notwithstanding the provisos under this head in previous appro- ment of Energy in the Department of the Interior and Related
priations Acts, projects selected pursuant to the fifth general re- Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 99-
quest for proposals shall advance significantly the efficiency and 190, upon expiration of 30 calendar days from receipt of the report
environmental performance of coal-using technologies and be ap- by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
plicable to either new or existing facilities: Provided, That budget the Senate or at the end of the session, whichever occurs later.
periods may be used in lieu of design, construction, and operating
phases for cost-sharing calculations: Provided fitrther, That the Conference Report (H. Rep. 102-256)
Secretary shall not finance more than 50 per centum of the total
costs of any budget period: Provided fiirther, That project specific CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
development activities for process performance definition, compo-
nent design verification, materials selection, and evaluation of alter- Amendment No. 165: Reported in technical disagreement. The
native designs may be funded on a cost-shared basis up to a limit of managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
10 per centum of the Governments share of project cost: Provided and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment as
further, That development activities eligible for cost-sharing may follows:
include limited modifications to existing facilities for project related In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment
testing but do not include construction of new facilities. insert:
With regard to funds made available under this head in this and Notwithstanding the issuance date for the fifth general request
previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances excess to the for proposals under this head in Public Law 101-512, such request
needs of the procurement for which they originally were made for proposals shall be issued not later than July 6, 1992, and not-
available may be applied to other procurements for use on projects withstanding the proviso under this head in Public Law 101-512 re-
lor which cooperative agreements are in place, within the limita- garding the time interval for selection of proposals resulting from
tions and proportions of Government financing increases currently such solicitation, project proposals resulting from the fifth general
allowed by law: Provided, That hereafter, the Department of request for proposals shall be selected not later than ten months
Energy, for a period of up to five years after completion of the after the issuance date of the fifth general request for proposals:
operations phase of a cooperative agreement may provide appro- Provided, That hereafter the fifth general request for proposals
priate protections, including exemptions from subchapter 11 of chap- The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in
ter 5 of title 5, United States Code, against the dissemination of the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.
information that results from demonstration activities conducted The amendment changes the issuance date for the fifth general
under the Clean Coal Technology Program and that would be a request for proposals to July 6, 1992 instead of March 1, 1992 as
trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privi- proposed by the House and August 10, 1992 as proposed by the
leged or confidential if the information had been obtained from and Senate and changes the allowable length of time from issuance of
first produced by a non-Federal party participating in a Clean Coal the request for proposals to selection of projects to ten months. The
Technology project: Provided further, That hereafter, in addition to amendment also deletes Senate proposed bill language pertaining
the full-time permanent Federal employees specified in section 303 to a sixth general request for proposals as discussed below.
of Public Law 97-257, as amended, no less than 90 full-time Federal The managers agree that the additional two months in the pro-
employees shall be assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil curement process for the fifth round of proposals should include an
Energy for carrying out the programs under this head using funds additional month to allow for the preparation of proposals by the
available under this head in this and any other appropriations Act private sector, and up to an additional month for Department of
and of which not less than 35 shall be for PETC and not less than 30 Energy review and evaluation of proposals when compared to the
shall be for METC Provided firrfher, That hereafter reports on process for the fourth round.
projects selected by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority The managers have agreed to delete bill language regarding a
granted under this heading which are received by the Speaker of the sixth round of proposals, but agree that funding will be provided
TIouse of Representatives and the President of the Senate less than for a sixth round based on unobligated and unneeded amounts that

Program Update 1995 A-9


may become available from the first five rounds. The report from than to employment floor language for METC as proposed by the
the Secretary on available funds, which was originally in the Senate. The House had no such language.
Senate amendment, is still a requirement and such report should
be submit.ted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropria-
tions not later than May 1, 1994. Based on that report, thgfunding,
dates and conditions
I _ _ _ ~ for the sixth round will be included in the
fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
The managers expect that the fifth solicitation will be conducted Public Law 102-381
under the same general types of criteria as the fourth solicitation CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
principally modified only (1) to include the wider range of eligible
technologies or applications; (2) to adjust technical criteria to con- The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-512,
sider allowable development activities, to strengthen criteria for as amended, is further amended by striking the phrase and
non-utility demonstrations, and to adjust commercial performance $250,000,000 on October 1, 1992 and inserting $150,000,00003
criteria for additional facilities and technologies with regard to as- October 1, 1993, and $100,000,000 on October 1, 1994 and by
pects of general energy efficiency and environmental performance; striking the phrase $275,000,000 on October 1, 1992, arid
and (3) to clarify and strengthen cost and finance criteria, particu- $225,000,000on October 1, 1993 and inserting $25!l,!l00,00~on
larly with regard to development activities. October 1,1993,and $250,000,000on October 1,1934.
Amendment No. 166: Restores House language deleted by the
Senate which refers to a fifth general request for proposals. The
Senate proposed language dealing with both a fifth and a sixth
round.
Amendment No. 167: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede Public Law 103- 138
and concur in the amendment of the Senate which directs the Sec- CLEAN COAL TEcl1NOUx)Y
retary of Energy to reobligste up to $44,000,000 from the fourth
round of Clean Coal Technology proposals to a proposal ranked The first paragraph under this head in Public L a w 101612,
M amended, is further amended by striking the
highest in its specific technology category by the Source Evaluation
Board if other than the highest ranking project in that category $160,000,000 on October 1, 1993, and $lOO,OOO.OOO on
1 1994 and ineerting y$lOO,OOO,OOO on October 1, 1993,
8
p
:z
was selected originally by the Secretary, and if such funds become
unobligated and are sufficient to fund such project. This amend- $iOO,000,000on October 1 1994, and $SO,0oO,OOO on October 1,
ment would earmark such funds, if they become available, to a spe- 1996 and by striking the hraee u$250,000,000 on October 1, 1993,
cific project not chosen in the Department of Energy selection proc- and $260,000,000 on OctoKer 1, 1994 and ineerting y$125,000,000
ess for the fourth round of Clean Coal Technology. on October 1, 1993, $276,000,000 on October 1, 1994, and
$ l ~ on , October
~ , 1,1996.
~
Amendment No. 168: Technical amendment which deletes House
proposed punctuation and numbering as proposed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 169: Deletes House proposed language which
made unobligated funds available for procurements for which re-
quests for proposals have not yet been issued.
Amendment No. 170: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
and concur in the amendment o f t h e Senate which adds not less
than to employment floor language for PETC as proposed by the
Senate. The House had no such language.
Amendment No. 171: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
and concur in the amendment of the Senate which adds not less

A- 10 Program Update 1995


Public Law 103-332
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-512,
as amended, is further amended by striking the phrase
"$100,000,000on October 1, 1994, and $50,000,000 on October
1, 1995" and inserting "$18,000,000 on October 1, 1994,
$100,000,000on October 1, 1995, and $32,000,000on October 1,
1996"; and by striking the phrase "$275,000,000on October 1,
1994, and $100,000,000 on October 1, 1995" and inserting
"$19,121,000on October 1, 1994,$100,000,000 on October 1, 1995,
and $255,879,000on October I, 1996":Provided, That not to exceed
$18,000,000 available in fiscal year 1995 may be used for adminis-
trative oversight of the Clean Coal Technology program.

Public Law 104-6


CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

~~CISSIOM

Of the funds made available under this heading for obligation


in fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 are rescinded and of the funds
made available under this heading for obligation in fiscal year
1997, $150,000,000are rescinded: Prouided, That funds made avail-
able in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any
ongoing project regardless of the separate request for proposal
under which the project was selected.

Program Update I995 A-11


Appendix B: Selection and Negotiation History
July 1986 October 1987 September 1988
9 projects were selected under CCT-I (14 altemate Weirton Steel Corporation withdrew its proposal 16 projects were selected under CCT-II.
projects selected if negotiations for original 9 un- (Direct Iron Ore Reduction to Replace Coke Oven/
successful). Blast Furnace for Steelmaking) from further
October 1988
consideration.
DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-I
March 1987 4 more CCT-I projects were selected: Color&o-Ute participant, Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.
DOE signed cooperative agreements with two Cm-1 Electric Asmiation, Jnc. (Nu& CFB Demonstra- (Nucla CFB Demonstration Project).
participants, Coal Tech Corporation (Advanced tion Project); TRW, Inc. (Advanced Slagging :Coal
Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, Combustor Utility Demonstration Project); Minne- November 1988
and Ash Control) and The Ohio Power Company sota Department of Natural Resources (COREX DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-I
(Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project). Ironmaking Demonstration Project); and Foster participant, TRW, Inc. (Advanced Slagging Coal
wheeler power Inc. IGCc Combustor Utility Demonstration Project).
Demonstration Project).
June 1987
DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-I
December 1988
participant, The Babcock & Wilcox Company December 1987 Negotiations were terminated with Minnesota
(LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and signed cooperative with two more Department of Resources under CCT-1.
Coolside Demonstration). CCT-I participants, Ohio Ontario Clean Fuels, Inc.,
(Prototype Commercial Coavoil Coprocessing DOE selected three more CCT-I projects: ABB
Project) and Energy International, Inc. (Underground Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ, Inc.
July 1987
Coal Gasification Demonstration Project). (Development of the Coal Quality Expert); Western
DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-I
Energy Company (Advanced Coal Conversion
participant, Energy and Environmental Research
Process Demonstration); and United Coal Company
Corporation (Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas January 1988
(Coal Waste Recovery Advanced Technology
Reburning and Sorbent Injection). DOE signed a cooperative agreement with The
Demonstration).
M.W. Kellogg Company and Bechtel Development
Company for a CCT-I project (The Appalachian
September 1987
IGCC Demonstration Project). June 1989
General Electric Company withdrew its proposal
The City of Tallahassee CCT-I project (ACFB
(Integrated Coal Gasification Steam Injection Gas
repowering) on alternate list was selected.
Turbine Demonstration Plants with Hot Gas
Cleanup).

Program Update 1995 B-1


The M.W. Kellogg Company and Bechtel Develop- Energy International, Inc., withdrew its CCT-I September 1990
ment Company withdrew their CCT-I project (Clean project (Underground Coal Gasification Demonstra- DOE signed cooperative agreements with one CCT-I
Energy IGCC Demonstration Project). tion Project). participant, Rosebud SynCoal Partnership (formerly
Western Energy Company; Advanced Coal Conver-
sion Process Demonstration); one CCT-11 partici-
September 1989 February 1990
pant, Southern Company Services, Inc. (180-MWe
United Coal Company withdrew its CCT-I project Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc., withdrew its
Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired
(Coal Waste Recovery Advanced Technology CCT-I proposal (Clean Energy IGCC Demonstration
Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx
Demonstration). Project).
Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers); and one CCT-
Ill participant, ENCOAL, Corporation (ENCOAL.
November 1989 April 1990 Mild Coal Gasification Project).
DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-11 DOE signed cooperative agreements with three
participant, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Innovative CCT-11 participants: The Appalachian Power Negotiations terminated with CCT-I1 participant,
Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Company (PFBC Utility Demonstration Project); Southwestern Public Service Company (Nichols CFB
Applications). The Babcock & Wilcox Company (Demonstration of Repowering Project).
Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control);
Combustion Engineering, Inc.. (CCT-11) withdrew its
and Southem Company Services, Inc. (Demonstra- October 1990
Postcombustion Sorbent Injection Demonstration
tion of Innovative Applications of Technology for DOE signed cooperative agreements with four
Project.
the CT-121 FGD Process). CCT-111 participants: AirPol, Inc. (IO-MWe Demon-
stration of Gas Suspension Absorption); The
December 1989 Babcock & Wilcox Company (Full-scale Demon-
June 1990
13 projects were selected under CCT-III. stration of hw-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit); Bechtel
DOE signed cooperative agreements with the co-
participants of one CCT-I project, ABB Combustion Corporation (Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas
DOE signed cooperative agreements with five
Engineering, Inc., and CQ, Inc., (Development of the Desulfurization Demonstration); and Energy and
CCT-11 participants: ABB Combustion Engineering,
Coal Quality Expert) and with two CCT-11 partici- Environmental Research Corporation (Evaluation of
Inc. ( S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration
pants: Southem Company Services, Inc. (Demon- Gas Reburning and hw-NOXBurners on a Wall-
Project); The Babcock & Wilcox Company
stration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology Fired Boiler).
(SOX-NOx-RoxBoxTMFlue Gas Cleanup Demonstra-
tion Project); Passamaquoddy Tribe (Cement Kiln for the Control of NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur-
Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber); Pure Air on the Lake, Coal-Fred Boilers) and TransAlta Resources
L.P. (Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demon- Investment Corporation (LNS Burner for Cyclone-
stration Project); and Southem Company Services, Fired Boilers Demonstration Project).
Inc. (Demonstration of Advanced Combustion
Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler).

B-2 Program Update 1995


November 1990 April 1991 June 1992
DOE signed cooperative agreements with one CCT-I DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-111 The City of Tallahassee project (CCT-I) was
participant, The City of Tallahassee (.Amah B. participant, Alaska Industrial Development and restructured and transferred to York County Energy
Hopkins Circulating Fluidized-Bed Repowering Export Authority (Healy Clean Coal Project). Partners, L.P. (York County Energy Partners
Project); one CCT-11 participant, ABB Combustion Cogeneration Project).
Engineering, Inc. (Combustion Engineering IGCC
June 1991
Repowering Project); and two CCT-111 participants,
DOE withdrew its sponsorship of the Ohio Ontario July 1992
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Blast Furnace Granu-
Clean Fuels, Inc., CCT-I project (prototype Com- DOE signed cooperative agreements with two
lated-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project)
mercial CoaVOil Coprocessing Plant). CCT-IV participants: Tennessee Valley Authority
and LIFAC-North America (LIFAC Sorbent Injec-
(Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx
tion Desulfurization Demonstration Project).
Control on a 1 7 5 - W e Wall-Fired Unit) and
August 1991
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project
DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-III
December 1990 Joint Venture (Wabash River Coal Gasification
participant, DMEC- 1 Limited Partnership (formerly
Negotiations terminated with CCT-11 participant, Repowering Project).
Dairyland Power Cooperative; PCFB Demonstration
Otisca Industries, Ltd. (Otisca Fuel Demonstration
Project).
Project).
August 1992
TransAlta Resources Investment Corporation DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-IV
withdrew its CCT-11 project (LNS Burner for participant, Sierra Pacific Power Company (Piiion
March 1991
Cyclone-Fired Boilers Demonstration Project). Pine IGCC Power Project).
DOE signed cooperative agreements with three
CCT-111 participants: MK-Ferguson Company
Cordero Mining Company withdrew from negotia-
(Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO September 1991
tions its CCT-IV project, Cordero Coal-Upgrading
S O P O XRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup System); Public 9 projects were selected under CCT-IV.
Demonstration Project.
Service Company of Colorado (Integrated Dry
NOJSO, Emissions Control System); and Tampa Coal Tech Corporations CCT-I project, Advanced
At the participants request, Union Carbide Chemi-
Electric Company (formerly Clean Power Cogenera- Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen,
cals and Plastics Company Inc. (CCT-IV) was
tion Limited Partnership; Tampa Electric Integrated and Ash Control, was completed; final reports have
granted an extension of 1-year to the DOE deadline
Gasification Combined-Cycle Project). been issued.
for completing negotiations of its Demonstration of
the Union Carbide CANSOLV System at the
TRW, Inc., withdrew its CCT-I project (Advanced
April 1992 Alcoa Generating Corporation Warrick Power Plant.
Slagging Coal Combustion Utility Demonstration
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Project).
Inc., (formerly Colorado-Ute Electric Association,
Inc.) completed its CCT-I project, Nucla CFB
Demonstration Project; final reports have been
issued.

Program Update 1995 B-3


October 1992 July 1993 Southem Company Services CCT-III project,
DOE signed cooperative agreements with one Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially
CCT-III participant, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., withdrew its CCT-IV proposal, Demonstration Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of
Inc. (Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the of the Union Carbide CANSOLVTM System at the NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boilers, was
Liquid-Phase Methanol [ L P M E O P ] Process) and Alcoa Generating Corporation Warrick Power Plant. completed; final reports have been issued.
with four CCT-IV participants: Custom Coals
International (Self-scrubbing Coalm: An Integrated
December 1993 August 1994
Approach to Clean Air); New York State Electric &
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys CCT-11 project, DOE signed cooperative agreements with two
Gas Corporation (Milliken Clean Coal Technology
SOx-NOx-Rox Boxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstra- CCT-V participants, Four Rivers Energy Partners,
Demonstration Project); TAMCO Power Partners
tion Project, was completed; final reports have been L.P. (Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project);
(Toms Creek IGCC Demonstration Project); and
issued. and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Warren Station
Thenndhem, Inc. (Demonstration of Pulse Com-
Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration
bustion in an Application for Steam Gasification of The Babcock & Wilcox Companys CCT-II project, Project).
Coal). Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler
NOx Control, was completed, the final technical The CCT-III project, Commercial Demonstration of
report has been issued. the NOXSO S O P O XRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup
November 1992
System, was relocated and transferred to NOXSO
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys CCT-I project, Bechtel Corporations CCT-III project, Confined Corporation.
LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demon-
Coolside Demonstration, was completed; final stration, was completed; final reports have been
reports have been issued. issued. September 1994
The Air Products and Chemicals CCT-111 project,
Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid-
May 1993 February 1994 Phase Methanol ( L P M E O P ) Process, was trans-
5 projects were selected under CCT-V: Four Rivers The Passamaquoddy Tribes CCT-111 project, ferred to Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion
Energy Partners, L.P. (Four Rivers Energy Modem- Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber, was Company, L.P.
ization Project; previously, Calvert City Advanced completed, final reports have been issued.
Energy Project); Duke Energy Corp. (Camden Clean
Energy Demonstration Project); Centerior Energy December 1994
Corporation, on behalf of CPICOR Management June 1994 DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCT-V
Company (Clean Power from Integrated CoaVOre a cooperative agreement ccT-v participant, Clean Energy Partners Limited Partner-
Reduction [COmX@]);Arthur D. Little, Inc. (Clean participant, D. Little, Inc- (coal Diesel ship (formerly Duke Energy Corp.; Clean Energy
Coal Combined-Cycle Project; previously Demon- Combined-Cycle Project). Demonstration Project).
stration of Coal Diesel Technology at Easton
Utilities); and Pennsylvania Electric Company
(Warren Station Extemally Fired Combined-Cycle
Demonstration Project).
B-4 Program Update 1995
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys CCT-11 project, March 1995 December 1995
Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner The Ohio Power Companys CCT-I project, Tidd The Tennessee Valley Authority and New York State
Retrofit, was completed (operational testing was PFBC Demonstration Project, completed operational Electric & Gas Corporation finalized an agreement
completed Aprfl 1993; project was extended to testing; final reports have been issued. to allow the project, Micronized Coal Reburning
complete the boiler water-wall corrosion examina- Demonstration for NOx Control, to be conducted at
TAMCO Power Partners CCT-IV project, Toms both Milliken Station in Lansing, NY,and Eastman
tion during the fall 1994 boiler outage); final reports
Creek IGCC Demonstration Project, was not granted
have been issued. Kodak company in Rochester,
a further extension and the project was ended.
AirPols CCT-III project, 10-MWe Demonstration of
Gas Suspension Absorption, was completed; final
April 1995
reports have been issued.
Bethlehem Steel Corporations CCT-11 project,
LIFAC-North Americas CCT-III project, LWAC Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for
Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Project, was Retrofit Applications, was terminated by mutual
completed; final reports are in preparation. agreement with DOE because coke production was
suspended at the demonstration facility.
ABB Environmental Systems CCT-11 project,
SNOXM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project,
was completed; final reports are in preparation. June 1995
Pure Air on the Lakes CCT-II project, Advanced
Energy and Environmental Research Corporations Flue Gas Desulfurization Project, completed opera-
CCT-I project, Enhancing the Use of Coal by Gas tional testing; final reports are in preparation.
Rebuming and Sorbent Injection, was completed;
final reports for Hennepin and Edwards have been
July 1995
issued and the final report for Lakeside is in
Southem Company Services CCT-11 project,
preparation.
Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction
Southem Company Services CCT-11 project, Technology for the Control of NOx Emissions from
Demonstration of Innovative Applications of High-Sulfur Coal-Fired Boilers, completed opera-
Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process, completed tional testing; final reports are in preparation.
operational testing; final reports are in preparation.

January 1995
Energy and Environmental Research Corporations
CCT-III project, Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and
Low-NOx Bumers on a Wall-Fired Boiler, completed
operational testing; final reports are in preparation.

Program Update 1995 B-5


Appendix C: CCT Program Publications
Numerous publications are available on the Access to clean coal technology and other Report No. DOWFE-0247P. U.S. Department of
major activities of the Clean Coal Technology information can be made via the Intemet. The Fossil Energy. February 1992. (Available from NTIS as
Demonstration Program. The most comprehensive Energy Home Page (http://www.fe.doe.gov) offers DE92008451.)
report is the annual Program Update. Project status general information and a gateway to more detailed
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
and accomplishments are reported in the quarterly information about projects in the CCT Program.
Project Status (As of June 30, 1991). Report No.
newsletter, Clean Coal To&. Detailed information
DOFYFE-0221P. U.S. Department of Energy. June
about each project selected for award of a cooperative Program Updates
1991. (Available from NTIS as DE91018648.)
agreement may be found in the projects Comprehen-
CLean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
sive Report to Congress on the Clean Coal Technol- Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
Project Fact Sheets. Report No. DOFYFE-0339.
ogy Program When a project is completed, the Program Update 1990 (As of December 31, 1990).
technical, environmental, and economic performance
US.Department of Energy. July 1995.
Report No. DOEIFE-0219P. U.S.Department of
as well as other key results are reported and dissemi- Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Energy. February 1991. (Available from NTIS as
nated by the participant and the CCT Program. Key Program Update 1994 (As of December 31, 1994). DE91008636.)
CCT Program publications available at yearend are Report No.DOEFE-0330. U.S. Department of
listed in this appendix. Project-specific reports and Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
Energy. April 1995. (Available from NTIS as
newsletter articles are listed by application category Annual Report to Congress (As of December 31,
DE95012257.)
and, within each category, by project. 1989). Report No. DOEFE-0195P. U.S. Depart-
The CCT Program reports are available through Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: ment of Energy. March 1990. (Available from NTIS
the National Technical Information Service ( I S ) , Program Update 1993 (As of December 31, 1993). as DE90013603.)
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Report No. DOFdFE-0299P. U.S.Department of
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Energy. March 1994. (Available from NTIS as
DE940 12389.) Annual Report to Congress (As of December 31,
To receive issues of the newsletter, Clean Coal
1988). Report No. DOE/FE-0125. U.S. Department
Today, send name and address to U.S.Department of
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: of Energy. February 1989. (Available from NTIS as
Energy, FE-22, Washington, DC 20858.
Program Update 1992 (As of December 31, 1992). DE89009636.1
To receive program-related information via the
Report No. DOFYFE-0272. U.S. Department of
Fossil Energy TechLine, a fax-ondemand system,
Energy. February 1993. (Available from NTIS as
call (202) 586-4300 from a tone phone and follow the
DE93011403.)
voice instructions. For additional TechLine informa-
tion, call (202) 586-6503. A computer bulletin board Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:
also provides updates; call (202) 586-6495 via Program Update 1991 (As of December 31, 1991).
modem.

Program Update 1995 C-1


Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: PCFB Repowering Project 80 MW Plant Descrip- The Ohio Power Company-Tidd PFBC
Annual Report to Congress (As of December 31, tion. Report No. DOEfMU27364-3998. Midwest Demonstration Project
1987). Report No. DOE/FE-0107. U.S.Department Power Systems, Inc. May 1994. (Available from
Ti& PFBC Hot Gas Clean Up Program Final
of Energy. 1986. (Available from NTIS as NTIS as DE95000073.)
Report. Report No. DOE/MC/26042-5130. The
88012672.)
Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed (PCFB) Ohio Power Company. October 1995. (Available
Repowering Project; Annual RepodJanuary- from NTIS as DE96000650.1
Advanced Electric Power Generation/ December 1993. DMEC-1 Limited Partnership.
Ti& PFBC Demonstraton Project Final Report,
Fluidized-Bed Combustion April 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94014920.)
March 1, 1994-March 30, 1995. Report No.
The Appalachian Power Company-PFJ3C Utility Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed (PCFB) DOFJMC/24132-T8. The Ohio Power Company.
Demonstration Project Repowering Project: Annual RepodAugust 1991- August 1995. Available from NTIS as
December 1992. Report No. DOE/MC/27364-3468. DE96004973.)
Clean Coal ZZ-PFBC Utili0 Demonstration Project: DMEC-1 Limited Partnership. April 1993.
1992 Annual Report. Report No. DOFJMU26304- (Available from NTIS as DE94000007.) Ti& PFBC Demonstration Project-First Three
3497. The Appalachian Power Company. December Years of Operation. Report No.DOE/MU24132-
1992. (Available from NTIS as DE94000029.) Des Moines, Iowa Greets New Clean Coal Plant. 5037-vo1.1 and -v01.2. The Ohio Power Company.
Clean Coal To+. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-4. April 1995. (Available from NTIS as DE96000559
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project: 1991 Annual Winter 1991. for vol. 1 and DE96003781 for vol. 2.)
Report. Report No. DOEMU26304-3194. The
Appalachian Power Company. November 1992. Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean A Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants at the Tidd
(Available from NTIS as DE93000233.) Coal Technology Program: Pressurized Circulating PFBC Demonstration Plant. Report No.
Fluidized Bed Demonstration Project. (Dairyland DOEMU26042-4083. American Electric Power
Comprehensive Report-to Congress on the Clean Power Cooperative and Iowa Power Inc.). Report Service Corporation. October 1994. (Availablefrom
Coal Technology Program.-PFBC Utility Demon- No. DOE/FE-0236P. U.S.Department of Energy. NTIS as DE95009729.)
stration Project. (The Appalachian Power Company lune 1991. (Available from NTIS as DE91018504.)
and The Ohio Power Company). Report No. Tidd PFBC Hot Gas Filter Operating Experience:
DOm-0159. U.S. Department of Energy. Four Rivers Energy Partners, LP.-Four Rivers July 19934pril1994. Report No. DOEfMC/26042-
February 1990. (Available from NTIS as Energy Modernization Project 94/C0382. The Ohio Power Company. June 1994.
DE90008094.) (Available from NTIS as DE95000653.)
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
DMEC-1 Limited Partnership-PCFB Project Coal Technology Program: Four Rivers Energy Tidd Concludes Four- yea^ PFJ3C Test Program.
Modernization Project. (Air Products and Chemicals, Clean Coal To+. Report No. DOEIFE-0215P-17.
Karhula Hot Gas Cleanup Test Results. Report No. Inc.) Report No. DOEFE4295P. U.S.Department Summer 1995.
DoE/MC/26042-94/C0383. Westinghouse Electric of Energy. June 1994. (Availablefrom NTIS as
Corporation. June 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94017563.)
DE95000652.)

C-2 Program Update 1995


Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project Topical Report- Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Colorado Fluid Bed Project Yields Both Power and
First Eighteen Months of Operation. Report No. Coal Technology Program: Tidd PFBC Demonstration Data. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEFE-
DOE/MC/24132-3746. The Ohio Power Company. Project. (The Ohio Power Company). Report No. 0215P. Winter 1990.
March 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94004120.) DOEIFE-0078. U.S. Department of Energy. February
Nuda CFB Demonstration Project: Detailed Public
1987. (Available from NTIS as DE87005803.)
Tidd Sets Mark, with Continuous 45-Day Run. Design Report. Report No. DOE/MC/25137-2999.
Clean Coal Today. Report No. DO--0215P-14. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. December
Summer 1994. Association, Inc.-Nuda CFB Demonstration 1990. (Available from NTIS as DE91002081.)
Project
Tidd Extended Runs Verify Design Basis. Clean Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Coal T h y . Report No. DOEIFE-0215P-7. Fall 1992. Clean Coal Reference Plants: Atmospheric CFB Coal Technology Program Nwla CFB Demonstration
(Topical Report, Task 1). Report No. DOE/Mc/ Project. (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.).
Ti& PFBC Demonstration Project: Public Final Report No. DOEVFE-0106. US. Department of
25177-3307. Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc. June 1992.
Design Report. Report No. DOEMU24 132-3195. Energy. July 1988.
(Available from NTIS as DE9300025 1.)
The Ohio Power Company. October 1992. (Avail-
able from NTIS as DE93000234.) Demonstration Program Performance Test: Summary York County Energy Partners, LP.-ACFB
Reports. Report No. DOE/Mc/25137-3104. Demonshtion Project
Tidd Plant Sets New Technical Operations and
Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. March 1992.
Environmental Performance Records. Clean Coal Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
(Available from NTIS as DE92001299.)
Toahy. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-6. Summer 1992. Coal Technology Program: Arvah B. Hopkins
Economic Evaluation Report: Topical Report. Circulating Fluidized-Bed Repowering Project. (The
Tidd Plant Resumes Operation. Clean Coal
Report No. DOE/MC/25 137-3127. Colorado-Ute City of Tallahassee). Report No. DOEWE-0208P.
T&. Report No. DOEWE-0215P-4. Winter 1991.
Electric Association, Inc. March 1992. (Available U.S. Department of Energy. October 1990. (Avail-
Tidd Receives 1991 Power Plant Award. Clean Coal from NTIS as DE93000212.) able from NTIS as DE91001076.)
T&. Report No. DOFdFE-0215P-1. Spring 1991.
Nucla Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed
TIDD Plant Pruduces Power: Operations Planned Demonstration Project: 1990 Annual Report. Report Advanced Electric Power Generation/
Early 1991. Clean Coal Today. Report No. No. DOE/MC/25 137-3089. Colorado-Ute Electric Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
DOEWE-0215P. Winter 1990. Association, Inc. February 1992. (Available from
IGCC-Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.
NTIS as DE92001275.)
Tidd: The Nations First PFBC Combined-Cycle Morgantown Energy Technology Center. June 1994.
Demonstration. Topical Report No. 1. U.S. Nuda Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed
Integrated Gastjication Combined-Cycle Research
Department of Energy and American Electric Power Demonstration Project: Final Technical Report for
the Period February 1987 through January 1991. and Development Activities in the US. Report No.
Service Corporation. March 1990.
DOE/METC/C-95/7193. Morgantown Energy
Report No. DOE/MC/25 137-3046. Colorado-Ute
Technology Center. 1994. (Available fkom NTIS as
Electric Association, Inc. October 1991. (Available
from NTIS as DE92001 122.) DE96002566.)

Program Update 1995 C-3


Advanced Power Generation Future Bright with CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: Sierra Pacific Power Company-Eon Pine
Coal Gasification-combined Cycle-Six Major Materials for Coal Gasification Environment. IGCC Power Project
Projects in DOES CCT Program. Clean Coal Report No. DOE/MC/26308-3628. ABB Combustion
Today. Report $70. DOEEE-0215P-5. Spring 1992. Engineering, Inc. October 1993. (Available from Piiion Pine Power Project; Annual Report, January-
NTIS as DE94000097.) December 1994. Report No. DOE/MC/29309-4054.
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.-Combustion Sierra Pacific Power Company. January 1995.
Engineering IGCC Repowering Project CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: Hot (Available from NTIS as DE95009707.)
Gas Clean Up System. Report No. DOEJMC/26308-
CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: Use 3545. ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. September Tracy Power Station-Unit No. 4, Piiion Pine Power
of the Lockheed Kinetic Extruder for Coal Feeding. 1993. (Available from NTIS as DE94000070.) Project Public Design Report. Report No. DOE/MC/
Report No. DOE/MC/26308-3646. ABB Combustion 29309-4056. Sierra Pacific Power Company.
Engineering, Inc. February 1994. (Available from CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: December 1994. (Available from NTIS as
NTIS as DE94004066.) Preliminary Hazard Analysis. Report No. DOEIMCI DE95009708.)
26308-3637. ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.
CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: June 1993. (Available from NTIS as DE94004056.) Piiion Pine Power Project; Annual Report, August
Controls and Instrumentation. Report No. 1992-December 1993. Report No. DOE/Mc/29309-
DOEIMc/26308-3648. ABB Combustion Engineer- CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: Char 4063. Sierra Pacific Power Company. November
ing, Inc. December 1993. (Available from NTIS as Filters. Report No. DOE/MC/26308-3639. ABB 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE95009709.)
DE94004068.) Combustion Engineering, Inc. May 1993. (Available
from NTIS as DE94004060.) Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
CE IGCC Repowering Project; Annual Repod Coal Technology Program: Piiion Pine IGCC Power
January-December 1992. Report No. DOE/IvlC/ Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Project. (Sierra Pacific Power Company). Report
26308-3645. ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. Coal Technology Program: Combustion Engineering No. DOEEE-0255P. U.S. Department of Energy.
December 1993. (Available from NTIS as IGCC Repowering Project. (ABBCombustion June 1992. (Available from NTIS as DE92015632.)
DE94004063.) Engineering, Inc.). Report No.DOE/FE-O201P.
U.S. Department of Energy. October 1990. (Avail- Tampa Electric Company-Tampa Electric
CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: able from NTIS as DE91001054.) Integrated Gasification Combined-CycleProject
Sulfuric Acid Plant. Report No. DOE/MC/26308-
3640. ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. December Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership- Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
1993. (Available from NTIS as DE94OO4061.) Clean Energy Demonstration Project Demonstration Project, Polk Power Station-Unit
NO.I ; Annual Report, October 19934eptember
CE IGCC Repowering Project; Topical Report: Bins Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean 1994. Report No. DOE/MC/27363-5012. Tampa
and Lockhoppers, Report No.DOFdMU26308-3647. Coal Technology Program: Clean Energy Demon- Electric Company. May 1995. (Available from
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. October 1993. stration Project. (Clean Energy Partners, L.P.). I S as DE95009742.)
(Available from NTIS as DE94004067.) Report No. DOE/FE-O319P. U.S.Department of
Energy. October 1994.

C-4 PmgmmlJpdare1995
Tampa Electric Company Polk Power Station Unit Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture. Healy Clean Coal Project: Healy FCM Testing at
No. I ; Annual Report, January-December 1993. January 1994. (Available from NTIS as Niro Air Pollution Pilot Facility. Report No.
Report No.DOE/MC/27363-3870. Tampa Electric DE940 12272.) DOE/PC/90544-T6. U.S. Department of Energy.
Company. August 1994. (Available from NTIS as October 1992. (Available from NTIS as
Largest U.S.Single Train IGCC Facility. Clean
DE95000042.) DE93014937.)
Coal Today. Report No.DO=-0215P-12. Winter
Tampa Electric Company, Polk Power Station Unit 199311994. Healy Clean Coal Project: Healy Coal Firing at
No. I , Preliminary Public Design Report. Report TRW Cleveland Test Facility. Report No.
Promise of Coal Gasification Power Draws 400 DOE/PC/90544-T2. TRW Space and Technology
No.DOE/MC127363-3966. Tampa Electric Com-
Representatives to Wabash River Site. Clean Coal Group, TRW, Inc. August 1991. (Available from
pany. June 1994. (Available from NTIS as
DE9500005 1.)
T ~ h y Report
. NO.DOFWE4215I-10. Summer 1993. NTIS as DE92007602.)
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Tampa Electric Company Polk Power Station Unit
Coal Technology Program: Wabash River Coal Coal Technology Program: Healy Clean Coal
No. I ; Annual Report, January-December 1992.
Gasification Repowering Project. (Wabash River Project. (Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Report No.DOE/MC/27363-3629. Tampa Electric
Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture). Authority). Report No.DOE/FE-O211P. U.S.
Company. October 1993. (Available from NTIS as
Report No.DOEJFE-0257P. U.S. Department of Department of Energy. January 1991. (Available
DE94000098.)
Energy. June 1992. (Available from NTIS as from NTIS as DE91008637.
Florida Project Demonstrates Key Technologies. DE920 15634.)
Clean Coal To&. Report No.DOE/EE-0215P-9. Arthur D. Little, Inc-Coal Diesel Combined-
Spring 1993. Cycle Project
Advanced Electric Power Generation/
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Advanced CombustiodHeat Engines ComprehensiveReport to Congress on the Clean
Coal Technology Program: Air-Blown Integrated Coal Technology Program: Coal Diesel Combined-
Gasification Combined-Cycle Demonstration Alaska Industrial Development and Export Cycle Project. (Arthur D. Little, Inc.). Report No.
Project. (Clean Power Cogeneration Limited Authority-Healy Clean Coal Project DOEFE-0296P. U.S.Department of Energy. May
Partnership). Report No. DOElFE-0216P. U.S. 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94012984.)
Healy Celebrates a Successful Groundbreaking.
Department of Energy. January 1991. (Available
Clean Coal To&. Report No.DOFJFE-0215P-17.
from NTIS as DE91009355.1
Summer 1995.
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Healy Clean Coal Project, Design Verification and
Project Joint Venture-Wabash River Coal Cold-Flow Modeling Test Report. Report No.
Gasification Repowering Project DOE/Pc/90544-T9. TRW Space and Techn010gy
Group. July 1993. (Available from NTIS as
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering
DE94002026.)
Project: Topical Report, July 1992-December 1993.
Report No.DOE/MC/29310-3840. Wabash River

Program Update 1995 C-5


Pennsylvania Electric Company-Warren Station PETC Review. Issue 9. Fall 1993. (Available from Public Design Report: Full-scale Demonstration of
Externally Fired Combiued-CycleDemonstration NTIS as DE94005 180.) Low-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit.. Report No. DOE/PC/
Project 9545-T4. The Babcock & Wilcox Company.
Coal Reburn Exceeds Expected NO, Reductions.
August 1991. (Available from NTIS as
ComprehensiveReport to Congress on the Clean Clean Coal T e . Report No.DOEIFE-0215P-9. DE92009768.)
Coal Technology Program: Warren Station EFCC Spring 1993.
Demonstration Project. (Pennsylvania Electric B&W Low NO, Cell Burners Fabricated. Clean
Company.) Report No. DOE/FE-o316P. U.S. Cyclone Boiler Coal Reburn Technology Cuts NO, Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-O215P-l.
Department of Energy. June 1994. (Available from by more than 50 Percent. Clean Coal Tochy. spring 1991.
NTIS as DE94017288.) Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-5. Spring 1992.
ComprehensiveReport to Congress on the Clean
Public Design Report: Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Coal Technology Program: Full-scale Demnstra-
Environmental Control DevicedNO, Control Boiler NO, Control. The Babcock & Wdcox Com-
tion of Low-NO, Cell-BurnerRetrofit. (The Babcock
Technologies pany. August 1991. & Wilcox Company). Report No. DOEFE-0197P.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean U.S.Department of Energy. July 1990. (Available
NO, Reduction by SCR/SNCR. PETC Review: A
Coal Technology Program: Demonstration of Coal from NTIS as DE90018026.)
Global Role for Energy. Issue 10. Summer 1994.
(Available from NTIS as DE9500041 1.) Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler NO, Control.
Energy and Environmental Research
(The Babcack & Wdcox Company). Report No.
Corporation-Evaluation of Gas Reburning and
Clean Coal Program Marks First Commercial D O W 0 1 5 7 . U.S.Department of Energy.
Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-FiredBoiler
Success with Sale of Low NO, Technology. Clean February 1990. (Available fiom NTIS as
Coal Toby. Report No.DOE/FE-0215P-10. DE9OOO8 111.) Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low NOx Burners
Summer 1993. on a Wall-Fired Boiler [Long-Term Testing, April
-
The Babcock & Wilcox Company-Full-scale 199j-January 19951. Report No. DOE/Pc/90547-
The Babcoek & Wilcox Company-Demo+ Demonstration of Low-NO, Cell Burner Retrofit
T20. Energy and Environmental Research Corpora-
tion of Coal Reburning for Cyclone!Boiler NO.
Final Report: Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NO, tion. June 1995. (Available from NTIS as
control DE95017755.)
Cell Bumer Retrofit. Report No. DOE/Pc/90545-2.
Demonstration of Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Boiler The Babcock & Wdcox Company. December 1995. Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and Low NO, Burners
NO, Control: Final Project Report. Report No.
TwoC f f Projects Get the Word Out. Clean on a Wall-Fired Boiler [Optimization Testing,
DOE/pc/8%59-T16. The Babcock & Wilcox
Coal Tbday. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-9. November 1992-AprilI9931. Report No. DOEIPCI
Company. February 1994. (Available from NTIS as
Spring 1993. 90547-T19. Energy and Environmental Research
DE94013052, Appendix 1 as DE94013053,
Corporation. June 1995. (Available from NTIS as
Appendix 2 as DE94013054.) B&W Low-NO, Cell Burner Tests under Way. DE95017754.)
Reburning for NO, Reduction-Demonstration of Clean Coal Tochy. Report No. DOEFE-0215P-6.
Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NO, Control. Summer 1992.

C-6 ProgramUpdarc1995
Reduction of NO, and SO, Using Gas Reburning, New York State Electric & Gas Corporatio- 500 MW Demonstration of Advanced Wall-Fired
Sorbent Injection and Integrated Technologies. Micronized Cad Reburning Demonstration for Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of NO,
Topical Report No. 3, Revision 1. Report No. NOXConW Emisswnsfrom Coal-Fired Boilers; Phase 3A. Low
DOE/FE-94007444. U.S. Department of Energy and NO, Bumer Tests. Report No. DOE/pc/8%51-T17.
Reburning for NO, Reduction-Micronized Coal Woodward Clyde Consultants and Southern Com-
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation.
Reburning for NOxControl. PETC Review. Issue 9. pany Services,Inc. March 1993. (Available from
September 1993. (Available from NTIS as
Fall 1993. (Available from NTIS as DE94005180.) NTIS as DE95002388.)
DE94007444.)
ComprehensiveReport to Congress on the Clean 500-MW Demonstration of Advanced Wall-Fired
Reburning for NOxReduction-Evaluation of Gas
Coal Technology Program: Micronized Coal Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of Nitro-
Reburning and Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-Fired
Rebuming Demonstrationfor NO, Control on a 175- gen Oxide (NO) Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired Boilers;
Boiler. PETC Review. Issue 9. Fall 1993. (Avail-
MWe Wall-Fired Unit. (Tennessee Valley Author- Field Chemical Emisswns Monitoring; Overfire Air
able from NTIS as DE94005180.)
ity). Report No. DOJYFE4256P. U.S. Department and Ovelfire A i r h NO,Bumer Operation: Final
EERsGas RebUrning-LoW-NO, B ~ m e Tech-
r of Energy. June 1992. (Available from NTIS as Report. Report No. DOE/pc/89651-T16. Southern
nologies Reducing NO, Emissions. Clean Coal DE92015633.) Company Services, Inc. January 1993. (Available
T d z y . Report No. DOE/FE-O215P-8. Winter 1992. from NTIS. as DE95006352.)
Southem Company Services, Inc-Demonstration
Gas Reburning Emerging as Cost-Effective Nitro- of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall- Georgia Powers Plant Hammond Previews Clean
gen Oxide Reduction Technique. Clean Coal Fired Boiier Air Acts NO, Challenges-Project Generating Data
T W . Report NO. DOE/FE-o215P-5. Spring 1992. that will Help Utilities Face New Laws Sleeping
500 MW Demonstration of Advanced Wall-Fired
Giant. Clean Coal T d z y . Report No.
Gas Reburning Tests Begin at Illinois Power Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of Nitro-
Plant-kly Tests E x c e e d E~peCtati~ns.Clean
DOEVFE-0215P-4.Winter 1991.
gen Oxide Emisswns from Coal-Fired Boilers
Coal Todzy. Report No. DOEIFE-0215P-4. [Advanced Digital ControVOptimization Phase]. ComprehensiveReport to Congress on the Clean
Winter 1991. Report No. DOE/pc/8%51-T22. Southern Company Coal Technology Program: Demonstration of
services, Inc. January 1995. (Available from NTIS Advanced Combustion Techniquesfor a Wall-Fired
Wall-Fired Boiler Low NO, Overfire Air Tests
as DE95017742.) Boiler. (Southern Company Services,Inc.). Report
Complete. Clean Coal T d z y . Report No. DOE/
No. DOElFE-0146. U.S. Department of Energy.
FE4215P-1. Spring 1991. 500 MW Demonstration of Advanced Wall-Fired
November 1989. (Available from NTIS as
Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of NO,
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean DE90004459.)
Emisswnsfrom Coal-Fired Boilers; Phase 3B LNB
Coal Technology Program: Evaluation of Gas
AOFA Tests. Report No. DOE/PC/8%51-T17.
Rebuming and Low-NO, Burners on a Wall-Fired
Woodward Clyde Consultants and Southern Com-
Boiler. (Energy and Environmental Research
pany Services, Inc. December 1993. (Available from
Corporation). Report No. DOE/FE-O204P. U.S.
NTIS as DE95010619.)
Department of Energy. September 1990. (Available
from NTIS as DE9100253.)

P m g m Update I995 C-7


Southern Company Services, Inc-Demonstration Southern Company Services, Inc.-MO-MWe Environmental Control Devices/SO, Control
of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Technologies
the Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur- Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx
Coal-Fired Boilers Emissions from Coal-FiredBoilers AirPol, Inc--PO-MWe Demonstration of Gas
SuspensionAbsorption
Gulf Powers SCR Test Facility in Operation. 180-MW Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially
Clean Coal To*. Report No. DOEIFE-0215P-13. Fired Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of Clean Coal Technology III: I O MW Demonstration
Spring 1994. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired of Gas Suspension Absorption Final Project
Boilers: Final Report and Key Project Findings. Performance and Economics Report. Report NO.
SCR Tests Progress at Gulfs Plant Crist. Clean Report No. DOE/PC/89653-T14. Southern Company DOE/PC/90542-T9. AirPol, Inc. June 1995.
Coal Todzy. Report No. DOEIFE-0215P-10. Services, Inc. February 1994. (Available from NTIS (Available from NTIS as DE9501668 1.)
Summer 1993. as DE94011174.)
10 MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
SCR Holds Promise for Effective NOxControl- Measurement of Chemical Emissions under the Absorption Final Public Design Report. Report No.
CCT Projects Address Higher Costs, Limited U.S. Influence of L.ow-NOXCombustion Modifications. DOE/PC/90542-T10. AirPol, Inc. June 1995.
Experience. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/ Report No. DOE/PC/89653-T12. Southem Company
FE-0215P-6. Summer 1992. Services, Inc. October 1993. (Available from NTIS SO2Removal Using Gas Suspension Absorption
Catalyst Suppliers Selected in Southem Companys as DE94005038.) Technology. Topical Report No. 4. U.S. Department
SCR Project. Clean Coal Today. Report No. of Energy and Airpol, Inc. April 1995.
ESP Pelfonnance Analysis during the 180-MW
DOEIFE-0215P-2. Summer 1991. Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired IO-MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Combustion Techniquesfor the Reduction of Nitro- Absorption Process at TVAs Centerfor Emissions
Coal Technology Program: Demonstration of gen Oxide (NO) Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired Boilers. Research: Final Report. Report NO.DOE/PC/
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology for Report No. DOE/PC/89653-T13. Southem Company 90542-T10. Tennessee Valley Authority. March
the Control of Nitrogen Oxide (NO) Emissionsfrom Services, Inc. September 1993. (Available from 1995. (Available from NTIS as DE96000327.)
High-Suljirr-Coal-Fired Boilers. (Southem Com- NTIS as DE94010218.)
pany Services, Inc.). Report No. DOEIFE-0161P. 10 MW Demonstration of the Gas Suspension
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
U.S. Department of Energy. April 1990. (Available Absorption Final Project Pelformance and
Coal Technology Program: 180-MWe Demonstration
from NTIS as DE90010360.) Economics Report. Report No. DOE/PC/90542-T9.
of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Tech-
AirPol, Inc. January 1995. (Available from NTIS as
niquesfor the Reduction of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
DE95016681.)
Emissionsfor Coal-Fired Boilers. (Southern
Company Services, Inc.). Report No. DoEFE-0191P. AirPol Plant Runs Smoothly. Clean Coal Today.
U.S.Department of Energy. July 1990. (Available Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-8. Winter 1992.
from NTIS as DE9001359.

C-8 Program Update 1995


I
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.-Advanced Flue Gas (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.). Report No. DO=-
Coal Technology Program: IO-MW Demonstration Desulfurization DemonstrationProject 0150. U.S.Department of Energy. November 1989.
of Gas Suspension Absorption. (AirPol, Inc.). (Available from NTIS as DE90004460.)
Report No. DOE/FE-O198P. U.S. Department of Characterizing Toxic Emissions from a Coal-Fired
Energy. July 1990. (Available from NTIS as Power Plant Demonstrating the AFGD ICCT Project Southern Company Services, 1nc.-Demonstration
90016669.) and a Plant Utilizing a Dry ScrubberLtaghouse of Innovative Applications of Technology for the
System: Bailly Station Units 7 and 8 and AFGD CT-121 FGD P ~ O C ~ S S
Bechtel Corporation-Confined Zone Dispersion ICCT Project. Final Report. Report No. DOE/PC/
Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration 93254-T1. Southern Research Institute. October A Study of Toxic Emissionsfiom a Coal-Fired Power
1994. (Available from NTIS as DE95005662.) Plant Utilizing and ESP while Demonstrating the
Confined Zone Dispersion Project: Final Technical ICCT CT-121 FGD Project. Final Report. Report
Report. Bechtel Corporation. June 1994. Continued Success with Landmark Pure Air No. DOEKY93253-Tl. Radian Corporation. June
Project. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE- 1994. (Available fromNTIS as DE94016053.)
Confined Zone Dispersion Project: Public Design 0215P-14. Summer 1994.
Report. Bechtel Corporation. October 1993. CT- 121 Advanced Scrubber Moves Ahead at
Clean Coal Project Wins Outstanding Achievement Georgia Site. Clean Coal Tohy. Report No.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Award. Clean Coal To+. Report No. DO=- DOE/FE-O21SP-lO. Summer 1993.
Coal Technology Program: Confined Zone Disper- 0215P-8. Winter 1992.
sion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration. Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Highlights CT- 121
(Bechtel Corporation). Report No. DOWFE-0203P. Pure Air Project Helps Hurricane Relief Efforts. Second Generation Wet Scrubber. Clean Coal
U.S.Department of Energy. September 1990. Clean Coal To+. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-8. Tohy. Report No. DOEFE-0215P-2. Summer 1991.
(Available from NTIS as DE91002564.) Winter 1992.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Pure Air FGD Scrubber Begins Operation-Indiana Coal Technology Program: Demonstration of
LIFAC-North America-DAC Sorbent
Utility Leads Nation in Clean Air Act Compliance. Innovative Applications of Technologyfor the CT-
Injection Desulfurization DemonstrationProject
Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-6. I21 FGD Process. (Southem Company Services,
LIFAC Process Tests Now Underway. Clean Coal Summer 1992. Inc.). Report No. DOWFE-0158. U.S. Department
Tohy. Report No. DOEVFE-021%-8. Winter 1992. of Energy. February 1990. (Available from NTIS as
PUR Air Flue Gas hject Construction Well Advanced
DE90008110.)
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-O215P-l.
Coal Technology Program: LIFAC Sorbent Injection Spring 1991.
Desulfurization Demonstration Project. W A C -
Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Project: Public
North America). Report No. DoE/FE-O207P. U.S.
Design Report. Pure on the Lake, L.P. March 1990.
Department of Energy. October 1990. (Available
from NTIS as DE91001077.) Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Coal Technology Program: Advanced Flue Gas
Desulfurization (AFGD) Demonstration Project.

P m g m Update 1995 C-9


Environmental Control DevicedCombined SNOX Demonstration on Line. Clean Coal T-. Public Design Report. Report No. DOEWX9798-
SOJNO, Control Technologies Report No. DOEFE-0215P-4. Winter 1991. T2. The Babcock & Wilcox Company. December
1988. (LIMB/Coolside.) (Available from NTIS as
NOxReduction by SCR/SNCR. PETC Review: A WSA-SNOX Offers Multiple Pollutant Capture, DE92016 131.)
Global Role for Energy. Issue 10. Summer 1994. Efficiency, Salable Byproducts. Clean Coal To+.
(Available from NTIS as DE95000411.) Report No. DOEEE-0215P-4. Winter 1991. Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Coal Technology Program: LIMB Demonstration
ABB Environmental Systems--SNOX?H Flue Gas Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Project Extension. (The Babcock & Wilcox
Cleaning Demonstration Project Coal Technology Program: WSA-SNOX Flue Gas Company). Report No. DOEVFE-0085. U.S.
Cleaning Demonstration Project. (ABB Combustion Department of Energy. April 1987. (Available from
A Study of Toxic Emrsswnsfrom a Coal-Fired Power Engineering, Inc.). Report No. DOEEE-0151. US. NTIS as DES7009793.)
Plant Utilizing the SNOX Innovative Clean Coal Department of Energy. November 1989. (Available
Technology Demonstration. Volume 1, Sampling/ from NTIS as DEOOO446.) The Babcock & Wilcox Company-SOx-NOx-Rox
ResultdSpecial Topics: Final Report. Report No. Boxm Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project
DOE/pc/93251-T3-Vol. 1. Battelle Columbus The Babcock & Wilcox Company-LIMB
Operations. July 1994. (Available from NTIS as Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside SOX-NOX-Rox Boxm Flue Gas Clean-up
DE94018832.) Demonstration Demonstraton Final Report. Report No. DOEIPCI
89656-TI. The Babcock & Wilcox Company.
A Study of Toxic Emissionsfrom a Coal-Fired Power T.R. Goots, M.J. DePero, and P.S. Nolan. LIMB September 1995. (Available from NTIS as
Plant Utilizing the SNOX Innovative Clean Coal Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside DE96003839.)
Technology Demonstration. Volume 2, Appendices: Demonstration: Final Report. Report No. D O W
Final Report. Report No. DOE/pc/93251-T3-Vol. 2. 79798-27. The Babcock & Wilcox Company. S N R P Air Toxics Monitoring. Final Report.
Battelle Columbus Operations. July 1994. (Avail- November 1992. (Available from NTIS as Report No. OCDO-94014782. Battelle Columbus
able from NTIS as DE94018833.) DE93005979.) Operations. January 1994. (Available from the Ohio
Coal Development Office as TI94014782.)
A Study of Toxic Emisswnsfrom a Coal-Fired Power D.C. McCoy et al. m e Edgewater Coolside Process
Plant: Niles Station Boiler No. 2. Volume 2, Demonstration: A Topical Report. Report No. Progressive Technology Exceeds Expectations.
Appendices: Final Report. Report No. DOEIpc/ DOE/Pcn9798-26. CONSOL, Inc. February 1992. Clean Coal To+. Report No. DOEFE-0215P-10.
93251-T1-Vol. 2. Battelle Columbus Operations. (Available from NTIS as DE93001722.) Summer 1993.
July 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE94016051.)
B&WsLIMB Operating; Coolside Tests Complete. 5 MWe S N R P Demonstration Facility: Detailed
Two CCT Projects Get the Word Out. Clean Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEFE-0215P. Design Report. The Babcock & Wilcox Company.
Coal Toby. Report No.DOEFE-0215P-9. Winter 1990. November 1992.
Spring 1993.
Coolside and LIMB: Sorbent Injection Demonstra- Success is in the Ceramic Bag-B&Ws SOx-
tions Nearing Completion. Topical Report No. 2. NOx-Rox Box Starts Up. Clean Coal T-.
U.S. Department of Energy and The Babcock & Report No. DOEEE-0215P-5. Spring 1992.
Wilcox Company. September 1990.

C-10 Progmm U@e 1995


Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Coal Technology Program: SOX-NOX-ROX Box Sorbent Injection; Volume 3: Gas Rebuming- Coal Technology Program: Milliken Clean Coal
Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project. (The Sorbent Injection at Emuards Unit I , Central Illinois Technology Demonstration Project. (New York
Babcock 8t Wilcox Company). Report No. DOEIFE- Light Company. Report No.DOE/pcn9796-T38- State Electric & Gas Corporation). Report No. DOE/
0145. U.S.Department of Energy. Vol. 3. Energy and Environmental Research E-0265P. U.S.Department of Energy. September
November 1989. (Available from NTIS as Corporation. October 1994. (Available from NTIS 1992. (Available from NTIS as DE93001756.)
DE90004458.) as DE95009447.)
NOXSO Corporation-CommerciaI
Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Reduction of NO, and SO2 Using Gas Rebuming. Demonstration of the NOXSO SOJNOx Removal
Corporation-Enhancing the Use off Coals by Gas Sorbent Injection and Integrated Technologies. Flue Gas Cleanup System
Reburning and Sorbent Injection Topical Report No.3. US.Department of Energy
and Energy and Environmental Research Corpora- Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO S0/NOx
Site Tours: Arapahoe Station and Cherokee tion. September 1993. Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System. Report No.
Station. Clean Coal To&. Report No.DOE/FE- DOE/EA-1080. Pittsburgh Energy Technology
0215P-18. Fall 1995. Reburning for NO, Reduction-Enhancing the Use Center. June 1995. (Available from NTIS as
of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection. DE96000179.)
EER Completes Three Demonstration Tests. PETC Review. Issue 9. Fall 1993. (Available from
Clean Coal To&. Report No. DOWFE-0215P-17. NTIS as DE94005180.) Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Summer 1995. Coal Technology Program: Commercial Demonstra-
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean tion of the NOXSO SO#VO, Removal Flue Gas
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming- Coal Technology Program: Enhancing the Use of Cleanup System. (MK-Ferguson Company). Report
Sorbent Injection; Long Term Testing Period, Coals by Gas Rebuming and Sorbent Injectwn. No. DOE/FE-O213P. U.S. Department of Energy.
September 1, 1991-January IS, 1993. Report NO. (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation). January 1991. (Available from NTIS as
DOE/pcn9796-T40. Energy and Environmental Report No. DO=-0087. U.S.Department of DE9 1008638.)
Research Corporation. February 1995. (Available Energy. May 1987. (Available from NTIS as
from NTIS as DE95011481.) DE870108 15.) Public Service Company of Colorado-Integrated
Dry NOxBO, Emissions Control System
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Rebuming and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation-
Sorbent Injection; Volume 2: Gas Rebuming- Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Site Tours: Arapahoe Station and Cherokee
Sorbent Injection at Hennepin Unit 1, Illinois Power Project Station. Clean Coal T-. Report No.DOEWE-
Company. Report No.DOE/pcn9796-T38-Vol. 2. 0215P-18. Fall 1995.
Energy and Environmental Research Copration. Milliken Project in Final Construction Stage.
October 1994. (Available from NTIS as Clean Coal To+. Report No. DOEFE-0215P-14. Integrated Dry NOxB02Emisswns Control System
DE95009448.) Summer 1994. Calcium-Based Dry Sorbent Injection; Test Report,
April 30-November 2,1993. Report No.D O W
90550-Tl4. Fossil Energy Research Corporation and

P m g m m Update 1995 C-I1


Public Service Company of Colorado. December Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Coal Processing for Clean Fuels/Mild
1994. (Available from NTIS as DE95007932.) Coal Technology Program: Selj-Scrubbing Coal-: Gasification
An Integrated Approach to Clean Air. (Custom
Second Colorado Project Also Operating. Clean ENCOAL Corporation-ENCOAL Mild Coal
Report No. DOE/FE-0266P.
Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-8. Gasification
U.S. Department of Energy. October 1992. (Avail-
Winter 1992.
able from NTIS as DE93001270.)
The ENCOAL Project: Initial Commercial Shipment
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Rosebud SynCoal Partnership-Advanced Coal and Utilization of Both Solid and Liquid Products;
Coal Technology Program: Integrated Dry NOx/S02
ConversionProcess Demonstration Topical Report. Report No. DOE/MC/27339-4088.
Emission Control System. (Public Service Company
ENCOAL Corporation. March 1995. (Available
of Colorado). Report No. DOEFE-0212P. U.S.
Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration; from NTIS as DE95009735.)
Department of Energy. January 1991. (Available
Progress Report, January I , 1992-December 31,
from NTIS as DE91008624.) ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Demonstration
1992. Report No. DOE/PC/89664-T11. Power
Environmental Services, Inc. December 1993. Project; Annual Report, October 1993September
Coal Processing for Clean FueldCoal (Available from NTIS as DE95017741.) 1994. Report No. DOE/MC/27339-4064. ENCOAL
Preparation Technologies Corporation. March 1995. (Available from NTIS as
SynCoaF Burn Tests Spawn Commercial Studies. DE950097 10.)
Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-12.
ABB CombustionEngineering,Inc., and CQ Inc.-
Winter 1993/1994. ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Demonstration
Development of the Coal Quality Expert
Project Public .Design and Construction Report.
Montana Plant to Open New Markets for Plentiful
Clean Coal Project will Develop Expert Computer Report No. DOE/MC/27339-4065. ENCOAL
Low-Rank Coals. Clean Coal Today. Report No.
Software Program. Clean Coal Today. Report No. Corporation. December 1994. (Available from NTIS
DOEEE-0215P-4. Winter 1991.
DOEFE-0215P-4. Winter 1991. as DE95009711.)
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
ENCOAL Plant Enters Production Mode. Clean
Coal Technology Program: Development of the Coal Coal Technology Program: Advanced Coal
Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-14.
Conversion Process Demonstration. (Western
Qualiry Expert. (ABB Combustion Engineering, Summer 1994.
Inc., and CQ Inc.). Report No. DOElFE-0174P. Energy Company). Report No. DOEFE-0192P.
U.S. Department of Energy. May 1990. (Available U.S.Department of Energy. July 1990. (Available ENCOAL Project Resumes Operation. Clean Coal
from NTIS as DE9001038.) from NTIS as DE90013559.) Toaky. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-12. Winter
1993/1994.
Custom Coals International-Self-Scrubbing
Coalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air ENCOAL MiM Coal Gasification Demonstration
Project; Annual Report. Report No. DOEMU
Custom Coals Nears Completion. Clean Coal 27339-3842. ENCOAL Corporation. October 1993.
Today. Report No. DOElFE-02 15P-17. Summer (Available from NTIS as DE94012274.)
1995.

C-I2 Program Update 1955


ENCOAL Plant Starting Up. Clean Coal Today. (Airproducts and Chemicals, Inc.). Report No. DOE/ FE-0206P. U.S. Department of Energy. October
Report No. DOEFl3-0215P-6. Summer 1992. FE4243P. U.S. Department of Energy. August 1992. 1990. (Available from NTIS as DE91001069.)

ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasi$cation Project: Annual Centerior Energy Corporation-Clean Power
Report (October 1990September 1991). Report NO. Industrial Applications from Integrated Codore Reduction (COREX@)
DOE/MC/27339-3087. ENCOAL Corporation. Feb-
Bethlehem Steel Corporation-Blast Furnace This CCT-V project is in negotiations.
ruary 1992. (Available from NTIS as DE9200-1273.)
Granulated-CoalInjection System Demonstration
Coal Tech Corporation-Advanced Cyclone
ENCOAL Project Continues Rapid Pace- Spring Project Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and
1992 Plant Startup Expected. Clean Coal Today.
Ash Control
Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-4. Winter 1991. Blast F u m e Granular Coal Injection Project;
Annual Report, January-December 1994. Report The Coal Tech Advanced Cyclone Combustor
ENCOAL Mild Gasification Project Breaks Ground No. DOE/MC/27362-4089. Bethlehem Steel Demonstration P r o j e c t 4 DOE Assessment. Report
in Many Ways. Clean Coal Today. Report No. Corporation. July 1995. (Available from NTIS as No. DOE/PC/79799-T1. U.S.Department of Energy.
DOEFE-0215P-1. Spring 1991. DE95009736.) May 1993.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Blast F u m e Granular Coal Injection System B. Zauderer and E.S. Fleming. The Demonstration
Coal Technology Program: ENCOAL Mild Coal
Demonstration Project Public Design Report. of an Advanced Cyclone Coal Combustor, with
Gasification Project. (ENCOAL Corporation).
Report No. DOE/MC/27362-4073. Bethlehem Steel Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control for the
Report No. DOE/FE-O194P. U.S. Department of
Corporation. March 1995. (Available from NTIS as Conversion of a 23 MMBtdHour Oil Fired Boiler to
Energy. June 1990. (Available from NTIS as
DE95009719.) Pulverized Coal; Volume I : Final Technical Report;
9 1004624.)
Volume 2: Appendixes I, 11, HI, IV,and V; Volume 3:
Blast F u m e Granular Coal Injection Project; Appendix VI. Coal Tech Corporation. August 1991.
Coal Processing for Clean Fueldlndirect Annual Report, January-December 1993. Report (Available from NTIS as DE92002587 and
Liquefaction No. DOWU27362-3860. Bethlehem Steel DE92002588.)
Corporation. June 1994. (Available from NTIS as
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, DE940 12286.) Coal Tech Completes Combustor Operations.
L.P.-Commercial-We Demonstration of the Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEFE-0215P.
Blast Furnace Coal Facility in Construction. Clean Winter 1990.
Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process
Coal Today. Report No. DOm-0215P-13. Spring
Site Chosen for Coal to Methanol Energy Project. 1994. Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-O215P-12. Coal Technology Program: Advanced Cyclone
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Combustor with Integral Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash
Winter 1993/1994.
Coal Technology Program: Blast Furnace Granu- Control. (Coal Tech Corporation). Report No.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Ckan coal lated Coal Injection System Demonstration Project. DOEJFE-0077. US. Department of Energy.
Technology P r o g m Commercia-ScaleDemonstration (Bethlehem Steel Corporation). Report No. DOH February 1987. (Available from NTIS as
of the L q d Phase Methanol ( L P M E O P ) Pmess. DE87005804.)

Program Update 1995 C-13


Passamaquoddy Tribe-Cement Kiln Flue Gas Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasifica- Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Recovery Scrubber tion. (Thermdhem, Inc.). Report No. Coal Technology Program: Advanced Slagging
DOm-0267P. U.S.Department of Energy. Combustor Utility Demonstration Project. (TRW,
Passamaquode Technology Recovery Scrubber-:
October 1992. (Available from NTIS as Inc.). Report No. DOEIFE-0108. U.S.Department
Final Report. Volumes 1 and 2. Passamaquoddy
DE93000959.) of Energy. October 1988. (Available from NTIS as
Tribe. February 1994. (Volume 1 available from NTIS
DE89001276.)
as DE9401 1175, Volume 2 as DE9401 1176.)
Reports on Withdrawn and Terminated Comprehensive Report to Congress: f i e Appala-
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubber-:
Projects chian Project. (The M.W. Kellogg Company).
Public Design Report. Report No. DOE/PC/89657-
Report No. D O m - 0 0 9 5 . U.S.Department of
T2. Passamaquoddy Tribe. October 1993. (Avail- Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Energy. December 1987. (Available from NTIS as
able from NTIS as DE94008316.) Coal Technology Program: Toms Creek IGCC
DE88004630.)
Demonstration Project. (TAMCO Power Partners).
Success Continues at Cement Kiln Project. Clean
Report No. DOE/FE-O264P. U.S.Department of Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Coal T ~ h y Report
. NO. DOEWE-0215P-7. Fdll992.
Energy. September 1992. (Available from NTIS as Coal Technology Program: UCGKlean Fuels Proof-
Passamaquoddy Technology Recovery Scrubber-: DE93000960.) of-Concept Project. (Energy International, Inc.).
Topical Report. Report No. D O W 8 9 6 5 7 - T l . Report No. DOE/FE-0093. US.Department of
Bethlehem Steels Innovative Cleanup System Nears
Passamaquoddy Tribe. March 1992. (Available Energy. November 1987. (Available from NTIS as
Completion at Sparrows Point-Power Plants Arent
from NTIS as DE92019868.) DE8800257 1.)
the Only Facilities Benefiting from New Technolo-
Passamaquoddy Cement Kiln Project Begins gies Emerging from the Clean Coal Technology Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
Operations. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/ Program. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEIFE- Coal Technology Program: Prototype Commercial
FE-0215P-1. Spring 1991. 0215P-2. Summer 1991. CoaVOil Co-Processing Plant. (Ohio Clean Fuels,
Inc.). Report No. DOEIFE-0092. U.S.Department
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean of Energy. October 1987. (Available from NTIS as
Coal Technology Program: Cement Kiln Flue Gas Coal Technology Program: Low-NO,/SO, Burner
DE88002370.)
Recovery Scrubber. (Passamaquoddy Tribe). Report Retrofit for Utility Cyclone Boilers. (TransAlta
No. DOEEX-0152. U.S.Department of Energy. Resources Investment Corporation). Report No.
November 1989. (Available from NTIS as DOE/FE-O160P. U.S.Department of Energy. Reports on CCT Solicitations
DE90004462.) April 1990. (Available from NTIS as DE90010359.)
Informational Solicitations
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean
ThermoChem, Inc-Demonstration of Pulse
Coal Technology Program: Innovative Coke Oven Report to Congress: Expressions of Interest in
Combustionin an Application for Steam
Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications. Commercial Clean Coal Technology Projects in
Gasification of Coal
(Bethlehem Steel Corporation). Report No. DOE/ Foreign Countries. Report No. DOEEX-0334. U.S.
Comprehensive Report to Congress on the Clean FE-0137. U.S.Department of Energy. August 1989. Department of Energy. June 1995. (Available from
Coal Technology Program: Demonstration of Pulse (Available from NTIS as DE90000952.) MIS as DE95015939.)

C-14 P m g m Update 1-5


Second Report to Congress on Emerging Clean Coal CCT-II Solicitation Background Information: Public Meetingsfor Views
Technologies Capable of Retrofitting, Repowering, and Comments on the Conduct of the 1989 Clean
or Modemizing Existing Facilities. Report No. Comprehensive Report to Congress: Proposals
Coal Technology Solicitation. Report No. DOElFE-
DOFdFE-0086. U.S.Department of Energy. Received in Response to the Innovative Clean Coal
0112. U.S.Department of Energy. December 1988.
May 1987. (Available from NTIS as DE87009348.) Technology Program Opportunity Notice. Report
(Available from NTIS as DE8900551 1.)
No. DOE/FE-0114. U.S.Department of Energy.
Summary Report to Congress on Emerging Clean October 1988. (Available from NTIS as Summary Proceedings: Public Meetings on Increas-
Coal Technologies Capable of Retrofitting, DE89006384.) ing Western Participation in the 1989 Clean Coal
Repowering, or Modemizing Existing Facilities. Technology Solicitation. Report No. DOEFE-0113.
Report No. DOE@E-0082. U.S.Department of Summary Proceedings: Public Meetingsfor Views
U.S.Department of Energy. December 1988.
Energy. March 1987. (Available from NTIS as and Comments on the Conduct of the Innovative (Available from NTIS as DE89005512.)
DE87006604.) Clean Coal Technologies Solicitation. Report No.
DOJYFE-0094. U.S.Department of Energy. CCT-IV Solicitation
Supplemental Report to Congress on Emerging November 1987. (Available from NTIS as
Clean Coal Technologies. Report No. DOE/MC/ DE88003238.) "Nine New Clean Coal Technology Projects Selected
22121-1. U.S.Department of Energy. August 1985. in Fmrth.Round of Competition." Clean coal T&.
Background Information: Public Meetings for Views Report No:DOEIFE-0215P-4. Winter 1991.
(Available from NTIS as DE85018356.)
and Comments on the Conduct of the Innovative
Report to Congress on Emerging Clean Coal Tech- Clean Coal Technologies Solicitation. Report No. ComprehensiveReport to Congress: Proposals
nologies. Report No. DOWS-0034. U.S.Depart- DOEIFE-0090. U.S.Department of Energy. Received in Response to Clean Coal Technology N
ment of Energy. May 1985. July 1987. (Available from NTIS as DE87013416.) Program Opportunity Notice. Report No.DOJYFE-
0242P. U.S.Deparment of Energy. December 1991.
CCT-I Solicitation CCT-III Solicitation (Available from NTIS as DE91018648.)

Report to Congress on the Relationships between Comprehensive Report to Congress: Proposals Re- Summary Proceedings: Public Meetingsfor Views
Projects Selected for the Clean Coal Technology ceived in Response to the Clean Coal Technology 111 andCo" on the covlductofthe 1990 Clean Gml
Program and the Recommendations of the Joint Program Opportunity Notice. Report No. D O m - Technology solicitation Repoit No. DOElFE-0171. U.S.
Report of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain. Report 0163. U.S.Department of Energy. Department of Energy. April 1990. (Available from
No. DOJYFE-0072. U.S.Department of Energy. February 1990. (Available from NTIS as NTIS as DE90008197.)
October 1986. (Available from NTIS as DE90006448.)
DE87000865.) Background Information: Public Meetingsfor Views
Summary Proceedings: Public Meetingsfor Views and andcb" on the covlductofrhe 1990 clean coal
Comprehensive Report to Congress on Proposals Comments on the Conduct of the I989 Clean Coal Technology S o M a Report No. DOEYlT-0157. U.S.
Received in Response to the Clean Coal Technology Technology Solicitation. Report No. DOElFE-0140. Department of Energy. February 1990. (Available
Program Opportunity Notice. Report No. DOE/FE- U.S.Department of Energy. July 1989. (Available from NTIS as DE9OOO8111.)
0070. U.S.Department of Energy. August 1986. from NTIS as DE89016685.)
(Available from NTIS as DE87oooO51.)

Program Update 1995 C-15


CCT-V Solicitation Polish Energy Experts Discuss Privatization. Clean Coal Technology: The Investment Pays OB
Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEEE-0215P-20. Report No. DOWFE-0291 (Revised). U S . Depart-
Comprehensive Report to Congress: Proposals Winter 1995. ment of Energy. July 1995.
Received in Response to the Clean Coal Technology V
Program Oppdrtunity Notice. Report No. D O W - Improving the Enabling Environment for CCTs. DOE Report to Congress: CCT Expressions of
0277. U.S. Department of Energy. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-20. Interest in Foreign Countries. Clean Coal Tohy.
June 1993. (Available from NTIS as DE93016084.) Winter 1995. Report No. DO=-0215P-17. Summer 1995.

Five New Clean Coal Projects. Clean Coal Tohy. Power Generation Competition Threatens Clean Clean Coal Celebrates Earth Day 199AExhibits
Report No. DOEiFE-0215P-9. Spring 1993. Coal. Clean Coal Toahy. Report No. DOE/FE- Accent Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
02 15P-20. Winter 1995. Clean Coal Today. Report No. DOEiFE-0215P-13.
Summary Proceedings: Public Meetingsfor Views Spring 1994.
and ~ m m e n r (HZ
s the G.mGkt ofthe I992 Clean Coal Domestic Regulatory Challenges. Clean Coal
Technology solicitatio. Report No. DOFi434246P. To+. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-20. Winter In Memoriam. Clean Coal Today. Report No.
U.S.Department of Energy. December 1991. 1995. DOE/FE-0215P-15. Special Memorial Issue. 1994.
(Available from NTIS as DE92006425.)
Expanding the International Market. Clean Coal Third Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
Background Znfonnation Public Meetingsfor Views Today. Report No. DOE/FE-0215P-20. Winter Technical Papers. U.S.Department of Energy and
and Comments on the Conduct of the 1992 Clean 1995. Center for Energy and Economic Development.
Coal Technology Solicitation. U.S.Department of September 1994.
Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
Energy. October 1991.
The Global Opportunity. Proceedings. Report No. 17re Clean Coal Technology Program Lessons
CONF-9509170. U.S.Department of Energy, Center Learned. Report No. DOEEE-0315P. U.S.Depart-
Other Reports and Clean Coal Today Articles for Energy and Economic Development, and Na- ment of Energy. July 1994. (Available from NTIS
tional Mining Association. September 1995. as DE94017777.)
Introducing the Global CCT Opportunity. Clean
Coal Today. Report No. DOEiFE-0215P-20. Winter Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: Comprehensive Report to Congress: Clean Coal
1995. The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report Technology Program Completing the Mission.
No. CONF-9509170. U.S.Department of Energy, Report No. DOE/FE-O309P. U.S.Department of
CCT Commercialization Challenges. Clean Coal Center for Energy and Economic Development, and Energy. May 1994. (Available from NTIS as
Toahy. Report No. DOEiFE-0215P-20. Winter National Mining Association. September 1995. DE94014065.)
1995.
The Global Opportunity: A Message from Pat Report to the United States Congress: Clean Coal
International CCT Deployment Needs Strong U.S. Godley. Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Technology Export Markets and Financing Mecha-
Support. CZean Coal Today. Report No. DOWFE- Clean Coal Today. Report No. M3E/FE-0215P-18. nisms. Report No.DoE/FE-O307P. US.Depart-
0215P-20. Winter 1995. Fall 1995. ment of Energy. May 1994. (Available from NTIS
as DE94014093.)

C-16 Program Updare 1995


Foreign Marketsfor US.Clean Coal Technologies. Region 3 Market Description Summary-Mid- Innovative Clean Coal Technology Program:
Report No. DOFiFE-0317. U.S.Department of Atlantic. Report No. DOE/FE-62046 H-1. U.S. Programma& Environmental Zmpact Analysis

Energy. May 1994. (Available from NTIS as Department of Energy. September 1993. (Available (PEZA). Report No. DOEPEIA-oOO2. U.S.Depart-
DE94018421.) from NTIS as DEp4ooo43 1.) ment of Energy. September 1988. (Available from
NTIS as DEs9008582.)
Clean Coal Technologyfor Sustainable Develop- Region 4 Market Description Summary-South
ment. The National Coal Council. February 1994. Atlantic. Report No. DOEFE-62046 H-2. U.S. Innovative Ckan Coal Technology Deployment. The
Department of Energy. September 1993. (Available National Coal Council. 1988.
Ckan Coal Technology: The Investment Pays Q@ from NTIS as DE94000430.)
Report No. DOEFE-0291. U.S. Department of Ckan Coal Technology. The National Coal Council.
Energy. January 1994. (Available from NTIS as Export of Coal and Coal Technology. The National 1986.
DE94008697.) CoalCouncil. 1993.

Ckan Coal Technology: The New Coal Era Report Fossil Energy Review. Report No. DOEIFE-0223P-4.
No. DOE/FE-o217P. U.S. Department of Energy. U.S.Department of Energy. January-June 1992.
January 1994. (Available from NTIS as DE92018656.)

Update-Clean Coal Air Toxics Testing Programs. Notable First Annual Clean Coal Conference-
Ckan Coal To&y. Report No. DOEFE4215P-12. Technology Developers Linked with Wide Range of
Winter 1993/1994. Users. Clean Coal T o w . Report No. DOE/FE-
0215P-7. Fall 1992.
Ckan Gml Technologies: Research, Development, and
Demonstration h g m Plan Report No. DO- First Annual Clean Coal Conference Proceedings.
0284. U.S.Department of Energy. November 1993. Report No. CONF-920979. US.Department of
(Available from NTIS as DE94004382.) Energy. September 1992. (Available from NTIS as
DE93004314.)
2nd Annual CCT Conference Examines Technology
Markets. Clean Coal To&y. Report No. DOE/FE- Clean Coal Projects Join Integrated Effort to Obtain
0215P-11. Fall 1993. Toxic Air Pollution Data Ckan Coal Toduy.
Report No. DOEWE-0215P-4. Winter 1991.
Second Annual Clean Coal Conference Proceedings,
VolumesI and ZZ. Report No. CONF-9309152. US. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact State-
Depattment of Energy and Southern States Energy ment, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration
Board. September 1993. (Available from NTIS as Program. Report No. DOE/EIS-O146. U.S.Depart-
DE94004378.) ment of Energy. November 1989. (Available from
NTIS as DE90001890.)

Program Update 1995 C-17


Appendix D: Papers and Presentations on the
CCT Program
As design, construction, and operational data are Because conference papers are generally avail- The Ohio Power Company-Tidd PFBC Demon-
generated by the various CCT projects, the informa- able through the authors and may report data well in stration Project
tion is being reported in a number of ways. One of advance of the release of a formal project report,
Marrocco, M. (American Electric Power Service
the most available and up-to-date ways is through selected recent papers are listed below as an addition-
Corporation). Tidd Pressurized Fluidized Bed
papers presented at technical conferences held at al source of information on the CCT Program. Cop
Combustion Demonstration Plant Assessment.
various locations throughout the United States and ies can be obtained from the authors or, in most
Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
abroad. cases, through the resources of a technical library.
The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report
Several annual conferences at which papers on
No. COW-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy,
clean coal technologies are usually presented follow: Advanced Electric Power Generation/ Center for Energy & Economic Development, and
Annual American Power Conference Fluidized-Bed Combustion National Mining Association. September 1995.
Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference The Appalachian Power Company-PJ?BC Dem- Judkins, R.R., et al. (OakRidge National Laborato-
(U.S. Department of Energy) onstration Utility Demonstration Project ry). Development of Ceramic Composite Hot-Gas
Annual Conference on Gasification Power Filters. ASME International Gas Turbine and
Plants DMEC-1 Cited Partnershi@CJ?B Project Aeroengine Congress and Exposition: Land Sea and
Air. Report No.CONF-950629-7. June 1995.
Annual Intemational Pittsburgh Coal Confer- Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.-Energy (Available from NTIS as DE95010290.)
ence (Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center) ModernizationProject
Annual METC Gasification and Gas Stream Roberts,B. (Lincoln Electric Co.). Monster Pres-
Holley, E.P. (AirProducts and Chemicals, Inc.) and
Cleanup Contractors Review Meeting (Mor- sure Vessel Proves Low-Emission Power Plant
JJ. Lewnard et al. (Four Rivers Energy Partners,
gantown Energy Technology Center) Technology. Welding Journal; 74: (4): 65-67.
L.P.). Four Rivers Second Generation Pressurized
April 1995.
Intemational Conference on Fluidized-Bed Circulating Fluidized-Bed Combustion Project.
Combustion 13th International Conference on Fluidized-Bed Tri4tate Generation and Transmission Associa-
Combustion; Conference Proceedings. Report No. tion, he.-Nucla CFB Demonstration Project
Intemational Joint Power Generation
CONF-950522-3 and DOEMU3 1261-95/CO448.
Conference Bush, S.A. and M.L. Pendergrass (Tri-State Genera-
U.S. Department of Energy. May 1995. (Available
Power-Gen: Intemational Conference and from IS as DE95008946.) tion and Transmission Association, Inc.) and M.A.
Exhibition for the Power Generating Friedman (Combustion Systems Inc.). Tri-States
Industries Nucla CFB Demonstrates Benefits of Clean Coal

Program Update 1995 D-I


Technology Program. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Coal Technology Conference: The Global Opportu- tems. Eleventh Annual Coal Preparation, Utiliur-
Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity. nity. Technical Papers. Report No. CONI-9509170. tion, and Environmental Control Contractors Con-
Technical Papers. Report No. CONF-9509170. U.S. U.S.Department of Energy, Center for Energy & ference: Proceedings. Report No. CONF-9507 159.
Department of Energy, Center for Energy & Eco- Economic Development, and National Mining Asso- Pages 221-228. July 1995. (Available from NTIS
nomic Development, and National Mining Associa- ciation. September 1995. as DE95017240.)
tion. September 1995.
Tatar, G., M. Gonzalez, and M. Fankhanel (Sierra Jenkins, S.D., md L.A. Schmoe (Tampa Electric
York County Energy Partners, L.P.-ACFB Pacific Power Company). An Update on the Piiion Company). Tampa Electric Company Polk Power
Demonstration Project Pine IGCC Pr~ject.~Proceedings of the 57th Ameri- Station IGCC Project. Power Generation Confer-
can Power Conference: Volume 57-1. Report No. ence. Report No. CONF-941210-5. US.Depart-
Diamond, B.W. (AirProducts and Chemicals, Inc.). CONF-950414. Pages 60-64. April 1995. ment of Energy. December 1994. (Available from
Environmental Design Considerations for the York NTIS as DE95005406.)
County Energy Partners Circulating Fluid Bed Swanelcamp, R. Tracy Station Showcases DLN,
Boiler. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology IGCC Technologies. Power; 139 (3): 64,66,68. Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering
Conference: The Global Opportunity. Technical March 1995. Project Joint Venhue-Wabash River Coal
Papers. Report No. CONF-9509170. U.S.Depart- Gasification Repowering Project
Burrow, J.D., et al. (Sierra Pacific Power Company).
ment of Energy, Center for Energy & Economic
Integration of an Advanced Technology Gas Tur- Woodruff, M.R. (Destec Energy, Inc.). Wabash
Development, and National Mining Association.
bine in an Air Blown Gasifier. Power Generation River Project Moves into Commercial Operation.
September 1995.
Conference. Report No. CONF-941210-1. U.S. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
Department of Energy. December 1994. (Available The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report
from NTIS as DE95004233.) No. CONF-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy,
Advanced Electric Power Generation/ Center for Energy & Economic Development, and
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Tampa Electric Company-Tampa Electric National Mining Association. September 1995.
Integrated Gasification Combmed-Cycle Project
ABB Combustion Engineering, Ine-Combustion Cook, JJ.,and L.A. Lednicky (PSI Energy, Inc.).
Engineering IGCC Repowering Project Pless, D.E. (TECO Power Services Corporation). CGCC Repowering Nears Commercial Startup.
Status Update-Polk Power Station IGCC. Fourth
Power Engineering; 99 (6): 26-29. June 1995.
Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership- Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: The
Clean Energy Demonstration Project Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No. Cook, J.J., and J. Bott (PSI Energy, Inc.). Wabash
CONF-9509170. U.S.Department of Energy, Center River Nears Completion. Modem Power System;
Sierra Pacific Power Company-=on Pine for Energy & Economic Development, and National 15 (5): 83,85, 87. May 1995.
IGCC Power Project Mining Association. September 1995.
Roll, M. (Destec Energy, Inc.). Coal Gasification
Motter, J.W. (Sierra Pacific Power Company). The Phillips, J.L. (Radian Corporation), S. Gray, and D. Passes Another Strategic Milestone. Power; 139:
Piiion Pine IGCC Project: Advanced Coal-Fired Dekraker (Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center). (4): 81-83. April 1995.
Power Generation Systems. Fourth Annual Clean High-Efficiency SO, Removal in Utility FGD Sys-

0-2 Program Updote 1995


Stultz, J., R.E. Maurer, and C. Troxclair (PSI Ener- Pennsylvania Electric Company-Warren Station Clean Coal Technology Conference: The Global
gy, Inc.). Pre-operation Activities Leading to the Externally Fired Combined-CycleDemonstration Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No. COW-
Start-up of the Wabash River Repowering Project. Project 9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center for
Proceedings bf the American Power Conference: Energy & Economic Development, and National
Stoddard, L.E., et al. (Black and Veatch). Extemal-
Volume 57-1. Report No. COW-950414. Pages Mining Association. September 1995.
ly Fired Combined Cycle: An Effective Coal Fueled
54-59. April 1995.
Technology for Repowering and New Generation. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation-
20th International Technical Conference on Coal Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for
Utilization and Fuels System. Report No. COW- NOxControl
Advanced Electric Power Generation/ 950313-2 and DOE/MCl31327-95/C0451. U.S.
Advanced CombustionRleat Engines Department of Energy. March 1995. (Available Southern Company Services, 1nc.Demonstration
from NTIS as DE95012295.) of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Au-
Fired Boiler
thority-Healy Clean Coal Project
Sorge, J.N. (Southem Company Services, Inc.), B.
Ubhayakar, S.K. (TRW Space & Technology Divi- Environmental Control DevicedNO, Control
Mensies (Radian Corporation), S.M.Smouse
sion). Healy Clean Coal Project: Fabrication and Technologies
(Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center), and J.W.
Construction Status. Fourth Annual Clean Coal
Update on NOx Control Technologies. PETC Stallings (Electric Power Research Institute). 500
Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity.
Review; (11): 28-39. Spring 1995. M W Demonstration of Advanced Wall-Fired
Technical Papers. Report No. CONF-9509170. U.S.
Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of
Department of Energy, Center for Energy & Eco-
The Babcock & Wilcox Company-hmonstra- Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired
nomic Development, and National Mining Associa-
tion of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Boilers. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology
tion. September 1995.
Control Conference: The Global Opportunity. Technical
Arthur D. Little, Inc.-Coal Diesel Combined- Papers. Report No. COW-9509170. U.S.
The Babcock & Wdcox Company--Full-scale Department of Energy, Center for Energy &
Cycle DemonstrationProject
Demonstrationof Low-NO, CellBurner Retrofit Economic Development, and National Mining
Benedek, K.R., C.E. Benson, and R.P. Wilson Association. September 1995.
(Arthur D. Little, Inc.). J.W. Parkinson (CQ, Inc.), Energy and Environmental Research Corpora-
and A.K. Rao (Cooper-Bessemer Reciprocating). tion-Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Southern Company Services, Inc-Demonstration
Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Demonstration Up- Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for
date. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology the Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur-
Folsom, B., et al. (Energy and Environmental
Conference: The Global Opportunity. Technical Coal-Fired Boilers
Research Corporation) and A.L. Baldwin (Pittsburgh
Papers. Report No. COW-9509170. U.S. Depart-
Energy Technology Center). Demonstration of Gas Hinton, W.S., and J.D. Maxwell (Southem Company
ment of Energy, Center for Energy & Economic
Reburning-Low NOx Burner Technology for Cost Services, Inc.) and A.L. Baldwin (Pittsburgh Energy
Development, and National Mining Association.
Effective NOxEmission Control. Fourth Annual Technology Center). Demonstration of Selective
September 1995.

Program Upaate 1995 0 3


Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology for the Burnett, T.A. (Tennessee Valley Authority), E.J. Southem Company Services, 1nc.-Demonstration
Control of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)Emissions from Puschaver, and T.M. Little. Results from the Phase of Innovative Applications of Technology for the
High Sulfur Coal-Fired Utility Boilers at Plant Crist 11Testing of the Gas Suspension Absorption Flue CT-121 FGD PIWC~SS
SCR Test Facility. Fourth Annual Clean Coal Gas Desulfurization Technology at the Center for
Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity. Emissions Research. Proceedings: 1995 SO, Pearl, I.G. (Radian Corporation). Chiyoda
Technical Papers. Report No. COW-9509170. U.S. Control Symposium. Volume 2, Sessions 4a, 4b, 5a, Thoroughbred 121 Phase 11Demonstration Results.
Department of Energy, Center for Energy & 5b. Report No. EPRI-TR-105258-Vol. 2 and CONF- Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
Economic Development, and National Mining 950332-Vol. 2. Pages 35.1-35.14. June 1995. The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report
Association. September 1995. No. COW-9509170. US. Department of Energy,
Bechtel Corporation-Confmed Zone Dispersion Center for Energy 8z Economic Development, and
Southem Company Services, Inc-180-MWe Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration National Mining Association. September 1995.
Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired
Burford, D.P. (Southem Company Services, Inc.) and
Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx LIFAC-North America-LIFAC Sorbent Injec-
I.G. Pearl. Operational Highlights of the Chiyoda
Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers tion Desulfurization DemonstrationProject
CT-121 FGD Demonstration at Georgia Powers
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.-Advanced Flue Gas Plant Yates. Proceedings: 1995 SOz Control
Desulfurization DemonstrationProject Symposium. Volume2, Sessions 4a, 4b, Sa, 5b.
Environmental Control DevicedSO, Control Report No. EPN-TR-105258-Vol. 2 and CONF-
Technologies Manavi, G.B., and J.J. Lewnard (Pure Air), D.A. Styf 950332-Vol. 2. Pages 40.1-40.18. June 1995.
(Northern Indiana Public Service Company), and
AirPol, Inc-10-MWe Demonstration of Gas T.A. Sarkus (Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center). Larrimore, L. (Southern Company Services, Inc.) and
SuspensionAbsorption Bailly Station AFGD Demonstration Program. M. Buford. Disposal and Utilization of Byproduct
Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: Materials from the Chiyoda CT-121 FGD Process.
Hsu, F.E., and B.B. Bhagat (AirPol, Inc.), S.K. Proceedings: 1995 SO, Control Symposium. Volume
The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report
Marchant and G.W. Pukanic (Pittsburgh Energy 4, Sessions 8a, 8b. Report No. EPRI-TR-105258-
No. COW-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy,
Technology Center), and V.M. Norwood and T.A. Vol. 4 and COW-950332-Vol. 4. Pages 87.1-87.15.
Center for Energy & Economic Development, and
Burnett (Tennessee Valley Authority). The Clean June 1995.
National Mining Association. September 1995.
Coal Technology Program 10 MWe Demonstration
of Gas Suspension Absorption for Flue Gas Manavi, G.B. (Pure Air), D.A. Styf, and T.A. Sarkus. Vakhshoorzadeh* K. company
Desulfurization. Fourth Annual Clean Coal First Two Years of Operating Data from Bailly Inc.). M.P. Buford, and D.P. Burford. Evaluation of
Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity. Station AFGD Project. Proceedings: 1995 SOz Fiber-Reinforced Plastics for Use in Chiyoda
Papers- No.c0NF-9509170. Control Symposium. Volume 2, Sessions 4a, 4b, 5a, Thoroughbred-121 Flue Gas Desulfurization Process
Department of Energy, Center for Energy & 5b. Report No. EPRI-TR-105258-Vol. 2 and COW- 1995 so,
Economic Development, and National Mining 950332-Vol. 2. Pages 41.241.32. June 1995. Symposium. Volume 4, Sessions 8a, 8b. Report No.
Association. September 1995. EPRI-TR-105258-Vol. 4 and COW-950332-V01.4.
Pages 99.1-99.15. June 1995.

0-4 Program Update 1995


N O W 0 Corporation-Commercial Demonstra- Coal Processing for Clean FueldCoal 9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center for
tion of the NOXSO SO@lOx Removal Flue Gas Preparation Technologies Energy & Economic Development, and National
Cleanup System Mining Association. September 1995.
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc, and CQ
Black, J.B., et al. (NOXSO Corporation). The Inc-Development of the Coal Quality Expert
NOXSO Clean Coal Project. Fourth Annual Clean
Coal Technology Conference: The Global Harrison, C.D., and D.B. Kehoe (CQ Inc.), D.C. Coal Processing for Clean Fuels/Mild
Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No. CONF- OConnor (Electric Power Research Institute), and Gasification
9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center for G.S. Stallard (Black & Veatch). CQE: Integrating
Fuel Decisions. Fourth Annual Clean Coal ENCOAL Corporation-ENCOAL Mild Coal
Energy & Economic Development, and National
Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity. Gasification Project
Mining Association. September 1995.
Technical Papers. Report No. CONF-9509170. U.S. Frederick, J.P. (ENCOAL Corporation) and S.A. van
Public Service Company of Colorado-Integrated Department of Energy, Center for Energy & Hoften (SGI International). Commercialization of
Dry NOXISO,Emissions Control System Economic Development, and National Mining the Liquids from Coal Process. Fourth Annual
Association. September 1995. Clean Coal Technology Conference: The Global
Hunt, T. (Public Service Company of Colorado), L.J.
Muzio and R. Smith (Fossil Energy Research Opportunity.. Technical Papers. Report NO. CONF-
Custom Coals International-Self-scrubrubbing
Corporation), D. Jones (NOELL, Inc.), E. Mali 9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center for
Coalm: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air
(Babcock & Wilcox), and J. Stallings (Electric Power Energy & Economic Development, and National
Harrison, K.E. (Custom Coals Corporation). Self Mining Association. September 1995.
Research Corporation). Performance of the
Integrated Dry NOJSO, Emissions Control System. Scrubbing Coal-A Progress Update. Fourth
Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: The Coal Processing for Clean Fueldndirect
The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No. Liquefaction
No. COW-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, COW-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center
Center for Energy & Economic Development, and for Energy & Economic Development, and National Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company,
National Mining Association. September 1995. Mining Association. September 1995. L.P.-Commercial-Scale Demonstrationof Liq-
uid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOP) Process
Hunt, T. (public Service Company of Colorado), L.J. Rosebud SynCoal Partnership-Advanced Coal
Muzio, and R. Smith (Fossil Energy Research Corpo- ConversionprocesSDemonstration Schaub, E.S., et al. (Air Projects and Chemicals,
ration). Integrated Low-NOx Burners, Overfire Air, Inc.). An Update on Liquid Phase Methanol
and Selective Non-catalytic Reduction on a Utility Sheldon, R.W. (Rosebud SynCoal Partnership) and (LPMEOI-W)Technology and the Kingsport
Coal-Fired Boiler. Environmental Progress; 14 (2): R.M.Komosky, W.J. ODowd, and J.B. Renk, 111 Demonstration Project. Fourth Annual Clean Coal
115-120. May 1995. (Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center). Rosebud Technology Conference: The Global Opportunity.
SynCoal Partnership SynCoal Demonstration Technical Papers. Report No. COW-9509170. U.S.
Technology Development Update. Fourth Annual Department of Energy, Center for Energy &
Clean Coal Technology Conference: The Global Economic Development, and National Mining
Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No.CONF- Association. September 1995.

D-6 Program Updnte 1995


Industrial Applications Passamaquoddy T r i b d e m e n t Kiln Flue Gas
Recovery Scrubber
Bethlehem Steel Corporation-Blast Furnace
Granulated-CoalInjection System Demonstration ThermoChem, 1nc.-Demonstration of Pulse
Project Combustion in an Application for Steam
Gasificationof Coal
Walter, L.L., R.W. Bouman, and D.G. Hill
(Bethlehem Steel Corporation). Blast Furnace
Granular Coal Injection. Fourth Annual Clean
Other
Coal Technology Conference: The Global
Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report No. COW- Schmidt, C.E. (Pittsburgh Energy Technology Cen-
9509170. U.S. Department of Energy, Center for ter), M. Baird, and P. ChU. HaZardOus Air Pollut-
Energy & Economic Development, and National ants (HAPS)Emissions Characterization. Proceed-
Mining Association. September 1995. ings: I995 SO2 Control Symposium. Volume 3,
Sessions 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b. Report NO. EPRI-
Centerior Energy Corporation-Clean Power TR105258-Vol. 3 and COW-950332-V01. 3. U.S.
from Integrated CoaVOre Reduction (COREX) Department of Energy and the Electric Power Re-
winkell, R. ( G steel).~ ~QICORTM.
~ ~ Fourth
~ ~ search Institute. Pages 63.1-63.13. June 1995.
Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference: The
Dennis, R.A., H.M. McDaniel, T.J. McMahon
pers* Report No.
(MorgantownEnergy T ~ h n o l o g Center).
y Hot Gas
c0W-9509170- DepartmentOf Center particulate Cleanup for Advanced Coal-Based power
for Energy Br. Economic Development, and National Gas Turbine and
systems. ASME
Mining Association. September 1995.
Aeroengine Congress and Exposition: Land, Sea and
Air. Report No. COW-9506294. U.S. Department
Coal Tech Corporation-Advanced Cyclone
of Energy. June 1995. (Available from NTIS as
Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and
DE05010307.)
Ash Control

Zauderer, B., et al. (Coal Tech Corporation).


Demonstration of the Air Cooled Slagging
Combustor on a 500 kW Coal Fired Power Plant.
Fourth Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference:
The Global Opportunity. Technical Papers. Report
No. COW-9509170. U.S. Department of Energy,
Center for Energy & Economic Development, and
National Mining Association. September 1995.

Program Update 1995 0-7


Appendix E: CCT Project Contacts
Listed below are contacts for obtaining further PCFB Demonstration Project Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project
information about specific CCT Program demonstra- Participant: participant:
tion projects. Each listing provides the name, title, DMEC-1 Limited Partnership American Electric Power Service Corporation as
phone number, and mailing address of the contact agent for The Ohio Power Company
Contacts:
person. In those instances where the project Gary E. Kruempel, Project Manager Contacts:
participant consists of more than one company, a (515) 281-2459 Mario Mmocco, Manager, PFBC Programs
partnership, or joint venture, the mailing address (515) 281-2355 ( f a ) (614) 223-1740
listed is that of the contact person. (614) 223-2466 ( f a )
Midwest Power Systems, Inc.
907 Walnut American Electric Power Service Corporation
P.O. Box 657 1 Riverside Plaza
Advanced Electric Power Generation/ Des Moines, IA 50303 Columbus, OH 43215
Fluidized-Bed Combustion Jeffrey Summers, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-4412 Jeffrey Summers, DOmQ, (301) 9 0 3 4 1 2
Gary A. Nelkin, METC, (304) 285-4216 Donald W. Geiling, METC,(304) 2854784
PFBC Utility Demonstration Project
Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project Nuda CFB Demonstration Project
Participant:
The Appalachian Power Company Participant: Participant:
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Contacts: Association, Inc.
Mario Marrmo, Manager, PFBC Programs Contacts:
(614) 223-1740 Edward Holley, Senior Project Manager Contacts:
(614) 223-2466 ( f a ) (610) 481-8568 Marshall L.Pendergrass, Assistant General Manager
(610) 481-3228 ( f a ) (303) 249-4501
American Electric Power Service Corporation
1 Riverside Plaza Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Columbus, OH 43215 7201 Hamilton Boulevard Association, Inc.
Allentown, PA 18195-1501 P.O. Box 1149
Jeffrey Summers, DOmQ, (301) 903-4412 Montrose, CO 81402
Douglas M. Jewell, METC, (304) 285-4720 Jeffrey Summers, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-4412
Donald W. Geiling, METC, (304) 285-4784 Jeffrey Summers, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-4412
Nelson F. Rekos, METC, (304) 285-4066

Program Update 1995 E-1


ACFB Demonstration Project Clean Energy Demonstration Project Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification
Participant: Combined-CycleProject
Participant:
York County Energy Partners, L.P. Clean Energy Partners Limited Partnership Participant:
Contacts: Tampa Electric Company
Contacts:
Bradley F. Hahn, Project Manager Victor Shellhorse, Vice President Contacts:
(610) 481-3955 (704) 373-2474 Donald E. Pless, Director, Advanced Technology
(610) 481-2393 ( f a ) (704) 382-9325 ( f a ) (813) 228-1332
(813) 228-1308 (fax)
York County Energy Partners, L.P. Duke Energy Corp.
25 South Main Street 400 S. Tryon Street TECO Power Services Corporation
Spring Grove, PA 17362 Charlotte, NC 28202 P.O. Box 111
Tampa, FL 33601-0111
Jeffrey Summers, DOEMQ, (301) 903-4412 Stanley Roberts, DOEMQ, (301) 903-9431
Nelson F. Rekos, METC, (304) 285-4066 Donald W. Geiling, METC, (304) 285-4784 William Femald, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9448
Nelson F. Rekos, METC, (304) 285-4066
M o n Pine IGCC Power Project
Advanced Electric Power Generationl Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering
Participant:
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Participant:
CombustionEngineering IGCC Repowering Contacts:
Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project
Project John W. (Jack) Motter, Project Manager
Joint Venture
(702) 689-4013
Participant: (702) 689-3047 ( f a ) Contacts:
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. Michel R. Woodruff
- Sierra Pacific Power Company
Contacts: (713) 735-4131
6100 Neil Road
Henry H. Vroom. Project Director (713) 735-4169 (fax)
P.O. Box 10100
(203) 285-9085 Reno, NV 89520-0400 Destec Energy, Inc.
(203) 285-3861 (fax) 2500 City West Boulevard, Suite 1500
Lawrence Smff, DOEMQ,(301) 903-9483
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. Houston, TX 77042
Douglas M.Jewell, METC, (304) 285-4720
P.O. Box 500 Jeffrey Summers, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-4412
Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Gary A. Nelkin, METC, (304) 285-4216
Lawren~eSar~ff,MWHQ, (301) 903-9483
Gary A. Nelkin, METC,(304) 285-4216

E-2 Program Wpdorc 1995


I

Advanced Electric Power Generation/ Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Full-scale Demonstration of Low-NOxCell Burner
Advanced CombustiodHeat Engines DemonstrationProject Retrofit
Participant: Participant:
Healy Clean Coal Project Pennsylvania Electric Company The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Participant: Contacts: Contacts:
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Kenneth Gray, Project Manager Tony Yagiela
Contacts: (814) 533-8593 (2 16) 829-7403
John B. Olson, Project Manager (814) 533-8108 ( f a )
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
(907) 269-3000 Pennsylvania Electric Company 1562 Beeson Street
Alaska Industrial Development and Export 101Broad Street Alliance, OH 44601
Authority Johnsontown, PA 15907
Jeffrey Summers, DOWHQ, (301) 9 0 3 4 1 2
480 West Tudor Road Douglas Archer, DOWHQ, (301) 903-9443 Ronald W. Corbett, PETC, (412) 892-6141
Anchorage, AK 99503-6690 Donald W. Geiling, METC,(304) 285-4784
Stanley Roberts, DOWHQ, (301) 903-9431 Evaluation of Gas Rebuming and bw-NOX
Robert M. Komosky, PETC, (412) 892-4521 Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler
Environmental Control Devices/NO, Control Participant:
Coal Diesel Combmed-Cycle Project Technologies Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
Participant: Contacts:
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Demonstration of Coal Rebuming for Cyclone Blair A. Folsom, Senior Vice President
Boiler NOx Control (714) 859-8851
Contacts:
Robert P. Wilson, Vice President Participant: Energy and Environmental Research
(617) 498-5806 The Babcock & Wilcox Company Corporation
(617) 498-7206 ( f a ) 18 Mason
Contacts:
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Tony Yagiela Irvine, CA 927 18
200 Acom Park (2 16) 829-7403 William Fernald, DOWHQ,(301) 903-9448
Cambridge, MA 02140 The Babcock & Wilcox Company Jerry L.Hebb, PETC, (412) 892-6079
Jeffrey Summers, DOWHQ,(301) 903-4412 1562 Beeson Street
Nelson F. Rekos, METC, (304) 285-4066 Alliance, OH 44601
Jeffrey Summers, DOE/fIQ, (301) 903-4412
John C. McDowell, PETC, (412) 892-6237

eU
Program 1995 E-3
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration of Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Environmental Control DevicedSO, Control
NOxControl Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions from Technologies
High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Boilers
Participant:
New York Stab?Electric & Gas Corporation Partkipant: 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension
Southem Company Services, Inc. Absorption
Contacts:
Dennis ODea, Project Manager Contacts: Participant:
(607)729-2551 J.D. m u g ) Maxwell, Project Manager AirPol, Inc.
(205)877-7614 Contacts:
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
120 Chenango Street Southem Company Services, Inc. Frank E. Hsu,Vice President, Operations
Binghamton, NY 13902 P.O. Box 2625 (201)490-6400
Birmingham, AL 35202-2625 AirPol, Inc.
Stanley Roberts,DOJYHQ, (301)903-9431
Jam= U.Watts, PETC, (412)892-5991 William Femald, DOJYHQ, (301)903-9448 3 Century Drive
Arthur L.Baldwin, PETC, (412)892-6011 Parsippany, NJ 07054
Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Lawrence Saroff, DOJYHQ, (301)903-9483
Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Sharon K.Marchant, PETC, (412)892-6008
Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the
Participant:
Reduction of NOxEmissionsfrom Coal-Fired Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas
Southem Company Services, Inc.
Boilers De nC tionDemonstration
Contacts:
Participant: Participant:
John N. Sorge, ICCT Project Manager
Southem company Services, hc. Bechtei Corporation
(205)877-7426
Contacts: Contacts:
Southem Company Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 2625
Robert R. Hardman, Project Manager Joseph T. Newman, Project Manager
Birmingham, AL 3520212625
(205)877-7772 (415)768-1189
Southern Company Services, Inc. (415)76T8-3580(FAX)
William Fernald, DOE/HQ, (301)903-9448
P.O. Box 2625 Bechtel Corporation
Scott M.Smouse, PETC, (412)892-5725
Birmingham, AL 35202-2625 P.O. Box 193965
William Fernald, DOJYHQ, (301)903-9448 San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Scott M. Smouse.PETC, (412)892-5725 Stanley Roberts,DOE/HQ, (301)903-9431
Joanna M.Markusen, PETC, (412)892-5734

E4 Program Updote 1995


I
tion
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desi& Demonstration of Innovative Applications of LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and
DemonstrationProject Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process Coolside Demonstration
Participant: Participant: Participant:
LIFAC-North America Southern Company Services, Inc. The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Contacts: Contacts: Contacts:
Jim Hervol, Project Manager David P. Burford, Project Manager Paul Nolan
(4 12) 497-2235 (205) 870-6329 (216) 860-1074
(412) 497-2298 (fax) (216) 860-2045 (fax)
Southern Company Services, Inc.
ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 2625 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
4 Gateway Center Birmingham, AL 35202-2625 20 South Van Buren Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1207 P.O. Box 351
Lawrence Saroff,DOEIHQ, (301) 903-9483
Barberton, OH 44203-0351
Lawrence Saroff,DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9483 Karen M. Khonsari, PETC, (412) 892-6106
Joanna M. Markussen, PETC, (412) 892-5734 William Fernald, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9448
Joanna M. Markussen, PETC, (412) 892-5734
.
Advanced Flue Gas Desullnnzation Environmental Control DevicedCombined
SOX-NOx-Rox Boxm Flue Gas Cleanup
DemonstrationProject SOflO, Control Technologies DemonstnitionProject
Participant:
S N O P Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Participant:
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.
Project The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Contacts:
Participant: Contacts:
Don Vymazal, Manager, Contract Administration
ABB Environmental Systems Kevin Redinger
(610) 481-3687
(216) 829-7719
Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. contacts:
Bill Kingston, Project Manager The Babcock & Wilcox Company
7201 Hamilton Boulevard
(205) 995-5368 1562 Beeson Street
Allentown, PA 18195-1501
Alliance, OH 44601
Lawrence Sar~ff,DOEIHQ, (301) 903-9483 ABB Environmental Systems
P.O. Box 43030 William Fernald, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9448
Karen M. Khonsari, PETC, (412) 892-6106
Birmingham. AL 35243 John C. McDowell, PETC, (412) 892-6237
Stanley Roberts, DOEVHQ, (301) 903-9431
Jam- U.Watts. PETC, (412) 892-5991

Program Update 1995 E-5


Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO Coal Processing for Clean FueidCoal
Sorbent Injection S O P O XRemoval Hue Gas Cleanup System Preparation Technologies
Participant: Participant:
Energy and Envikonmental Research Corporation NOXSO Corporation Development of the Coal Quality Expert
Contacts: Contacts: Participants:
Blair A. Folsom, Senior Vice President James Black ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., and CQ Inc.
(714) 859-8851 (412) 854-1200 Contacts:
Energy and Environmental Research NOXSO Corporation Clark Harrison, President
Corporation 2414 Lytle Road (412) 479-6016
18 Mason Bethel Park, PA 15102-2704 CQ Inc.
Irvine, CA 92718 One Quality Center
Stanley Roberts, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9431
William Femald, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9448 Jerry L. Hebb, PETC, (412) 892-6079 P.O. Box 280
Jerry L. Hebb, PETC, (412) 892-6079 Homer City, PA 15748-0280
Integrated Dry NOx/SO, Emissions Control System Douglas Archer, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443
Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Scott M.Smouse, PETC, (412) 892-5725
Participant:
Project
Public Service Company of Colorado
Participant: Self-Scrubbing Coal? An Integrated Approach
Contacts: to Clean Air
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
Terry Hunt, Project Manager
Contacts: (303) 329-1 113 Participant:
Dennis ODea, Project Manager Custom Coals International
Public Service Company of Colorado
(607) 729-2551 Contacts:
5900 East 39th Avenue
New York State Electric-& Gas Corporation Denver, CO 80207 Robin Godfrey, President and CEO
120 Chenango Street (412) 642-2625
William Femald, DOE/HQ. (301) 903-9448
Binghamton, NY 13902 Custom Coals International
Jerry L.Hebb, PETC, (412) 892-6079
Lawrence Saroff, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9483 100 F i t Avenue, Suite 500
James U.Watts, PETC, (412) 892-5991 Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Douglas &her, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443
Joseph B.Renk, PETC,(412) 892-6249

E-6 Program Update I995


1
Advanced Coal ConversionProcess Demonstration Coal Processing for Clean Fueldlndirect Clean Power from Integrated CoaVOre Reduction
Liquefaction (COREXQ)
Participant:
Rosebud SynCoal Partnership Participant:
Commercial-ScaleDemonstration of the Liquid- Centerior Energy Corporation
Contacts: Phase Methanol (LPMEOP) Process
Ray W.Sheldon, P.E., Director of Development Contacts:
(406)748-2366 or (406) 252-2277 Participant: Barry Halper
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion (610) 481-7685
Rosebud SynCoal Partnership Company, L.P. (610) 481-2393 ( f a )
P.O. Box 7137
Billings, MT 59103-7137 Contacts: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
William R. Brown, Project Manager 7201 Hamilton Boulevard
Douglas Archer, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443 (215) 481-7584 Allentown, PA 18195-1501
Joseph B. Renk, PETC, (412) 892-6249
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Lawrence Saroff, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9483
Company, L.P. Douglas M. Jewell, METC, (304) 285-4720
7201 Hamilton Boulevard
Coal Processing for Clean FueldMild Allentown, PA 18195-1501 Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal
Gasification Sulfur,Nitrogen, and Ash Control
Douglas Archer, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443
Robert M. Komosky, PETC, (412) 892-4521
ENCOAL Mild Coal Gasification Project Participant:
Participant: Coal Tech Corporation
ENCOAL Corporation Contacts:
Industrial Applications
Contacts: Bert Zauderer, President
(215) 667-0442
J.P. (Jim) Frederick, Project Manager Blast Furnace Granulated-CoalInjection System
(307) 686-5493 DemonstrationProject Coal Tech Corporation
(307) 682-7938 (fax) P.O. Box 154
Participant:
ENCOAL Corporation Merion, PA 19066
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
P.O. Box 3038 Stanley Roberts, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9431
Gillette, WY 82717 contacts:
Robert W . Bouman, Project Manager
Arthur L. Baldwin, PETC, (412) 892-6011
Douglas Archer, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443 (610) 694-6792
Douglas M. Jewell, METC, (304) 285-4720 (610) 694-2981 (fax)
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Homer Research Laboratory
Building C, Room 211
Bethlehem, PA 18016
Jeffrey Summers, DOE/HQ, (301) 9034412
Douglas M. Jewell, METC, (304) 285-4720

Program Updarc 1995 E-7


Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scmbber
Participant:
Passamaquoddy Tribe
Contacts:
Garrett Morrison, Project Manager
(207) 594-5555
Passamaquoddy Technology, L.P.
P.O. Box 350
Thomaston,ME 04861-0350
Jeffky Summers, DOFYHQ, (301) 903-4412
John C. McDowell, PETC, (412) 892-6237

Demonstrationof Pulse Combustion in an


Applicationfor Steam Gasification of Coal
Participant:
ThermoChem, Inc.
Conmts:
William Steedman,Program Manager
(410) 997-9671
ThermoChem, Inc.
5570 Sterrett Place, Suite 210
Columbia, MD 21044
William F d d , DOFdHQ, (301) 903-9448
Douglas F. Gyorke,PETE, (412) 892-6173

E-8 Program Update 1995


Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations
cx categorical exclusion HAP. H A P S hazardous air pollutant(s)
CZD confined zone dispersion HHV high heating value
Acronyms DME dimethyl ether HRSG heat recovery steam generator
ABB CE ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. DOE U.S. Department of Energy IGCC integrated gasification combined
ABB Es ABB Environmental Systems Q" U.S. Department of Energy cycle
ACFB atmospheric circulating fluidized bed Headquarters JF3R jet-bubbling reactor
AFBC atmospheric fluidized-bed EA environmental assessment LHV low heating value
combustion EER Energy and Environmental Research LIMB limestone injection multistage
AFGD advanced flue gas desulfurization Corporation burner
AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and EFCC extemally fired combined cycle LNB low-NOxburner
Export Authority EIA Energy Information Administration LNCFS low-NOxconcentric-firing system
AOFA advanced overfire air EIS environmental impact statement LSFO limestone forced oxidation
AR&TD advanced research and technology EMP environmental monitoring plan MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell
development EPA U.S. Environmental Protection METC Morgantown Energy Technology
BFGCI blast furnacegranulated-coal Agency Center
injection EPACT Energy Policy Act of 1992 MTCI Manufacturing and Technology
BG British Gas EPRI Electric Power Research Institute Conversion International
BGR. British Gas/Lurgi ESP electrostatic precipitator MTF memorandum (memoranda)-to-file
B&W The Babcock & Wilcox Company EWG exempt wholesale generator NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 FBC fluidized-bed combustion NOPR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CCOFA close-coupled over-fire air FERC Federal Energy Regulatory NSPS New Source Performance Standards
CCT clean coal technology Commission NTIS National Technical Information
CCTProgram Clean Coal Technology FGD flue gas desulfurization Service
Demonstration Program FONSI finding of no significant impact NYSEG New York State Electric & Gas
CDCC coal-fueled diesel engine combined FRP fiberglass-reinforced plastic Corporation
cycle FY fiscal year PCFB pressurized circulating fluidized bed
CDL coal-derived liquid GE General Electric PDF processderived fuel
Council on Environmental Quality GPM gallons per minute PEIS programmatic environmental impact
CEQ
CFB circulating fluidized bed GR gas reburning statement
COG coke oven gas GR-LNB gas reburning and low-NOxburner PETC Pittsburgh Energy Technology
Coal Quality Expert GR-SI gas reburning and sorbent injection Center
CQE
GSA gas suspension absorption

Program Update 1995 F-I


PFBC pressurized fluidized-bed month, months
combustion magnesium carbonate
Abbreviations
PJBH pulse jet baghouse magnesium oxide
PON grogram opportunity notice States are abbreviated using two-letter postal codes. megawatt(s)
PSCC Public Service Company of Colorado megawatt@)-electric
PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies atm atmosphere(s) megawatt(s)-thermal
Act of 1972 average atmospheric nitrogen
avg
R&D research and development Btu British thermal unit molar ratio of sodium to calcium
RD&D research, development, and c/H molar ratio of carbon to hydrogen molar ratio of sodium to sulfur
demonstration CaCO, calcium carbonate (calcitic sodium hydroxide
SBIR Small Business Innovative Research limestone) sodium carbonate
SCR selective catalytic reduction calcium oxide (lime) ammonia
scs Southem Company Services, Inc. calcium hydroxide (calcitic nitrogen dioxide
SI sorbent injection hydrated lime) nitrogen oxides
SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction Ca(OH),*MgO dolomitic hydrated lime oxygen
SOFA separated over-fire air CdS molar ratio of calcium to sulfur parts per million (mass)
SITR Small Business Technology CaSO, calcium sulfite parts per million by volume
Transfer Program caso, calcium sulfate pound(s) per square inch
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority co carbon monoxide revolutions per minute
UBCL unburned carbon boiler efficiency carbon dioxide sulfur
COZ
losses "F degrees Fahrenheit sulfur dioxide
U.K. United Kingdom ft, ft2, ft3 foot (feet), square feet, cubic feet sulfur trioxide
U.S. United States GW gigawatt(s) standard cubic feet
VOC volatile organic compound GWe gigawatt(s)-electric year, years
WLFO wet limestone, forced oxidation hydrogen sulfide
5s
%SO4 sulfuric acid
HC1 hydrogen chloride
HF hydrogen fluoride
hr, hrs hour, hours
in, in2,in3 inch(es), square inches, cubic inches
KCl potassium chloride
%SO4 potassium sulfate
kW kilowatt
kwh kilowatt-hour
lb, lbs pound, pounds

F-2 Program Updote I995


Index of CCT Projects
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.s Combustion The Appalachian Power Companys PFBC Utility Bechtel Corporations Confined Zone Dispersion
Engineering IGCC Repowering Project 1-5,2-5, Demonstration Project 1-5,2-5,2-8,2-20,2-22, Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration ES-5,
2-8,2-18,2-20,2-22,3-6, 6-15, 7-2,7-4, 7-2&21, 3-6,6-15,7-2, 7-4,7-8-9, B-2, C-2, D-1, E-1 1-5, 2-6,2-9,2-17, 2-23, 3-7,5-4, 5-28-29,6-18,
B-3, C-3. D-2, E-2 7-3, 7-4,7-54-55, B-4, C-9, D-4, E-4
Arthur D. Little, Inc.s Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.s and CQ Inc.s Project 1-5,2-7,2-8,2-20,2-23,2-24.3-6.6-16, Bethlehem Steel Corporations Blast Furnace
Development of the Coal Quality Expert 1-6,2-5, 7-2,7-4,7-32-33, B-4, C-5, D-3, E-3 Granulated-Coal Injection System Demonstration
2-10, 2-17,2-22, 3-7,3-8,4-8, 6-1,6-9, 6-20, 7-3, Project 1-6,2-6,2-11,2-18,2-23,3-6,6-1,6-14,
7-4,7-78-79, B-1, B-3, (2-2, D-6, E-6 The Babcock & Wilcox Companys Demonstration of 6-21,7-3,7-4,7-90-91, B-3, D-7, E-7
Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control
ABB Environmental Systems S N O P Flue Gas ES-4, 1-5,2-5,2-9,2-18,2-22,2-24,3-7,4-5, 5-4, Centerior Energy Corporations Clean Power from
Cleaning Demonstration Project ES-5, 1-5,2-5, 5-14-16,6-17,7-2,7-4,7-38-39, B-2, B-4, C-6, Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (COREX@) 1-6,
2-9, 2-17,2-24, 3-7,4-7,5-4,5-41-42, 6-18, 7-3, D-3, E-3 2-7,2-11;2-20,2-23,2-24,3-6, 6-21,7-3, 7-4,
7-4,7-62-63, B-2, B-5, (2-10, D-5, E-5 7-92-93, B-4, C-13, D-7, E-7
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys Full-Scale
Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit Clean Energy Partnership Limited Partnerships
L.P.s Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the ES-4, 1-5,2-6,2-9,2-17,2-23, 3-7.3-8,4-5,4-11, Clean Energy Demonstration Project 1-5,2-7,2-8,
Liquid-Phase Methanol (LPMEOHM) Process 1-6, 5-4, 5-17-5-18,6-17,7-2,7-4,7-40-41, B-2, B-5, 2-20,2-23,2-24, 3-6,6-15,7-2,7-4, 7-22-23, B-4,
2-6,2-10,2-18,2-23, 3-7,6-2,6-16, 6-23,7-3,7-4, C-6, D-3, E-3 C-4, D-2, E-2
7-86-87, B-4, C-12, D-6, E-6
The Babcock & Wilcox Companys LIMB Coal Tech Corporations Advanced Cyclone
AirPol, Inc.s 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash
Suspension Absorption ES-5,1-5,,2-6,2-9,2-17, Demonstration ES-5,1-5,2-5,2-9,2-17,2-22, Control ES-6, 1-6, 1-24,2-5,2-11,2-17,2-22,
2-23,2-24, 3-7,3-8,4-6, 5-4,5-25-27,6-18, 3-7,4-7,5-4,5-43-45,6-18,7-3,7-4,7-64-65, B-1, 3-6, 5-45-54-55,6-21,7-3,7-4,7-94-95, B-1, B-3,
7-3,7-4,7-52-53, B-2, B-5, C-8, D-4, E-4 B-4, (2-10, D-5,E-5 C-13, D-7, E-7

Alaska Industrial Development and Export The Babcock & Wilcox Companys SOX-NOx-Rox Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. (see Tri-Srare
Authoritys Healy Clean Coal Project 1-5, 1-16, Box Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project Generation and TransmissionAssociation, Inc.)
2-6,2-8,2-19,2-23,2-24,3-6,6-1,6-5,6-16,7-2, ES-5,1-5,2-5.2-9.2-17,2-22,2-24,3-7,5-4,
7-4,7-30-31, B-3, C-5, D-3, E-3 5-4648,6-18,7-3,7-1,7-6647, B-2, B-4, C-10, Custom Coals Intemationals Self-scrubbing Coal.
D-5,E-5 An Integrated Approach to Clean Air 1-6,2-6,
2-10,2-18,2-23, 2-24, 3-7,4-8, 6-1,6-10, 6-20, 7-3,
7-4,7-80-81, B-4, C-12, D-6, E-6

Program Updote 1995 G-1


DMEC-1 Limited Partnerships PCFB New York State Electric & Gas Corporations Rosebud SynCoal Partnerships Advanced Coal
Demonstration Project 1-5,2-6,2-8,2-20,2-23, Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Conversion Process Demonstration ES-7, 1-6,
3-6,6-15,7-2,7-4, 7-10-11, B-3, C-2, D-1, E-1 Project 1-6, 2-6,2-9,2-18,2-23,2-24,3-7,4-7, 1-22, 2-5, 2-10, 2-18, 2-22, 3-7,4-8,6-1, 6-10,6-20,
4-9,6-1,6-7,819,7-3,7-4,7-70-71, B-4, B-5, 7-3,7-5,7-82-83, B-2, C-12, D-6, E-7
ENCOAL Corporations ENCOAL Mild Coal C- 11, D-5, E-6
Gasification Project ES-7, 1-6, 1-23,2-6,2-10, Sierra Pacific Power Companys Piiion Pine IGCC
2-18,2-23,2-24, 3-7,4-9,6-1,6-12,6-20, 7-3,7-4, NOXSO Corporations Commercial Demonstration Power Project 1-5,2-6,2-8,2-19,2-23,2-24,3-6,
7-6,7-84-85, B-2, C-12, D-6, E-7 of the NOXSO SOPOXRemoval Flue Gas Cleanup 6-1,6-2, 6-16, 7-2,7-5,7-24-25, B-3, C-4, D-2, E-2
System 1-6,2-6, 2-9,2-18, 2-23, 3-7,6-19, 7-3,
Energy and Environmental Research Corporations 7-5,7-72-73, B-3, B-4, C-11, D-6, E-6 Southem Company Services, Inc.s Demonstration of
Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired
Sorbent Injection ES-6, 1-5,2-5,2-9,2-17,2-18, The Ohio Power Companys Tidd PFBC Boiler 1-6, 2-5, 2-9, 2-17, 2-22,2-24, 3-7,4-5,
2-22,3-7,4-7,5-4,5-49-52,6-19,7-3, 7-4, Demonstration Project ES-3, ES-4, 1-5, 1-13, 4-9, 6-1,6-6,6-17,7-2,7-5,7-46-47, B-2, C-7, D-3,
7-68-69, B-1, B-5, C-11, D-5, E-6 1-15.2-5,2-8, 2-17, 2-22,2-24, 3-6,4-3,4-4,4-11, E-4
5-1.5-4, 5-6-9,6-15,7-2, 7-5,7-14-15, B-1, B-5,
Energy and Environmental Research Corporations C-2, D-1, E-1 Southem Company Services, Inc.s Demonstration of
Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOxBurners Innovative Applications of Technology for the
on a Wall-Fired Boiler ES-4, 1-5, 2-6,2-9,2-17, Passamaquoddy Tribes Cement Kiln Flue Gas CT-121 FGD P ~ O C ~ SES-5,
S 1-6,2-5,2-9,2-18,
2-23, 3-7,4-5,5-1, 5-4, 5-19-20, 6-17, 7-2, 7-4, Recovery Scrubber ES-6, 1-6,2-5,2-11,2-18, 2-22,2-24, 3-7,4-6,4-11, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4.5-3740,
7-42-43, B-2, B-5, C-6, D-3, E-3 2-22, 3-6,4-3,4-9, 5-4,5-5@58, 6-21,7-3, 7-5, 6-17,6-18, 7-3, 7-5, 7-60-61, B-2, B-5, C-9, D-4,
7-96-97, B-2, B-4, C-14, D-7, E-8 E-5
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P.s Four Rivers
Energy Modernization Project 1-5,2-7,2-8,2-20, Pennsylvania Electric Companys Warren Station Southem Company Services, Inc.s Demonstration of
2-23,2-24,3-6,6-15,7-2,7-4,7-12-13, B-4, C-2, Extemally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the
D-1, E-1 Project 1-5,2-7,2-8,2-18,2-23,2-24,3-6,6-16, Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur-Coal-
7-2,7-5,7-34-35, B-4, C-6, D-3, E-3 Fired Boilers ES-4, 1-6,2-5,2-9,2-17, 2-22,3-7,
LIFAC-North Americas LIFAC Sorbent Injection 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-23-24,6-17.7-2,7-5, 7-48-49, B-2,
Desulfurization Demonstration Project ES-5, 1-6, Public Service Company of Colorados Integrated B-5. C-8, D-3, E-4
242-9,2-17,2-23,3-7,4-6,5-4, 5-30-32,6-18, Dry NOIISO, Emissions Control System 1-6,2-6,
7-3.7-4,7-56-57, B-3, B-5, (2-9, D-4, E-5 2-9, 2-17, 2-24, 3-7, 4-7.4-16, 5-2, 6-1, 6-8, 6-19, Southem Company Services, Inc.s 180-MWe
7-3,7-5.7-74-75, B-3. C-11, D-6, E-6 Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired
New York State Electric & Gas Corporations Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NO,
Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.s Advanced Flue Gas Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers ES-4, 1-6,2-5,
Control 1-6,2-6,2-9,2-20,2-23,3-7,6-17,7-2, Desulfurization Demonstration Project ES-5, 2-9, 2-17,2-22,2-24,3-7,4-5,5-4,5-21, 5-22,6-17,
7-4,7-44-45, B-3, B-5, C-6, D-3, E-4 ES-7, 1-6, 1-20, 2-5. 2-9, 2-18, 2-22-24, 3-7, 3-8, 7-2, 7-5,7-50-51, B-2, B-4, C-7, D-4, E-4
4-3.4-6,4-11, 5-1,5-2, 5-4, 5-33-36, 6-18,7-3,7-5,
7-58-59, B-2, B-5. C-9, D-4, E-5

G-2 Pmgrm Update 1995


Tampa Electric Companys Tampa Electric
Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project
1-5, 1-16,2-6,2-8,2-19,2-23,2-24, 3-6,6-1,6-3,
6-16,7-2,7-5,7-26-27, B-3, C-4, D-2, E-2

ThmoChem, Inc.s Demonstration of Pulse


Combustion in an Application for Steam Gasification
of Coal 1-6,2-6,2-11,2-20,2-23,2-24,3-6,6-21,
7-3,7-5,7-98-99, B-4, C-14, D-7, E-8

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,


Inc.s Nucla CFB Demonstration Project ES-3,
ES-4,1-5, 1-13, 1-14,2-5,2-8,2-17,2-22,3-6,3-8,
4-3,44, 5-4, 5-10-12,6-1, 6-15,7-2,7-5,7-16-17,
B-1, B-3, C-3, D-1, E-1

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project


Joint Ventures Wabash River Coal Gasification
Repowering Project ES-3, 1-5, 1-8, 1-16,2-6,2-8,
2:18,2-23,2-24,3-6,4-3,4-4,4-12,6-1,646-16,
7-2,7-5,7-28-29, B-3, C-5, D-2, E-2

York County Energy Partners,L.P.s ACFB


Demonstration Project 1-5,2-5,2-8,2-19,2-20,
2-22,2-24,3-6,6-15,7-2,7-5,7-18-19, B-3, C-3,
D-2, E-2

P r ~ g Update
m 1995 G-3

Вам также может понравиться