Capstone Project AUK

Emission Controls at Kosovas Thermal Power Plants, Current and Future Capabilities
Presented by: Skender Isufi, March, 2010

Problem Background
1.1. Brief description of KEK
Four core Divisions: Coal Production, Generation, Network and Supply  TPP Kosova A (commissioning from 1962 - 1975)  consists of 5 units with installed capacity 800MW  Only 3 units in operation A3, A4 and A5 (available power capacity 450MW)  TPP Kosova B (construction 1983-1984)  consists of 2 units with installed capacity 678MW (available power capacity 600MW)  HPP Ujman (2 x 17.5MW)  HPP Lumbardhi, (2 x 4MW)  Thermal vs. Hydro electricity generation 97 : 3 %

TPP of Kosova are characterized by:

 

 

Old technology of firing and emission control Aging of units  A3 40 years in operation; A4 39; A5 - 35  B1 27 years in operation; B2 - 26 High specific emissions (especially dust and CO2) High specific consumption of lignite  For TPP A 1.8 ton of lignite / MWh  For TPP B 1.4 ton of lignite / MWh Low efficiency of units  in TPP A are 20 27%  in TPP B are 30 35%

Electricity Generation in Kosova 2001-2008

 Demand in 2008 has increased by 60% compared to 2001  Domestic electricity generation in 2008 was 77% higher than

in 2001
5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2001 2002 2003 TPP B 2004 2005 HPP 2006 2007 2008

GWh

TPP A

Net import

1.2 Type of Fuel & Lignite Consumption


 

Cheap energy source (10 billion tons of exploitable reserves, only Sibovc field 1 billion tons) Two opencast coal mines: Mirash and Bardh Type of coal lignite

    

LHV = 6500 - 9500kJ/kg Carbone = 22% Ash content = 10 - 21% Moisture = 40 45% Sulphur ~ 0.7 1.5% (0.1 0.5% organic sulfur) Extracting ratio 1.7m3 of overburden to 1 ton on lignite

Year Coal consumption

million tons

2001 4.26 2.02 2.23

2002 5.23 2.24 2.98

2003 5.64 3.13 2.50

2004 5.59 1.71 3.88

2005 6.27 1.27 4.99

2006 6.35 1.77 4.57

2007 7.11 2.47 4.64

2008 7.46 2.44 5.02

TPP A million tons TPP B million tons

1.3. Kosova TPP and Environment - Emissions

  

Air emissions Dust (particulate mater), SO2, NOx Greenhouse gas CO2 The units in TPP A and TPP B are equipped with ESP (electrostatic precipitator electro filter)  Designed dust emission  TPP A - 560mg/Nm3 (3.13kg/MWh)  TPP B - 260mg/Nm3 (1.45kg/MWh) There are no FGD (flue gas desulphurization) plant (lignite has calcium in its content, which contributes to self-desulphurization)

Indicative emissions from units of TPP in Kosova (in mg/Nm3) for 6% O2the average values for 2008 and 2009 Dust emissions (mg/Nm3) For TPP Kosova A For TPP Kosova B 1200 1300 300 400 NOx (mg/Nm3) 700-690 800 SO2 (mg/Nm3) 540-750 400-700

EU emission requirements


According to the EU Directive 2001/80/EC the emissions from large combustion plants for solid fuels
Dust (mg/Nm3) NOx (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3)

For plants which are put in operation before 2003 (existing and new plants) with >500MWth For plants which are put in operation after 2003 (new-new plants) with >300MWth

<50/100 <30

<500 <200

<400 <200

o It is required to have a continuous measurement for emissions o Existing plants (licensed before 1987) may be exempted from the requirements if they do not operate more than 20,000hrs from 2008 until 2015.

Timing for LCP Directive

July 1987 November 2002

Existing installations

Old new installations

New new installations

Part A ELV

Part A ELV

Part B ELV

According to the Athens Treaty (2005) countries adopted this treaty among others will have to implement the LCP Directive by end of 2017.

(103 SO2 NOx

Lu xe m

(103 x tons)

x tons)
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50
1000 1200

200

400

600

800

NOx and SO2 emission from LCP in 25 MS of European Union - for 2004

Lu xe m bo ur La g tv Ko i a so Sw v a ed e Au n st De ria nm ar k M Lit alta hu an ia Ne Cyp th r us er la n Fi d s nl Sl an d ov e Be nia lgi u Ir e m lan Sl ov d ak Es i a to n Hu i a ng Cz P a r ec or y h tug Re a pu l bli c It a Fr ly a G n ce er m a G ny re Un R ec ite om e d a Ki nia ng do Po m la Bu nd lga ri a Sp ain

bo u La r g tv i M a Li al th ta ua Cy ni a Sw pru e s Es den t Sl oni ov a e Au nia s Ko tria so Hu v n a Sl gar o y De vak n m ia Ire ark B e la n lg d i Fi um Ne n t h lan er d l Po and rt s Bu uga lg l G aria r Ro eec m e Cz ec F a ni h ra a R nc ep e ub li c Ita P ly G olan er d Un m an i te d Sp y Ki a ng in do m

Dust

(103 x tons)

CO2
Lu xe m

(million tons)

10

20

30

40

50

60

100

150

200

250

300

350

50
Ita Sl ly ov ak ia Ko so va Ire la nd Fr an ce Un Ge ite rm an d K in y gd om Es to n Bu ia lg a Ro ria m an ia Sp ai n Po la nd G re ec e

Li Lu thu xe an m ia bo ur g La tvi Sl ov a ak ia M a Cy lta pr u Ko s so Sw va ed Sl e n ov en Au ia st Es ria to Hu ni a ng ar Ire y la Po nd rt u De ga nm l a Be r k lg iu Fi m nla n Fr d Ne a nc th er e la nd Cz e c Gr s h ee Re ce pu bl ic Sp ai n Ita Un l it e Po y la d Ki nd ng G dom er m an y

bo ur g La tv Li i th a ua ni a Cy pr u Sw s Ne ed e th er n la nd s M al ta Au st De ria nm a Sl rk ov en i Fi a nl an Hu d ng a Po r y rtu ga l B Cz ec elgi um h R ep ub li c

Dust and CO2 emission from LCP in

25 MS of European Union - for 2004

Current Emission from units of TPP of Kosova

Years Emissions (in tons) SO 2 NOx Particulate CO 2 SO 2 NOx Particulate CO 2 SO 2 NOx Particulate CO 2 SO 2 NOx Particulate CO 2 2007 986 2,926 3,572 1,099,478 920 2,590 3,321 960,520 1,444 6,514 1,000 2,089,314 1,108 4,843 2,093 1,534,868 2008 2009

TPP A

A3

A4

TPP B

B1

B2

2,455 2,767 3,122 2,806 3,751 4,966 1,156,058 1,084,167 1,302 na 1,901 na 2,688 na 700,089 na 3,858 5,691 6,313 7,333 2,202 2,171 2,009,463 2,382,954 4,576 7,782 6,988 7,188 3,485 3,797 2,245,182 2,306,661

Why CO2 emissions are higher compared to other emission ? C content in lignite 22% Ash content in ignite 10 21%

ESP

Project Description
The literature review (books, reports, other information) Consultations with engineers in KEK Steps of capstone project
 

  

 

Creating the model for future analysis of emissions Collecting the necessary information and data  the maximum gross power for existing units of TPP A and TPP B;  the time availability for existing units;  specific lignite consumption;  emissions factors for the different pollutants; and  the formulas for calculations Evaluate different technologies for new thermal power plant Conducting the calculations

First step - Defining the scenarios for building the model



Scenario 1 the existing TPP (Kosova A and B) without abatement measures Scenario 2 the existing TPP with abatement measures (upgrading the electrostatic precipitators - ESP, only for TPP B), construction of the new HPP Zhur 293MW and new TPP Kosova C with capacity 1x500MW Scenario 3 the existing TPP with abatement measures (upgrading the electrostatic precipitators - ESP, only for TPP B), construction of the new HPP Zhur 293MW and new TPP Kosova C with capacity 2x500MW Scenario 4 the existing TPP with abatement measures (upgrading the electrostatic precipitators - ESP, only for TPP B), construction of the new HPP Zhur 293MW and new TPP Kosova C with capacity 4x500MW Decommissioning of TPP Kosova A by 2017 The time period for analysis 2010 - 2030

 

Second Step Defining the characteristics of existing units



 

The maximum average gross capacity  for each unit of TPP A - 125MW  for each unit of TPP B - 270MW The self-consumption of electricity for the units is 9% each The load factor  for the units of TPP A ( A3- 0.7; A4 - 0.6 and A5 - 0.3).  for units of TPP B - 0.8 Specific lignite consumption  1.75 t lignite/MWh TPP A  1.4 t lignite /MWh TPP B The emission factor:  Dust: 4.76 kg/MWh for TPP A and 1.54 kg/MWh for TPP B.  SO2: 2.73 kg/MWh for TPP A and 2.45 kg/MWh for TPP B  NOx: 2.30 kg/MWh for TPP A and 2.7 kg/MWh for TPP B  CO2: 1.48 t/MWh for TPP A and 1.18 t/MWh for TPP B

Third step - Combustion Technologies for new TPP in Kosova

 

Selection criteria: cost, efficiency, and low emissions Available combustion technologies for future TPP Pulverized firing with subcritical parameters PC
     Pressure below 221bar Size up to 1000MW Requires installation of equipments for emissions control (FGD, low NOx burners, ESP) Efficiency is rather low compared to other technologies High availability, and there is successful experience in design of boilers

1.

2.
    

Pulverized firing with supercritical or ultra-supercritical parameters SC and USC

Similar to subcritical boilers Operating pressure 230 250bar for SC and up to 300bar for USC Fresh steam temperature up to 600 0C Requires high quality of material for pipes and blades of turbine (HP&IP part) Efficiency up to 45% for SC respectively 48% for USC

Third step - Combustion Technologies for new TPP in Kosova cont

3. Circulating fluidized bed combustion FBC
     Similar to PC boilers in many aspects Operates at lower temperature in furnace (820 870oC) Injection of limestone in furnace to capture SO2 The low temperature limits the formation of NOx Size of units not larger than 300MW

4.

Integrated gasification combined cycle IGCC

    Gasification of coal and production of synthetic gas Power is produced from gas and steam turbine Commercial up to 500MW Most successful technology for air emission reduction

Summary of Technologies
SC & USC
Status

FBC

IGCC
Commercial up to 500MW Up to 99 80 - 90 10 - 20 40 - 44 up to 3300 $/kW

Commercial up to SC commercial up to 1000MW, ultra SC - needs 250 -300MW demonstration 4 - 12 4 - 12 4 - 12 SC 40 42% Ultra-SC ~ 48% SC 1000 1300 /kW ultra-SC: 1400 2000 /kW >95 30 - 70 Negligible 36 - 38 600 1100 $/kW

SO2 reduct. (%) NOX reduct. (%) CO2 reduct. (%) Efficiency (%) Capital costs

Fixed O&M costs SC: 25 32; ultra-SC: 30 35 ($/kW/year)

30 70

30 45

Step four Calculations of electricity generations and emissions estimates for all scenarios
Item


Designation Average gross power Number of hours per year Load factor Gross electricity production Net electricity production Specific lignite consumption Lignite consumption Specific dust emission* Dust emission through the stack Specific emission of CO2* CO2 emission Specific emission of SO2* SO2 emission Specific emission of NOx* NOx emission

Unit MW hours GWh GWh t/MWh kiloton kg/MWh tone t/MWh kiloton kg/MWh tone kg/MWh tone

Result 500 8760 0.85 ([1] x [2] x [3])/1000=3723 0.9 x [4]=3350.7 1.1 [6] x [4]=4095 0.14 [4] x [8]=521 0.85 [4] x [10]=3481 0.5 [4] x [12]=1852 1 [4] x [14]=3723

For units in TPP A and TPP B the calculation is done based on the information given before For new units of TPP New Kosova the calculation are based on the table Demand growth 4%

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Project Findings


Electricity production and demand scenario 1

12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 GWh 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30

Import

Net import

Net electricity domestic production

Available electricity

Electricity production and demand scenario 2

12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000

GWh

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000

20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 25 20 27 20 29 20 30

Import Import

Net import

Net electricity domestic production

Available electricity

Electricity production and demand scenario 3

12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000

GWh

Import Export

20 12

20 14

20 18

20 19

20 21

20 22

20 26

20 10

20 16

20 17

20 20

20 23

20 24

20 28

Net import

Net electricity domestic production

Available electricity

20 30

Electricity production and demand scenario 4

17000 15000 13000 11000 9000 7000

GWh

5000 3000 1000 -1000 -3000 -5000 -7000 -9000

Import

Export

20 12

20 18

20 23

Net import

Net electricity domestic production

Available electricity

20 30

20 10

20 14

20 16

20 17

20 19

20 20

20 21

20 22

20 25

20 27

20 29

Costs or revenues from net import or net export of electricity for all scenarios
Import & Export price estimated 45Euro/MWh
Million Euro 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0 -400.0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Costs Revenues

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Total CO2 emission forecast for Scenario 1 and 2

8,000 7,000 6,000

10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 CO2 (kt/a)

TPP A TPP B

CO2 (kt/a)

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 26 20 30
TPP A TPP B TPP C

Total CO2 emission forecast for Scenario 3 and 4

12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 CO2 (kt/a) 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 CO2 (kt/a)

TPP A TPP B TPP C

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

20 0 20 9 1 20 0 1 20 1 1 20 2 1 20 3 1 20 4 1 20 5 1 20 6 1 20 7 1 20 8 1 20 9 2 20 0 2 20 1 2 20 2 2 20 3 2 20 6 30
TPP A TPP B TPP C

20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 26 20 30

Emission Trading Scheme and CO2 credits

20 18 million tons of CO2 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
total CO2 emission scenario 1 total CO2 emission scenario 3 total CO2 emission scenario 2 total CO2 emission scenario 4

Cap of CO2=11 million tons

Cap for CO2 emissions form TPP 11 million tons

200 150 million Euro 100 50 0 -50 -100 2018 2019 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Potential costs for buying CO2 credits

Cost of credits for CO2 = 25 /t

cost of CO2 scenario 3

cost of CO2 scenario 4

SO2 emission forecast for Scenario 3 and 4

Scenario 3
14,000 12,000 10,000

Scenario 4
16,000 14,000 12,000 SO2 (t/a) 10,000 8,000 6,000

SO2 (t/a)

8,000 6,000 4,000

4,000
2,000 0

2,000 0

20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 26 20 28 20 30

TPP A

TPP B

TPP C

20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 25 20 27 20 29 20 30

TPP A

TPP B

TPP C

NOx emission forecast for Scenario 3 and 4

Scenario 3
24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 NOx (t/a) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Scenario 4
24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 NOx (t/a) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

20 0 20 9 1 20 0 1 20 1 1 20 2 1 20 3 1 20 4 1 20 5 1 20 6 1 20 7 1 20 8 1 20 9 2 20 0 2 20 1 2 20 2 2 20 3 2 20 6 30

TPP A

TPP B

TPP C

20 0 20 9 1 20 0 1 20 1 1 20 2 1 20 3 1 20 4 1 20 5 1 20 6 1 20 7 1 20 8 1 20 9 2 20 0 2 20 1 2 20 2 2 20 3 2 20 6 30
TPP A TPP B TPP C

Dust emissions {t/a] 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Scenario 3

Dust emission forecast for Scenario 3 and 4

TPP A TPP B TPP C

Dust emissions [t/a]

20 0 20 9 1 20 0 1 20 1 1 20 2 1 20 3 1 20 4 1 20 5 16 20 1 20 7 1 20 8 1 20 9 2 20 0 2 20 1 2 20 2 2 20 3 2 20 6 30

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Scenario 4

TPP A TPP B TPP C

20 09 20 1 20 0 11 20 1 20 2 13 20 1 20 4 15 20 1 20 6 1 20 7 18 20 1 20 9 20 20 2 20 1 22 20 2 20 3 26 20 30

Conclusions


Specific emission of CO2 from TPP Kosova A is high due to lower efficiency compared to units of TPP Kosova B. Specific emission of CO2 from units of TPP New Kosova are 75% lower than TPP Kosova A or 39% lower than TPP Kosova B. The scenario 2 is moderate scenario; the total emission will be increased by 20% more than are today. The scenario 3 will have 80% higher total emissions than current, while for the scenario 4 the emission of CO2 will be three times more than today. The simulation with the CO2 trading allowance shows that scenario 4 represents high potential costs for buying credits of CO2. To comply with CO2 emission reduction only scenario 3 is acceptable To comply with EU directive 2001/80, scenario 2, 3 and 4 are acceptable

 

Conclusion - cont


Because of the aging and high specific emission, TPP Kosova A units has to be decommissioned by 2017 (not before the new TPP starts operation) The units of Kosova B power plant, has to refurbish the ESP and to install low NOX burners to comply with EU Directive 2001/80. To cover the demand with sufficient and reliable electricity only scenario 3 and 4 are acceptable. These scenarios shows considerable potential for generation of revenues The annual demand growth by 4%, requires construction of new power generation capacities (otherwise we will depend on import) The assessment of technologies have shown that the best technology is pulverized firing, subcritical or supercritical pulverized firing. The equipments for emission control has to be installed. The existing hydro potential will be utilized and the new HPP Zhur has to be build by 2018

Recommendation


Implementation of scenario 3 as the best scenario regarding the reduction of emissions and fulfilling the demand of electricity and crating the condition to induce the electricity export for considerable period of time. By 2017 respectively 2018 to make investments in TPP B for improvements of air emissions by installing low NOx burners and refurbishment of ESP. The technology for the new power plant is recommended to be subcritical or supercritical boilers with regard to the characteristics of lignite. The new units should have installed modern equipments for dust collection efficient ESP, low NOx burners, and desulfurization equipments. Installation of continuous measurement of air emissions NOx, SO2 and dust on unit B1 and B2 of TPP Kosova B are required by the EU Directive for LCP. Utilizing the hydro potential by construction of HPP Zhur to increase the share of electricity produced by renewable resources (3 to 4 %).

List of References
             

KEK-Statistical Data, Strategic Development Office KEK Working Manual for Boiler and Turbine, Kosovo B Power Plant, 1995 Energy Sector Technical Assistance Project, Module G Lignite Development Strategy, World Bank, 2002 Government of Kosova, Ministry of Energy and Mining: (2008): Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment Directive 2001/80EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Official Journal of the European Community, 2001 Entec, (2008), Evaluation of the Member States emission inventories 2004-2006 for LCPs under the LCP Directive (2001/80/EC), Final Report, European Commission http://eper.ec.europa.eu/eper/emissions_pollutants.asp?i Power Station Emission Handbook- www.ccsd.biz/PSE_Handbook/index.cfm Gjurgjeala. B,(2007) Efficiency of TPP, Prishtina Travoulareas. S & Jozewicz. W, (2005): Multipollutant Emission Control Technology Options for Coal fired Power Plants, EPA, Washington DC. www.babcock.com/products/boilers/images/swup.gif http://www.babcock.com/products/boilers/circulating_fluidized_bed_specs.html www.ccsd.biz/factsheets/images/igcc1.gif http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rwe-neurath/

List of References


      

 

T. Hatakka, Vattenfall Capital Markets Day 2009, Amsterdam 2009, Presentation (Reviewed online on February 2010 at http://www.vattenfall.com/en/file/tuomo-hatakka-business-group-_8459841.pdf) Duke Energy, Cliffside Steam Station Modernization - Project Overview: (Reviewed online January 2010) at http://www.duke-energy.com/aboutus/cliffside-overview.asp) http://www.miga.org/documents/Maritzabrief.pdf http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/documents/2007-0529_workshop/presentations/Dalton_EPRI_Clean_Coal.pdf http://www.power-technology.com/projects/comanche/ http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/factsheet.pdf Course lectures Energy Policy AUK, 2008 The Emission Trading System, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7veRksc_Yk ElectroWatt Ekono, Jaakko Pyry Group, (2006), Pre-feasibility studies for the new lignite fired power plant and for pollution mitigation measures at Kosovo B power plant, Lot 2. Prishtina, European Agency for Reconstruction Carl Bro, (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment and Action plan for Kosova A and B Power Plants and Coal Mines, European Agency for Reconstruction Energy Community Treaty: http://www.stabilitypact.org/energy/Treaty.en05.pdf

Acknowledgment.

Thank you for your attention! Questions!

Contact address: skender.isufi@kek-energy.com Phone: 038 560 287