Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
T E C H N O L O G Y
Demonstration Program
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 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 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
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%
I
~ ~ ~ ~~
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-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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.)
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.)
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
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
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
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.
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)
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
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
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.
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-
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
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.
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
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.)
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
~
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
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.
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:
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.
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
Exhibit 5-7
CatalystsTested
Catalyst Supplier Reactor Size* Catalyst Configuration
eU
Program 1995 5-29
LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project
(LIFAC-N orth America)
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
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-
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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-
hgnmUpdatC1995 6-3
Advanced Electric Power Generation
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
PmgramUpdatel995 6-13
Industrial AppIications
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
. .. . . ... .. . . .. .. . .
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
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.
I 9/88 4/90
t
llilestone schedule pending project
restructuring
"Years omitted
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.
I
12189
I Preaward
8/91
I Design I
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
Modernization Project
Participant:
Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. (a limited partnership
between Four Rivers Energy Partners, Inc., and Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc.)
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
5/93 8/94
I
I
Preaward I Desian I
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.
Participant:
The Ohio Power Company
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
Participant:
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
(formerly Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.)
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
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.
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
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-
19/88 11/90
I I Preaward I Desian I
9/28/88
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
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.
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
t A A
t t t Operationinitiated 2/97
t
Preoperational tests initiated 11/96
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
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,
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.
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.
DOE selected
A
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
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.
1189
T t
Design
4 1
started 7/90
1991
2 3
4/91
4
Cooperative
agreement
1
OE selected project
:CT-III) 12/19/69
1993
2 3 4
A
1 2
1994
t
3 4
started 5/30/95
1
T
4
8/96'
Ground breakinglconstruction
1
Environmental
1997
2
monitoring plan
completed
3 4
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
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
'Projected date
"Years omitted
Commercial Applications:
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
93 7/94
Preaward I Desian I
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-
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
93 8/94
restructuring
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-
Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
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
Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
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
- 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
Participant:
Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Corporation
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.
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-
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'
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.
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
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
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-
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.
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
Participant:
Southern Company Services, Inc.
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
Participant:
AirPol, Inc.
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
Participant:
- BOILER
BechtelCorporation
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
Participant:
WAC-North America (ajoint venture partnership
between Tampella Power Corporation and ICF Kaiser
Engineers,Inc.)
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.)
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
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.
Participant:
ABB EnvironmentalSystems
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.
Participant:
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
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.
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
Participant:
Energy and EnvironmentalResearchCorporation
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%
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
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
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-
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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-
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Preaward
12/89
I I I DesignandConstruction
9/90
7/92
I
9/96
I
.).
Projectcutnpletedmnal report
issued 9196
Operation completed 9/96
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
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)
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
"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-
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.
f
I
DOE selected
prqect (CCT-Ill)
tt Tt 'Operation initiated 11/95
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.
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
193
Preaward I
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
Participant:
Coal Tech Corporation
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
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.
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.
9/91 1OB2
I Preaward I Design I
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
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
~~CISSIOM
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.
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
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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
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
P r ~ g Update
m 1995 G-3