You are on page 1of 73

July 2016 Vol. 160 No.

BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY SINCE 1882
Vol. 160 No. 7 July 2016

New Ways to Address


Environmental Issues

Show Me State Plant Wins


PRBCUG Plant of the Year
Can Coal Refuse Be
Environmentally Friendly?
New Reasons to Consider
Waste-to-Energy

Entergys 550 Megawatt Ninemile 6 CCGT power plant

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH
CB&I understands our customers needs for economical projects that
compete in todays competitive, global marketplace. Our collaborative
approach provides a safe, environmentally responsible and cost-efficient
design and execution strategy that assures certainty of outcome and a
financeable project.
Our approach is flexible, both regarding services provided and contracting
methodology. Working with the customer from pre-FEED through EPC and
commissioning ensures that we are working together towards a common goal.
Contact CB&I at +1 704 343 7500 to learn how our complete solutions can
benefit your next gas-fired power generation project.
ADVANCE CLASS TURBINES
PIPE AND STEEL FABRICATION
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTION
EXTENSIVE CRAFT RECRUITMENT AND MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

A World of Solutions
Visit www.CBI.com
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD
40M042016H

ON THE COVER

Established 1882 Vol. 160 No. 7

July 2016

Opened in 1974 on the Navajo Nation,


the 2,250-MW Navajo Generating Station burns Powder River Basin coal to
serve electric customers in Arizona, Nevada, and California. It is operated by Salt
River Project. Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

SPEAKING OF POWER
Powers Environmental Issues Then and Now

GLOBAL MONITOR
Rwandas Power Production Triumph over a Killer Lake
TVA Submits Pioneering Application for SMR Early Site Permit
THE BIG PICTURE: Chinas Power Glut
Chinas CAP1400 Clears IAEA Safety Assessment
One of the Worlds Biggest Biomass-Fired CHP Plants Is Inaugurated
Employing Fuel Cells for Carbon Capture
POWER Digest

8
9
10
12
12
13
14

FOCUS ON O&M
Boiler Tube Failure Thermohydraulic Analysis

16

LEGAL & REGULATORY


Securing Pipeline Infrastructure for Gas-Fired Generation in New
England

8
18

By Glenn S. Benson and Walker Stanovsky, Davis Wright Tremaine

COVER FOCUS: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES


Generators Grapple with ELG Implementation

20

Early compliance with the Environmental Protection Agencys Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for steam electric power generating units has raised
new equipment, monitoring, operational, and labor issues that are proving
challenging for some plants.

Evaluating the Use of CEMS for Accurate Heat Rate Monitoring and
Reporting

24

If the Clean Power Plan survives legal challenges, many plants will be looking
for cost-effective ways to monitor heat rate. Electric Power Research Institute
researchers explain what theyve learned about using continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) for just that purpose.

12

Simplify MATS Compliance with Particulate Matter Continuous Emission


Monitors
27
Four years into the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) compliance era,
enough historic data and improved monitors exist to potentially change the
particulate matter (PM) compliance strategy to one that uses a PM monitor
instead of quarterly PM stack testing.

Emissions Catalyst Issues for Fast-Start Combined Cycle Power Plants

31

Among the less-familiar consequences of frequent and faster starts at combined cycle plants are challenges associated with fast start of the emissions
catalyst systems, especially given that best available control technology limits
required by regulations are not practical where cycling occurs.

Circulating Fluidized Bed Dry Scrubber Effectively Reduces Emissions

34

By taking an unconventional route, a small Midwest generator is meeting


emissions requirements and enjoying one of this industrys top-performing
retrofit units for SO2 reduction.

34
|

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

Real-Time Environmental Data Integration Improves Air Quality


Reporting

37

As with so many other plant functions these days, greater operational complexity in the environmental regulatory compliance realm requires new ways
of working. Real-time data integration and management can offer multiple
benefits.

Weighing the Environmental Impacts of Wind and Solar

40

Even renewable energy technologies have environmental impacts. As manufacturers and developers gain experience with wind and solar technologies,
theyre also working to minimize negative consequences.

Avoiding Wildlife Impacts From Renewable Energy in Europe

52

43

Europe, which has a longer history than the rest of the world with renewablesespecially offshore wind and marine power projectsis also a leader
in determining how to minimize danger to creatures on land and in water.

SPECIAL REPORT: PRB COAL


PRB Coal Users Group Plant of the Year: Amerens Rush Island Energy
Center

52

The Powder River Basin Coal Users Group gave its top award this year to a
plant recognized for innovation and implementation of best practices and
best available technologies for burning PRB coal.

FUELS
The Coal Refuse Dilemma: Burning Coal for Environmental Benefits

56

Using waste coalwhich has been piling up from hundreds of years of miningas a fuel can reduce the environmental damage these piles create, but
the low-grade feedstock still faces environmental and economic challenges.

56

Energy from Waste: Greenhouse Gas Winner or Pollution Loser?

59

Power market economics in the U.S. have not been friendly to waste-to-energy plants, but new environmental dataas well as state and federal policiescould help spur new growth in the sector.

Understanding and Mitigating Metallurgical Effects of Coal Blending


and Switching

63

Many plants change fuel sources for environmental and economic reasons,
but unless you understand the consequences of such changes, you could add
new operational and maintenance headaches.

COMMENTARY
Chinas Coal Industry: Status and Outlook

68

By Dr. Niu Dongxiao, Song Zongyun, and Xiao Xinli, North China Electric
Power University

63
CONNECT WITH POWER
If you like POWER magazine, follow us online for timely industry news and comments.
Become our fan at facebook.com/
POWERmagazine
Follow us on Twitter
@POWERmagazine
Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine
Group and the Women in Power
Generation Group

SPRING BROUGHT PLENTY OF NUCLEAR NEWS TO POWERMAG.COM

Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Plant Synchronized to Power Grid


Exelon Makes Good on ThreatQuad Cities and Clinton Nuclear Plants to
Close
Uranium Production Near Historic Lows as U.S. Reactors Look to Russia
Moniz: Incentives Needed to Alleviate Nuclear Power Woes
For Sale: Partially Constructed Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant
Experts: Gas Powers Expansion Riddled with Roadblocks
SaskPower Carbon Capture Facility Operating More Reliably
Fire Is Latest Hurdle for Ivanpah Concentrating Solar Power Plant
D.C. Circuit Delays Clean Power Plan Case Hearing by Months, Opts for En
Banc Review
EIA International Outlook to 2040 Foresees Decoupling of Power Demand
and Economic Growth

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

Whether you need crushing, feeding or sizing


equipment, parts or service, TerraSource Global
offers proven solutions trusted throughout the
world.

Crush It
brand

Our Gundlach Crushers and


Pennsylvania Crusher brands offer
a wide array of equipment including
roll mills, cage mills, hammermills,
breakers, impactors, granulators and
Coalpactor crushers in a variety of
sizes to solve your crushing needs.

Feed It
Eliminate fugitive dust and improve
plant safety with our simple, reliable

Posimetric Feeders*
for coal, biomass, wood chips and

brand

more
dust-free, positive displacement
only one moving part
ultra-low horsepower
models to suit any capacity

Size It
For your sizing needs, our Mountaineer
II Sizers are rugged, high-capacity
crushers providing
accurate primary or secondary
sizing of coal
minimum ines generation
Visit our website, follow us on social media or contact us today for more information.
Phone: +1

(855) 483-7721 Email: info@terrasource.com Web: www.terrasource.com/pm

GENUINE
factory authorized technical service,
field service and replacement parts
are just a click away!

service@terrasource.com

The brands comprising TerraSource Global (Gundlach Crushers, Jeffrey Rader and Pennsylvania
Crusher) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) 2016 TerraSource Global.
All Rights Reserved. *Posimetric is a licensed trademark of GE Energy (USA) LLC.

Handling a World of Materials


CIRCLE 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD

EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION


Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
editor@powermag.com
Consulting Editor: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Associate Editor: Thomas Overton, JD
Associate Editor: Sonal Patel
Associate Editor: Aaron Larson
Senior Graphic Designer: Michele White
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com
Contributors: Glenn S. Benson; Philip Black, PE; Marius Botha; Lee Buchsbaum;
Chuck Dene; Niu Dongxiao; Michael P. Hindley; Sam Korellis;
Rama S. Koripelli, PhD; Rick J. Krenzke; Kennedy Maize;
David S. Moelling, PE; Daniel W. Ott; Robert Puhr; Walker Stanovsky;
Xiao Xinli; Song Zongyun

GENERATING COMPANY ADVISORY TEAM


T. Preston Gillespie, Jr., Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, Duke Energy
Pat McCarty, Generation Manager, Tacoma Power
Mark C. McCullough, Executive Vice President, Generation, American Electric Power
Sarah P. Orban Salati, Managing Director, New Energy Solutions, AES

ADVERTISING SALES
Publisher:
Southeast, Central, & Western U.S./
Western Canada:
Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/Latin America:
UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/
Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe:
Italy/France/Spain/Portugal:
China:
Japan:
India:
South Korea:

Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com


Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com
Ed Mueller, 309-278-8120, edm@powermag.com

Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, ptrautes@accessintel.com


Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it
Rudy Teng, +86 13818181202, rudy.teng@enlib.com
Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com
Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com
Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, peterhkwon@hanmail.net
Classified Advertising
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com
POWER Buyers Guide Sales
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood
Marketing Manager: Jessica Grier
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine

POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access


Intelligence, LLC, 9211 Corporate Blvd., 4th Floor, Rockville,
MD 20850-3245. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD
20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box
3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588 . Email: pwr@omeda.com.
Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian
Addresses to: IMEX Global Solutions, P.O. BOX 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2.
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified executives and engineering and supervisory personnel in electric
utilities, independent generating companies, consulting engineering firms, process industries, and other manufacturing
industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions: $107
for one year, $171 for two years. In Canada: US$112 for one
year, US$188 for two years. Outside the U.S. and Canada:
US$227 for one year, US$368 for two years. Payment in full
or credit card information is required to process your order.
Subscription request must include subscriber name, title,
and company name. For new or renewal orders, call 847-5017541. Single copy price: $25. The publisher reserves the right
to accept or reject any order. Allow four to twelve weeks for
shipment of the first issue on subscriptions. Missing issues
must be claimed within three months for the U.S. or within
six months outside U.S.
For customer service and address changes, call 847-5597314 or fax 847-291-4816 or e-mail pwr@omeda.com or
write to POWER, P.O. Box 3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588.
Please include account number, which appears above name
on magazine mailing label or send entire label.
Photocopy Permission: For licensing and reprints of
POWER magazine content, please contact Wrights Media at
877-652-5295 or sales@wrightsmedia.com.
General mailing address: POWER, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042.

CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service:
Electronic and Paper Reprints:
List Sales:
All Other Customer Service:

Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com


Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw

pwr@omeda.com, 847-763-9509
Wrights Media, sales@wrightsmedia.com, 877-652-5295
MeritDirect, Danielle Zaborski, dzaborski@meritdirect.com, 914-368-1090
713-343-1887

Copyright: 2016 Access Intelligence. All rights reserved.

BUSINESS OFFICE
Access Intelligence, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042
Senior Vice President & Group Publisher
Aerospace, Energy, Healthcare: Jennifer Schwartz
Vice President and Publisher: Michael Grossman, 713-343-1887, mgrossman@accessintel.com

ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC


9211 Corporate Blvd., 4th Floor, Rockville, MD 20850-3245
301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com
Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour
Chief Operating Officer: Heather Farley
Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo
Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto
Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Rob Paciorek
Senior Vice President, Customer Acquisition and Retention: Sylvia Sierra
Senior Vice President, Digital Development: Alison Johns
Vice President, Production, Digital Media & Design: Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

Indeck Group of Companies


Indeck Keystone Energy LLC Indeck Power Equipment Co. Indeck Boiler Corp. Indeck Energy Services Inc.
(814) 464-1200 24-HR Parts: (800) 322-5995 www.indeck-keystone.com info@indeck-keystone.com

CIRCLE 3 ON READER SERVICE CARD

SPEAKING OF POWER

Powers Environmental
Issues Then and Now
iscussions about environmental issues related to power plants and the
regulations governing their operation are as old as the industry, I discovered while thumbing through the bound
July through December 1914 issues of
POWER. The specifics of the environmental concerns have become more detailed
and complex as scientific knowledge,
monitoring technologies, and mitigation
solutions advance. However, the general
argumentsenvironmental control versus
efficiency, for exampleand the human
nature demonstrated in the debates, are
remarkably similar 102 years later.

Smoke and Ashes


Several articles in 1914 addressed minimizing smoke from power and steam
plants both big and small (and there were
more of the latter).
The August 11 issue ran a one-page story titled Rules for Firing without Smoke,
with this synopsis: How to build, clean
and bank fires. In carrying a thick fire the
coal is dumped in piles instead of being
spread over the grate. The volatile matter
is distilled in amounts which the furnace
can care for and less smoke is produced.
This editors note was included at the end:
It is to be remembered that Mr. Monnett
is smoke inspector of Chicago and that the
rules in the above, as well as the recommendations in the previous articles of this
series, apply particularly to conditions in
the region where they burn the soft Illinois coal which is high in volatile matter.
Further, being smoke inspector, the authors principal effort is naturally toward
smoke prevention, rather than economy or
efficiency, which are more or less of second consideration.
But POWER clearly appreciated efforts
to reduce smoke pollution, and on October 6 advocated more adequately staffed
city smoke inspection departments,
concluding, What is an appropriation of
two, or twenty thousand dollars to reduce
the cause of annual damage amounting to
millions in most large cities?
And in the September 8 issue the editor
praises the Mellon Institute at the University of Pittsburgh for its bulletin Some
6

Engineering Phases of Pittsburghs Smoke


Problem. He notes the institute previously addressed smokes damage to laundry, buildings, vegetation and its psychic
effect upon individuals. The latest bulletin addresses the causes and abatement
of the smoke evil and finds that of 152
plants observed, the underfed type of
stoker [gave] smokeless combustion when
properly handled. The editorial adds,
One cannot read the report without again
being reminded that plenty of available
cheap fuel is sometimes an evil as well as
a blessing to a large city, for as long as it
is cheap, gross negligence and resulting
smoke accompany its use. Similar arguments about the downside of cheap fuels
continue to this day.
Though ash management has become an
especially sticky problem given recent regulatory action (see Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Compliance Strategies in last
months issue), ash-handling has always
been a matter of concern, at least from
a material-handling perspective. One letter in 1914 commented on an article that
had described a new vacuum ash-handling
system. The writer calculated operating
and depreciation costs and concluded
that with few exceptions, handling with
wheelbarrows where the length of travel
is moderate was economically preferable.
A few issues later, another reader took issue with those calculationsthe sort of
commentary that these days takes place
in the online comments section of POWER
articles or on social media.

Legislating Safety
In the early days of the industry, it was a
struggle to get codes and standards and
licensing requirements in place. It really
was a Wild West of boiler operators, and
just as in the Wild West, many diedas a
result of boiler explosions and other catastrophic malfunctions. When an editorial
in Hotel World protested against passing
laws for examining and licensing stationary engineers to handle heating boilers,
claiming that explosions were uncommon,
a POWER editorial countered with the fact
that there had been more than 500 such
accidents in the previous year.
www.powermag.com

The hoteliers magazine was concerned


about the added cost of paying for licensed men to operate the hotels steam
heat systems. POWER responded: Taking
the worst figures cited, it would cost a hotel $450 a month instead of $25 to $50.
Is not that a terrible price to pay for the
increased safety of its guests during the
winter? If the journal we are criticizing
fairly reflects the attitude of its field, the
editor of this paper hopes to do all his
traveling in the summer, when he can stop
at a hotel without feeling that he is sleeping over a gunpowder mine.
As you can see, warranted sarcasm is
nothing new in POWER editorials. And,
because my father was a licensed boiler
operator for an educational institutions
campus at the beginning of his career,
Im grateful that sensible laws eventually
passed.
Although todays regulation of the
power industry is broader and more complexone cant see immediate effects of
airborne mercury pollution in the way one
can see bodies maimed by plant explosionssimilar cost-benefit debates continue. Most recently, theyve focused on
the regulation of CO2 emissions. (Back in
1914, the only concern about CO2 was figuring out why it might be too low in flue
gas, and how to improve combustion.)

Always Room for Improvement


The July 21, 1914, issue of POWER included this random, one-line observation:
So called waste material is in reality good
material in the wrong place. Thats essentially the premise of using waste coal for
fuel, an issue with both environmental
pros and cons, as explained in this issues
The Coal Refuse Dilemma: Burning Coal
for Environmental Benefits. As that feature and every other article in this issue
demonstrates, finding the sweet spot for
maximizing operational and economic efficiency while operating cleanly and safely
remains the goal of the best power plants
today. We hope you will learn from the
new technologies and techniques offered
in the following pages.
Gail Reitenbach, PhD is POWERs
editor.

POWER July 2016

YOUR SINGLE SOURCE


FOR SERVICE:

KEEP IT GOING.

+ Bolting/Torquing
+ Concrete Repair
+ Emissions Control

The management of thermal and renewable assets requires numerous services to maintain

+ Exchanger Services

the integrity of the equipment and ensure optimal production. From inspection of turbine

+ Field Machining

shafts to in-service valve installations on cooling lines, Team has the experience, equipment,

+ Fitness for Service

and locations to keep your power generation equipment going.

+ Heat Treating
+ Hot Tap/Line Stop

Team experts are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

+ Isolation Test Plugs

Call TEAM today: 1-800-662-8326

+ Leak Repair
+ Manufacturing/Engineering

www.teamindustrialservices.com

+ Mechanical Integrity
+ NDE/NDT Inspection
+ Specialty Welding
+ Turnkey Tank Program
+ Valve Insertion
+ Valve Repair

Minimizing Downtime. Maximizing Performance.

INDUSTRIES SERVED:

CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD

Rwandas Power
Production Triumph over a
Killer Lake
Lake Kivu, the 1,040-square-mile killer
lake that stretches over the border between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), has long been a source
of trepidation.
Because it sits between two volcanic
regions in the western branch of the Great
Rift Valley, the deep, perpetually stratified lakes bottommost waters absorb
high concentrations of carbon dioxide
(CO2) from magma-heated springs deep
underground, and microbes convert much
of the CO2 to methane. These dissolved
gases are held in solution by pressures
in the depths of the lake but can emerge
if zones of high concentration move toward the surface, a process known as a
limnic eruption, or overturn. Because
the region is regularly subject to largemagnitude seismic events and volcanic
dischargesand considering that methane has a high partial pressureLake
Kivu is known to experience violent overturns. Geologists believe they occur at
Lake Kivu about every 1,000 yearsand
that the lake is ripe for another.
Limnic eruptions occurred at much
smaller Lakes Monoun and Nyos across the
continent in Cameroon in 1984 and 1986
respectively, killing more than 1,700 people by asphyxiation. But an overturn at
Kivu could be catastrophic and endanger
millions of people living around its shores
on both sides of the border because it
contains far more dissolved gases than
those two lakes.
Rwandas government has for years
sought to extract the methane from Kivus
depths, both to mitigate the risk of such
a calamity and to generate power. Its efforts first came to fruition in 2008, when
the countrys first methane-extracting and
power-producing plant, a 3-MW pilot project, started operations.
Since then, the government has negotiated several methane gas concessions.
Later in 2008, U.S.-based ContourGlobal,
a firm that owns about 4,000 MW of capacity in 20 countries, including in Africa,
entered into a partnership with the Rwandan government to transform the menace
of the lakes gas deposits into a 25-MW
power plant, dubbed KivuWatt. The project subsequently garnered financial backing from the African Development Bank,
the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund,
8

the Netherlands Development Finance Co.,


and the Belgian Investment Co. for Developing Countries. In 2011, ContourGlobal
contracted Finnish energy technology firm
Wrtsil to supply an engine-based plant
with full engineering, procurement, and
construction delivery.
The plant, which has been operational
since December 2015 but was inaugurated
in May, relies on two processes: methane

extraction and power production. The gas


extraction process, performed on a barge
anchored 13 kilometers (km) offshore in
Lake Kivu (Figure 1), brings gas-rich waters from a depth of 300 meters (m) and
35-bar pressure, reducing pressure to 2 bar
in a gas separator, where gas bubbles are
extracted from the water. Raw gas is then
washed in four wash towers, ContourGlobal explained.

1. A killer lake reformed. Methane is drawn from Rwandas Lake Kivu at a depth of 300
meters by a special barge anchored 13 kilometers offshore. Courtesy: Werner Krug

2. Harnessing lake methane. Rwandas KivuWatt power plant runs on methane gas
that is lifted from the depths of Lake Kivu, an exploding lake. The plant comprises three 20-cylinder 34SG gas-powered engines supplied by Wrtsil. Courtesy: Werner Krug

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

The clean gas is then transported to the


power plant (Figure 2) via pipeline, where
three Wrtsil 34SG engines use it as fuel.
According to Wrtsil, the engines are optimized to run on Lake Kivus gases, which
have a lower heating value than standard
natural gas. This has helped to downsize
the size of the extracting barge and optimize the costs of producing electricity, it
said in a statement.
ContourGlobal noted that the design
and technology is performing even better than expected, and projects that the
gas extraction facility will support at least
an additional 9 MW of power generation,
likely by the end of 2016.
For Rwanda, the project is proving valuable beyond its power production, underscoring its contribution to the regions
socioeconomic development. ContourGlobal is working with the local population, training and developing local workers
to run KivuWatt and future installations.
The project has also generally promoted
peace with the DRC (the border area has
suffered from intermittent conflict for decades), which is also reportedly considering a similar project, the government said.
Rwanda is now planning a second phase

that will involve two or three barges to


generate an additional 75 MW.

TVA Submits Pioneering


Application for SMR Early
Site Permit
The first-ever early site permit (ESP) application for a small modular reactor (SMR)
was submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this May, marking
a resurgence for the fledgling nuclear energy technology that has seen a number of
setbacks in recent years.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
submitted an ESP application for a potential future SMR plant at its Clinch River
site, 25 miles northwest of Knoxville in
eastern Tennessee. The pioneering move
could result in an operating plant at the
site by 2026 if the TVA chooses to pursue
development, experts from the Nuclear Energy Institute said.
The federally owned corporations exploration of SMR technology is part of
efforts to diversify its fleet, moving it
toward low-carbon energy. The TVA also
said that the projects main objective is
to demonstrate that SMRs can be used to
meet generation needs in an incremental

fashion while addressing critical energy


security issues and tackling carbon reduction goals. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) is partially funding the TVAs regulatory review process.
The NRC has so far received seven applications for ESPscertification that a site
is suitable for construction of a nuclear
plantand all but Clinch River have been
focused on full-size reactors. But most applicants have chosen to defer their license
applications, citing economic reasons. For
the TVA, the value of an ESP application
is to reduce licensing uncertainty when it
applies for a combined license by reaching early conclusions on siting and environmental issues. However, it said, a final
decision to proceedstill several years
awaywill also hinge on economics.
The company has yet to choose an SMR
technology. In 2011, the TVA joined forces
with Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) to design
and license its 180-MW mPower SMR, but
that company slashed funding for the
mPower program in April 2014, citing unfavorable market conditions. A number of
other light-water SMR designs are under
development in the U.S., including those
by BWX Technologies, Holtec, Westing-

CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

THE BIG PICTURE: Chinas Power Glut


Over the past decade, driven by a booming energy-intensive industry, Chinas thermal power generation capacity has seen a
compound annual growth rate of about 11.1%. But now that the country is facing a more sluggish economy and power
demand has softened, and as it battles rampant air pollution and has accelerated renewable power capacity additions, it is
facing a massive coal power glut. (See also this months Commentary at the back of the issue.) The National Energy
Administration (NEA), the National Development and Reform Commissions energy management arm, estimates nearly 300
GW of coal-fired capacity has been approved or is under construction around the countrybut it has determined that no
more than 190 GW of new capacity will be needed before 2020. In April, the government took the drastic measure to halt
construction of coal-fired power plants in 13 provinces where capacity is in surplus and forced developers to stall construction of already approved plants in another 15 provinces. Sources: China National Bureau of Statistics, China Electricity
or
Council, NEA Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor

4,329
hours

4,706

Change from
2012:

hours

5,012

13%
Change from
2012:

hours

6%

Change from
2012:

4,982

64

+1%

GW

hours

47
GW

37

926

GW

52

GW

GW

762
GW

New and
existing
thermal:

71%
of total
installed
capacity

GW

868
826
GW

New and
existing
thermal:

New and
existing
thermal:

67%
of total
installed
capacity

New and
existing
thermal:

66%
of total
installed
capacity

A key indicator of Chinas


surplus is its utilization
rate. The hours that Chinas
thermal plants operate
have fallen sharply in
recent years. Generally, the
industry regards more than
5,500 hours of thermal
plant operation as a signal
that it is facing a power
supply pinch, while less
than 4,500 hours indicates
a power surplus. In 2015,
the utilization rate was
4,329 hoursa new
69-year low.

69%
of total
installed
capacity

Estimated
new thermal
capacity*
Existing thermal
capacity

333

385

445

517

2012

2013

2014

2015

1,147

1,247

1,360

1,507

GW

GW

10

GW

GW

GW

GW

www.powermag.com

GW

Total installed
capacity

Non-thermal
capacity
*Figures are drawn from official published data. Totals year
to year may not be consistent with data from previous
years, most likely to due to rounding and retirements of
older generation.

GW

POWER July 2016

CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD

3. New design. Oregon-based NuScale

4. On the nuclear horizon. An artists

Power is preparing to submit a design certification application for its 50-MW small modular
reactor (SMR) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this fall. The SMR developer is the
only one to have an active customer deployment project: The first NuScale facility is due
to be completed in 2024 in Idaho for UAMPS,
a municipal utility. In March, the company
whose primary investor is Fluor Corp.unveiled a modified AREVA HTP-2 fuel design for
the SMR, dubbed NuFuel HTP2. This image
shows a full-scale mockup of the upper part of
a NuScale SMR. Courtesy: NuScale Power

rendering of a future CAP1400 nuclear reactor


facility. Courtesy: SNPTC

house, and NuScale Power, whose design


and licensing is also backed by $217 million in DOE match funding over five years
(Figure 3).
Ultimately, the technology decision
will be heavily influenced by the SMR designs attractiveness as it relates to safety,
cost, and operability, TVA Senior Manager
for SMRs Dan Stout said. Other considerations include the developers financial
strength, capabilities and commitments
that influence the attractiveness of the
business case. Depending on technology
selection, the total electrical output of
the site will be a maximum of 800 MW,
he added. The application establishes a
plant parameter envelope that includes all
four domestic light-water small modular
reactor designs. This envelope could support multiple reactors from each of the
SMR vendors, up to four mPower reactors,
four Holtec reactors, 12 NuScale reactors,
or three Westinghouse reactors, he said.
12

Chinas CAP1400 Clears


IAEA Safety Assessment
Chinas CAP1400a reactor design based
on Westinghouses AP1000 pressurized
water reactorhas successfully passed
the International Atomic Energy Agencys
(IAEAs) Generic Reactor Safety Review.
The milestone is significant for China,
which plans to deploy the advanced reactor design in large numbers (Figure 4) as
well as export the technology.
The IAEAs review assesses the safety
cases of new reactor designs that are not
yet in the licensing stage against applicable IAEA safety standards.
According to Chinas State Nuclear Power Technology Corp. (SNPTC), the 1,500MWe (gross) reactor has a design life of
60 years and a design annual availability
of more than 93%. Refueling would be
needed every 18 months, and it has passive safety features, including a passive
core cooling system, a passive containment cooling system, and a passive main
control room habitability system. As designed, the company envisions construction would span about 56 months, though
it is working to trim that to 48 months.
SNPTC says China has spent about $2
billion on research and development of
the reactor. Among its major developers
were Westinghouse, which provided design consultation; Lockheed Martin, which
participated in the protection and safety
monitoring system development; Ohio
State University, which helped with test
verification; and KSB and Curtiss-Wrights
Electro-Mechanical Division, which participated in the development of the reactor
coolant pump.

One of the Worlds Biggest


Biomass-Fired CHP Plants
Is Inaugurated
Fortum Vrme, a company jointly owned
by Finnish energy firm Fortum and the city
of Stockholm on May 9 inaugurated a new
biomass-fired combined heat and power
(CHP) plant on the shores of Vrtan, a
strait in Swedens capital city.
The Vrtan CHP8 (130 MWe, 280 MWth),
which began construction in 2013, will
www.powermag.com

begin commercial operations in the fall


(Figure 5). According to its developers,
the plant will use forest residues and
wood wastesawdust, bark, and logging
residues from local and regional sources
around the Baltic Seaas well as recovered heat from data centers to produce
district heat for nearly 200,000 households. The plant is also designed for fuel
flexibility to allow it to use new fuels from
the developing bioenergy market, Fortum
said. Daily consumption of wood chips will
be about 12,000 m3.
Building the plant in the middle of Stockholma city with a population of about
1.4 million peopleinvolved multiple
challenges, including working with limited
space and requiring closed-fuel systems to
avoid dust emissions and noise. The plant
uses an old rock cavernpreviously used
for oil storagethat was converted into
a massive underground wood chip storage
facility. It is able to store about 60,000 m3,
or five days of fuel demand.
While the Vrtan site has full access
to road, rail, and sea transportation, the
current fuel procurement plan is based on
getting 40% by rail from Nordic biomass
suppliers and another 60% by ship from
the Baltic Sea region and Russia. The aim
is to ensure the security of supply and access to a wide geographic biomass market
over time, Fortum explained.
To ensure adequate supply by sea, the
company built a new 200-m pier in the
harbor area to accommodate two vessels
up to Panamax size. On average, the plant
requires three to four shipments per week
to meet its fuel demand, as well as five
trainloads per week, each with a capacity of about 4,600 m3. All fuel is unloaded
and processed indoors within a closed
system before delivery to the power plant.
All logistics are coordinated in-house to
control supply risks.
The companys decision to use biomass
was complicated by an emerging debate
in the European Union (EU) about how
sustainable the fuel source is. Fortum
noted in an April 2016 energy review that
biomass is now the most common form of
renewable energy in the EU, and it is the
only source that can replace every type of
fossil fuel in all energy marketsheating,
cooling, electricity, and transportbut
concerns are growing about competition
for resources and security of supply.
In the EU, while sustainability and
traceability concerns are primarily related
to biomass imports from other continents,
the 27-member bloc has yet to issue a uniform sustainability policy on all bioenergy
(current EU sustainability criteria only ap-

POWER July 2016

5. A biomass CHP giant. Finnish energy firm Fortum and the city of Stockholm have
inaugurated a new biomass-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant near Vrtan, a strait in
Swedens capital city. Vrtan CHP8 is one of the largest of its type in the world. Courtesy: Fortum

The EUs policy, which is currently under


public consultation, should apply to the
origin of all bioenergy regardless of end
use, be legally binding, and be applicable
to plants exceeding 20 MWth. Ultimately,
it should enable increased use of biomass
while minimizing administrative burdens
or related costs. The new criteria should
not decrease the competitiveness of biomass: in many cases, biomass competes
with fossil fuels, which generally have no
requirements to demonstrate sustainability, it said.
Sonal Patel, associate editor

Employing Fuel Cells for


Carbon Capture

ply to biofuels and bioliquids, not solids),


and that has hindered investments in biomass. Harmonised sustainability criteria
for all bioenergy would increase the predictability and stability of the operating
environment, ensure proper functioning

and transparency of the biomass markets,


increase the use of sustainable biomass in
energy production, and promote the transition from fossil fuels to renewable and
carbon-neutral biomass fuels, the Fortum
review added.

Fuel cells are a rapidly expanding option


for distributed generation, with fuel cell
based power plants now being deployed
in capacities into tens of megawatts (see
59-MW Fuel Cell Park Opening Heralds
Robust Global Technology Future in the
May 2014 issue). But as the technology
improves and costs begin to scale, opportunities for other applications are being
explored.
One such application may even go beyond power generation. Danbury, Conn.

CIRCLE 7 ON READER SERVICE CARD

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

13

6. Game changer? Fuel cells powered by natural gas could potentially function as carbon
capture technology by using power plant flue gas instead of ambient air. Courtesy: FuelCell
Energy

they respond to different compositions of


flue gas. Assuming success, the second
phase will move to a small-scale pilot project for additional testing, then integration
into a larger-scale pilot facility.
Thomas W. Overton, JD, associate
editor

POWER Digest

based FuelCell Energy (FCE), one of the


largest suppliers of fuel cells worldwide,
and ExxonMobil in May announced a partnership to explore the possibilities for using fuel cells for carbon capture.
According to Kurt Goddard, FCEs vice
president of investor relations, the application will depart from the traditional
method of powering the fuel cells with
ambient air and methane. Instead of air,
it uses coal- or gas-plant flue gas.
Normally in FCEs carbonate fuel cells,
methane is reformed in the cell anode to
create CO2 and H2, which is then used to
generate electricity by combining with oxygen fromambient air to create an electric
current and exhaust streams of water vapor and CO2 (Figure 6).The carbon-capture
fuel cell will still be powered by methane,
but by using flue gas instead of ambient
air, the chemical reactions in the cell can
concentrate up to 90% of the incoming
CO2, which flows with the CO2 generated
in the reforming process into the normal
exhaust stream, where it can easily be
separated from the water vapor.
A critical differenceand bonusin
this process is that rather than being a
parasitic drain on the plant, it actually
generates additional power. In addition,
the process destroys roughly two-thirds of
the NOx in the flue gas.
How much CO2 can be captured depends
on how many fuel cells are employed. A
14

typical 500-MW combined cycle plant


would need around 120 MW of fuel cells
to achieve 90% capture, Goddard said,
while an equivalent coal plant might need
around 400 MW of fuel cells because of its
lower efficiency and higher CO2 emissions.
Commercial deployment is still years away,
but representatives from both companies
are optimistic about the potential.
The possibilities of employing fuel cells
to reduce power plant emissions for both
coal plants and natural gas combined
cycle plants, and potentially capture CO2,
have drawn research attention in recent
years, though applications have typically
involved placing the fuel cells in front of
the turbines or replacing typical combustion processes altogether. The FCE-ExxonMobil initiative is among the first to look
at placing the fuel cells after combustion.
ExxonMobil began working with FCE on
this project several years ago, Goddard
said, beginning with informal discussions
that led to more formal testing. With the
potential now clear, the two companies
have gone public with the initiative. The
partnership will focus initially on how to
further increase efficiency in separation
and concentration of the CO2 from gas turbine exhaust. That is expected to take one
to two years.
FCE and ExxonMobil scientists will be
working to better understand the chemical
processes that are taking place and how
www.powermag.com

Fuel Loading Begins at Kudankulam 2.


Nuclear Power Corp. of India (NPCIL)
began loading the first of 163 fuel assemblies into the core of the second VVER1000 reactor of the Kudankulam nuclear
power plant in Tamil Nadu, India, on May
11. The 1,000-MW unit will begin generating power pending approval from the
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. The
unit is the second supplied by Rosatom
subsidiary Atomstroyexport. The first
Russian-built reactor at the plant, Kudankulam 1, started commercial operation
in December 2014, and state-owned firm
NPCIL is readying to build Units 3 and 4
at the site after delays concerning Indias
nuclear damage liability law. India is also
in discussions with Russia on costs to
build Units 5 and 6, Indian news media
reported in May.
Saudi Arabia Starts Up $3B Oil-Fired
Power Plant. State-controlled Saudi Electricity Co. (SEC) in mid-May grid connected and started commercial operations
at the first 660-MW unit of its 2,640-MW
Jeddah South Thermal Power Plant. The
$3.12 billion oil-fired project that was
announced in 2012 makes history in the
kingdom for its use of highly efficient supercritical boilers. South Koreas Hyundai
Heavy Industries built the plant while Japans Mitsubishi Heavy Industries supplied the equipment. SEC hasnt confirmed
when it anticipates all units to be completed, though it said that the project will
help meet power demand from the western region, particularly during the fasting
month of Ramadan (which starts in June)
in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
NuGen Delays UK Nuclear Plant Startup by a Year. UK nuclear company NuGeneration (NuGen), a joint venture between
Toshibas Westinghouse (60%) and ENGIE (40%), has delayed first power from a
proposed nuclear plant in Cumbria to the
end of 2025, a year later than planned.
The company plans to build three AP1000
reactors with a combined capacity of up
to 3.8 GW at the site near Sellafield in
west Cumbria but has yet to make a final investment decision, likely to come in
2018. However, if the plant comes online
in 2025, it could overtake EDFs Hinkley
Point C project, which has been billed as

POWER July 2016

the first new nuclear plant to begin operations in the UK in a generation.


The UK needs the new plants to help replace its coal plants and its aging nuclear
fleet, which will be shuttered by 2025.
As experts point out, NuGen still needs
to secure approval for its AP1000 reactor
under the countrys Generic Design Assessment approval process. EDF, meanwhile, in
May announced that the Hinkley Point C
project could take nearly 10 years to build
once a decision has been made, also likely
in 2018. The UK expects a third nuclear
plant, Hitachis Horizon, to come online
over the next decade.
CB&I Bows Out of Agreement to Build
South Texas Project Nuclear Units.
Toshiba Corp. and CB&I on May 11 agreed
to terminate a series of agreements related to the development and execution
of an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract for South Texas
Project (STP) Units 3 & 4, and on a global
strategic partnership to promote Toshibas
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR).
Toshiba America Nuclear Energy (TANE),
CB&I, and Nuclear Innovation North
America (NINA), the entity that owns the
STP nuclear units, agreed that CB&I will
be relieved from any further obligations
related to the units. The agreement termination means that TANE now becomes the
sole EPC contractor for the proposed units,
though Toshiba noted NINA may not plan
to immediately start construction owing
to current economic drivers in Texas and
other related issues. The project received
a combined construction and operating license in February 2016.
Shaw Group, which became a CB&I
subsidiary after its acquisition in 2013,
entered into the alliance with Toshiba
in 2010 to promote the Japanese companys ABWR design in markets worldwide. In December 2015, Westinghouse
Electric Co. agreed to acquire CB&Is
Stone & Webster unit, recognizing that
CB&Is business strategy is now focused
on sectors other than nuclear new build
projects.
South Australian Royal Commission
Backs International Nuclear Waste Storage Facility. As suggested in tentative
findings issued this February, South Australias Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in
May recommended that the state establish
a facility that would be used for the interim
storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel
from all over the world (see Commission
Backs Plan to Store Worlds Nuclear Waste
in Australian Outback in the April 2016
issue). The state has the necessary attributes and capabilities to develop a world-

class waste disposal facility, and to do so


safely, the commission said, noting that
such a facility could generate more than
A$100 billion in income over its 120-year
lifetime.
Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce told
reporters in May, after the final reports
release, that the state has a number of
competitive advantages such as stable
geology, a strong international reputation
for a good regulatory environment, and a
vast amount ofland. Before a final decision can be made, however, the state will
need extensive community consultation,
he said. A referendum or election wasnt
the best way to gain consent because the
planning period for the proposed state
governmentowned facility would take
more than a decade. There isnt one silver bullet solution to this, he was widely
quoted as saying.
Eskom Looks to Extend Coal Plant
Lifetimes. Power-strapped South Africas
state-owned utility Eskom has decided to
renew, rather than decommission, its aging coal fleet. Eskoms board in late April
approved a fleet renewal strategy that will
extend the life of a station by replacing
components when they reach the end of
their lives, as long as it is economical to

carry out the replacement. The utility will


begin carrying out 18-month-long pre-feasibility studies to assess renewal options
for four of its oldest power stations: Komati, Camden, Hendrina, and Arnot.
Marubeni Signs Deals to Boost Power
Capacity in Southeast Asia. Marubeni
Corp. on May 16 agreed with South Korean firms Korea Midland Power Co. and
Samtan Co., and Indonesian coal miner
PT Indika Energi Internasional to jointly develop the 1-GW ultrasupercritical
Cirebon 3 coal plant adjacent to the 660MW Cirebon Steam Power Plant, which
began operations in 2012, and the 1-GW
Cirebon 2 plant, which is under construction in the district of Cirebon, West Java
province, Indonesia. Indonesias government wants to boost its power capacity
35 GW by 2019 to meet increasing demand, which has prompted a flurry of
bids from foreign independent power producers. Marubeni on May 24 also signed
a memorandum of understanding with
Italys Enel to cooperate in evaluating
power generation project opportunities
in Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Malaysia.
Sonal Patel, associate editor

CIRCLE 8 ON READER SERVICE CARD

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

15

Boiler Tube Failure


Thermohydraulic Analysis
Eskom operates 23 power stations in South
Africa with a total capacity of more than
42 GW. It supplies about 95% of all the
electricity used in the country. One of its
coal-fired power stations was experiencing
frequent boiler tube fatigue failures in the
hopper sectionthe bottom part of the
boilerof all six units.
The boilers were designed with a complex support beam structure that cradles
and surrounds the boiler. Pivoting attachment mechanisms exist between the support beam structure, or buckstays, and the
tube wall to allow for thermal expansion
while still providing adequate support on
all four sides.
The boiler can expand up to a meter
downwards during a startup sequence.
Buckstays join at corner junction locations
of the hopper where the slope walls and
front/rear walls join. They are connected
to each other using hinged members referred to as buckstay connection links.
These junctions necessitate the rerouting of the surrounding front/rear wall
tubes, leading to discontinuities in tube
layout. High tube failure rates were identified at these tube manipulations and the
areas were considered to be possible highstress locations.
Modeling Boiler Stress
A suspected cause of the repeated tube
failures (Figure 1) was that cyclic operation of the plant to accommodate
increased intermittent renewable energy resources and reduced electricity demand during off-peak hours was

causing cyclic fatigue in the tube material. Because the plant was designed for
consistent operation at full load, the
cyclic fatigue was leading to component damage and reliability problems.
The failures resulted in unscheduled
shutdowns, emergency repairs, and unexpected costs.
It was also believed that the delayed
effect of cooling water being supplied
between two adjacent boiler tubes of
different tube banks could be a contributing factor to thermal fatigue failure. The argument presumed that a
column of water from the economizer
outlet would reach the closest tube
bank first, the second bank next, and
so forth. It was alleged that this would
cause a significant fluid temperature
differential between the first banks
outermost tube and the adjacent tube
of the second bank.
To test the hypotheses, a unique oneway fluid structure interaction (FSI)
methodology was developed to model
and predict the induced fatigue loading
during a boiler startup cycle. Fluid flow
and heat transfer was transiently modeled using a 1-D pipe flow modeling tool
supplied by Flownex Simulation Environ-

ment and validated against experimental


data. The 1-D flow solver was a thermofluid simulations software package used
to predict, design, and optimize flow
rates, temperatures, and heat transfer in
fluid systems. The one-way FSI modeling approach allowed a transient thermal load, or any user-selected transient
step, to be coupled with a 3-D finite
element analysis (FEA) software supplied by ANSYS to evaluate the thermalinduced stress.
Validation Offers Assurance
Half of the four boiler hopper walls were
modeled to obtain a representative sample of the complete hopper section. Instrumentation, including thermocouples
and strain gauges, was also installed in
the modeled area of the hopper section to
obtain measured plant data. The Flownex
model consisted of 1,219 tubes and 1,858
vertices/nodes.
Flownexs capability to fundamentally calculate flow and heat transfer
behavior of both fluid and tube wall
material during steady state and dynamic conditions was considered an
ideal fit for the testing. Using the same
economizer outlet temperature profile

2. Flownex model validation. The 1-D solver results (denoted as FNX Tc13 through
FNX Tc16) correlated very closely with the data from installed thermocouples (denoted as Tc13
through Tc16). Courtesy: Flownex SE
Tc13 Tc14 Tc15 Tc16 FNX Tc13 FNX Tc14 FNX Tc15 FNX Tc16

300

250

1. Fatigue failure. This image shows a


200

Temperature (C)

typical boiler tube failure location at the Eskom-owned plant. Courtesy: Flownex SE

150

100

50

0
0

10

12

14

Time (hr)

16

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

3. Mapping procedure. A 1-D line geometry created in a computer-aided drafting package was imported into Flownex simulation software to obtain thermal results, which were
exported to ANSYS software for stress analysis. Courtesy: Flownex SE
Plant drawings

Finite element analysis computer-aided


drafting geometry pre-processor

Digitize to computer-aided
drafting format

*.pcf file export

Finite element analysis simulation


1D transient pipe
solver

Temperature field

4. Stressed out. Contour plots colored by maximum principal stress at the buckstay junction location are shown here for both cases where the sliding joint plate is present (left) and
removed (right). Courtesy: Flownex SE

as obtained during the plant measurement sequence, together with adjusted


gas-side heat transfer properties, a
dynamic startup scenario was modeled
to validate the results from the model against that of the measured plant
data. A number of other scenarios were
also successfully modeled.
The results obtained from the model
corresponded very well with the measured plant data (Figure 2). The strong
correlation enabled the model to be used
for various postulated plant conditions
and operating sequences. The temperature distribution results from Flownex
were then imported into ANSYS, where
the structural stress analysis was performed (Figure 3).
The methodology allowed the examination of various scenarios to evaluate

July 2016 POWER

causes of failures without affecting plant


operations. It also facilitated the modeling of the massive boiler structure, which
could not have been done economically
using 3-D computational fluid dynamics
simulations.
Simulation Leads to Answers
The results from the developed model
indicated that the delay in water supply
between the first tube banks outermost
tube and the adjacent tube of the second
bank did not induce perturbing stresses
as postulated. The maximum temperature
differential was calculated to be only
2.2C. This proved to be due to the conduction and thermal inertia of the tube
walls and webbing, which resulted in a
smooth transition in adjacent tube wall
temperatures.
www.powermag.com

Having ruled extreme temperature


differentials out, the effects of structural support members in the form of
welded support plates at the buckstay
junction locations were evaluated. The
developed methodology facilitated
comparisons between two cases considered: first, where the buckstay sliding
joint plates were present, and second,
a case where these plates were removed
(Figure 4). In evaluating these scenarios, the model clearly showed that
stress worsened in the presence of the
plates.
With this new knowledge, Eskom was
able to make modifications to the boiler structure to reduce induced stress.
Plates were removed, which greatly reduced tube wall stress without compromising the integrity of the surrounding
structure.
Initial data taken following the modification indicated that strain at the locations previously susceptible to damage
had been reduced. Strain data collected
over a two-year period prior to solution
implementation was compared to data
collected after the changes. From the
time-averaged data, it was shown that
average strain and subsequent stressinduced fatigue loads have been reduced
by approximately 50%.
A Valuable Tool
The ability to eliminate, through simulation, non-contributors to failure and identify potential new failure mechanisms has
proven to be a powerful engineering tool.
The developed one-way FSI methodology
has been demonstrated to be effective
in solving problems of thermal-induced
stress fatigue loading as a result of fluidcoupled thermal flow. Obtaining a thermal
field from 3-D computational fluid dynamics, as used for structural FEA boundary
conditions, is not practical due to the size
of the problems considered. 1-D to 3-D
one-way FSI coupling is not only a feasible alternative, but it also is an effective
and efficient solution.
Similar problems have been reported
at various other Eskom power stations.
Identifying the main contributing factor to these stresses may lead to the
mitigation of numerous outages due to
tube failure repairs, which in turn will
result in a significant financial benefit
to Eskom and improved reliability for
customers.
Marius Botha and Michael P. Hindley
were members of Eskoms Research Testing and Development team tasked with
solving the plants tube failure problem.
17

Glenn S. Benson

Walker Stanovsky

Securing Pipeline
Infrastructure for GasFired Generation in
New England

ncreased reliance on natural gas as a fuel for electric generation has prompted regulatory reforms by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to improve coordination between the two industries. Many in the power industry believe
critical constraints in gas pipeline infrastructure serving New
England pose a significant threat to electric reliability and prices
during periods of peak load in this area. To address this perceived
threat, electric distribution companies (EDCs) in the region have
teamed up with Algonquin Gas Transmission on its Access Northeast pipeline project, which would carry up to 1 billion cubic
feet (Bcf) per day of Marcellus gas to the Northeast. The project
depends on an innovative but highly controversial effort to secure regulatory approvals and financing by relying on the EDCs
balance sheets and subsidization by electric ratepayers.
Approximately 16,000 MW of gas-fired generation are currently
connected to the New England market. Yet few generators have
entered into long-term firm pipeline transportation contracts to
ensure reliable supplies of gas. This means many of them may
be unable to obtain needed gas supplies on peak days or may
have to pay an exorbitant premium to get it, threatening electric
reliability in the region and stable prices for ratepayers due to
limited electric transmission import capability.
Regional grid operator ISO New England has sought to ensure
the reliability of its electric capacity resources on peak days by
adopting strict capacity performance requirements and penalties
for non-performance. This has spurred increased dual-fuel capability by new generators but not long-term firm pipeline transportation agreements. Without such contracts, pipeline projects
cannot be financed and built.

Stepping Up to the Plate


Into this void have stepped Algonquin and EDCs owned by National Grid and Eversource Energy. Despite being pure electric
distribution companies, these EDCs have taken the novel step of
signing long-term pipeline precedent agreements for capacity on
Access Northeast and requesting that their state regulators approve those contracts as benefitting the EDCs ratepayers. Algonquin, in turn, has petitioned FERC to allow EDCs who subscribe
for pipeline capacity on its system to resell that capacity, on a
preferential basis, to electric generators through state-regulated
electric reliability programsassuming states ultimately adopt
these programs. Any contract costs not recovered through such
resales would be passed through to the EDCs electric ratepayers.
Not surprisingly, these regulatory efforts face broad opposition
on a variety of grounds at both FERC and the state level. The
Electric Power Supply Association, New England Power Generators
Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, the Massachusetts
Attorney General, and a number of large electric utilities, generators, gas marketers, and gas producers oppose the proposed
18

measures, arguing, among other things, that:

Preferential releases would be unduly discriminatory and would


harm competitive markets
Access Northeast would get built regardless
New England generators do not want special treatment and can
secure reliable fuel supplies without it
The EDC contracts are legally infirm under state law
There is more than adequate gas delivery infrastructure in the
region
There is a conflict of interest because Eversource and National
Grid propose to own 60% of Access Northeast
The FERC petition is premature because the states have not yet
acted

Assuming the EDC contracts and electric reliability programs


are approved by at least some of the New England states, the
Algonquin petition would appear to present FERC with a choice
between two of its highest priorities: ensuring electric reliability and adequate pipeline infrastructure on the one hand, and
safeguarding competitive markets, policing undue discrimination, and promoting transparency on the other. Faced with this
conundrum, FERC will likely chart a middle course.

Splitting the Difference?


One such path forward would be to grant Algonquins petition
subject to conditions. FERC might require that Algonquin revise
its proposal, narrowly tailoring it to do no more than necessary to
promote electric reliability and ensuring that all of the terms under which preferential releases to generators would be conducted
are fully fleshed out in the pipelines tariff. FERC also might require that before any EDC releases its capacity to a generator for
longer than 31 days, the EDC post the capacity on Algonquins
electronic bulletin board for bidding by other generators.
This would preserve transparency and at least some measure
of competition in the capacity release market, while allowing the
EDC-supported capacity to be re-sold first to generators, as it is
on behalf of them that the EDCs are contracting. While such a
result may seem a fair compromise to some, a solution that satisfies all will almost certainly prove elusive. FERC held a technical
conference in early May on Algonquins petition and may take
its time reaching a decision in light of these issues, the pending state proceedings, and the fact that Algonquin is targeting
fourth quarter 2018 for service commencement.
Glenn S. Benson (glennbenson@dwt.com) is a partner in Davis
Wright Tremaine LLPs Energy Practice in the firms Washington,
D.C. office. Walker Stanovsky (walkerstanovsky@dwt.com) is an
associate in the firms Energy Practice, working out of the firms
Seattle office.

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

G42223/H892/R:42/X4/9822

Rugged communications
for the electric power grid
"""
Eqpvkpwqwu"qrgtcvkqp"cpf"rtqhkvcdknkv{"iq"jcpf"kp"jcpf
kp"vjg"gngevtke"rqygt"kpfwuvt{0"Pq"qpg"mpqyu"vjku"dgvvgt
vjcp"Ukgogpu<"yg"qhhgt"vjg"oquv"tgnkcdng"cpf"ghhkekgpv
wvknkv{"eqoowpkecvkqpu"uqnwvkqpu"qp"vjg"octmgv0"Qwt
TWIIGFEQO"rqtvhqnkq"kpenwfgu"rtqfwevu"vjcv"ctg"hwnn{
eqornkcpv"ykvj"KGE"83:72/5."KGGG"3835."KGGG"37::"cpf
KGE"8465;/5"uvcpfctfu0

TWIIGFEQO"uykvejgu."tqwvgtu"cpf"uqhvyctg"uqnwvkqpu"
ygtg"fgukipgf"ykvj"vjg"wvknkv{"gpxktqpogpv"kp"okpf"vq"
gpuwtg"tgnkcdng"eqoowpkecvkqpu"wpfgt"cp{"eqpfkvkqpu"
vjcv"cp"KGF"ecp"uwtxkxg0
Eqorgvgpeg"kp"kpfwuvtkcn"pgvyqtmu0

ukgogpu0eqo1eqoowpkecvkqpu/hqt/gngevtke/rqygt
CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Generators Grapple with ELG


Implementation

Courtesy: RoyalBroil/Wikipedia/Creative Commons 4.0

Plant wastewater treatment is not what it once was, and changes in the Environmental Protection Agencys effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) have added a host
of new wrinkles. A panel of power plant experts discussed what plant managers are
planning and doing to keep things running smoothly within the new rules.
Thomas W. Overton

or more than three decades, the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs)


Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (or effluent limitation guidelines, ELGs), which govern wastewater discharges from electric power plants, were a
fixed, known quantity. The last update was in
1982. But in the 2000s, the EPA began looking at an update, a process that took more
than 10 years of study and comment. The
final rule, finalized in September 2015, is
long and complex, setting the stage for a lot
of confusion and uncertainty. (For more on
the specifics of ELG compliance, see Take
These Five Steps Now to Ensure ELG Compliance at Your Power Plant in the December 2015 issue.)
What does this mean for generators?
The answer will no doubt evolve over time,
but the new rule has a lot of people concerned. In February 2016, a group of power
sector environmental experts representing
20

both generators and consulting firms convened at the Energy, Utility, and Environment Conference in San Diego to offer
their early thoughts on compliance with the
updated rule.

Where to Start?

1. A time for change. Westar Energy is


transitioning its coal fleet, including the 2,155MW Jeffery Energy Center in St. Marys, Kan.
(which was POWERs 2014 Water Award winner) toward compliance with new rules for
disposal of wastewater and coal combustion
residuals. Courtesy: Westar Energy

Not surprisingly, most generators have already begun compliance efforts, work that
began even before the rule was final. Further, its well understood that ELG compliance will be intimately related to compliance
with the new Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR) rule (see Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Compliance Strategies in the June
2016 issue or at powermag.com. Bill Skalitzky, manager of generation compliance
for Alliant Energy, noted that his company
has already gone ahead and dredged out an
ash pond at a plant that had been converted
to natural gas. So we already have one of
our ponds secured and closed. Were lookwww.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
ing at a lot of different methods, ranging
from excavating to enclosure; weve been
planning for a few years now.
Jared Morrison, manager, water & wastewater programs for Westar Energy, also
said, Weve been planning for that for quite
some time. But he noted that first steps
varied across different plants (Figure 1). I
think the first activity was trying to understand how we can close surface impoundments and how we can clean them. That
was the biggest issue at those sites. At other
sites, the first activity was understanding the
water balances.
Compliance with the ELGs will require
some substantial lead times for both equipment and the time needed to install it, the
speakers notedin the range of 12 to 18
months.
There are some risks associated with
that, Morrison said, and we are seeing
those lead times get longer and longer.
Though there is a natural impulse to
want to delay capital expenditures, doing
so is risky. Where it is necessary, Block
Andrews, director of strategic environmental solutions for Burns & McDonnell,
recommended working closely with regulators, so they understand your side of
the story.

2. A big zero. The zero-liquid-discharge system supplied by Aquatech for Southern Co.s
Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant in Mississippi uses a combination of ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, conventional demineralization, and thermal evaporation.
Courtesy: Aquatech

3. Just the beginning. Though typical flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater treatment systems produce a certain amount of effluent, as shown here, changes in the Effluent
Limitations Guidelines are creating pressure on generators to move to full zero-liquid-discharge
systems. Source: Siemens

Groundwater Monitoring
The groundwater monitoring required by the
CCR rule can help with ELG compliance,
several noted. Skalitzky said Alliant is installing monitoring equipment at several of
its sites in Wisconsin. We already have some
groundwater monitoring data for constituents
of concern.
Morrison said Westar has been aggressive in assessing its surface impoundments
and installing monitoring equipment.
Those areas where we felt we were at a
pretty high risk of having some sort of hit
that would trigger closure, we went ahead
and closed those prior to the deadline.
Only the impoundments that were viewed
as low risk remained open. We felt that if
they did have an issue, we could respond
quickly to cease using those within six
months. Those impoundments, he said,
were mainly bottom ash.
With respect to groundwater monitoring, Morrison said they have a lot of partial historical data that may or may not
be current because of past monitoring for
various reasons. Were installing wells
today so that we can start our background
samples this year, he said.

Equipment Challenges
Both rules provide pressure to move to bottom ash handling systems that are either

July 2016 POWER

OrganoAlkali sulfide

Ferric
chloride

Polymer

Hydrochloric
acid

FGD purge from


hydroclones

Treated
wastewater
Clarification
Equalization

RX1

RX2
Recycle sludge

Gravity
filtration

(to discharge and


also used for
backwash)

Sludge
Dewatering

Sludge
tank
Filtrate
sump

completely dry or that use mechanical dewatering. But there is concern about the industrys ability to produce and deploy such
systems in time.
Honestly, this is a concern, Andrews said.
I dont know how many utilities are going to
be approaching these projects, but there is a
limited capacity to address them, maybe 10 or
15 spots in a year, maybe 20, but the suppliers
will need to ramp up to do that. Well see them
step up to the plate, but I would certainly state
that we will see some delays.
www.powermag.com

Filtrate
Backwash reject

Cake

Andrews noted a trend toward zero-liquid


discharge (ZLD, Figure 2) was on the way,
but not many people have gone that direction yet.
That would probably not be something
you would be looking at if youve got a pretty
large body of water to deal with. Its going to
be the people on the smaller side.
Skalitsky noted that maintenance of
submerged drag chain systems was a major challenge. Were definitely looking
toward a dry system, he said, mentioning
21

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
wear and tear on the drag chains and the
availability of replacement parts. Weve
looked at a number of things, and in most
cases were going to try to move toward a
totally dry system.
Morrison agreed. The ash transport systems
require a lot of maintenance. Its not something
you enjoy dealing with, he said. We will evaluate the dry system, and if its feasible economically, we will move forward on it.

Labor and Outage Impacts


Another concern was the added training that
will be necessary for operators of new ashhandling and biological treatment systems.
The limited number of existing systems
means a limited talent pool to draw on, and
biological treatment requires a skill set not all
plant operators will possess.
There are just not a lot of biological
treatment systems out there, Morrison said.
Keeping the bugs happy, it is going to take
someone with some knowledge of chemistry. It works, but you have to have someone
who is well trained and really watching the
systems to make sure its operating. Its just
additional operators with experience on those
systems.
Skalitzky noted that conversion need not

require a lot of outage time where its possible to prefabricate many of the components.
On one unit, Edgewater Generating Station
(shown in the header photo), he said, We
anticipate its going to take about three days
of changing out some pumps to convert to a
dry system.
Different planning is needed to get various
wastewater streams (for example, from the
flue gas desulfurizer, FGD, Figure 3) segregated so they can be managed under both sets
of rules.
Were looking at putting in some kind
of tank system where we can collect all this
water from the FGDs and utilizing that water back into the scrubber, Skalitsky said.
Were trying to get down, as best we can, to
a zero-liquid discharge, especially on some
of the plants where we have restrictive water
quality systems.
Morrison noted that managing and monitoring these systems requires a lot more attention to minutiae like water flow rates in
the ash-handling system. Thats not historically something that was built in as a concern
at our facilities.

Operational Impacts
Adapting to new methods of handling waste-

water takes time and effort, and getting to


smooth operations is a lengthy, ongoing process, Morrison said. It takes time to train
people, it takes time to get them up to speed.
All of these are significant issues.
Skalitsky said most of Alliants plants
have wastewater operators in place, but additional hiring is likely to be necessary. Because Wisconsin requires these staff to be
certified for managing wastewater, that creates an additional step for new staff that may
be needed for the new systems. Were going
to have to have those operators certified for
those type of operations.
Morrison said Westar has had to reach
out beyond its existing staff to manage these
new challenges. While they have chemists
on staff, they did not have the specific expertise necessary to manage wastewater
chemistry and had to bring in an outside
expert. We were missing that knowledge
in the company, so we had to go and find
that expertise. That has been a challenge. It
is hard to rely on an external company to do
that for you. We need the same consistent
presence on a day-to-day basis. Its not really the best situation.

Thomas W. Overton, JD is a POWER


associate editor.

Platts World
Electric Power
Plants Database
Need a global inventory of electric power generating
units? Platts World Electric Power Plants Database
contains design speci cations for more than
200,000 plants of all sizes, technologies, fuels
and operating status owned and/or operated by
regulated utilities, private power companies, and
industrial autoproducers.
Visit www.udidata.com for more information.

22

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

OCTOBER 46
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA
SHANGRI-LA HOTEL

EARLY BIRD RATE ENDS JULY 29!


Content | Networking | Solutions
Gain Education & Insight from Leading Power Generators:
How to Build Success into EPC Contracting
Fuel Switching from Bituminous to Sub-Bituminous Coal
Technical Development & Application of Coal Ash Recycling Resources
Comprehensive Approach to Reduce Emissions and Increase Capacity and Efciency
And More!

Networking & Solutions


Connect with 150+ plant managers, plant supervisors, maintenance teams, engineers
and more during networking sessions, receptions and conference sessions
Opportunity for one-on-one conversations with industry
suppliers that have the solutions your plant needs
Hear from peers and gain insight and solutions that have been
applied and received positive results at their plants

Register with code PWRJULY by July 29th to


save $200

off the full conference rate!

www.coalpowerasia.com
28225

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Evaluating the Use of CEMS for


Accurate Heat Rate Monitoring
and Reporting

Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

Power plants are familiar with using continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) to monitor pollutants, but these devices also may be able to measure
heat ratewhich could be handy for future compliance with the Clean Power
Plan.
Sam Korellis and Chuck Dene

ontinuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are used to monitor


power plant flue gas emissions as a
means to comply with federal and state air
emission standards. Through various methods, they determine the concentration and
amount of key emissions, including nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen chloride, particulate matter, mercury, and volatile organic
compounds (Figure 1).
CEMS are required in all U.S. fossil-fired
plants greater than 25 MW. They are a mature
technology, and most have been widely used
for more than 20 years.
The CEMS data provides an official record
of the key power plant flue gas emissions.
In the U.S., this data is reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plant
owners/operators are required to maintain the
systems and ensure that results meet the letter
of the law. A portion of that requirement is to
24

conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit


(RATA) to determine the status and ability of
the CEMS to comply with EPA requirements.

More Than Emissions


In addition to emissions, CEMS also provide a
value for boiler heat inputand, therefore, very
easily permit the determination of heat rate.
Heat rate is a key measure of power plant
efficiency. It is the ratio of heat input and
power output. The lower the heat rate, the
better the efficiency.
Measurement of heat rate is likely to become a critical issue in the coming years, because the Clean Power Plan, finalized by the
EPA in 2015, will rely, in part, on coal plant
heat rate improvements to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing the amount of fuel burned.
The EPA is anticipated to use the heat input
values reported by power plants CEMS to
determine if the plants have reduced their
heat rates to the required levels.
www.powermag.com

The ability to accurately measure the two


key parameters to the heat rate equation
the flue gas CO2 concentration and the stack
volumetric flow ratewill thus be of key
importance.
However, determination of heat input for
solid fuel power plants is difficult to measure
directly with sufficient accuracy because coal
flow is difficult to measure. That coal flow
rate is the key parameter in the determination
of the heat portion of heat rate. Coal constituents do not remain constant over time, especially for plants that blend coal from different
sources. Therefore, the real-time measurement of coal heating value becomes another
important parameter with a one-to-one effect
on heat input.
Many plants have instrumentation and
monitoring systems sufficient to determine
boiler heat output (and turbine performance)
on a continuous basis, but very few have the
capability of accurately determining boiler

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. A continuous emissions monitoring system. Courtesy: EPRI

efficiency on a continuous basis, which


would be needed to complete the heat rate
calculation. One method of accurately determining boiler efficiency, the heat loss method, requires installation and maintenance of
instrumentation to sample gas concentration
and temperature at the air heater inlet and
outlet. However, adequate sampling grids are
expensive to install and difficult to maintain.
CEMS, which are capable of measuring
the concentration of CO2 in the stack gas
and calculating the flow rate of the exhaust
gas, have the potential to offer an alternative
method for a real-time (continuous) unit heat
rate calculation without additional instruments or labor-intensive processes.
The issue with CEMS, though, is that the
accuracy required for a meaningful heat rate
value is much tighter than current CEMS
practices. With typical uncertainties greater
than 5%, CEMS could not be used to identify
a heat rate change of 2% to 4%, which will
potentially be required by the Clean Power
Plan (assuming it survives the current legal
challenges).

Understanding the Uncertainty of


CEMS Heat Rate Measurements
Over the last several years, researchers at
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
have conducted several studies to identify the
technology gaps and to propose and evaluate
actions required to use CEMS for heat rate
monitoring. These studies have sought to
better understand the current uncertainty of
CEMS measurements and the drivers of the
differences in uncertainty between CEMS
and a precision boiler efficiency test.
In 2014, EPRI and a member utility conducted a series of precision performance tests

July 2016 POWER

at the members 350-MW coal-fired unit to


investigate how accurately the actual boiler
heat input could be determined when quality,
nonbiased CEMS data are available. First, a
series of boiler efficiency test runs were undertaken to calculate boiler efficiency and net
unit heat rate by methods based on ASMEs
Performance Test Codes (PTC) 4 and 46.
Then, the values calculated from the test results were compared to those obtained from
the CEMS. The tests were conducted at full,
medium, and minimum loadapproximately
the same unit load levels utilized for the most
recent RATA testing at this unit.
The results were further refined through
the calculation of uncertainty of the boiler
efficiency and heat rate calculated by each
method. These uncertainty calculations were
performed by methods described in ASME
PTC 19.1, Test Uncertainty.
For the full-load test, gross heat rate calculated by the CEMS method was slightly
higher than with the PTC 46 method. For the
medium-load test, the heat rate was almost
equal for the CEMS and PTC 46 methods.
With the minimum-load test, the heat rate for
the CEMS method was much lower than for
the PTC 46 method. The reasons behind the
non-predictable differences in heat rate were
not identified.
The uncertainty analysis showed that the

surement uncertainty was the measurement


of stack gas flow rate.

Best Practices Guideline


To address this issue, in 2015, EPRI developed a best practices guide to improve the
accuracy of the measurement of stack gas
flow rate.
The project team sought to evaluate available information on the performance of CO2
CEMS and continuous flow monitors, and
to identify the uncertainty and biases of
measurement system parameters with the
greatest effect on measurement data quality.
Then, using the knowledge gained regarding the uncertainty and biases of the system
parameters, the project aimed to recommend
enhancements to the operation, calibration,
maintenance, and auditing of these systems
that would extend the usefulness of the
CEMS and flow monitors to provide a primary means of unit heat rate determination.
In support of this effort, EPRI developed
a multi-faceted approach to identify the state
of current industry best practices as well as
a methodology for achieving reduced uncertainty in the measurements. The approach
involved conducting an open literature
search pertaining to CEMS operation; contacting end-users for supplemental information regarding CEMS operation, calibration,

The key contributor to the high measurement uncertainty was the measurement of
stack gas flow rate.

uncertainty of the boiler efficiency value


using the CEMS method was greater than
5%, compared to an uncertainty of 0.29%
using the ASME PTC 4 test method. Improvements in the accuracy of the CEMS
could greatly reduce the uncertainty, but the
uncertainty of boiler efficiency determined
by this method is dependent on both the accuracy of the CEMS measurements and the
instrumentation used to measure the heat
output of the boiler.
While this plant site operated and maintained its CEMS beyond the minimum EPA
requirements, the large differences in results
and the uncertainties of the results strengthened the notion that CEMS could not be used
to monitor or report heat rate with confidence. The key contributor to the high meawww.powermag.com

tune-ups, and maintenance practices; determining industry best practices related to


pre-RATA flow monitor calibrations, reference methods used, and pre-RATA adjustments; summarizing the effects of different
reference method practices on measurement
uncertainty; and establishing target uncertainties and identifying whether the instrumentation can achieve these.
A model was developed to estimate the
uncertainty contributions for the heat rate
calculation. The model allows estimation
of the uncertainties of the various measurements used to calculate a unit heat rateas
well as hourly heat input, including flue gas
flow rate, flue gas CO2 concentration, the
carbon-based fuel factor, and the power output (Figure 2). The model then propagated
25

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2. Flue gas sample ports and probe. Courtesy: EPRI

rate values. The additional effort needed to


comply with the best practices was not considered significant and could be achieved at
most sites.
Continuing this study, researchers conducted an enhanced CEMS audit test
which they nicknamed super RATAto
calculate correction factors to be applied to
the values of the flow and CO2 concentration reported by the CEMS. This enhanced
RATA measurement was performed using
best practices for minimizing the uncertainty
of CO2 and flow measurements. The precision heat rate testing was conducted immediately thereafter, again in full compliance with
ASME PTC 4 and 46.
The uncertainties were calculated for
the boiler efficiency and heat rate values determined by each method using the
methods described in ASME PTC 19.1,
Test Uncertainty. The gross heat rate value
calculated by the CEMS method, after applying the correction factors for flow and
CO2 concentration, was compared to that
determined via the precision test (PTC 46)
method for all test runs.
The heat rate indications obtained from
the CEMS and those obtained through precision testing were comparable. The difference in those values was smaller than the
uncertainty determined for the measurements conducted by either method. (See
Stack Flow and CO2 Reference Method
Measurements for Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Heat Rate
Determination: Application of Best Practices, EPRI report no. 3002007186, and
Evaluation of the Application of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems for
Boiler and Heat Rate Monitoring, EPRI
report no. 3002007187.)

Ongoing Work
these individual measurement uncertainties
to the final heat rate result. The results of the
model were used to focus the best practices
guide on the areas responsible for the largest
contributions to uncertainty.
Project results were reported in a best
practices guide for operating, calibrating,
and maintaining a CO2 CEMS and associated
flow monitors to provide the highest degree
of data accuracy practical with currently
available instrumentation and hardware.
Recommendations are included on sampling
systems; analyzers; calibration gases; instrument types, calibration, and placement; stack
diameter determination; and RATA test techniques. (See A Best Practices Guideline for
Understanding and Minimizing Uncertainty
in CO2 and Stack Flow Measurements, EPRI
report no. 3002006147.)

26

Application of Best Practices


Subsequently, a further study applied the best
practices for CEMs RATA reference methods
to a full-scale CEMS heat rate measurement
on a 670-MW coal-fired utility boiler.
The host site had an optimal CEMS system that greatly exceeded EPA requirements.
The CEMS installation location for this site
was also near ideal with respect to flow, and
the CO2 instrumentation was well calibrated.
The guidelines promulgated in the EPRI
best practices guide were followed in the
preparations for and the execution of a special
RATA test. The sampling, analytical, quality
assurance, and quality control procedures followed during the RATA program were above
and beyond the minimum EPA requirements.
The study findings demonstrated that very
good relative accuracy can be obtained, improving the uncertainty of the CEMS heat
www.powermag.com

In 2016, to further optimize the process and


fully understand the best possible uncertainty, an intense lab calibration of the flow
measurement equipment will be done at vendor and National Institute of Standards and
Technology facilities. Those calibrations will
permit EPRI and its members to better understand the costs and time involved to further
reduce the measurement uncertainty associated with stack gas flow measurements.
Plans are to use these optimally calibrated
instruments during another super-RATA to
quantify any improvements in flow measurement and unit heat input.

Sam Korellis, PE (skorellis@epri.com) is


a principal project manager of EPRIs Heat
Rate Improvement program. Chuck Dene
(cdene@epri.com) is a principal project
manager in EPRIs Integrated Environmental Controls Program.

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Simplify MATS Compliance with


Particulate Matter Continuous
Emission Monitors

Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

Now that power plant operators have some experience under their belts related
to Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) compliance, its time to reevaluate
the options for demonstrating compliance.
Rick J. Krenzke

tarting with the Clean Air Act of 1970


and its updates, compliance for utility and industry stationary sources has
only increased in complexity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has targeted
many industries that emit criteria pollutants
and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and has
written regulations to ensure that affected
industries control the release of pollutants
by implementing the most effective control
technologies.
Most recently, the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards, known as MATS, has been added
to the list of regulations. MATS establishes
emission limits for three HAP categories:
mercury, non-mercury metals, and acid gases. Importantly, particulate matter (PM) is a
surrogate for non-mercury metals.
This article focuses on the EPAs requirement for Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) as it applies to electric
generating units (EGUs). An EGU must demonstrate compliance with the MATS limits,
and MATS offers options for demonstrating
compliance. An EGU can use continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or a
combination of CEMS and periodic testing
using conventional reference methods. By
understanding these options, source owners
can implement strategies that allow facilities
to set their source-specific operating limit

July 2016 POWER

closer to their PM compliance limit, which


will help limit the risk of noncompliance.
MATS was promulgated in February 2012
and the industry had three years to demonstrate compliance (with a possible one-year
extension in some cases). Coal- and oilfired source operators had to analyze the
regulations and define a strategy for mercury,
non-mercury HAP metals, and acid gases
compliance, based on the type of existing
equipment they operated and the potential for
add-on abatement equipment.
When considering non-mercury metal
HAPs, the choice of PM as a surrogate simplified the strategy for many sources. Given
that many PM monitor vendors were developing monitors to comply with this new regulation and historic data using PM monitors
for compliance demonstration purposes in
the U.S. was limited, many source owners
defaulted to the quarterly PM stack testing
option until PM monitor data, history, and
resources could be researched.
Now, four years into the MATS compliance
era, enough historic data and improved monitors exist to potentially change the PM compliance strategy to one that uses a PM monitor
instead of quarterly PM stack testing.

als limits, an EGU can conduct quarterly


manual reference method testing for metals
or manual reference method testing for PM,
the surrogate for non-mercury metal HAPs.
Alternately, if the EGU chooses to use PM
as a surrogate, it can install a continuous PM
monitor and operate it as either a CEMS or
a continuous parametric monitoring system
(CPMS).
If the PM monitor is operated as CEMS,
a correlation curve must be generated by
statistically comparing CEMS data to reference method data as set forth in Performance
Specification 11. If the PM monitor is operated as a CPMS, reference method PM testing is used to demonstrate compliance with
the MATS PM limits at normal operation.
The response of the PM monitor that corresponds to this reference method PM testing is recorded and is considered to be the
source-specific operating limit. As long as
the 30-day rolling average output of the PM
monitor stays below the source-specific operating limit, the source is considered in compliance with MATS for non-mercury metal
HAPs using PM as a surrogate.

CEMS vs. CPMS

Pollutant monitors play a critical role in


demonstrating
continuous
compliance.

To comply with the non-mercury HAP metwww.powermag.com

The Changing Role of Pollutant


Monitors

27

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Table 1. Summary of PM measurement options. Source: TRC Companies Inc.
Options
Quarterly stack monitoring

PM CEMS: full continuous


emissions monitoring system
calibrated by a correlation
curve (PS-11)

PM CPMS: continuous parameter monitoring system

Pros
No initial capital expense for
PM monitor and installation. No
maintenance costs.

Can only see a snapshot of emissions once per quarter. It can be


challenging to schedule emission
testing firm during busy seasons.
Do not know results until a week
after the testing is complete.

Continuous data and can be used


over full calibration range, so
operating limit is the MATS PM
allowable.

Correlation testing (calibrating


monitor) can be difficult on highly
controlled sources. Have to conduct
tests over three distinct emission
levels. Correlation testing can be
expensive, especially if PM spiking
is necessary.

Continuous data and the correlation


testing (setting the source-specific
operating limit) is comparatively
easy.

These monitors, based on a range of analytical detection technologies, can qualify and
quantify target compounds, and when quality assurance and maintenance procedures
for the systems are defined, they can provide
defensible emissions data.
Gaseous monitors are the most common
CEMS, but recent technological advances

Cons

The source-specific operation limit


will always be set below the MATS
PM limit, so the source will not
have as much flexibility in emission
variation before corrective actions
must be taken.

have expanded the availability of PM monitors beyond those used to measure opacity.
Importantly, modern PM monitors can express PM emissions as a concentration, thus
allowing comparison to a PM emissions
limit.
Heres a condensed timeline of PM monitoring development:

1950s and 1960s: The Germans pioneered and began studying PM detection
technologies.
1970s: PM technologies came to the U.S.
in the form of opacity monitors. Opacity
was considered a surrogate for PM and
Performance Specification 1 (also known
as PS1) was promulgated in 1975.
1996: The Hazardous Waste Combustion
MACT rule was the first to require the use
of PM monitors. The need for a performance specification to validate PM monitor data was proposed (PS-11).
1999: The Portland Cement MACT standard mandated PM monitors, but not until
PS-11 was promulgated (2004).
2012: MATS was promulgated, allowing certain PM CEMS detection technologies for filterable particulate matter
(FPM) compliance demonstrations. The
PM monitors could be used as a true PM
CEMS or PM CPMS.

PM monitoring technologies include: light


scattering, beta attenuation (the two most
commonly deployed technologies), probe
electrification, optical scintillation, and light
extinction. From these measurement technologies and the diligent work of instrument
vendors, today PM monitors can detect and
indicate changes in the amount of FPM in
exhaust gases and are accurate and durable
enough to be utilized as CEMS.
Unlike traditional gaseous monitors, PM
monitors cannot be calibrated like a CEMS
that measures gaseous pollutants. Instead of
using calibration gases, the monitor output
signal must be correlated to a physical PM
measurement that is obtained using an EPA
reference method stack test for PM.
In general, the PM detection principle is a
function of the size, shape, color, concentration, and material of the PM and is therefore
source specific. Accordingly, PM monitors
must be evaluated for each source over a
range of operating conditions. Furthermore,
PM monitors are different from traditional
gaseous monitors.
Its important to note that MATS allows
choices in how the PM monitor can be used.
When the regulation was first enacted, power
companies had to quickly choose a compliance strategy. Among the choices were
the use of a PM monitor as a full CEMS or
the use of a PM monitor as a CPMS. Now,
with the experience gained through various
approaches, the time is right to revisit compliance demonstration strategies using continuous PM monitors as CEMS or CPMS.

Three Options
Table 1 details the three options for power
CIRCLE 10 ON READER SERVICE CARD
28

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Table 2. Range of costs for purchasing and maintaining PM systems.
Source: TRC Companies Inc.
Option
Quarterly stack monitoring

Using PM as a surrogate for


non-mercury (Hg) metals hazardous air pollutants (HAPS),
installing a PM monitor, and
using it as a continuous emission monitor (CEMS). Use of
monitor as CEMS would require
certification (correlation curve)
by PS-12.

Using PM as a surrogate for


non-Hg metals HAPS, installing a PM monitor and using
it as a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS).
Use of monitor as CPMS would
require setting a source-specific operating limit (monitor
output signal) that would not be
exceeded by the 30-day rolling
average output.

Task

Cost

Using PM as a surrogate for non-Hg


metals HAPs

$7K$10K per quarter

Testing for total non-Hg metals


HAPS or individual non-Hg metals
HAPs

$15K$18K per quarter

Purchase and install PM monitor

Depends on type of monitor and


installation contractor

Annual PM monitor maintenance

Depends on type of monitor and


plant maintenance crew

Develop PS-12 correlation curve $24K$30K, assuming the three


(minimum of 15 test runs across specific grain loading conditions
three specific grain loading condi- can be easily provided
tions)
Fly ash spiking to generate grain
loading conditions needed to build a
correlation curve that meets PS-12
guidelines

$50K$100K, depending on how


many attempts are made at generating the required grain loading
condition

Annual Relative Response Audit


(RRA). The RRA is three test runs
to determine compliance with the
MATS limits and determine if the
resulting PM is still predicted accurately by the correlation curve.

$7K$10K

Purchase and install PM monitor

Depends on type of monitor and installation contractor

Annual PM monitor maintenance

Depends on type of monitor and


plant maintenance crew

Initial testing to determine compli- $7K$10K


ance with MATS and set the sourcespecific operating limit

plant operators to consider with respect to


demonstrating compliance with the nonmercury metal HAP limit using PM as a
surrogate.
Most have followed periodic manual testing or the use of a PM continuous monitor
as a PM CEMS. But the time has come to
take another look at the overlooked option of
using a PM continuous monitor in a CPMS
mode.
Whats needed to get started?
To begin, the facility must determine
the PM limit from MATS. PM limits vary
based on fuel type and whether the source
is new or existing. MATS allows PM to be
measured and reported in lb/MMBtu or
lb/MWh, and the EGU should select the

most favorable reporting option. The facility will then need to conduct performance
testing using EPA Reference Methods to
demonstrate compliance with the MATS
PM emission limit.
The next step is to establish a source-specific operating limit. To do this, the facility
will need to perform the following tasks:

Conduct a performance test.


Record all CPMS output values (milliamps or other signal).
Determine 1-hour average CPMS output
readings (milliamps) during the performance test. (Note: If you perform three
3-hour test runs, you generate nine 1-hour
CPMS averages.)
www.powermag.com

Set a source-specific operating limit based


on these results.
Operate and maintain equipment to
achieve a 30-day PM CPMS average that
does not exceed the established operating
limit. (MATS allows the monitor output
signal that correlates to the highest 1-hour
CPMS output for existing units only; for
new EGUs it is the average output.)
Reset the source-specific operating limit
annually.

The mechanism selected for determining


the source-specific operating limit will depend on the results of the performance tests.
Once again, the source has choices. Under
MATS, if a PM monitor is being used as a
CPMS, setting the source-specific operating
limit is different for a new source than it is for
an existing source. For a new source, if the
performance tests indicate PM emissions are
less than 75% of the MATS limit, the sourcespecific operating limit can be extrapolated
to equal 75% of the MATS limit. Only new
sources are eligible for this extrapolation.
If the performance test results are greater
than or equal to 75% of the MACT limit, the
average PM CPMS output value (milliamps)
will be the source-specific operating limit.
If the 30-day rolling average output of the
PM CPMS exceeds the source-specific operating limit, the source must take corrective
actions as follows:

Annual testing to determine com- $7K$10K


pliance with MATS and reset the
source-specific operating limit
If source exceeds the source-spe- $7K$10K
cific operating limit with the 30-day
rolling monitor output and corrective action is needed, the source
will need to conduct testing to determine compliance with MATS and
reset the source-specific operating
limit

July 2016 POWER

Within 48 hours of an exceedance, a visual inspection of the air pollution control


device (APCD) must be performed. If the
inspection identifies the cause, corrective
action must be taken and the PM CPMS
must be returned to operation.
Within 30 days of the exceedance, or at
the time of the annual performance (compliance) tests, whichever comes first, a
PM performance test must be conducted
to demonstrate compliance with the PM
MACT limit and to reestablish the sourcespecific operating limit.
The compliance demonstration and reset
of the operating limit must be implemented within 45 days of the exceedance.
Additional testing is not required for any
exceedance that occurs between the initial
exceedance and the performance test triggered by that exceedance.

Before devising a strategy for setting


source-specific operating limits make sure
you:

Apply the proper PM MACT limit based


on the source type.
Have an instrument that indicates the presence of and changes in PM in the exhaust.
29

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Understand the ways to establish the PM


CPMS operating limits.
Understand what triggers corrective action.
Understand how operational variables affect PM emissions (PM CPMS output).
Are aware that operating limits are reset
every year or when an exceedance occurs.

Using measurement results and whats


known about the effects of unit operation on

(new or existing units), this is the operating limit. It may be useful to adjust operating parameters to produce PM emissions
closer to the MATS limit.
If the PM performance test results are below but close or equal to 75% of MACT
limit (new units only are candidates for
extrapolation), there may be no benefit
to extrapolating to 75%. It may be useful
to adjust operating parameters to produce

PM monitors must be evaluated for each


source over a range of operating conditions.
the CPMS output, source owners can develop
a strategy for setting source-specific operating limits that provide the facility with the
most flexibility to operate the source.
The strategy selected will depend on how
close emissions are to the PM MATS limit
under normal operations. As an example, the
following scenarios could shape the strategy for setting the source-specific operating
limit:

If the PM performance test results are


above or equal to 75% of MACT limit

PM emissions closer to the MATS limit.


If the PM performance test results are well
below the 75% of MACT limit, extrapolate
to 75% (if the unit is a candidate) or adjust
operating parameters to produce PM emissions closer to the MATS limits when setting the source-specific operating limit.

Many source owners set the source-specific operating limits near the MACT limit
because it provides more room for operational variations, reduces the need for APCD
maintenance, and can avoid costly corrective

FIRE YOUR WAY TO TOP


PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY

QUICK SHOT QS-300


A better solution for your surface condenser cleaning

The QUICK SHOT QS-300 offers a power-assisted trigger and ergonomic design
that obliterates tube deposits on contact, leaving condenser tubes spotless and
immediately increasing heat exchange eficiency and performance.
Naturally, its from Goodway.

CALL 888-364-7745

action exercises. But this can lead to complications.


For example, when annual compliance
and operational limit reset time comes
around, this strategy relies on being able
to set the unit near the same emission rate
(same monitor output) for each annual test.
If the PM CPMS calibration (correlation
between the monitor output and the actual
PM emission rate) stays the same, this is
not an issue, but if it changes, there is a
chance that the facility will fail the performance test.
This strategy usually requires some inhouse or preliminary PM testing to verify or
confirm that the PM CPMS output as compared to actual PM emission limits is still accurate, especially if the target is a value very
near the MACT limit.

Cost Comparison
In addition to compliance risk, its also important to understand the costs associated
with each of the three approaches described.
Table 2 provides a comparison of the three
options for demonstrating compliance with
the PM standard.
Each of these approaches has advantages
and disadvantages that must be considered
when determining a MATS compliance
strategy. Working with an expert air pollution monitoring firm allows fossil fuelfired
power generators to develop a compliance
strategy based on sound measurement data.
Prudent power generators will capitalize on
the choice that the MATS regulations provide
when determining compliance. The source
can select a surrogate for a class of HAPs
(acid gases and non-Hg HAP metal). The
source can then choose if it wants to comply
by using manual testing methods or a pollutant monitor and, in the case of using PM as
a surrogate for non-Hg metals and using a
PM monitor to demonstrate compliance, the
owner can choose how to use the PM monitoras a CEMS or a CPMS.
The success of any compliance strategy is
proven over time. As more data are generated
and operators understand how fuel variations
and operating parameter changes affect the
compliance status of a unit, the compliance approach and strategy for a facility will be refined.
The U.S. industrial and regulatory communities are investing heavily in the goal
of reducing power plant HAP emissions
through MATS. This investment and subsequent operating history may be creating the
road map for other countries to accomplish
the same goals.

Rick Krenzke (rkrenzke@trcsolutions.


com) is a project director in TRC Companies Inc.s Air Measurement Services
Practice in Austin, Texas.

www.goodway.com
CIRCLE 11 ON READER SERVICE CARD
30

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Emissions Catalyst Issues for


Fast-Start Combined Cycle Power
Plants
Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

When gas-fired plants are required to cycle more than they were designed for,
added stress on plant components isnt the only consequence. You also
need to pay closer attention to turbine catalyst systems.
David S. Moelling, PE and Daniel W. Ott
Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

raditionally, many combined cycle gas


turbine (CCGT) power plant units were
designed and permitted for a baseload or
similar operating profile. Startups and shutdowns were expected but typically were in the
tens per year. These were often an equal combination of cold, warm, and hot starts.
Lower total demand in many markets,
coupled with higher fuel prices, resulted in
many units needing to change to two-shift
cycling service. Plants would shut down for
a few hours overnight and then start to meet
daytime loads. Units with 200 to 250 starts
per year were not uncommon.
Not only did frequent starts stress plant
systems and components with respect to thermal loads, but operational issues such as control of steam temperatures and water and gas
side chemistry also became more difficult.
Furthermore, regulators began to pay more
attention to higher stack emissions during
frequent startups. More recently, higher use
of renewables such as wind and solar generation created a demand for fast-responding
backup and reserve capacity.
In response, suppliers began to offer
fast-start CCGT plants to meet this demand
with equipment specifically designed for
fast start and loading. Existing plants began
to implement extended range burners in the
GT systems so that lower unit loads could be
maintained while in emissions compliance.
Some plants could shift from two-shift cycling to a low-load parking condition.
Figure 1 compares the operating profile of
a conventional combined cycle baseload unit
with that of a modern cycling unit.
Figure 2 shows operating data for a large
combined cycle frame turbine unit. Load

July 2016 POWER

swings of 50% in less than 30 minutes are


common several times each day to meet demand requirements. Also common are daily
shutdowns during periods of low demand, often during daytime hours, when renewable energy such as solar is available or at night when
combined heat and power demand is reduced.

Key Features of Fast-Start and


Extended Range CCGT Plants
Fast-start plants rely on rapid start and loading
of the GT to reach full power as well as compliant emissions status for the combustors.
This rapid loading puts large amounts of hot
gas into a relatively hot/warm/cold heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The HRSG then
begins to increase steam pressure and flow
with heat-up. This flow increase lags the GT
ramps and challenges the limits on pressure
rise in the high-pressure steam system. Both
flow and temperature of the produced steam
are controlled/bypassed to meet the initial
conditions of the steam turbine startup.
The turbine exhaust gas (TEG) conditions from the turbines reflect the lower efficiency at part loads with higher exhaust
temperatures. These temperatures can make
it difficult to control steam temperatures with
sprays or other attemperation methods such
as steam bypass or dilution air.
For recirculating evaporator plants with
steam drums, pressure ramps are typically
set by the allowed thermal stress imposed on
the steam drum. High-pressure (HP) steam
drums can be from 5 to 7 inches thick, depending on size and maximum design pressures. This thick steel wall can easily have
large thermal stresses as the interior surface
heats up or cools down. Control of pressure
www.powermag.com

by bypass or other venting is the method of


moderating the thermal stress. Lower pressures produce lower saturation temperatures,
which result in lower TEG temperatures at
the NOx catalysts. This tends to produce a
temperature lag at the catalyst during startup.
For HRSGs with once-through HP steam
generators, feedwater flows once through economizer, evaporator, and superheater segments of
the same tube flow path. There is less thermal
mass in the HP evaporator segments and no
steam drum. Fast-start plants often use oncethrough sections for this reason. For these plants,
temperatures at the NOx catalysts approach target temperatures faster during startups.

Low-Load Parking Plants


Most CCGT units with new extended range
turbine systems can decrease GT load to
about 40% of full power. TEG temperatures
are often greater at the inlet to the HRSG,
but mass flow is considerably reduced.
Drum pressures are usually regulated at the
floor pressure of the system (typically 1,000
to 1,200 psig). These set a floor for temperatures into the catalysts of 550F to 570F. Operation of emissions controls at lower mass
flows must be carefully controlled to avoid
excessive ammonia slip.
Some GT systems like the Alstom GT24/26
with sequential combustion can go to very
low loads (10% to 20% of full power). This
can produce low TEG temperatures at the HP
evaporator exits. Figures 3 and 4 (see the online version of this article at powermag.com)
show the temperature profile at full load and
at parking load of a GT26. Temperature at low
load is 520F. This plant was in a jurisdiction
not requiring emissions catalyst, but this tem31

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Conventional baseload vs. cycling operation. Courtesy: Environex Inc.
Conventional baseload unit
80

Operating hours (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Below 60

60

65

70

75
80
Load (% of baseload)

85

90

95

100

Modern cycling unit


80

Operating hours (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Below 60

60

65

70

75
80
Load (% of baseload)

85

90

95

100

2. Typical cycling operation of a modern frame turbine unit. Courtesy:

120

60

100

50

80

40

60

30

40

20

20

10

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5
3.0
Time (days)

perature and low mass flows could be an issue


for current catalyst designs.

Challenges for Emissions Catalyst


Operation
Catalyst-based systems for control of CO,
NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
are strongly affected by the conditions of the
turbine exhaust gas. Oxidation catalysts are
passive catalysts used to oxidize CO and VOC
to CO2. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
systems are active catalyst systems that require injection of a reagent containing ammonia (NH3) to reduce NOx to N2 and H2O.
32

3.5

4.0

4.5

0
5.0

Load (MW/10) and CT exit NOx/Exit


CO (ppmvdc)

Exhaust flow (klb/hr/10)

Environex Inc.
Exhaust flow (klb/hr/10) Load (MW/10) Turbine exit NOx (ppmvdc) Turbine exit CO (ppmvdc)

Prior to 2001, turbine catalyst systems were


designed primarily for steady-state, baseload operation. These systems had generous
startup/shutdown windows, normally of 1 to
3 hours, and typically operated above 80% of
maximum load. Between 2001 and 2005, the
startup/shutdown windows were reduced to
30 to 60 minutes. Today, these systems can be
required to start up or shut down in 10 minutes, while at the same time dealing with more
frequent cycling, faster ramp rates, and wider
load swings than ever before.
As a unit cycles, the temperature, flow rate,
and concentration of emissions in the turbine
www.powermag.com

exhaust entering the SCR/CO catalyst system


vary. Exhaust temperatures will often depend
on the pressure and steam production in the
HP steam system and can vary by +/100F entering the catalyst system. Also, because the
lower-load operation introduces lower flow
into the same fixed cross-section, the flow distribution differs from baseload, imparting gas
velocity, ammonia concentration, and temperature variations at the catalyst inlet.
Turbine exhaust NOx and CO also spike
during load changes, which can affect the
stack emissions and require greater emissions reduction to maintain compliance
during short averaging periods. Maintaining peak SCR system performance and low
levels of both stack NOx and ammonia slip
through these cycles requires precise control
of ammonia injection. In some cases this may
require updates to the ammonia flow control
logic or even upgrades to the equipment and
additional monitoring hardware.
An example of SCR operation with turbine
cycling is shown in Figure 5. The variations
from cycling operation are most apparent in the
ammonia slip (the unreacted ammonia), shown
in orange. Variations of 3 to 4 ppm are common. These variations in ammonia slip are most
often caused by a lag in response time of the
ammonia vaporization and injection system in
reacting to changing ammonia demands. Some
progress is being made to improve response
times, but more improvement is needed.
In the permitting phase for modern cycling
unit sites, permit applications must take into
account these variations, but they currently do
not. Regulations at the state and federal levels
have reduced best available control technology
(BACT) guidelines for turbines to between 2
and 5 ppm NOx and 2 to 5 ppm ammonia slip,
both with averaging times as little as 30 minutes.
In ozone nonattainment areas, air permit limits
of 2 ppm NOx and 2 ppm ammonia slip are normal. These BACT limits required by regulations
are not practical in cases with cycling operation,
as illustrated in Figure 5.
Fast-start combined cycle systems are capable of startup in 10 minutes. Conventional
SCR/CO system designs have demonstrated
startup in approximately 30 minutes. Though
the difference of 20 minutes may seem small,
much happens in those 20 minutes, including heating of the SCR catalyst and ammonia vaporization system that are required for
optimum performance. Figures 6 and 7 compare a conventional SCR system start (with a
1-hour startup window) to a modern fast-start
system (with a 10-minute start requirement).
Even with a warm start, the fast-start system
struggles to achieve compliance within 15 minutes. In many cases, particularly for cold starts,
SCR systems cannot meet, or have difficulty
meeting, the 10-minute startup requirement.

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
5. SCR operation for a cycling turbine unit. Variations from cycling operation are

8. Bad environment. Units in reserve

most apparent in the ammonia slip (the unreacted ammonia), shown in red. Variations of 3 to 4
ppm are common. Courtesy: Environex Inc.

or standby for rapid start can experience high


corrosion levels in fin tubes, as shown here,
because the deposited material tends to be
hygroscopic and corrosive in humid environments. Courtesy: Tetra Engineering Group Inc.

70

35

60

30

50

25

40

20

30

15

20

10

10

5
0

12

24

36

48
60
Time (hours)

72

84

96

Stack NOx, turbine exit NOx and


ammonia concentration

Load, ammonia flow, SCR temperature

Load (MW/10) Stack NOx (ppmvdc) Ammonia flow (lb/hr/10) Turbine exit NOx (ppmvdc)
SCR temperature (F/10) Ammonia slip (ppmvdc)

108

6. Conventional SCR system startup. Courtesy: Environex Inc.


Stack NOx (ppmvdc) Ammonia slip (ppmvdc) Turbine exit NOx (ppmvdc) SCR temperature (F/10)
Load (MW/10)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30
40
Time (minutes)

50

60

70

Stack NOx (ppmvdc) Ammonia slip (ppmvdc) Turbine exit NOx (ppmvdc) SCR temperature (F/10)
Load (MW/10) Stack CO (ppmvdc)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10

20

30
40
Time (minutes)

To bridge this gap between conventional and


fast-start requirements, SCR system designs are
being modified to remove thermal mass, improve response times of the ammonia injection
and continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS), and use modified catalyst products/
designs that can reduce start times. Even with
the modifications, 10-minute starts are often not
achieved in practice from the SCR/CO system
perspective, as shown in Figure 7. Some of these
modifications include:

Ammonia vaporizers with preheat capability.


Smaller ammonia vaporization chambers

July 2016 POWER

50

60

70

without packing and with more heat transfer surface to minimize heating time.
Catalyst designs that offer improved formulations with wider operating temperature windows.
Catalyst frame/seal designs that allow for
more rapid temperature ramp rates.
CEMS systems and NOx analyzers with
faster response capability, as little as 5 seconds compared to 30 to 120 seconds for
extractive sampling systems.
Improved controls systems that are more
capable of analyzing/predicting transients
in catalyst system performance.
www.powermag.com

Modern emissions control systems are


required to convert a greater percentage of
emissions in engine exhaust, meet lower
stack emissions limits, and do so over shorter averaging periods. All of these changes
require greater engineering and higher cost
for both new and retrofit systems. Operators of modern turbines need to provide additional oversight and maintenance of their
emission control systems to ensure they
continuously provide reliable performance.

Integrated Fast-Start Management


Required

7. Modern fast-start SCR system startup. Courtesy: Environex Inc.

In some cases, where practical, a return to


anhydrous ammonia systems to eliminate the
need to vaporize the water (up to 80% water
by weight) in aqueous ammonia solutions.

Higher ammonia slip and potentially greater


SO2 conversion in cycling and fast-start units
create additional challenges for control of
sulfur-bearing deposits in the colder HRSG
areas. Low-pressure evaporators and economizers are particularly at risk.
Both current cycling and high-cycling
fast-start units can be at risk. Units in reserve
or standby for rapid start can experience high
corrosion levels in fin tubes (Figure 8), as the
deposited material tends to be hygroscopic
and corrosive in humid environments. More
frequent cleaning of gas-side tube surfaces
may be required to prevent excessive backpressure and corrosion on HRSG systems.
Because the response of emissions catalysts to fast startups is a key element in plant
performance and longevity, the HRSG, steam
cycle, and emissions control systems in cycling and fast-start CCGT plants must be
considered as a single system with multiple
operational limits and goals.

David S. Moelling, PE (david.moelling@


tetra-eng.com) is chief engineer for Tetra
Engineering Group Inc. and Daniel W. Ott
(daniel.ott@environex.com) is president of
Environex Inc.
33

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Circulating Fluidized Bed Dry


Scrubber Effectively Reduces
Emissions

Courtesy: ANDRITZ

When owners of the Big Stone Plant researched air quality control system
technology, they considered all available options and eventually settled on a
design that was not in widespread use. Now that the three-year $384 million
project is complete, they have no regrets that they chose a circulating fluidized
bed dry scrubber.
Robert Puhr

ike many coal-fired power plants in


the early 2010s, the Big Stone Plant in
eastern South Dakota was faced with a
question: What should be done at the plant in
order to meet new federal and state emissions
requirements? Its 40-something-year-old design would need an air quality control system
(AQCS) upgrade if it intended to continue
operating in the future. Choosing what technology to install was a key decision. In the
end, Big Stones decision-makers opted for
circulating dry scrubbing technology rather
than selecting a wet scrubber or more traditional dry scrubber design.
The comfortable thing to do would
have been to choose the technology that
has been around for decades, said Kirk
Phinney. But we did our homework and
concluded that a circulating dry scrubber
would help us well into the future. Today,
we have one of this industrys top-performing retrofit units in terms of SO2 reduction.
34

We know we made the right decision.


Phinney was the commissioning manager
for the Big Stone AQCS project (Figure 1).
He transferred to Big Stone in the hope of
being part of the undertakinga nearly $400
million investmentand quickly became
a vital member of Project Manager Mark
Rolfes team.
The first step for Rolfes was to obtain
permits and approvals from the three states
that regulate the Big Stone Plant (Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota). Phinney
set to work during that time helping review
all the specifications and layouts, gathering
operating data, and meeting with technology
suppliers in order to obtain accurate bids for
the project. He later supported the construction phase and served as commissioning
manager.
It has been very exciting to be involved
with the project all the way through, Phinney said.
www.powermag.com

Phinneys employer, Otter Tail Power


Co., is the majority (53.9%) owner of Big
Stone, with NorthWestern Energy and Montana-Dakota Utilities also holding shares.
Otter Tail people staffed the project and operate the 495-MW power plant, which burns
subbituminous coal and has been online
since 1975.

Deciding on the Best Available


Retrofit Technology
The driving force for the project was the
need for Big Stone to meet upcoming federal regulations, including new mercury
standards and regional regulations to reduce
haze over Minnesotas Boundary Waters
Canoe Area, a popular outdoor recreational
area. The existing air pollution control system on the boiler was a baghouseeffective
at removing dust and particulates, but not
gaseous emissions or mercury. After doing a
thorough evaluation of the best available ret-

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Big Stone Plants air quality control system. (Left to right) Erik

2. Removing particulate. Fly ash and byproduct from the circulating fluidized bed
scrubber is collected in the pulse jet fabric filter hoppers, shown here. Courtesy: ANDRITZ

Fladhammer, project engineer; Kirk Phinney,


commissioning manager; and Scot Ojard,
ANDRITZ project manager, with part of the
circulating dry scrubber and pulse jet fabric
filter in the background. Courtesy: ANDRITZ

rofit technology, Big Stones management


decided to pursue a dry scrubber (shown in
the opening photo).
Flue gas cleaning with a dry scrubber is
today an attractive alternative to wet scrubbers, even for large coal-fired boilers,
said Paul Petty, director of Applications
and Technology for ANDRITZs air pollution control business in North America.
It was impossible to make that statement
when I started in the business. But much
has changed.
Spray dry absorber (SDA) technology
had been the traditional dry scrubbing solution for power plants requiring large SO2 removal rates. The downside of SDA systems
is the potential for corrosion due to the creation of lime slurries and the need to quickly
dry the slurry droplets in the scrubber vessel. Another drawback is that SDA systems
are able to remove only about 85% to 95%
of the SO2.
Plants today are looking to remove 98%+
which, before the advent of circulating dry
scrubbing technology, was only possible with
much more expensive wet scrubbing technology, Petty said.
The most important advantage of circulating dry scrubbing is the ability to achieve
this 98%+ reduction of SO2 and other acid

July 2016 POWER

gases, Petty continued. Other important


benefits are a lower capital cost, simpler
design, lower water use, no wastewater discharge, and the ability to remove all pollutants, except carbon monoxide and nitrous
oxides, in one step.
We went through a very rigorous process
to evaluate the technical offerings, Phinney said. Our evaluation concluded that the
circulating dry scrubber had further room to
perform than the SDA and would not put us
at the limits of the technology.
In evaluating suppliers, it came down to
experience. ANDRITZ had six installations
at that timenot a huge number, but enough
for us to feel confident, Phinney said. The
other supplier had one.

The Circulating Fluidized Bed


Scrubber
The way the system works is by directing flue gas into the bottom of a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) vessel, where it is
turned upwards and passes through a grid
of venturis. Hydrated lime and recirculated
byproduct is introduced below the venturis
and gets evenly mixed and dispersed into
the flue gas.
Cooling water spray (which can be wastewater from boiler blowdown) is added above
www.powermag.com
www.powermag.com

the venturi section, independent from the


reagent feed. The byproduct is collected
downstream in a pulse jet fabric filter (Figure 2) and then metered to recirculate some
back into the scrubber vessel (Figure 3). The
remainder is diverted into the ash-handling
system for disposal.
ANDRITZs project scope included supplying the 34-foot-diameter CFB scrubber,
gas humidification system, reagent system,
gas recirculation system, byproduct recirculation/removal system, pulse jet fabric filter
(Figure 4), powder-activated carbon injection
system for enhanced mercury capture, and
waste ash removal and storage system. The
company also supplied ductwork, piping, access points, platforms, logic for the distributed control system, and support steel for the
scrubber and lime silo.
In simple terms, the contract we had with
Big Stone was for everything above the foundations for the scrubbing and waste ash handling, said Scot Ojard, project manager for
ANDRITZ.
One twist at Big Stone was that the CFB
scrubber needed to be a dual-train configuration due to its size. The practical limit for a
single train is around 400 MW. This was the
first dual-train installation in North America
for ANDRITZ.
35

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
3. Scrubbing emissions. This image shows the scrubber vessels waste ash pickup
point, including the fluidizing air ring and ash transport lines. Courtesy: ANDRITZ

4. Puffing bags. The air reservoir and pulse valves for the pulse jet fabric filter bag cleaning
system are shown here. Courtesy: ANDRITZ

Supporters of SDA technology told us


that we would have problems with the dual
fluidized beds fighting each other and the
induced draft fans fighting each other and
things would be out of sync, Phinney re36

called. I can tell you that has not been the


case.

A Team Effort
There has never been a worry during this
www.powermag.com

project, said Erik Fladhammer, project


engineer for Otter Tail. It has been a very
good relationship. The discussions have always been open. Scot and his team came up
through the technical side. Their suggestions
are practical and it is clear that these guys
knew how to build and run scrubbers.
Construction began in spring 2013. The
plant was taken offline in early 2015 for a
planned outage to do all the tie-ins and extensive boiler work to increase the surface
area. When we came back online, we moved
along quite well, Phinney said.
During the commissioning process, we
used our newest computational flow dynamic model studies to optimize the turning vanes at the bottom of the scrubber
inlet to improve the dispersement of recirculated byproduct materials. This improves
Big Stones ability to run efficiently at low
loads, Ojard said. Since then, the customer has taken over operations and signed all
acceptance certificates.
ANDRITZ gave us excellent performance guarantees for SO2 removal, availability, and lime consumption, Phinney said. If
I had to do it all over again, I would do it the
same way and with the same suppliers. The
people are technically smart, practical, and
no-nonsense. They fit the company personality at Otter Tail very well, and we did good
work together.
Although Otter Tail wasnt willing to release actual scrubber performance data, the
company did acknowledge that Big Stones
uncontrolled monthly average SO2 emission
rate in 2014 was 0.910 lb/MMBtu. It said
the ANDRITZ-supplied equipment has had
no problems meeting the plants current permit limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu. Otter Tail also
reported that the equipment met all performance requirements during its recently completed 120-day guarantee run, and that the
plant has met all NOx and mercury emissions
requirements.
The original budget was over $400 million
for the project, said Rolfes. The upgrade is
now expected to close out 21% below the budget due to our procurements and engineering
work coming in below anticipated cost. Plus,
we have been able to reduce the contingency
reserves. That is good news for our customers,
owners, and shareholders.
Opting for circulating dry scrubbing
technology turned out to be the right choice
at the right time. With its new AQCS, the
Big Stone power plant has reduced emissions of NOx and SO2 by about 90% and
mercury by about 80%. The project allows
the plant to be a viable power resource well
into the future.

Robert Puhr is principal of Ad Hoc


Communications Inc.

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Real-Time Environmental Data


Integration Improves Air Quality
Reporting

Courtesy: Wood Group

As power plant reporting requirements for emissions regulations increase in


number and complexity, yesterdays data collection and reporting systems can
make the job harder than it needs to be.
Philip Black, PE

he electrical power generation sector is reportedly the largest source of


greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
As such, it is the focus of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Clean Power
Plan, part of the presidents larger, ambitious
Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon emissions. The two clearly demonstrate a trend of
environmental regulations that place a high
level of importance on the quality of the underlying data, not just on emissions values
that are reported. This means increasingly
stringent reporting requirements and more
data collection.

Increasing Demand for Quality


Data
The Acid Rain Program (ARP), established
in the amendments to the Clean Air Act in
1990, created the worlds first large-scale
emissions trading system. Designed to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) from electric generating units (EGUs),
this program used a market-based, cap-andtrade approach for achieving reductions. The
goal of the program was to allow individual

July 2016 POWER

companies to determine the pace of necessary


modifications for compliance that met their
specific business needs. They could either
spend money for emissions control devices
or defer installation and purchase allowances
from companies that had already achieved
reductions through their capital expenditures.
Regulations known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), defined under
Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 60, previously existed for EGUs.
This part initially governed the quality assurance (QA) checks of instrumentation used to
measure the concentration of pollutants. The
EPA recognized that the transformation of instrument data from monitoring into a financial instrument suitable for allowance trading
required a new level of detailed reporting and
data QA.
For this reason, the EPA created a new
set of regulations for allowance trading
programs that governed the level of QA
checks and the required reporting level for
data streams that were used in the generation of market-quality data. 40 CFR Part
75 incorporated many facets of Part 60 but
www.powermag.com

expanded the number of quality checks on


the instruments. It also augmented the focus
of QA checks beyond the emission monitoring instruments to include checks on other
types of instruments such as flow monitors
providing additional data needed for calculating emissions.
Existing NSPS regulations focused on
reporting periods of noncompliance and the
steps taken to correct the underlying issues.
Part 75 increased the requirements to include
the submission of all data at an hourly frequency, not just noncompliant periods.
NSPS required EGUs to report times
when instrumentation readings could not be
considered statistically accurate. Part 75 required EGUs to report increasingly higher
emissions based on the length of time it takes
to return their monitoring equipment to proper working order.
Due to the massive amount of data that
must be collected, the EPA has developed an
electronic reporting platform, the Emissions
Collection and Monitoring Plan System, to
collect a comprehensive set of emissions as
well as supplementary information such as
37

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Multiple data and access
points. Real-time environmental data management systems (RT-EDMS) serve as the
bridge between islands of data. Courtesy:
Wood Group

records of every test (completed and failed)


along with facility-specific monitoring plans.
While at times optional in the past, all utilities are now required to submit their data
electronically, which is available for public
review.
Part 75 has proven to be a successful
model to ensure data quality. Consequently,
additional, non-EPA regional market-based
programs such as the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative, Western Climate Initiative,
and the California Air Resources Board refer
to Part 75 data requirements.
The scope of Part 75 is not static. As the
number and types of parameters to report expand, the level of QA checks and documentation expands as well.

Problems Caused by Increased


Data Collection
This trend toward increased reporting parameters continues to grow, placing an
enormous burden on facility environmental
departments. The volume of data that needs
to be collected, aggregated, and reported to
satisfy requirements is staggering. Even
a small electric power facility (of around
100 MW) requires more than one million
complex calculations daily from its air
emissions monitoring sources within its
property boundaries.
Due to the amount of high-frequency data
that has to be reported, data acquisition and
handling systems (DAHS) were developed
and have been directly connected to environmental analyzers located within the process
control network to provide the capabilities
for generating electronic reports. Due to the
locations of the monitoring systems at the
units throughout the facility, control room
operators are typically responsible for monitoring real-time compliance, with environ38

mental staff managing the regular reporting


and providing any necessary updates to management.
Although large amounts of data are processed and stored at each monitoring location, integration capabilities are lacking at
many facilities. Commercial DAHS have
existed since the beginning of the ARP and
track compliance to generate necessary federal reports for the unit where they are deployed. However, due to the varying age of
monitoring equipment and the different manufacturers of systems that can be present in
any given facility, a lack of integration leaves
many environmental departments gathering
data manually into Excel spreadsheets for
any unique corporate or state requirements.
This can often be the protocol at small and
midsize facilities. Complex macros or timeconsuming manipulation can be required to
aggregate the results. After the data collection and manipulation are completed and
passed to others, the spreadsheets are then
stored on network drives or within email
archives, where they become useless for further analysis.
There are limitations to the effectiveness
of these traditional methods. As new regulations are released, it becomes even more
challenging for environmental departments
to keep current in their coordination with
operations. Rather than becoming more efficient, aggregation of information from
multiple continuous emissions monitoring
systems using different protocols increases
with the growth in specialized emissions
monitoring systems. Due to the larger variety of systems, some facilities even find
it easier to request their own data from the
EPA or third-party sources rather than trying to gather significant amounts of information from their multiple facilities. This
limits the flexibility and use of the information that is available.
Environmental departments are not the
only groups struggling with the need for better transfer of information. Larger market
forces such as deregulation have also led
to the necessity of establishing methods to
share many types of data that formerly never
left internal company networks. To help facilitate broader-based data sharing, many
large power generation facilities are developing centralized information storage repositories. These systems are designed to interface
with multiple data sources, consolidate the
information, store it efficiently, and then disseminate it as needed in a format suited for
specific audiences.
Unfortunately, the creation of interfaces
of environmental data to these systems has
been slow, and the information remains in
silos, only to be retrieved for compliance
www.powermag.com

monitoring. The stumbling block has been


a lack of real-time connectivity between
multiple systems storing environmental
data and the environmental departments and
management.

Integration Advantages
The growing awareness of the value of Part
75related environmental data, combined
with the lack of connectivity between systems isolated on the process control network, has led to the increased adoption of
middleware solutions. Some DAHS vendors
are creating cloud-based portals that receive
the information from multiple instances of
their monitoring tools in order to provide a
combined view of compliance. Larger utilities have leveraged their existing information systems to provide wider access. These
custom solutions are typically based on connecting data historians (such as OSISoft PI)
to the Enterprise Reporting Planning solution
using commercial middleware packages such
as Microsofts BizTalk.
In other cases, facilities with strict data security requirements or those facing resource
constraints are considering a third option.
These solutions, currently being used in the
refining and petrochemical industry, are optimized for the long-term storage and efficient
transfer of environmental data. Referred to
as real-time environmental data management
systems (RT-EDMS), these solutions act as
custom middleware that provides convenient
interfaces to multiple external systems.
They also allow the processing of data
based on unique environmental reporting
procedures with custom notification capabilities. RT-EDMS serve as the bridge between
islands of data contained within multiple
DAHS. They enable the retrieval of data by
users from multiple locations who might otherwise be restricted from connecting to information stored on the control network. They
also provide information in a format accessible to wider platforms (Figure 1).
RT-EDMS have been successfully fieldproven in many refining and petrochemical
facilities. Users of these systems have consistently shown reductions in time spent compiling custom reports by as much as 90%.
While large power generators might have
sufficient resources to develop custom solutions for complete electronic reporting, our
research indicates that small to midsize generators (of about 1,000 MW capacity) can
especially benefit from these specialized
systems in three distinct ways: enterprise
awareness, anywhere access, and advanced
analytics.
Expanded Awareness Across the Enterprise. Environmental groups and regula-

tory agencies are not the only stakeholders

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2. Dashboard convenience. A real-time environmental data management system can
provide multiple users with clear access to data from multiple facilities. Courtesy: Wood Group

information with predictive maintenance systems provides another way to more efficiently identify problems with equipment.

Identifying Specific Value


To determine if facilities can achieve these
benefits with an implementation of RT-EDMS software, it is reasonable to first answer
these questions:

requiring timely information. While plant


operations staff typically have good visibility
of real-time compliance information at their
facility, corporate environmental staff and
executives dont always have direct access.
They are forced to request spreadsheets with
the information from sites. If they need data
from multiple facilities, the same information
frequently arrives in different formats. The
result is that custom reports contain the minimal amount of data in aggregate form only.
The time it takes to consolidate the information limits the ability to provide on-demand,
up-to-date data.
An efficient data management and integration solution like an RT-EDMS allows every
audience to access and analyze the entire dataset. Groups that track NOx allowances to
evaluate the need to buy or sell offsets can
instantly access the most recent information
without forcing a specific request (Figure 2).
Allocations can be evaluated across multiple
facilities to more easily make allowance trading decisions. Employees in operations who
field requests for data do not have to spend
valuable time trying to gather information
that may not be directly useful to them. Comprehensive information requests from regulatory agencies become less time-consuming to
respond to.
Access to Critical Information from
Anywhere. With the increased amount of

time many people spend away from their


computers, it becomes more important to
provide information in a manner that is easily accessible and in a format that can easily
be consumed on smaller devices. This is especially true for field technicians who rotate

July 2016 POWER

among remote facilities. With better connectivity comes the ability to monitor instrument
issues and review warnings to determine if
an immediate trip is necessary or if the issue can be addressed during the next planned
shutdown.
The benefits extend to management as
well. As the trend toward mobile devices increases, having access to software installed
only on a desktop PC significantly limits
the attention that is given to environmental
information. Environmental information on
mobile executive dashboards with current
status, drill-down capabilities and historical
summaries is important to maintain a high
awareness of the importance of environmental performance. Having that information
within familiar tools further facilitates regular review.
Ability to Leverage Advanced Analytics Technology. The exposure of a con-

tinuous compliance historical data record


from all units across multiple facilities
to business intelligence tools opens the
possibility of exploring new techniques
to find hidden causes of recurring problems. From surveying EGUs, we found
that fewer than 25% of large, midsize, and
small utilities provide any environmental
information directly to outside software
packages. The ones that do primarily expose mass emissions to limited groups for
allowance projections.
The ability to analyze the results of every
QA/QC test on all instrumentation opens up
possibilities of identifying trends before they
become a problem, alerting management and
the responsible department. Combining this
www.powermag.com

Is there a lack of connectivity between


systems? Reporting can be instantaneous,
comprehensive, and available for widespread use with an RT-EDMS. Calculating
the number of current data requests and
the time required to produce them can provide one way to monetize the benefit of an
RT-EDMS.
How many systems need interfacing,
and what is the age of each system? Information from older and legacy equipment, especially at small EGUs, can be
more challenging to gather. Investing in
integration quickly reduces the reporting effort.
Are there additional reporting requirements beyond those required by Part 75
that are difficult to meet with existing
systems? Is there some equipment in the
facility where exclusive Part 60 reporting
is still important? How difficult to understand is any logic embedded in Excel
macros that were developed to meet those
unique requirements? With the increasing
movement of talent and resources, knowledge needs to be embedded in systems that
are easily understood by others who were
not the initial creators.
Has there been a history of enforcement
actions by regulatory agencies? To respond to the increased scrutiny and scope
of regulatory audits, better reporting software and systems can offset future penalties and improve plant safety and relations
with the community.

As the EPA and other regulatory agencies


continue to augment their reporting requirements and enhance the frequency and scope
of their audits, data volume increases and
consistency is required. The necessity of implementing a transparent, real-time, and fully
integrated system becomes more imperative.
In addition to the reporting agencies, this approach better serves facility employees, management, and the public.

Philip Black, PE (philip.black@woodgroup.com) heads the environmental


practice for Wood Group Mustang, a fullservice consulting and systems integration firm, where he has helped develop
the companys ENVision environmental
management and analytics software suite.
39

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Weighing the Environmental


Impacts of Wind and Solar

Courtesy: Silicor Materials

Renewable generation is usually characterized as more environmentally friendly


than fossil fuels, and in many respects, thats true. But there is a growing recognition that solar and wind generation have their own impacts, and an increasing
number of manufacturers and generators are looking for ways to minimize them.
Thomas W. Overton, JD

celand might be about the last place you


would look for innovation in solar energy,
but if so, youd be missing something
significantand it concerns Icelands own
energy supply, as youll soon see. But first,
some background.
Solar energy is often hailed as the most environmentally benign source of electricity, and
once a solar plant is in place, this is arguably
true. But getting there has more environmental
impacts than you might think. And it starts with
the silicon that forms the substrate of the most
common types of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells.
Silicon is one of the most common elements in Earths crustabout 90% of which
is composed of silicate mineralsbut producing elemental silicon pure enough for
solar PV cells is no simple matter. For one
thing, it requires an enormous amount of
electricityroughly half of the energy required to produce a PV cell is consumed in
40

the silicon manufacturing process. Metallic silicon is typically produced by reacting


high-purity silica sand in an electric arc furnace, which can require as much as 120 kWh
per kilogram of elemental silicon from input
to final product. To the extent that electricity
is produced with fossil fuelsconsider all
the PV panels manufactured in China, where
coal is the number one generation source
it can negate some of the carbon avoidance
from solar energy.
Second, turning raw silicon into finished
wafers pure enough for solar cells involves a
number of toxic and corrosive materials. The
most common method for producing polycrystalline silicon, known as the Siemens
Process, involves converting elemental silicon into gaseous form and then growing the
silicon crystals through chemical vapor deposition. This process requires hydrochloric
acid, and the resulting gas, trichlorosilane, is
www.powermag.com

toxic, explosive, and corrosive. The process


also produces silicon tetrachloride, another
toxic substance that must be recovered and
recycled. Several tons of silicon tetrachloride
are produced per ton of polycrystalline silicon, and though it can be recycled to produce
silicon and hydrochloric acid, the process is
difficult and expensive, so not all manufacturers perform it.

Reducing Toxic Byproducts


Concerns about this process have been raised
in a variety of quarters, from both supporters and opponents of renewable energy. But
a San Josebased company has developed a
completely different, much more environmentally friendly method of producing solar
silicon that has the added benefit of costing
half as much as traditional processes and using one-third the energy.
Silicor Materials is planning a facility in

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Clean and clear. Silicor Materials
has developed a manufacturing process for
polycrystalline silicon that uses substantially less energy with no toxic byproducts
by partnering with aluminum smelters. The
company is preparing to build a large factory
in Iceland that will begin operations in 2018.
Shown here are finished ingots of silicon.
Courtesy: Silicor Materials

and commercial business development, the


factory is set to break ground in Grundartangi, Iceland, this fall and will have a capacity of 19,000 metric tons of solar silicon (all
of which has been committed to customers)
when it reaches full output in 2019. In addition to the environmentally friendly manufacturing process, its location in Iceland will
allow it to source 100% of its electricity from
renewable energy.

2. Avian impact. This red kite was killed


by a wind turbine blade at the Montes del
Cierzo wind farm in Spain. Courtesy: Gurelur

Raising Awareness

Iceland to make it happen. Why Iceland? The


islands abundance of cheap hydroelectric
and geothermal power has made it a mecca
for metals processing despite its remote locationthe tiny nation in fact ranks 11th
worldwide in production of aluminum. And
its the aluminum smelting process that Silicor uses to produce its silicon.
Silicor Chairman and CEO Terry Jester
explained the method to POWER. Rather
than using gaseous silicon, Silicors method
partners with the islands aluminum smelters
to extract silicon from the aluminum smelting process, where silicon is viewed as an
impurity. Metallurgical-grade silicon is dissolved into an aluminum smelt, and the silicon will crystalize out before the aluminum
solidifies as the mixture is cooled (shown in
the header photo). The crystallized silicon
flakes still contain a coating of aluminum,
but this is then removed using hydrochloric
acid. Unlike traditional silicon production,
however, this process produces polyaluminum chloride, a nontoxic compound that is
used in water purification, among other processes. The remaining silicon flakes are then
re-melted, and what little aluminum remains
forms a thin layer on top of the silicon ingot
that can easily be removed (Figure 1).
According to Michael Russo, Silicors
executive vice president of sales, marketing,

July 2016 POWER

But solar PV cells are more than just silicon.


The PV manufacturing process involves a
range of toxic substances such as hydrofluoric acid, and it produces substantial wastewater and solid waste streams. Treating and
recycling that waste costs money, and there
have been examples of a few PV manufacturers cutting corners by dumping wastewater
rather than treating it. In one widely reported
incident, protests over dumping outside a
Chinese manufacturers plant in 2011 turned
violent and the company later faced legal action over it.
Concerns about these issues led the
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a
nonprofit organization that tracks environmental impacts in the tech industry, to begin
publishing an annual scorecard ranking PV
manufacturers on the transparency and sustainability of their manufacturing processes.
To achieve a positive score, the manufacturer
needs to support PV panel recycling, clearly report emissions across its supply chain,
make efforts to reduce module toxicity and
use of heavy metals, and keep in place modern health and safety standards for its workers, among other criteria.
Not surprisingly, scores since the SVTC
began the scorecard in 2010 have fluctuated widely given the substantial number of
mergers, bankruptcies, and new companies
entering the field. And, since the scorecard
relies on self-reported data, manufacturers
that did not participate in the survey tend to
have low scores. Still, the scorecard shows
that at least some manufacturers are making
substantial efforts to reduce the impacts of
their manufacturing processes. Three major
companiesSunPower, SolarWorld, and
Trinaall achieved scores above 90 on the
2015 scorecard (see http://bit.ly/1PAHV1O
for the full list).
Other efforts to reduce solar PV impacts
include an embrace of extended producer responsibility (EPR). EPR is a term used for the
idea that the environmental costs of a product
throughout its life cycle should be reflected
in its market price, typically with some sort
of surcharge. (If you bought a computer recently, you may have seen such a fee added
on to the purchase price.) While the Eurowww.powermag.com
www.powermag.com

pean Union has an EPR scheme that funds


disposal costs for PV panels, no such scheme
exists in the U.S. However, the SVTC reports
that a number of panel manufacturers have
asked the Solar Energy Industries Association to work on this issue.

Birds and Bats and Turbines,


Oh My
Unlike solar PV cells, wind turbine manufacturing is relatively benign, or at least little
different in impact from traditional turbine
generators, since many of the same components are used. Wind turbines using permanent
magnets require rare earth elements such as
neodymium, the extraction of which can have
serious environmental consequences because
of the acids used in refining and the frequent
occurrence of uranium and thorium in the
ores. However, the percentage of neodymium
going to wind turbine manufacturing is a small
component of worldwide demand for this element, which is used in a wide variety of consumer products as well as electric vehicles.
Much more controversial has been the issue of bird mortality at operating wind farms
(Figure 2). Though the scope of the impact
has been heavily studied, the reported ranges
are quite large. Estimates of bird mortality in
peer-reviewed studies vary from wind farm
to wind farm, and range from 0 (that is, no fatalities were found) to as many as 10 or more
birds killed per turbine per year. Nationwide,
a 2013 study reviewing published data concluded that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats
were killed each year at U.S. wind farms in
2012, while another study in 2014 estimated
bird deaths at 140,000 to 328,000.
It is worth noting that generalized totals do
not give an accurate picture of the true impact of bird mortality for a variety of reasons.
Deaths in different regions and over different
periods of the year have different effects on
the environment. Mortality rates for different
species are not clear, even though deaths of
different species also have different impacts.
For example, the loss of 10,000 sparrows will
have far less effect on the ecosystem than the
loss of 10,000 bald eagles.
41

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
3. Double trouble. The San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm north of Palm Springs, Calif., was
developed beginning in the 1980s. Its closely placed turbines (some with lattice-frame towers) and
above ground transmission lines can pose multiple threats to birds. Courtesy: Gail Reitenbach

Data suggest that migratory birds tend to


suffer the greatest mortality from wind turbines, accounting for around 75% of all fatalities, according to several studies. Some
authors have suggested that deaths for these
species are underreported because these birds
tend to be small and their carcasses are more
easily scavenged and thus less likely to be
found during site studies. However, because
these species also represent some of the
largest bird populations, many studies have
concluded that these deaths are ecologically
insignificant, especially when viewed in context with deaths suffered by collisions with
power lines, buildings, and other structures,
and predation by domestic cats.

parity exists because most of the turbines at


Altamont were constructed before bird mortality was an issue considered during wind
farm development and little thought was
given to reducing risks. Studies have shown
that wind farm location can have a dramatic
effect on avian mortality, with poorly sited
projects killing far more birds than ones built
with more responsible planning.
Older wind farms tend to be higher density
than newer projects, grouping turbines much
more closely, which can increase avian risk.
Such farms are also more likely to have lattice-frame towers instead of the monopoles
used by modern turbines, as well as aboveground transmission lines (Figure 3), both of
which are known to attract birds.

On Wings of Eagles
Though raptors (eagles, hawks, and related
species) make up a small portion of the total bird fatalities (the 2013 study mentioned
above estimated 83,000 per year), these
deaths are much more significant because
these birds are typically apex predators and
their population has a direct effect on a wide
variety of other species. Thus, it is not surprising that wind turbine raptor deaths have
garnered most of the attention.
There is evidence that raptors are attracted
to wind turbines as nesting sites, and they are
likely more vulnerable to blade impact because of their habits of staying aloft longer
and floating on thermal patterns while hunting for prey. One oft-cited study estimated as
many as 100 or more raptors being killed at
the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California
every year, though this high level of mortality
has not been seen at other wind farms.
Some studies have suggested that this dis42

Adjust Cut-In Speed to Cut


Mortality
Though the data are not extensive, there
is growing evidence that proper planning
and design can substantially reduce avian
mortality. A 2010 study from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) makes a number of recommendations (see http://1.usa.
gov/1OKpKgd). Among these are assessing avian populations in the area during the
planning process, with particular attention
to nesting sites, migration routes/stopovers,
and the potential for fragmenting existing
habitats. Where such factors exist, other sites
should be considered. As specific sites are
identified, more detailed studies of potential
impacts are recommended, particularly of
species behavior in the area.
When building the farm, the study recommends placing turbines outside of areas
identified as crossing routes and using only
www.powermag.com

strobe lights that fire simultaneously rather


than continuous lighting. (This is to avoid attracting insects that in turn attract birds and
bats. Several mass mortality events at wind
farms have been linked to the use of highintensity lighting.) Measures should also
be taken to avoid creating potential habitats
for prey animals such as rabbits and ground
squirrels, as these will attract raptors. During
operation, avian mortality should be monitored and recorded, and in areas where significant mortality is found, further mitigation
efforts should be explored.
One mitigation measure that has been
identified is increasing blade cut-in speed,
that is, raising the minimum wind speed at
which the turbine begins operating. Many
birds and bats are more active during periods
of low wind, and keeping turbines motionless
or at low speed in these conditions has been
shown to reduce mortality.
The effectiveness of deterrent devices
such as those that generate ultrasonic noise
is unclear. Some studies have shown reduced
bat mortality, but the data are not extensive.
Accordingly, the Department of Energy is
currently funding several studies, including
one by GE, of deterrent devices to determine
whether they could be effective in reducing
bat mortality.
Other approaches include using radar to
detect approaching birds and automatically
shutting down or slowing turbines, but the
effectiveness of this method is also not yet
known.
Meanwhile, the federal government is
struggling with how to regulate avian mortality at wind farms, since many avian species
killed by wind turbinessuch as bald and
golden eaglesare protected by federal law,
and causing such deaths is normally cause
for prosecution. Duke Energy was fined $1
million in 2013 and PacificCorp was fined
$2.5 million in 2014, both for eagle deaths
in Wyoming, but enforcement actions have
otherwise been rare. (Duke has since taken
steps to reduce avian and bat mortality at its
16 wind farms, such as slowing down blades
in low wind.)
In 2013 the FWS issued a rule allowing
wind farm owners to apply for 30-year permits to kill limited numbers of eagles (technically referred to as incidental take), a
regulation that was successfully challenged
in court by several conservation organizations. In May 2016, the FWS proposed a new
rule that would require active monitoring
and mitigation of avian mortality, with the
permits being reviewed every five years. The
proposed rule is open for comment through
July 5.

Thomas W. Overton, JD, is a POWER


associate editor.

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Avoiding Wildlife Impacts from


Renewable Energy in Europe

Courtesy: Ad Meskens/Wikimedia Commons

Europe has been in the forefront of renewable energy development, and


though the scientific research on wildlife impacts is limited, European environmentalists and developers are beginning to create baseline frameworks
and guidelines. Developers around the world can learn from their experience.
Lee Buchsbaum

s more renewable energy systems come


online, providers hope to both make
money and protect the environment
simultaneously. However, some environmental scientists and conservationists are sounding alarm bells over impacts that onshore and
offshore wind farms and new wave and tidal
energy systems may have on avian and marine
wildlifein particular, birds, bats, whales,
dolphins, and other sea mammals.
There is empirical evidence that onshore
wind production has negative impacts on
birds and bats (see the article Weighing the
Environmental Impacts of Wind and Solar
in this issue). But a bigger unknown is how
increasing numbers of offshore wind developments will affect marine as well as bird
populations. Europe leads the world in offshore wind development, and plans are under way to continue to ramp up. Including
offshore production, Europes installed wind
capacity could surpass 200 GW by 2020. Indeed, worldwide, wind energy of all forms
is, well, blowing up. Though unquestionably

July 2016 POWER

renewables are better for the environment


than fossil-fueled power plants, the enduring
struggle between economics and stewardship
is still part of the equation.
For maximum output and profitability,
wind farms are sited in open, exposed areas
where there are higher-than-average wind
speeds. This means that they are frequently
proposed in upland and coastal areas, potentially affecting important habitats for breeding, wintering, and migrating birds. In the
same way turbines utilize the kinetic energy
of the wind, birds often use that wind as their
propellant or even as superhighways. The
degree to which wind farms can safely coexist with avian life is still an unknown, especially as ever-larger wind turbines on- and
offshore are deployed.
Additionally, as humans keep developing coastal, tidal, and deep ocean regions,
the noises created during exploration and
development processes become highly amplified in the undersea environment. Many
species of marine life, particularly mamwww.powermag.com

mals, depend heavily on sonar-like systems


to navigate, and those systems are greatly
affected by the sounds created during undersea energy development and construction. In much the same way that dolphins,
porpoises, and whales have been affected by
undersea oil exploration, they are getting hit
again as both offshore wind, tidal, and other
marine renewable energy systems expand
(see sidebar).
But precisely because most of these energy systems are new, the extent of their actual
impacts is still relatively unknown. Without
much of an established body of peer-reviewed scientific research, environmentalists
and developers are just now creating baseline
study frameworks and guidelines for future
projects. Given Europes longer history with
renewable rollouts, a large portion of the published research emanates from there. What
are some lessons that have been learned, and
what can renewable energy providers elsewhere do to avoid the worst mistakes of their
pioneering predecessors?
43

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Tidal Power Draws Concern


Coming on strong are a variety of newly deployed marine renewable energy systems,
or MRE technologies (Figure 1). According to Environmental Effects of Marine
Renewable Energy Development Around
the World, a report from Annex IVa collaborative initiative of the Ocean Energy
Systems under the International Energy
Agency Technology Network (see http://
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-thescience-2016)the worlds oceans have
the current technical potential to produce
9,100,000 GWh annually using established
MRE technologies for tidal, wave, and
ocean current extraction.
One of the main advantages of MREs
compared to wind and solar is that their
electrical output is more constant. With a
greater potential for reliability, there are
even greater profits to be made once the
system is operational.
Scotland, with its rocky, beautiful shorelines, fierce coastal winds, and huge bird
populations, is both a vast potential source
of tidal and wind energy and a significant
venue for avian conflict. Scotland is working with both Ireland and Northern Ireland
to construct one of the worlds first largescale marine renewable energy systems.
The Irish-Scottish Links on Energy Study
project is set to reach 6.2 GW by 2020. The
project, known as ISLES, will use all three
of the major marine renewable energy
sourcesoffshore wind, wave, and tidal
and will provide much-needed data on the
technology and its effects on the environment (see www.islesproject.eu). Dozens of
different types of tidal energy prototypes
have been tested throughout the past decade by Scotlands European Marine Energy
Centre.

Wind Turbines Can Be Bird and Bat


Killers
As one might expect, most of the impacts
of wind infrastructure are not due to direct
clearing of land or habitat loss but to bird and
bat collisions. Birds can be killed not only
from collisions with rotors but also by colliding with towers, nacelles, and associated
structures such as guy cables, power lines,
and meteorological masts. Estimates of bird
and bat collisions vary from site to site, depending on the location, the technology used,
and the abundance of birds locally. Some
studies suggest that birds may be killed at a
44

1. The tide is rising. The 1.2-MW SeaGen tidal power system in Strangford Lough in
Northern Ireland, which began operations in 2008, was the worlds first commercial-scale,
grid-connected tidal stream turbine.Courtesy: Siemens

Because tidal energy is both so new


and potentially disruptive to marine life,
a group of researchers, environmentalists,
and stakeholders formed Annex IV to study
the environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. By sharing data
and synthesizing results through its State
of the Science reports, Annex IV hopes to
reduce risk for marine energy technologies,
avoid duplication of research and monitoring efforts, promote sustainable development of MRE technologies, and ensure that
accurate and up-to-date information is
available to regulators, industry members,
and scientists worldwide. (The comprehensive report, however, sticks to MREs and
does not address the effects of offshore
wind.)
rate of between three to five individuals per
MW per year, while bat collisions at some
sites are as common as 30 per MW per year.
However, the authors of a December 2014
European Commission publication entitled
Science for Environment Policy Future
Brief: Wind & Solar Energy and Nature Conservation (see http://bit.ly/1DkTGFl), caution that the number of bird deaths arising
from turbine collisions overall represents a
tiny fraction of the total bird deaths caused by
humans: pet cats, windows and transmission
lines kill many more.
Recent research suggests that newerwww.powermag.com

The 2016 report summarizes research


findings regarding the collision of marine
animals with undersea turbines. Other areas of study were the effects of underwater
noise from turbines and electromagnetic
fields from undersea cables used to carry
power. The consensus is that deployments
composed of single units are not expected
to harm marine life. The report also looks
at the health of seafloor habitats and
reefs, changes in sea flow patterns around
turbines, and biodiversity of marine ecosystems. In addition, the report includes
four case studies on the long permitting
and consenting process that the first generation of MRE devices has encountered,
and it suggests areas for future marine energy monitoring and research.
generation turbines sited with appropriate
planning generally pose lower risks. However, comparisons between sites are difficult
because different sites have distinct avian
populations, and species composition and
behavior can affect the risks. In other words,
planners and site developers have to be careful not to over-generalize. Each site requires
its own specific analysis.

Better Site Selection Is Key


The consensus among European experts is
that the best solution for energy developers as
they seek to avoid wildlife impacts is likely

POWER July 2016

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
improved site selection, as the international
avian conservation group BirdLife reported
in one of its recent studies, Meeting Europes Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony With Nature (see http://bit.ly/1Y3FDjQ).
According to the BirdLife report, a useful approach is mapping wind resources
(such as speeds and patterns) together with
maps of environmentally sensitive zones,
such as migration corridors and protected
wildlife areas. Doing so can create a practical tool for development decisions based
on the most extensive and up-to-date data.
These can also be useful for policy making
and planning.
Robust and objective baseline studies
are also necessary as part of this process to
minimize negative effects on birds, other
wildlife, and their habitats. They also support
post-construction monitoring at completed
wind farms where environmental concerns
exist. BirdLife and the European Commission studies state that, where at all possible,
energy providers should not develop in areas
with:

High densities of wintering or migratory


waterfowl and waders, where important
habitats might be affected by disturbance,
or where there is potential for significant
collision mortality.
[A] high level of raptor activity, especially core areas of individual breeding ranges
and in cases where local topography focuses flight activity, which would cause a
large number of flights to pass through the
wind farm.
Breeding,
wintering
or
migrating populations of less abundant species, particularly those of conservation
concern, which may be sensitive to
increased mortality as a result of collision or more subtle effects on survival
and productivity due to displacement.

When developers build their turbines,


BirdLife and the European Commission suggest they:

Group turbines to avoid alignment perpendicular to main flight paths and to provide corridors between clusters, aligned
with main flight trajectories, within large
wind farms.
Where possible, developers should install
transmission cables underground (subject
to habitat sensitivities and in accordance
with existing best practice guidelines for
underground cable installation).
Developers should mark overhead cables
using deflectors and avoid their use over
areas of high bird concentrations, especially for species vulnerable to collision.

July 2016 POWER

2. Boom times. Erecting offshore wind turbines can create substantial undersea noise
during the construction of foundations and driving of pilings, noise that can have harmful effects
on marine life. Proper mitigation efforts, such as air-bubble curtails, may be able to reduce those
impacts. Courtesy: RWE Innogy

Another suggestion BirdLife has is that


wind producers halt turbine operations during peak periods of activity or during migration, even though that means taking a
potential hit on income.
After the turbines have been sited, among
the best solutions to avoid accidental avian
deaths is the installation and usage of birdand bat-sensitive radar systems. Several
international manufacturers now provide
systems with supporting software that can
be used to scan the sky for large groups of
birds and bats and automatically shut down
turbines before flocks pass through generation areas. For older wind farms that have
been sited along migratory routes, this could
prevent bird formations from sleep-flying
directly into harms way.
Additional operational adjustments such
as changing the cut-in speed or the angle of
blades relative to the wind may also reduce
collisions. However, somewhat counterintuitively, for birds with poor maneuverability such as griffon vultures, it may be that
slower rotation speeds are more problematic because the associated low wind speed
makes avoidance of the turbine blades more
difficult. On the other hand, according to
the European Commission report, data from
several studies suggest that bat collisions
are halved when turbine cut-in speed is increased by 1.5 meters per second above the
www.powermag.com

manufacturers speed. This may be because


bats are more active at lower wind speeds
since the insects they feed on do not fly in
high winds.

Other Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms


Because of its location in marine environments, offshore wind development brings
with it another set of environmental impacts.
Turbine foundation construction and undersea cable installations, as well as other steps
in the construction of high-capacity wind
farms, can generate high levels of noise
(Figure 2). The impact of noise on marine
mammals can be divided into three levels:
those that cause fatal injury; those that cause
non-fatal injury such as deafness and other
auditory damage such as temporary threshold shift; and those that cause behavioral
change (such as avoidance and cessation of
feeding).
The focus should not solely be on avoiding
deaths, however. A porpoise is doomed to
die if its hearing is shattered, Kim Detloff, a
marine expert at German nature conservation
group NABU told Renewable Energy World
in a 2012 story. In Germany, comprehensive
noise control measures must be used during the construction phase, especially when
foundation structures are driven into the seafloor. This is necessary to protect porpoises,
45

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
which are sensitive to noise and protected by
animal conservation laws, as well as other
marine mammals. Regulators must sanction developers if they repeatedly violate the
noise limit, said Detloff.
While data demonstrate that construction will have effects on mammals and
fish, which can detect pile-driving noises
over considerable distances, there are very
few equivalent data available for birds.
Adequate avian ecological survey data is
generally still unavailable for most offshore areas, according to BirdLife. In order
to remedy this, they recommend, prior to
development, year-round baseline data collection over a minimum of two years for all
affected bird species to cover breeding and
non-breeding distributions.

Mitigating Undersea Noise


Impacts
Environmental best practices often trail development, only evolving as real impacts are
actually felt. Beginning several years ago,
as German energy provider RWE AG began
construction of its massive Nordsee offshore
wind farm complex, the firm shifted to using
technologies that reduced noise from driving turbines into the seabed after conserva-

tion groups complained about impacts on


porpoises. RWEs Nordsee Ost wind farm,
which has a capacity of approximately 295
MW, is one of the largest commercial wind
farm projects off the German coast. A total
of 48 Senvion wind turbines, each with a capacity of 6 MW, were initially installed. Currently the company is jointly developing the
next phase, the Nordsee One project. With 54
more wind turbines, Nordsee One will have
an overall capacity of 332 MW.
Recent news releases from RWE state
that the foundations for Nordsee Ones wind
turbines and the substation were recently
completed. The installation of the facilitys
main submarine cable is scheduled to begin
in June. The transformer substation at sea is
also slated to be installed during the summer.
Finally, the wind turbines are due to be installed in early 2017, and the wind farm will
then go into operation next year.
According to other published reports, during the initial construction phase, RWE used
a large perforated hose to produce a curtain
of air bubbles around each of the first 48 turbine foundations at Nordsee Ost. RWE has
also undertaken many onshore and offshore
ecological surveys to identify the location of
habitats and species of all the affected marine

and avian life that could be impacted by the


development. Extensive boat and aerial surveys collected two years worth of data on
bird activity offshore.
We have also completed one year of marine mammal surveys using a combination of
survey techniques,RWE said in a statement.
We have also collected over 10,000 hours of
continuous acoustic monitoring for marine
mammals from static moorings. In addition,
we have completed surveys for fish and other
marine species which live on, or within, the
seabed. The survey data will be used in conjunction with other existing data to establish
the ecology of the area.
No doubt, as development proceeds, many
more lessons will be learned as new regulations are phased in. Now as the U.S. begins
development of its first large offshore wind
farm, operators in conjunction with their
Dutch partners have announced their intent
to draw on lessons learned throughout the
North Sea.

Lee Buchsbaum (www.lmbphotography.


com), a former editor and contributor to
Coal Age, Mining, and EnergyBiz, has
covered coal and other industrial subjects
for nearly 20 years and is a seasoned
industrial photographer.

April 1013, 2017


McCormick Center West
Chicago, IL
The ELECTRIC POWER committee has issued an industry-wide call for participation for the 19th Annual
ELECTRIC POWER Conference + Exhibition, which will be held April 10-13, 2017 in Chicago, IL.
The conference committee is looking for case studies showcasing technologies, improvements, techniques and
experiences that provide solutions and improve operations for the power plant of tomorrow.

Do you have experience and insight to share on these topics?


u
u
u
u
u
u

Solutions and lessons learned to increase power plant performance and profitability
New and proven solutions to meet environmental compliance guidelines
Case studies on technology solutions or advancements
Power plant resiliencyFrom performance management to cyber security and more
Combined Heat & PowerBest practices shared
Grid stability and integration experience or insights

If YES popped into your head while reading this list, we want
to hear from you!
Deadline for submission is August 12, 2016go online
today and submit your abstract for consideration!

www.electricpowerexpo.com

46

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

THE INSTITUTE OF
CLEAN AIR COMPANIES:
Helping You Advance in the Industry
Did you know the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)
is comprised of more than 65 member companies?
Representing suppliers of air pollution monitoring and
control systems, equipment, and services for stationary
sources, joining ICAC means access to top resources around
the world to help your company thrive in todays markets.
As a membership organization, ICAC provides its members
with the tools to stay up-to-date on the latest industry news
and provides forums for developing technology-focused
white papers, buying guides, and rule comments.
ICAC focuses on collaboration, routinely working with
government, business, public, and private groups to
ensure the industry has an active voice and that its
products and technologies are properly represented and
understood. By hearing all positions regarding air quality
concerns, ICAC members successfully apply technology
to achieve economical technology design, development,
and deployment to address the air quality challenges we
face today. Members also work to address the impacts of
air quality technology on the balance of plant concerns,
including E luent Limitation Guidelines (ELG).

Industries ICAC serves:


Emissions control technologies: VOC, SO2,
NOx, PM, Hg, GHG, and air toxics
Emissions measurement technologies:
CEMS, Portables, DAHS, etc.
Leading manufacturers of industry equipment
Providers of related advisory and
implementation service

ICAC members-only resources and opportunities:


An engaged member community
The ICAC Annual Business Meeting
EPA Roundtables and other Federal and
State agency meetings
Legislative Conferences
Industry networking events
Access to an industry leading e-newsletter
The Annual ICAC Market Study
Participation in Division meetings and Committees
Technical Webinars

ICACs mission is to be the voice of the


stationary source air pollution control
and monitoring industry.
The ICAC is often the go-to for agencies to obtain key
information about air pollution control technology. The
ICAC places a high value on: providing credible, high-quality,
reliable information to government entities and relevant
industry parties; encouraging policies that are open to
innovation and new technology and treating all stakeholders
equally and with respect. By providing scienti c technical
information relevant to exible clean air policies based on
practical, achievable and measurable emissions limitations,
members will have the latest data right at their ngertips.

As an ICAC member, MKS gained access to many


of the EPA personnel directly responsible for
writing and enforcing regulations and standards
for CEM technologies.
ICAC members are committed to the domestic and
international growth of the energy industry. With up-todate information on market opportunities around the globe
and a number of networking opportunities throughout the
year, ICAC members have access to the key information and
contacts they need to thrive in todays market. Members
bene t from networking activities such as a membership
meeting each spring, the annual Clean Air Summit,
legislative conferences, numerous division and committee
meetings, conference calls and webinars, EPA roundtable
meetings, state technical forums, and more.

ADA-ES attributes much of its success to its


relationships with di erent ICAC member
companies of varying sizes and a wide range
of expertise.
*A special thank you to POWER Magazine for their
collaborative e orts

CIRCLE 12 ON READER SERVICE CARD

HIGH REACTIVITY HYDRATED LIME


for DRY SORBENT INJECTION
Mississippi Lime Company offers two advanced hydrated lime
solutions speciically engineered for DSI Systems:
High Reactivity Hydrate (SO3 and HCl)
HRH-64 (SO2 and HCI)
These sorbents provide proven advantages to the end user:
High level removal of SO3, HCI, and SO2
Operational beneits
Reduced annual sorbent costs
Ash stability
Contact us at technicalservices@mlc.com to learn more.

CIRCLE 13 ON READER SERVICE CARD

SPECIAL
ADVERTISING
SECTION

Drr

Making Air Pollution


Control Profitable

Removing acids from boiler lue gas allows users the opportunity
to proit from the need to operate an air pollution control system.
While traditionally applied technologies are well known,
such as SCR NOx reduction, the secret lies in Drrs low-CAPEX
SCR active Catalytic Hot Gas Filter in combination with the
cost-efective Furnace Sorbent Injection system engineered by
ClearChem Development. Acid-free lue gas liberates steam for
electricity generation while intelligent utilization of the latent heat
of vaporization takes over the heating of the boiler feed water. As
a major result the boiler heat rate is improved, contributing to the
boilers eiciency as well as necessary BSER achievements of the
Clean Power Plan, like CO2 reduction.
Intelligent integration of the Drr and ClearChem technology
in a side stream arrangement of existing air pollution control
equipment, as shown in the above ESP example, can furthermore
help to improve the overall performance by:

Changing operation mode of existing equipment to partial load,


thereby helping to reduce consumption igures and enhance
eiciencies
Meeting additional emission requirements by incremental
addition of functionality, like SCR NOx reduction, in a side
stream arrangement without putting power production at risk
Being upgradeable for future requirements thanks to modular
design
Improving all over sulfur reduction while at the same time
allowing for condensing operation
While CAPEX requirements for a side stream arrangement can
be even further reduced, necessary footprint is optimized for the
required achievement. We are proud to present a technology that
helps our customers in a cost efective way to address greenhouse
gas emission reduction for existing coal ired boilers, while for the
irst time ofering a return on investment. his is an important step
towards useful lifetime extension for our customers assets, says Mrs.
Wiebke Hagendorf-Schroter, VP of Drr Clean Technology Systems.

Drr Systems, Inc.


26801 Northwestern Highway
Southfield, MI 48033
Phone +1 248-450-2000
Email ctssales@durrusa.com
www.durr-cleantechnology.com
CIRCLE 14 ON READER SERVICE CARD
28129

SPECIAL
ADVERTISING
SECTION

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Simple, Effective Compliance with


Regulatory Requirements for Mercury
mercury and is insensitive to fuel or process changes. Unlike with
many activated carbon sorbents, the presence of SO3 does not inhibit
mercury capture by the SPC. Since there are no injected sorbents or
chemicals, there is no concern over ly ash contamination, halogeninduced corrosion, or wastewater treatment complications. he
catalyst in the SPC converts SO2 to sulfuric acid which is neutralized
in the scrubber.
he GMCS can serve as a barrier to mercury re-emissions from
a wet lue gas desulfurization system (wFGD), eliminating the need
for re-emissions additives.

Minimal Solid Waste Generation


When the modules have reached end of life, the SPC material
can be removed from the metal frames for disposal. he quantity of
SPC material that needs to be disposed is typically several orders of
magnitude less than the quantity of injected sorbents resulting in
lower disposal costs.
he GORE Mercury Control System (GMCS) is an innovative
solution that eliminates many of the undesirable complications and
high operating costs associated with traditional mercury control
systems. It can be a viable alternative, replacement, or complement
to an existing system, providing decreased operating costs,
increased compliance margin, and simpliied plant operation.

Installation in Wet Scrubber

he GMCS is a unique ixed sorbent system for capturing


elemental and oxidized gas phase mercury from industrial lue gas.
he modules are designed with an open channel structure which
provides extremely low pressure drop avoiding the need for an
additional booster fan (typical installation only adds 1 to 2 inches
of water dP). Operation is passive; the modules will continuously
capture mercury for many years without requiring any adjustment,
regeneration, or replacement. hey also provide a signiicant SO2
removal co-beneit, which may be useful for meeting future SO2
regulations. Both mercury and SO2 are removed without requiring
any injection of sorbents or chemicals, and as a result, the operating
cost of the system is very low.

The Science Behind the Solution


At the heart of the technology is an innovative, luoropolymer
based material developed by scientists at W. L. Gore & Associates:
Sorbent Polymer Catalyst (SPC) composite material.
he sorbent in this material eiciently captures gas-phase

GORE Mercury Control Systems are currently in operation in


2000 MW in the coal-ired power industry, and 15 sewage sludge
incinerators.
Contact Gore to receive a speciic installation design for your
plant including costs and projected cost savings.

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.


101 Lewisville Road Elkton MD 21922
Toll-Free: 1.800.328.4623
Email: industrialilters@wlgore.com
gore.com/mercury
CIRCLE 15 ON READER SERVICE CARD

28269

CIRCLE 16 ON READER SERVICE CARD

PRB COAL

PRB Coal Users Group Plant of


the Year: Amerens Rush Island
Energy Center

Courtesy: Rush Island Energy Center, Ameren Corp.

Rush Island Energy Center has successfully fired Powder River Basin (PRB) coal
for two decades, as proven by the plants excellent performance stats,
dedication to minimizing its environmental footprint, and sterling safety
record. The PRB Coal Users Group top award recognizes the plant staffs
long-term dedication to continuously improving its safe handling and efficient combustion of PRB coal.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

Without continual growth and progress,


such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning,
Benjamin Franklin once said. Franklin, inventor and statesman, knew the value of improving electricity systems and in the process
of his electricity experiments coined terms
such as battery, charge, condenser, and
armature, among many others. Franklin
began with an idea that would benefit society (he never patented an invention) and
then slowly perfected the product. The bestperforming power plants, such as Amerens
Rush Island Energy Center (RIEC), reap the
rewards of following Franklins example.
In May, RIEC celebrated 40 years of providing reliable, safe, and low-cost power to
its Missouri customers. Over 20 years ago,
RIEC began making the switch to Powder River Basin (PRB) coal because of the
coals environmental and economic advantages (the coal contains very low amounts
52

of sulfur and is the lowest $/Btu fuel). The


plant has burned 100% PRB coal since
1996. Today, PRB coal is further refined on
site with the addition of proprietary chemicals that refine the coal in order to reduce
NOx production at a cost of about $4 million
per year. RIECs two units routinely score
first and second nationally for the lowest
NOx produced by units without selective
catalytic reduction (SCR).
RIEC is located about 45 miles south of St.
Louis, Mo., on a 500-acre site, on the west side
of the Mississippi River. Each unit has a gross
generating capacity of approximately 645
MW. The two units began commercial service
in 1976 and 1977 and represent the last coal
plants constructed for the Ameren Missouri
generating fleet. The tangentially fired boilers
were originally designed to burn high-sulfur
Illinois coal (11,600 Btu/lb versus 8,400 Btu/
lb for PRB coal). The plant produces electricity with two Westinghouse turbine-generators,
www.powermag.com

recently upgraded with Alstom rotors.


The Powder River Coal Users Group
(PRBCUG) Board of Directors toured RIEC
in mid-December 2015 to learn first-hand
about the plants progress toward implementing best practices for managing risk, ensuring
a safe working environment, efficient combustion, and PRB coal handling. Board members
shared their observations with POWER, many
of which are included in this article. The common denominator reported by each member of
the review team was the plants commitment
to a process of continuous improvement in all
areas of plant operations.
Excellence in plant operations is a process, not an end state, although Plant of the
Year honors certainly represent a significant
milestone in the life of the plant (see sidebar). The board noted three important areas
where the plant distinguishes itself among its
peers: environmental performance, plant operations, and a culture of safety.

POWER July 2016

PRB COAL
Environmental Excellence
NOx emissions are managed by overfired air
and a Griffin neural net combustion optimization system. The permit limit for NOx emissions is 0.40 lb/MMBtu, although actual
average annual NOx emissions have remained
below 0.10 lb/MMBtu over the past decade,
without an SCR. For 2015, NOx emissions averaged 0.081 lb/MMBtu. Particulates are captured with an electrostatic precipitator on each
unit (there is no baghouse).
The plants sulfur emissions rely on the
efficient burning of the ultra-low-sulfur PRB
compliance coal. Permitted SO2 emissions are
2.3 lb/MMBtu, although the plants average
annual emissions have tracked under 0.75 lb/
MMBtu for the past 20 years, dipping to below 0.5 lb/million Btu in 2014 as combustion
systems were continuously optimized.
Mercury emissions are reduced by injecting activated carbon upstream of the air
heaters and a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system analyzes the stack gas.
The plant closely manages opacity exceedances and had only 46 six-minute exceedances in 2014.
The plant operates today with a capacity
factor over 80% and an equivalent availability just short of 90%.

PRBCUG Recognizes Its 2016 Plant of the Year


The annual Powder River Basin Coal Users
Group (PRBCUG) meeting was held in April in
conjunction with the 2016 ELECTRIC POWER
Conference & Exhibition in New Orleans, La.
This year the PRBCUG recognized the Rush
Island Energy Center as its Plant of the Year
for the plants innovation and implementation of best practices and best available
technologies for burning PRB coal. Plant
of the Year recipients are inducted into the
groups Power Plant Hall of Fame.

Selections are made by the groups


board of directors, with input from members. PRBCUG membership comprises users of PRB coals as well as prospective
consumers (generating companies or
industrial energy consumers). Associate
members from companies supplying coal,
equipment, or services also participate in
the selection process. Visit www.prbcoals.
com for more information about the group
and its Plant of the Year selection process.

1. Black gold. The Rush Island Energy Center consumes about 5.5 million tons of very low
sulfur Powder River Basin coal each year. The coal pile holds about 1.1 million tons of fuel
enough for 60 to 65 days of operation. Courtesy: Rush Island Energy Center

Impeccable Plant Operations


RIECs two units consume about 5.5 million
tons of PRB coal each year, which represents
about one 145-car unit train every day. Coal
is sourced from Peabody Energys North Antelope Rochelle, Seam C, located in Wyoming. A loop track around the storage area
reduces the coal train unloading cycle time.
The plant stores about 1.1 million tons
of coal on site (equivalent to about 60 to
65 days of consumption). Coal is delivered using pneumatically actuated bottomdump cars that drop coal onto feeders. An
A-frame structure supports a vibratory
shaker that, with an electric heater, is able
to remove sticky, wet, or frozen coal from
the rail cars. Dry roto-clone systems keep
the dust produced during the unloading process well under control. A surfactant is also
sprayed on the coal during unloading for
dust control, when required.
The A side coal unloading system is configured with below-grade dump hoppers outfitted with vibratory feeders that direct coal
onto conveyor belt systems that terminate at
the radial stacker-reclaimer centrally located
in the main coal storage pile (Figure 1). The
conveyor belt is protected with a fixed nozzle,
open spray deluge system monitored and triggered by a thermistor wire. The coal bins are
located indoors, although the filter houses are
outdoors. Once coal is delivered to the pile,
three Caterpillar D10 dozers keep the coal

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

53

PRB COAL
2. Stuck in the middle. The arrangement of the two-unit plant required the two main
fuel transfer conveyors to pass through the common plant stack and through the boiler house
to reach the fuel silos located on the opposite side of the boiler house. Courtesy: Bill Konefes,
PRBCUG

storage area well-groomed. The reclaim system collects coal from the pile and conveys it
to the transfer house, where magnetic metal
separation occurs. Coal is then conveyed to
the surge bin located on each unit, which, in
turn, sends coal to one of the six unit silos. The
B side system, which is virtually identical in
operation, provides redundancy.
The single coal supply incline from the
transfer house to the boiler island contains
two independent conveyor systems (Figure
2). The twin conveyors run through an engineered opening in the stacks shell structure,
through the stack, across the boiler house,
and to the tripper (cascade) floor and the coal
silos. The open conveyors are the cause of
minor combustible dust releases within the
building that are ably handled by the housekeeping staff.
As part of the plants conversion to PRB
coal, conveyor side panels and under-conveyor dribble and sluice pans were installed on
the two conveyors. The side panels prevent
coal particles from escaping into the boiler
house, and the dribble and sluice pans help
capture and direct washdown slurry to a containment area outside the boiler building.
Washing of these conveyors occurs every two
weeks, or more often, as needed.
A crew of 10 laborers are assigned housekeeping duties for the fuel unloading and
delivery systems. The normal practice is to
wash down unloading areas of combustible
dust after each train is unloaded. Washdown
in the fuel unloading area relies on hoses.
Washdowns on the tripper deck with hoses
and a floor deluge system are conducted once
a week. Monthly housekeeping audits are
54

also performed by craft supervisors.


Fire protection water is supplied by three
pumps; two are electric drive and one is
driven by a diesel engine. Pumps are tested
weekly. The plants fire control panel is located within the combined control room and
is monitored around the clock by the control
room operators.

Organized for Success


RIEC employs 141 full-time employees. The
plants operations and maintenance (O&M)
staff is organized with five rotating operations teams, plus 45 maintenance craft workers and 10 fuel operators. All plant operators
are also cross-trained in a maintenance skill
and spend approximately one-half of their
shift performing plant maintenance. Ameren
also has a traveling maintenance group of approximately 70 craft workers that augment
the plant maintenance staff during major
maintenance outages.
Boiler outages are scheduled every six
years and turbine outages every 12 years.
The plants annual O&M budget (less fuel)
is approximately $24 million, and the capital
budget is about $2.5 million, which doesnt
include major capital projects.
The plants outstanding safety record is
demonstrated by just six lost work accidents
occurring over the past 10 years. An effective
safety culture begins at the top. Litzinger hosts
a monthly all-hands safety meeting that is also
video recorded for replay by shift workers.
Other important safety programs include:

The Plant Safety Steering Committee


consisting of senior plant staff, a craft
www.powermag.com

representative, and a corporate safety


representativemeets monthly. The craft
safety representative is elected to serve in
that position by peers.
The plant safety director conducts a daily
safety tour of the plant, and all plant employees are trained to be vigilant in identifying potential safety issues.
Stop work authority is delegated to all
employees when an unsafe condition is
observed.
Contractors must submit a safety plan for
approval prior to beginning work.
Of the 141 plant employees, 135 are emergency response trained.
The plant has a 40-member fire brigade
for interior firefighting, and all employees
are trained in incipient firefighting.

Workers participate in a safety observation


program called Crew to Crew (C2C). C2C requires workers to complete a job briefing and
hazard recognition form prior to the start of
each job. If hazards are identified, they must
be escalated to a supervisor for resolution.
C2C also requires daily supervisor visits to
every location in the plant where work is being performed. It is the supervisors responsibility to talk with those doing the work and,
by using a prescribed check sheet, to identify
emerging safety issues that require immediate attention, develop modifications to existing job plans, and/or identify future training
needs.
Finally, IMPROVE, the plants work
management system, is used to capture recognized hazards and near misses. The feedback is then reviewed by the appropriate craft
supervisor and safety supervisor. The safety
supervisor is responsible for recording,
tracking, and disseminating all safety-related
issues to the plant director and to other Ameren facilities.

Current Coal Challenges


RIEC has made many PRB coal-related improvements since converting the plant to burn
PRB coal 20 years ago. Prime examples are
the improvements made to its coal-handling
systems, such as explosion-proof electrical
system upgrades, installing semi-automatic
washdown systems, dust suppression system
additions, improved chute and skirt board
seals, and fire protection system upgrades.
The plant also installed passive and fixed
fire detection suppression systems throughout the plant and on its fuel-handling systems. Flow-controlled transfer chutes were
installed so that the fuel-handling system
would efficiently handle the increased coal
flow. Upgrades were made to the plants bunkers, silos, and bins (silos) to reduce bridging
and rat-holing. Erratic flow through silos is

POWER July 2016

PRB COAL
especially troublesome as PRB coal is more
prone to spontaneous combustion during
coal flow stoppages. Finally, coal conveyors
along with the support structures were retrofitted with automatic fixed sprinkler systems.
For 2016, the plants continuous improvement program is focused on improving plant
operations in two important ways: reducing
boiler fouling and reducing fly ash dusting
originating at coal mill primary air ducts.
Reduce Furnace Fouling. Effective furnace sootblowing is required in order to keep
the furnace tubes clean. Each unit uses 80
steam wallblowers and long retractable blowers (recently increased from 18 to 66) for tube
wall cleaning, a mixture of Copes-Vulcan and
Clyde Bergemann designs. Three additional
long retractable sootblowers are currently
planned for installation on each unit. Steam is
the sootblowing medium of choice.
The Griffin intelligent combustion control system is also used for intelligent sootblowing (ISB). The ISB is principally used
to determine cleaning times and intervals,
although operators must occasionally manually run select blowers to manage steam
temperature control. Periodic load drops are
intermittently required for slag shedding,
particularly during summer months after a
long run ator long periods of operation at
or nearfull load. Online boiler washdowns
are scheduled about twice a year.
Routine maintenance of sootblowers was
problematic, so a few years ago RIEC set up
a dedicated sootblower maintenance shop.
Sootblower availability was greatly improved
as a result of having the dedicated maintenance shop. On the day of the visit, Unit 1
had only three of 80 wall blowers out of service, three more wall blowers were available
for local start only, and only one long retractable sootblower was out of service. On Unit
2, only three wallblowers were out of service.
Reduce Fly Ash Leaks. The plant maintenance staff has been fighting leaks in the
primary air ducts that cause fly ash to be
exhausted into the boiler house for the past
three years. The problem often overwhelms
the plants housekeeping staff because airborne fly ash tends to settle everywhere in
the boiler house, and the turbine deck often
receives a light dusting as well. Recent work
completed on Unit 1 is expected to significantly reduce the dusting problem, and Unit
2 modifications will be completed during the
units next major outage. Fly ash does not
have the fire hazard potential of PRB coal
dust, so the presence of fly ash is principally
a worker respiratory hazard concern.

Ameren Missouris Rush Island Energy Center for being chosen as the 2016 PRBCUG
Plant of the Year! For further information
on RIEC or the plant improvement projects
outlined in this article, please contact Plant
Director Mark Litzinger (314-992-9201 or
mlitzinger@ameren.com). Additional information on the PRBCUG and its awards program is available at www.prbcoals.com.

Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs


consulting editor. The members of the
PRBCUG board of directors that visited the

POWER is the leading source for power


generation news, technology, and analysis
used by more than 65,000 plant managers,
engineers, technicians, and those who
support the power industry.

POWER covers the industry across


multiple channels:

POWER magazine
digital and print
powermag.com
POWERnews e-newsletter

July 2016 POWER

Careers in POWER
job board and e-newsletter
POWER Store
books and reference material
DecisionBriefs

COAL POWER e-newsletter


GAS POWER e-newsletter

POWER Buyers Guide


print and website

facebook.com/
POWERmagazine

POWER Magazine and Women


in Power Generation groups

@POWERmagazine

POWER magazine

powermag.com

More Information
Congratulations from the editorial staff of
POWER to the management and staff of

Rush Island Energy Center and contributed to this report include Bill Konefes
(Georgia-Pacific and Chairman, PRBCUG);
Andrew Dobrzanski (DTE Energy and
Vice Chairman-Genco); Jim Wiseman
(Wiseman Consulting Services and Vice
Chairman-Industry); Erick Dieperink (Luminant); James Rauba (FM Global); Jeff Kite
(Diamond Power International Inc.); and
Greg Krieser (OPPD Omaha Public Power
District).

25967

www.powermag.com

55

FUELS

The Coal Refuse Dilemma: Burning


Coal for Environmental Benefits
The niche alternative energy industry that generates power from hazardous
piles of coal waste that litter the U.S. is facing an environmental Catch-22.
Sonal Patel

he torrent of coal mined and processed


in the U.S. since the mid-1700s
first sorted by the little, raw fingers
of breaker boys (Figure 1) and, later, by
machineryhas produced hundreds of millions of tons of coal refuse that was discarded for its very low heat content. This
waste coalalso known as culm, gob, or
boney, and often mixed in with rock, shale,
slurry, slate, clay, and other materialshas
been randomly stockpiled high on thousands
of acres of abandoned mine lands (AML),
scattered across landscapes in coal country,
sometimes filling up entire valleys with dark
gray moonscape-like formations.
But over the years, the environmental impact of these dumps has also crested. Refuse
mounds, toxic to plant life, are barren and
therefore highly erosive. Unstable coal refuse piles can collapse, becoming potential
disasters. And bituminous piles, in particular,
can leach concentrated levels of acid mine
drainage. The cost of reclaiming these piles
using conventional AML techniques is high,
and the extremely poor water quality is often
beyond the reach of current passive treatment
technology, noted ARIPPA, a trade organization that started as the Anthracite Region
Independent Power Producers Association
but that has since adopted its acronymic
name, along with a broader mission to produce power from all varieties of the nations
coal refuse.
In Pennsylvania alone, where coal miners have extracted about 16.3 billion short
tons of anthracite and bituminous coal
since commercial mining began in 1800,
the state is scarred by more than 5,000
abandoned, unreclaimed mining areas that
cover 184,00 acres. Coal refuse piles at
these mines undulate over an aggregate
area of 8,500 acres and contain a total volume of more than 200 million cubic yards.
And thats a conservative estimate: ARIPPA guesses the amount of coal refuse in
the state is actually about 2 billion cubic
yards, split equally between the anthracite
and bituminous coal regions. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (PBAMR), meanwhile, estimates
56

that a complete cleanup of AML sites will


cost about $16.1 billion.
Then, theres the ever-present, exorbitant
risk of fire. In 2014, PBAMR paid (using
emergency funds in a trust partially funded
by the coal industry via fees paid per ton of
mined coal) Pennsylvania firm Minichi Inc.
$2.2 million to snuff out a stubborn blaze at
the 100-foot-high, 4-acre bank of the Simpson Northeast coal refuse pile. The fire,
which started out smoldering and ignited into
flames at the periphery of a vastly larger coal
refuse area, took nearly six months to extinguish, requiring material excavation, millions of gallons of water, and thousands of
gallons of firefighting foam (Figure 2).
Thats just one example. At least 40 other
coal refuse pilesnot including underground
mine firesare currently burning just in
Pennsylvania and will need to be addressed
at some point, the state agency says.
Theres not much the commonwealth can

do, beyond reclamationwhich is a complicated task that requires addressing water


pollution from run-off and acid mine drainage discharges, site stabilization, covering
the pile with soil, and planting vegetation. In
1968, Pennsylvania became the first state to
pass a law to address air pollution associated
with coal refuse disposal.
On a federal level, its a similar struggle,
ARIPPA noted. Laws were enacted in the
late 1970s that now require coal mining companies to reclaim the sites that they currently
mine. But by the time these laws were enacted, a billion tons of coal refuse had been
stockpiled, thousands of mine sites were
abandonedand the former legally responsible parties had vanished, it explained.

From Refuse to Resource


Thats why, ARIPPA says, its solution to use
coal refuse as fuel at power plants sited near
piles across the nation is indispensable.

1. Breaker boys. This photo from 1911 captures a view of the Ewen Breaker of the Pa. Coal
Co., where boysmost aged eight to 12spent 10 hours a day, six days a week, breaking and
sorting coal, and picking out slate and other impurities, which were then dumped in coal refuse
piles. The record notes that the dust was so dense at times as to obscure the view. Source:
National Archives and Records Administration

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

FUELS
2. The long inferno. Crews spent six months dousing open
flames at the Simpson Northeast coal refuse fire near Fell Township,
Lackawanna County, Pa., in 2014. Temperatures fell into the single digits for almost a month while crews worked. Source: Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement/Department of Interior

1.866.643.1010 ClearSpan.com/ADPO

WE MANUFACTURE WE INSTALL
WE SAVE YOU MONEY
BUILDINGS OF 1,000 USES

In its simplest sense, the process entails re-mining coal refuse piles
in accordance with surface mining regulations, and then processing
that material at the mine site by screening to remove rock and other
inert materials. The finer materialtypically 75% or more of the coal
refuseis used as fuel in a fluidized bed combustion boiler or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler. Combustion ash from the boiler
which meets beneficial use criteriais then returned to the mine site
and mixed with unusable coal refuse material as a way of neutralizing
any remaining acidic materials. The materials are then compacted in
place to contours as described in the surface mining permit. As such
the concentration of the acidity as well as the metals such as iron,
aluminum, and manganese in surface and groundwater releases are
significantly reduced, says ARIPPA.
The coal refuseto-power solution was conceived in the aftermath
of the oil embargo of the 1970s. Just as Congress was preparing to
vote for the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978,
CFB technology was being developed and showing a capability to
convert lowheating value carbonaceous material (such as coal refuse) into energy.
The first CFB plant designed to convert large quantities of coal
refuse into powerthe 30-MW Westwood Generating Station in
Schuylkill County, Pa.came online in 1987. Eighteen more projects have since been grid-connected, 13 in Pennsylvania alone (Figure 3); two are in West Virginia, one in Montana, one in Utah, and
one in Illinois.
The plants are owned by a diverse mix of companies, including
NRG Energy, Exelon, Olympus Power, Babcock & Wilcox Co., Foster Wheeler, Northern Star Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric, Kimberly Clark, Cogentrix Energy, Olympus Power, Schuylkill Energy
Resources, Waste Management, Southern Illinois Power Cooperative,
and Colstrip Energy. Most power produced is sold in the PJM wholesale and capacity markets. Today, these plantswith a total capacity
of 1,767 MW (see http://www.powermag.com/plants-that-turn-coalrefuse-to-power/ for a slideshow of the plants)have removed a
purported 214 million tons of coal refuse from the environment at no
expense to taxpayers.
But the sector that has been the darling of most coal-producing
statesand lauded even by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)for its potential to eradicate coal refuse piles and reclaim
thousands of disfigured acres is facing new, debilitating challenges.
Lucrative power purchase agreements signed under PURPA are
beginning to expire, forcing plants to compete in the open market.

July 2016 POWER

Fabric Structures

Hybrid Buildings

Foundation Solutions

ZERO PERCENT FINANCING AVAILABLE

RESTRICTIONS
MAY APPLY

CIRCLE 17 ON READER SERVICE CARD

Then, as Vincent Brisini, director of environmental affairs at Olympus


Power, recently told congressional lawmakers, because coal refuse
piles close to existing coal refuse plants have been successfully removed, generators must source coal refuse from piles at ever-greater
distances, which has added to transportation costs. And, as with conventional coal plants, the economics of existing coal refuse plants
have suffered in the advent of abnormally low natural gas prices,
and a sluggish economy [that is] stifling electricity demand, the
trade group told POWER.

An Environmental Muddle
Lately, that economic burden has gotten even heavier owing to federal regulatory policies that dramatically and unnecessarily increase
environmental compliance costs, ARIPPA said.
For the coal refuse generation sector, air pollution in particular poses
an environmental Catch-22 with no resolution in sight. The EPA emphasized, when questioned by POWER in May, that coal refuse piles
are a marked environmental worry for their acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous combustion, and low soil fertility. It also
acknowledged that [u]nits that burn coal refuse provide multimedia
environmental benefits by combining the production of energy with
theremoval of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for productive
use. However, the agency underscored, they are still coal-fired power
plants. They still emit hazardous air pollutants that the agency has determined are significant public health disadvantages.
Critics of the niche industry, like the Pennsylvania arm of the Energy Justice Network project, contend that coal refuse plants arent
just inefficient, they also are far more polluting than new coal plants.
The large new waste coal burning power plants planned for western

www.powermag.com

57

FUELS
3. Plying the pile. The 102-MW Colver Power Project in Cambria Countya bituminous
coal mining region in western Pennsylvaniabegan operations in May 1995. The plant, owned
by independent power producer Inter-Power/AhlCon Partners, is equipped with a large circulating fluidized bed boiler. It is one of the states newest bituminous coal refuse power plants.
Courtesy: ARIPPA

[Pennsylvania] were granted permits in 2005


to release higher levels of [sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)] and other
air pollutants than the normal pulverized coal
power plant proposed near Morgantown,
W.Va., the group pointed out. Also, If 100
tons of waste coal are burned, 85 tons will
remain as waste coal ash, it said.
A better solution to the coal refuse problem
would be to plant beach grass, which it says,
citing research from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, has been shown to
bring life back to long-dead waste coal piles for
only 6-10% of the cost of conventional methods. Within a few years, beach grass enabled
native plants to take over, allowing organic
matter to accumulate around plants, forming
a plant layer that stopped erosion, held water,
cooled the surface, and looked better.
ARIPPA contests the air pollution charge,
saying its members take precautions to control emissions of SO2, NOx, air toxics, filterable particulate matter, and total particulate
matter. Coal refuse power plants use CFB
boilers, which use limestone injection for
acid gas control, and they are also equipped
with fabric filter systems to control filterable
particulate matter emissions, it explained.
The nations coal refuse plants are also the
lowest emitters of mercury of all coal generation facilities, even though coal refuse may
be higher in mercury content, ARIPPA said,
noting that multiple coal-refuse units were
included in the EPAs Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) floor calculations (top 12% performing units) used to
establish the emission standards for mercury
and non-mercury metals as outlined in its
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
58

Meanwhile, the emissions of greenhouse


gases (GHGs) from these units can be considered as offset due to the eventual in-place
burning of coal refuse piles, ARIPPA said.
Coal refuse fires also result in the uncontrolled release of the same pollutants that
these plants control with high removal rates.
Because these units provide electricity to the
grid they also reduce emissions from other
fossil fuelfired [electric generating units
(EGUs)] which otherwise would be operating. The reclamation and re-vegetation of
coal refuse sites also results in the expansion
of green spaces which aids in the sequestration of GHGs, it said.
The EPA told POWER that it has considered and requested comment on separate
emission standards for coal refuse generators
for various proposals. In fact, EPA has established subcategory SO2 and NOx emission
standards for new, modified and reconstructed coal refuse-fired EGUs, it said.
However, in the final MATS rule, the EPA
noted that the waste coal hazardous air pollutant emissions are not sufficiently different
from other coal-fired generators to warrant
further subcategorization. There are EGUs
firing bituminous, subbituminous, and coal
refuse among the top performing units for
mercury emissions. EGUs firing bituminous,
subbituminous, lignite, and coal refuse are
also all among the top performers for the acid
gas and non-mercury metallic emissions.
This indicates that the MACT floor limits established based on these units are achievable
by units burning all ranks of coal, it said.
This approach, the EPA noted, was upheld
by the D.C. Circuits April 2014 decision in
White Stallion v. EPA. The court, in that case,
www.powermag.com

said that the EPA reasonably decided that


separate standards for coal-refuse-fired CFBs
were not warranted.

Looking to Congress for a


Resolution
Underscoring its message that one regulation does not fit all plants the same, the industry has continued its fight to keep afloat
amid the deluge of environmental rules targeting coal plants. Its cause has now been
taken up in Congress.
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) last October introduced the Satisfying Energy Needs
and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act,
legislation that would modify the EPAs
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) by
allocating additional SO2 allowances for coal
refuse generators (but reducing allowances
elsewhere so the overall program cap does
not change). The bill also creates an alternative means of demonstrating compliance
with the hydrochloric acid (HCl) standard
under MATS by assuming that a 93% reduction in SO2 demonstrates compliance with
the HCl standard.
But the Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill, raising concerns that
it chooses winners and losers because it
favors coal refuse generators over other facilities. At a House Subcommittee on Energy
and Power hearing on the bill this February,
speaking on ARIPPAs behalf, Brisini refuted
that argument, underscoring that coal varieties have unique characteristics.
Anthracite refuse plants can meet the
CSAPR alternative 2.0 standard because sulfur content in coal refuse from the anthracite
region is lower, but bituminous plants cannot,
he said. It is not because the technology is
different or they have anything special and it is
part of the problem when you lump all of these
things together not recognizing the [technical
differences] in these kinds of fuels. Meanwhile, he noted, only two bituminous coal
refuse plants can meet the HCl requirements
under MATS. No other plants, whether they
are bituminous coal refuse [or] anthracite coal
refuse, they dont do it, he said.
The bill continues its course through Congress and is currently under consideration by
the Senate. Brisini remains hopeful that the
acid gas issue is resolved by the SENSE Act
or other regulatory amendments.
If all fails, the measures that would have
to be taken by bituminous coal refusefired
electric generating units to allow them to
meet the acid gas limit would likely prevent
them from successfully participating in the
PJM wholesale electric market, with the exception of the last coal refuse fired facility
built, he noted.

Sonal Patel is a POWER associate editor.

POWER July 2016

FUELS

Energy from Waste: Greenhouse


Gas Winner or Pollution Loser?
Is waste-to-energy the best greenhouse gas fighter among electric generating
technologies? Or do trash burners spew dangerous air emissions? The
answer may be a surprise.
Kennedy Maize

hat electricity-generating technology results in net greenhouse gas


(GHG) reductions, not just zero
new emissions? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), its not
nuclear, not wind, not solar.
Give up? Waste-to-energy (WTE, known
to some as trash-to-cash), according to the
EPA and a recent analysis by the Department of Energys National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the only electric
generating technology that actually reduces
GHG emissions as it makes power. Megawatts up; GHGs down.
According to the EPA, municipal solid
waste (MSW) burners, using trash and garbage to generate electricity, separating out
recyclable materials, will actually reduce
the amount of [GHG emissions] in the atmosphere compared to landfilling. The savings
are estimated to be about 1.0 tons of GHGs
saved per ton of MSW combusted.
The EPA bases its calculations on methane
emissions from landfills. Methane is a much
more potent GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2)
in the short term (although methane spends
less time than CO2 in the atmosphere). Burning the trash that produces methane in landfills reduces overall GHGs.
A 2011 NREL analysis looked at lifecycle
GHG emissions from electricity generating technologies. It found that wind has very
small lifecycle emissions, with nuclear a bit
above those, followed by solar. While all of
the conventional low-carbon technologies were
slightly positive in terms of GHG emissions in
lifecycle terms (the energy that went into making and erecting the technologies as well as
emissions from operations), energy from waste
was the only option that reduced GHGs. WTE
projects prevent landfill methane emissions,
according to NREL; the other renewable technologies simply avoid new emissions.

renewables such as wind and solar, reflects


this analysis of the ability of WTE to yield
net negative GHG emissions. Paul Gillman,
senior vice president and chief sustainability
officer at Covanta, a leading waste management company in the U.S., told POWER that
the EPAs Clean Power Plan tells states they
can consider energy from waste as a mitigation tool to meet requirements under the new
regulations.
Covanta, with 43 WTE plants (41 in North
America and two in Europe), is now pitching
GHG reductions as among the reasons to employ the technology. It turns MSW into a stream
of saleable recycled commoditiessuch as
aluminum, copper, and plasticsalong with
electricity and process steam that can be sold to
industrial users or district heating systems. All
this while reducing landfill methane. Gillman
notes that Europe and Asia, which signed on to
the 1997 Kyoto Protocolwhich the U.S. rejected and which is now a dead letterspurred
WTE for GHG reductions.

International Support for WTE

European nations that signed on to the Kyoto


agreement saw WTE as a way to reduce methane-generating landfills while increasing recycling and energy production. In Germany,
Gillman said, less than 1% of waste goes to
landfills. Denmark has banned landfills, turning entirely to recycling and WTE for managing its waste stream (Figure 1).
Compared to the U.S., European countries
have greater population densities and less
territory available for landfills. They often
have government-owned waste management
agencies, which can streamline development
of landfill alternatives. In Denmark, for example, WTE plants are owned by municipalities or multiple-municipal agencies.
In Asia, particularly China, noted Gillman, the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms created an economic incentive to reduce GHGs
in order to generate reduction credits saleable
to the European Union countries. According
to Gillman, more than 300 WTE projects are
now operating in China, and more than 100
are under construction (see sidebar Worlds
Largest Waste-to-Energy Plant). China, he

1. Not just blowin smoke. The Amager Resource Center waste-to-energy plant is
under construction in Denmark, which has banned landfills. The plant has gained notoriety for
integrating an artificial ski slope on the roof and a stack that will blow a water vapor smoke
ring each time 250 kilograms of carbon dioxide are released. Courtesy: Bjarke Ingels Group

Clean Power Plan Would Support


WTE
A little-noticed element of the EPAs Clean
Power Plan, generally seen as a way to back
out coal-fired power and boost conventional

July 2016 POWER

www.powermag.com

59

FUELS

Worlds Largest Waste-to-Energy Plant


China has picked two Danish architectural
firmsSchmidt Hammer Lassen Architects
and Gottlieb Paludan Architectsto design the worlds largest waste-to-energy
(WTE) plant for the city of Shenzhen. The
project would burn some 5,000 tons of
municipal solid waste per dayabout a
third of the waste generated by the city of
20 million, reports Deezen.com, a website
covering architecture and design news.
Last December, a Shenzhen construction-waste dump collapsed, killing what
press accounts said were dozens of people. Plans for the new WTE plant quickly
followed.
According to the architects website,
the circular facility a mile in diameter will
boast a 66,000-square meter roof, two
thirds of which will be covered with solar
photovoltaic panels, allowing the building
to generate its own sustainable supply of
energy. The circular structure of the plant
(Figure 2) will include a ramp that snakes
from the ground to the roof, along with a
rooftop visitors center.
The Deezem article quotes Chris Hardie,
head of the Schmidt Hammer Lassen office in Shanghai, as saying, The project
firstly aims to provide a clean, simple and

2. Full circle. This design for a wasteto-energy facility in Shenzhen, China, includes a rooftop visitors center. Courtesy:
Schmidt Hammer Lassen

modern technical facility to deal with the


citys growing waste. At the same time it
aims to educate visitors to this growing
waste challenge by taking them on an
elevated walkway tour of the plant that
ends with a 1.5 kilometer panoramic view
of both the surrounding mountains and
the 66,000-square-meter roofscape that
will be geared to producing actual renewable energy.
The companies descriptions and the
press accounts do not indicate how much
electric capacity the project will provide
or what the project will cost, typical of
announcements out of China on developing energy projects. The project is scheduled to be operational in 2020, according
to press reports.

3. Clean lines. Ontarios Durham York 15.7-MW waste-to-energy plant burns 436 metric
tons of municipal solid waste daily. Courtesy: Covanta

said, has about the same land mass as the


U.S. but four times the populationa strong
incentive against landfills and for WTE.
In the U.S., land for waste disposal is
cheap and plentiful. WTE plants compete
with landfills for the trash disposal dollar.
According to the Energy Recovery Council,
the industrys Washington-based lobbying
group, the U.S. has 84 WTE plants (four are
60

idled but able to come into service), with


about 2,800 MW of baseload electricity generating capacity. The two dominant WTE
companies are publicly traded Covanta,
based in Morristown, N.J., with more than
40 plants, and privately owned Wheelabrator Technologies, located in Hampton, N.H.,
with 16 U.S. plants.
The first new WTE project in the U.S. in
www.powermag.com

20 years went into commercial operation in


July 2015, in West Palm Beach, Fla., owned
by the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority. The 95-MW facility joined an existing 20-year-old waste combustion and energy
unit. A consortium of Babcock & Wilcox and
KBR designed and built the new plant.
Covanta commissioned the most recent
plant in North America in January this year
in the Canadian province of Ontario, the
Durham York project (Figure 3), which burns
436 metric tons of MSW per day to produce
15.7 MW of baseload power.
Wheelabrators latest project is the Ferrybridge multifuel project in North Yorkshire in the UK, a 68-MW generator burning
MSW, industrial waste, and wood waste,
co-located with an existing and retiring coalfired power plant.

Challenging U.S. Economics for


WTE
Why is the U.S. slow in turning waste into energy? Its a matter of market competition, said
Ted Michaels, head of the Energy Recovery
Council. He told POWER, Our industry is
strong, the facilities operate well; its a mature, not nascent, industry. But the industry is
operating in difficult economic conditions.
WTE businesses in the U.S. face a triple economic whammy, according to Michaels. First,
the chief economic driver of WTE is waste, not
energy. The facilities compete against landfills.
Landfills charge a tipping fee for waste delivered to their facilities. That becomes the price
WTE plants must meet to divert waste from the
landfill to the energy project.
Power is a secondary function of the economics of a waste-to-energy plant, Michaels
said. Our largest market is waste management. Thats entirely different than wind
turbines, or biomass. Michaels noted that in
the U.S., Landfills remain cheap. Thats our
primary source of competition.
To attract trash (aka fuel), a U.S. WTE
project must offer a lower tipping fee than a
landfill. The waste incinerators use offsetting
revenues from recycling and electric generation (and industrial steam in some cases) to
support their bids for the waste stream. Of
late, commodity prices for materials such
as metals, paper, and plastic have been historically low, undermining the ability of the
recycling portion of the facility to compete
against landfills.
The crash in commodities prices has been
devastating to recyclers and WTE generators
across the board. The Washington Post noted
last year, In short, the business of American
recycling has stalled. And industry leaders
warn that the situation is worse than it appears. Waste Management, the nations largest recycler, called it a nationwide crisis.

POWER July 2016

FUELS

Maryland Rejects New Baltimore Waste-to-Energy Plant


Maryland has traditionally been friendly toward turning trash into
electricity, and the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority,
a quasi-governmental group aimed at helping Maryland communities meet their waste disposal needs, has long been an advocate
of waste-to-energy (WTE) projects.
Cars driving into Baltimore from I-95 and the BaltimoreWashington Parkway for over 30 years have seen a large stack,
originally bearing the letters BRESCO down its side and, more
recently, BALTIMORE (Figure 4). Thats the exhaust stack for a
large WTE plant, commissioned in 1985, now operated by Wheelabrator Technologies, and long a target of environmental activists
for alleged air pollution problems. The project has survived multiple environmental reviews over three decades.
A small WTE project in Harford County, north of Baltimore near
the Department of Defenses (DODs) Aberdeen Proving Ground,
closed down last March when its lease with the DOD expired and
the Pentagon chose not to renew it. The plant began operations
in 1988 and attracted little local notice.
At about the same time as the Harford County plants lease expired, a proposal for another large Baltimore WTE project, years in
the works, collapsed. The Baltimore Sun reported that the Maryland
Department of the Environment told developer Energy Answers International of Albany, N.Y., that a 2010 permit for a project in south
Baltimores Curtis Bay neighborhood was no longer valid.
The project would have been the largest in the U.S., converting
some 4,000 tons of solid waste per day into 160 MW of baseload capacity. The project drew opposition from local activists, who claimed
that the plant would harm schools and parks in the neighborhood,
as well as homes in the area. Opponents said the project would be
a prodigious producer of oxides of nitrogen and particulate pollution, although the plant would have met all federal Environmental
Protection Agency NOx and particulate emissions standards.
Baltimore activist Destiny Watford last April won a $175,000
Goldman Environmental Prize for organizing community opposition to the WTE project, along with kudos from New York Times environment blogger Andy Revkin. The citation read, Curtis Bay is
a highly industrialized community in south Baltimore with a history of displacing people to make room for oil refineries, chemical
plants, sewage treatment plants, and other facilities that emit
pollution. Those left to live within breathing distance of industry
The company, based in Houston, said its recycling division posted a $16 million loss in
the first quarter of 2015, and it has shut 10 of
its largest recycling facilities. The Washington Post article concluded, A storm of falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a weakened
economy in China have sent prices for American recyclables plummeting wordwide.
On top of that, low natural gas prices have
driven down the wholesale price generators
of electric power can reap in competitive
markets. Natural gas is a big driver of wasteto-energy economics, lowering the price for
wholesale power, Michaels said. The global
economic crash of 2008 also slowed the econ-

July 2016 POWER

4. Trash power plant target of trash talk. This Maryland waste-to-energy plant has been the target of environmentalists claims that it causes pollution, though it has survived three
decades of environmental reviews. Courtesy: Wheelabrator

have long suffered from respiratory problems such as asthma and


lung cancer. In fact, a 2013 study on emissions-related mortality
rates found Baltimore to be the deadliest city, with 130 out of
every 100,000 residents likely to die each year from long-term
exposure to air pollution.
Ted Michaels of the Energy Recovery Council had a different
take on the events in Baltimore. He told POWER that cancellation
of the 2010 state license for the Curtis Bay project came because
the developer hadnt lived up to the terms of the permit. Maryland withdrew the permit because not enough construction activity had occurred. The terms of the permit had been violated, he
said. The Baltimore Sun reported that state environmental regulators concluded that the developers of the project had not met the
permit requirements for continuous construction.
Are activists objections to mass-burn technologies technically
valid? In the online news site Huffington Post, science writer
Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote, Todays waste-to-energy (WTE)
plants are not your granddaddys trash burners. . . . Some liberal groups, like the Center for American Progress, are starting to
look at the actual science and reevaluating long-held assumptions
in light of new information and increasing concern over climate
change. When they do, they are finding that todays waste-toenergy plants look surprisingly good for the environment and for
fighting climate change.

omy, drove down electricity demand, and cut


into the price of recycled commodities.

The Environmental Debate


Environmental opposition also burdens WTE
plants. Fervent opponents of the projects assert
that incinerating waste produces dangerous
levels of airborne pollutants such as dioxins
and heavy metals, and that the resulting ash is
hazardous. In Minnesota, three local groups
the Sierra Club, the Minnesota Public Interest
Research Group, and Neighborhoods Organizing for Changeare trying to shut down the
Hennepin Energy Recovery Center in Minneapolis, claiming it harms the environment,
www.powermag.com

according to the Waste Dive online newsletter.


The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
continues to back the project. The state has
nine WTE plants, the most in the region.
Claims about harms from waste incineration and energy recovery are based on outdated data, according to the industry and
government regulators. The EPA has given
both air emissions and ash toxicity a green
light. In addition to reducing landfill methane
emissions, proponents claim, WTE projects
reduce CO2 emissions by shipping waste to
incinerators by rail, a lessenergy intensive
and lesstransportation intrusive approach
than trucks hauling trash to landfills.
61

FUELS
Nevertheless, opponents of waste-burning
projects repeatedly raise pollution issues, such
as the claims of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (see sidebar Maryland Rejects New Baltimore Waste-to-Energy Plant).

Changing Fate for U.S. WTE


In the U.S., the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) boosted the WTE
sector because it encouraged non-utility and
unconventional electric generating technologies. The act also gave birth to todays independent power sector, largely powered by
natural gas.
The 1978 law galvanized WTE projects,
which were able to meet the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions criterion for
qualifying facilities, giving them access to
subsidized rates. Many of the WTE projects
in the U.S. started up in the 1980s and early
1990s as a result of PURPAs push for alternatives to conventional generation.
Since then, a combination of factors, including low-cost coal plants, low prices for
natural gas, and a decline in demand for electricity slowed the WTE business. The collapse of the U.S. (and worldwide) economy
in 2008, along with the unexpected development of fracking technologies to produce
soaring natural gas production, reducing

U.S. natural gas prices, put another burden


on WTE economics.
A classic example occurred in Frederick
County, Md., a neighbor to Montgomery
County (home of pricey Washington, D.C.,
suburbs and a 1985-built 52-MW Covanta
WTE plant burning 1,800 tons per day of
trash, sitting next door to an elderly 850-MW
coal-fired plant). Maryland in the 1980s adopted a policy of no new landfills in the state,
which meant either local incineration or shipping waste out of state. Maryland joined a
growing list of states banning local landfills.
Connecticut, Covantas Gillman noted, has
no operating landfills.
Fast-growing Frederick County, home of
the second-largest city in the state after Baltimore, saw its decades-old landfill reaching
capacity. The county signed a $471 million
contract with Wheelabrator in 2008 to build
a WTE incinerator, shared with nearby Carroll County. The project got the needed state
permits in 2012.
By that time, the project had become politically controversial. In 2014, an opponent of the
project won election as Frederick County executive. She vowed to kill the deal. The county
commissioners scrapped the project, instead,
signing a contract to haul the countys solid
waste to an out-of-state landfill for five years.

4 Times Faster than Turn-of-Nut


Call for EPC Testimonial

DuraSquirt DTIs

No Feeler Gage Required


Weatherproof
Self-Marking
Inspection on Your
Schedule

the best way to bolt!


1 800 552 1999
appliedbolting.com
info@appliedbolting.com
TRAINING FIELD SUPPORT TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

New Reasons to Consider WTE


Whats the future for waste-to-energy in
the U.S.? Its uncertain. WTE lobbyist Michaels notes that 31 states, the District
of Columbia, and two territories have defined waste-to-energy as renewable energy
in various state statutes and regulations,
including renewable portfolio standards.
Twenty-two states specifically classify
WTE as meeting the requirements of their
renewable goals. Michaels argues that the
drive for GHG reductions will yield opportunities for waste projects.
Covantas Gillman says businesses may
push the U.S. toward more use of WTE.
Lots of businesses have been issuing sustainability goals, he said, and they see
improvements to the bottom line. Energy
conservation has been the first tier, then onsite production and water resource management. Now theyre moving in the direction
of making waste management more sustainable. We want to reduce our greenhouse
gas footprint, the executives are saying.
Lets look to waste.
Some businesses are also seeing waste
incinerators as a source of low-cost process
steam, which is common in Europe. These
projects, says Gillman, are a very reliable
source of steam, with the plants operating
in continuous baseload mode. Industries are
attracted to that reliability, said Covanta pubic information official James Regan.
In the U.S., the sectors future may lie in
rebutting and overcoming the conventional,
anti-pollution mantra of local opponents to
waste incineration. The liberal and environmentally oriented Center for America Progress (CAP) made its case for WTE recently:
It is environmentally unsustainable to take
garbage and bury it in the ground at landfills, where it decomposes and releases potent greenhouse-gas pollution. Whats more,
some trash has to be transported by diesel
trucks or trains to landfills several hundred
miles away, further exacerbating its pollution
footprint. Though garbage is not something
we tend to actively think about on a daily
basis, specifically as it relates to climate
change, the United States must begin developing policies to limit the environmental
consequences that result from our generation
of garbage.
The path to that policy, says CAP: The
United States must begin developing national
policies to deal with the waste-management
problem our country faces every day. Doing so will ultimately reduce emissions that
cause climate change.

Kennedy Maize is a long-time energy


journalist and frequent contributor to
POWER.

CIRCLE 18 ON READER SERVICE CARD


62

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

FUELS

Understanding and Mitigating


Metallurgical Effects of Coal
Blending and Switching
Fuel blending and switching has become the norm in response to regulatory
and market forces, but many older boilers were designed for a particular
fuel. Understanding the effects of different fuels on combustion system
metals is crucial for ensuring smooth operations.
Rama S. Koripelli, PhD

s there a clear distinction between good


and bad fuel to burn in a particular boiler?
Apparently not! Some fuels may contain
higher heating values, but they may also
possess characteristics that cause emissions
problems, as well as operational and reliability challenges. Other fuels may be more environmentally friendly, but may contain higher
moisture content and lower heating values.
Ideally, the right fuel is that for which a
boiler is designed or retrofitted to specifically burn.
Congress extensively amended the Clean
Air Act in 1990. Following those changes, the
Environmental Protection Agency began imposing more stringent emissions regulations
in the mid-1990s, which led to fuel blending and switching becoming the norm. Of
course, there are other factorssuch as cost,
availability of mines, and meeting full-load
requirements in a dynamic environment
that have also influenced fuel blending or
switching decisions.

relatively low cost make it attractive for the


power industry.
Some other major differences between
PRB and bituminous coals are found in concentrations of ash, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide. The concentrations of these
oxides in PRB coal are much higher than in
bituminous coals, which affects the ash melting temperature and radiant heat absorption
capacity in the furnace area. Reduced radiant
heat absorption capacity in the furnace area
is a product of higher reflectivity or lower
emissivity of the deposit. This reduced heat
transfer capacity in the furnace impairs the
thermal efficiency by raising the furnace exit
gas temperature (FEGT).

Slagging and Fouling Problems


Slagging and fouling may be elevated in

high-temperature superheater or reheater circuits due to a combination of staged combustion and higher FEGT (Figure 1). Low-NOx
burners and overfire air can further exacerbate this situation.
The reducing conditions formed during
staged combustion promote the formation
of hydrogen sulfides and porous metallic
sulfides on the pressure parts of the boiler
or furnace. These sulfide scales are more
porous and less protective than oxides. Reducing conditions also promote carburization of T91 (Figure 2) and stainless steel,
resulting in a loss of corrosion and oxidation resistance.
Although PRB coal contains lower ash
content, it requires higher throughput to
meet full-load conditions. Therefore, erosion problems may be exacerbated because

1. Bridging the gap. Secondary combustion contributes to high furnace exit gas temperatures, resulting in slagging and fouling in high-temperature circuits. Courtesy: David N. French
Metallurgists

Pros and Cons of PRB Coal


The use of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal,
whether as a blend or a switch, has tremendously increased in response to economic
and regulatory changes. PRB coal gained
a tremendous amount of interest for its
abundant availability, as well as its lower
sulfur content, which results in lower SOx
emissions.
PRB coal has higher moisture content
than other coals due to its porous structure.
For that reason, PRB coal offers a lower heating value (around 8,000 Btu/lb) compared to
high-sulfur bituminous coals (about 13,000
Btu/lb). Even so, PRB coal often has economic advantages over the latter.
There can also be significant fuel flexibility advantages when blending coal. The
low-sulfur characteristics of PRB coal and its
63

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

FUELS
2. A closer look. This image is a microscopic picture showing carburization of T91 steel
tube, which reduces corrosion and oxidation resistance of the material. Courtesy: David N.
French Metallurgists

3. Jeepers creepers. This image shows


creep damage in the heat-affected zone of the
T22 side of a dissimilar-metal weld. Courtesy:
David N. French Metallurgists

4. Degrading conditions. This scanning electron microscope image shows chain


graphitization in carbon-molybdenum steel.
Courtesy: David N. French Metallurgists

of these lower heating values when switching


from high-ranked coals. Higher FEGTs due
to a combination of reduced emissivity and
delayed combustion significantly affect the
finite life of dissimilar-metal welds (DMWs,
Figure 3).
These material transitions are in place for
a particular reason: specifically, to support
limited allowable stresses in high-temperature circuits. Any additional thermal loading
due to higher FEGTs reduces the remaining useful life of DMWs and materials used
in primary superheat and reheat circuits.
These often contain carbon and carbonmolybdenum steels, which are susceptible
to metallurgical degradations, specifically
graphitization (Figure 4) and spheroidization, at elevated temperatures.

Sulfur and Chlorine Challenges


With scrubbers in place, Illinois basin coal
saw tremendous demand for its higher heating value when compared to PRB coal, but it
comes with its own troubles. It contains significant sulfur (about 4%) and chlorine (the
typical range is 0.2%0.3%, but some results
have been up to 0.5%).
Sulfur and chlorine are detrimental to
the environment because they produce SOx
and hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions.
Interestingly, chlorine helps mercury (Hg)
catalyze into oxidized Hg, which is very
soluble in wet flue gas desulfurization systems, thus reducing Hg emissions. However, the presence of chlorine still produces

July 2016 POWER

harmful HCl emissions (see Operational


Considerations When Burning HigherChlorine Coal in the February 2015 issue
and online at powermag.com).
Chlorine is like sulfur in that it promotes
significant corrosion issues in the waterwall
and high-temperature circuits. A reducing
environment exacerbates chlorine corrosion. The question of how much chlorine is
too much is interesting and rather subjective.
Some plants have managed to burn fuel containing 0.3% chlorine with limited corrosion
effects, while other units have experienced
severe corrosion even when less than 0.2%
chlorine is present in the coal.
In general, a majority of industry experts
seem to accept about 0.2% chlorine as the
threshold to mitigate corrosion problems.
Nevertheless, there are other factors that
influence chlorine corrosion, such as temperature, slag accumulation, the reducing
environment, and fuel blends, so individual
results vary.
It is commonly believed that a blend of
low-sulfur coal and high-chlorine coal tends
to reduce corrosion issues. However, this belief is based on largely anecdotal evidence.
Using blends of high-chlorine and low-sulfur
coals also increases liquid ash corrosion, and
high levels of chlorine can react with mineral-rich coals, resulting in the formation of a
corrosive environment.

Coal Condition Is Important


A great deal of research must be completed
www.powermag.com

prior to blending or switching to different


coals. Decision makers must gather information on the characteristics of fuels to be
blended or switched. The fact that individual
fuel characteristics can be much different
than the blended characteristics makes this a
difficult task.
Implementing improved operational,
maintenance, and repair strategies can help
minimize adverse effects of fuel blending
or switching. Blending is rather more complicated than just mixing two or more fuels
together. Improper mixing of fuel blends
may cause load swings due to variable heat
content in the coal pockets. A more homogenized blend will reduce various adverse effects on boiler metallurgy. Better mixing of
coal and increasing coal fineness reduces
carbon carryover, which minimizes secondary combustion issues.
Improper blending promotes slagging
issues in the high-temperature circuits
and the formation of localized reducing
conditions. Metallurgical and corrosion
properties of metals and alloys used in
high-temperature circuits will not be compromised under oxidizing conditions and
designed FEGT. It is evident that secondary combustion causes several issues in the
waterwalls as well as in the superheater
and reheater circuits.
According to the modern standards in
coal-fired units, the following coal fineness
64

FUELS
is recommended: at least 75% of weight
should pass through a 200-mesh sieve
(0.0029-inch opening) and 0%0.2% weight
may remain in a 50-mesh sieve (0.0117
inch). Coarse coal tends to increase carbon
carryover and loss on ignition. Reducing the
coal particle size increases the surface area
to mass ratio, effectively making the coal
more reactive. Consequently, improved coal
fineness will improve a plants efficiency
and reduce emissions (see Coal Pulverizer
Maintenance Improves Boiler Combustion
in the December 2015 issue and online at
powermag.com). Inputs to burners should
be accurate and dynamic in response during
load swings.

Solutions to Common Problems


Improper blending may cause higher
FEGT, localized reducing conditions, and
secondary combustion. Decreasing secondary combustion reduces hot-ash corrosion, resulting from reduced superheat and
reheat temperatures. Maintaining oxidizing conditions inside the furnace potentially eliminates the formation of porous iron
sulfide scales. Incorrect burner angles may
result in localized reducing conditions.
Therefore, burners should be adjusted per

design to have the correct stoichiometric


mixture.
Installation of low-NOx burners in coalfired boilers has resulted in accelerated waterwall wastage. Low-NOx burners result
in more H2S being produced in the combustion gas rather than SO2 or SO3; this
promotes increased corrosion rates. Weld
overlays of more corrosion-resistant alloys
like Inconel 622 and 625 have proven to be
a suitable long-term solution for reduced
tube wastage.
To prevent failures related to higher
FEGTs, DMW joints can be relocated to a
position where they are exposed to lower
temperatures. Also, the use of DMWs made
with nickel-based filler metal (EPRI P87
or Inconel) is recommended, specifically
in creep-strength-enhanced ferritic steels.
Nickel-based filler metal lessens the effects
of the thermal expansion differences between stainless steel and ferritic steel. Material transitions in the superheat and reheat
circuits should be evaluated and adjusted
to ensure a satisfactory life. Superior-grade
steels may need to be extended during component replacements to accommodate for
increased FEGT.
Many plants implement time-based clean-

ing of the pressure parts rather than information-based cleaning. Time-based cleaning
causes several adverse effects on plant performance and reliability. For one thing, additional heat input is required to remove
moisture introduced during the cleaning
process, reducing the plants efficiency. Furthermore, excessive sootblowing of relatively
clean areas causes erosion and fatigue problems, which results in increased maintenance
and reduced reliability.
It is recommended that an intelligent
cleaning system be deployed for boilers to
more efficiently clean the pressure parts
when and where required. The effective
cleaning of furnace tubes solves many secondary problems such as slagging or fouling,
high FEGT, and excessive usage of attemperator sprays. Thermal efficiency and reliability are improved when smart cleaning
systems are used.
Fuel blending or switching can be a sound
economic decision. However, it demands
proper studies and implementation of operational and maintenance changes. Otherwise,
it can easily become a nightmare.

Rama S. Koripelli, PhD (rkoripelli@


davidnfrench.com) is technical director
for David N. French Metallurgists.

Now Available in the POWER Store


Disaster Management and Recovery
Planning For Energy Industry
Every year, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters injure and
kill thousands of people and damage billions of dollars worth of property.
Often, it is almost impossible to predict or prevent the occurrence of these
disasters. However it is possible to reduce their impact by developing a
disaster management and recovery planning strategy.
This report is a detailed guide for utilities, power plant operators, pipeline
and transmission line operators, businesses, governments, communities
and emergency operations teams to develop and maintain a disaster
management and recovery plan. It outlines the four phases of a disaster:
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery and provides detailed
instructions on developing a mitigation plan prior to a disaster.
208 pages, delivered in a PDF

Order online today at store.powermag.com


65

www.powermag.com

27919

POWER July 2016

ADVERTISERS INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.

Page

Reader
Service
Number

ADA-Carbon Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . .12

Reader
Service
Page Number
Hilliard Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . 7

www.ada-cs.com

www.hilliardcorp.com

Applied Bolting Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . .18

Indeck Power Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 3

www.appliedbolting.com

www.indeck.com

Babcock & Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4 . . . . .20

KIMA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . 8

www.babcock.com

CB&I

www.kimae.de

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2 . . . . . 1

Mississippi Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . .13

www.cbi.com

Clear Span

www.mississippilime.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . .17

Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . .16

www.clearspan.com

CMC Solutions

www.mpshq.com

............................................ 9 ........ 5

Paharpur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . 6

www.cmcpems.com

www.paharpur.com

Cormetech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . .10

Siemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . 9

www.cormetech.com

www.siemens.com/communications-for-electric-power

Durr Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . . . . . . . .14

TEAM Industrial Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 4

www.durr-cleantechnology.com

www.teaminc.com

Goodway Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . .11

TerraSource Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2

www.goodway.com

www.terrasource.com

Grisley ASC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 3 . . . . .19

W.L. Gore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . .15

www.grisley.com

www.gore.com/mercury

POWER
FromtheeditorsofPOWER:Thee-newsletterdevotedto
thecoal-firedpowergenerationindustry
Technicalarticles,coalpowernews,blogs,opinion,
andinformation.
Easyretrievalofarchived COALPOWE R features.
Instantaccesstoouradvertisersformoreinformation
abouttheirproducts.
Theabilitytocommentonstoriesandshareyourknowledge
withthecoal-burningpowerplantcommunity.

Subscribe today: subscribe@coalpowermag.com


V i s i t t h e o n l i n e h o m e o f COALPOWE R w w w. p o w e r m a g . c o m

66

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

POWER PLANT
BUYERS MART
Respected.
Responsive.
POWER PROFESSIONALS
Results dRiven.

Visit us at:

www.PowerIndustryCareers.com

PRODUCT

Showcase

GAS TURBINES FOR SALE


LM6000
FRAME 9E
FRAME 5

LM2500
FT4
OTHERS

50/60Hz, nat gas or liq fuel,


installation and service available
Available for Immediate Shipment

Respected.
Responsive.
Results - dRiven.

www.ethosenergygroup.com/gasturbines
Tel: +1 713.812.2305
turbinesales@ethosenergygroup.com

For more info, visit:


www.naes.com/
careers
As the largest independent
operator of power facilities in the
industry, weve come to be
viewed as an employer of choice. As such, we strive to
attract and retain employees of choice by offering highly
competitive compensation packages, including an
education assistance program that encourages our
people to grow along with the company.
eoe

FOR SALE/RENT

24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE
BOILERS
20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.

DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS


50 - 25,000 KW

GEARS & TURBINES


25 - 4000 HP

WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:


Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators
Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Valves Tubes Controls Compressors
Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators

847-541-5600
FAX: 847-541-1279
WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com

wabash

POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.

READER SERVICE NUMBER 202

ctrdh.com
Layup Desiccant Dehumidification &
Filtration Units for long term corrosion
control during long or short term layup of
power generation equipment.
For over 35 years of drying solutions contact:

Tom Haarala
612-202-0765
thaarala@ctrdh.com

Todd Bradley
810-229-7900
tbradley@ctrdh.com

READER SERVICE NUMBER 205

READER SERVICE NUMBER 203

CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS


THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.

Easy to install, saves time and money.


ADJUSTABLE PLUGS - all rubber with brass insert. Expand it,
install it, reverse action for tight fit.
PUSH PULL PLUGS- are all rubber, simply push it in.
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190 Fax:(203)881-0178
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com

Turbine Controls
Woodward, GE, MHC
Parts and Service

OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD

TurboGen (610) 631-3480


info@turbogen.net
READER SERVICE NUMBER 206

READER SERVICE NUMBER 204

444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

READER SERVICE NUMBER 200

To Advertise in POWER Classifieds


CONTACT:
Diane Burleson
PHONE:
512-337-7890
FAX:
512-213-4855

READER SERVICE NUMBER 201

July 2016 POWER

dianeb@powermag.com
www.powermag.com

67

COMMENTARY

Chinas Coal Industry: Status


and Outlook
Niu Dongxiao, Song Zongyun, and Xiao Xinli

he years between 2002 and 2012 are called Golden Decade


for the coal industry in China. After May 2012, the coal
industry fell into depression.
In the Golden Decade, a large amount of social capital inflow
was attracted by increasing market demand and coal prices, but
it also resulted in overproduction. The recession in downstream
industries, including the steel industry and building materials
industry, and the squeeze from non-fossil energy sources mainly
contributed to the slump in the coal industry. The coal industry
in China is undergoing a very tough period.

Challenges
Here is a brief summary of some of the coal industrys challenges.
Demand and Supply Decline. For the first 11 months in
2015, the coal supply in China was 3.55 billion tons, declining
by 14.67% compared to 2014. For the first 10 months of 2015,
coal demand was 3.23 billion tons, a drop of 4.7%. The highspeed growth in investment and excessive expansion in capacity
from 2002 to 2012 resulted in unbalance between coal supply
and demand. With continued high levels of coal production even
since 2012, the supply-demand ratio in 2014 reached its peak at
the value of 1.18.
Price Slump. Since 2012 coal prices in China have been on
the decline. The price of coal with a calorific value of 5,500
kcal/kg at Qinghuangdao Port fell by 20.89%, 0%, 13.93%,
and 28.57% each year from 2012 to 2015. The price of coal in
2015 dropped to 370 CNY/ton, which was back to the level it
saw in 2004.
Benefits Shrink. In 2015, more than 85% of coal enterprises
were in a deficit state. Profit declined to 40.08 billion CNY, equal
to the level in 2005. And, according to the latest data from the
China National Coal Association, the average asset-liability ratio
in the coal industry has reached 67.7%the highest level in the
past 16 years.
Investment Declines. Weak coal prices and lower profits have
compressed investment in the industry. Fixed-asset investments
slowed down beginning in 2013. In 2015, investment was 400.8
billion CNY, 14.4% lower than in 2014.
Opportunities
To be optimistic, opportunity coexists with the challenges.
Electric Power Substitution. Electric power substitution
means to substitute electricity for coal burning in end-use
processes. Using electricity can improve coal-use efficiency,
decrease decentralized coal pollution, and rationalize energy
consumption. It can improve the consumption ratio of thermal
coal in total consumption, which will stimulate the rational utilization of coal. Whats more, substituting electricity for decentralized coal use benefits larger and more efficient enterprises
and contributes to eliminating less-modern facilities.
Belt & Road. India and Southeast Asia import large amounts
68

of coal. The Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (Belt & Road)a development strategy proposed
by President Xi Jinping to increase exports, especially to Eurasiacan increase Chinas coal exports to these countries. In
addition, the infrastructure in some underdeveloped areas like
Africa and Central Asia cant satisfy their needs for economic
development. China can provide them with steel, building materials, and other energy-intensive products, which can stimulate domestic coal consumption and then relieve the pressure
of oversupply. Belt & Road also provides a big chance for coal
enterprises in China to exploit the international coal market and
participate in international competition.
Energy Internet. The energy internet is an energy equivalence exchange and sharing network, which links the coal network, oil network, gas network, and other energy networks by
using information technology, intelligent management technology, to realize energy bidirectional flows. The energy internet is
end userfocused, so those who have the most customers will
win. With the background of an energy internet and electric
power system reform in China, coal enterprises can set up electricity companies and sell electricity. This provides coal enterprises with a chance to dominate both the coal and end users in
energy market.

Support Policies
The Chinese government has issued lists of policies to help
the coal industry recover, which are mainly focused on eliminating backward capacity (polluting, unsafe, inefficient, and
other suboptimal enterprises), controlling the amount of coal
produced (yield control), supporting clean coal development,
and the like. For example, Opinions on Solving Excessive Capacity and Recovering Coal Industry (issued by State Council on
February 5, 2016) indicates that backward capacity that doesnt
conform to industrial policies will be eliminated. Notifications
on Implementing the Treatment Measures on Illegal Coal Mines
(issued by National Development and Reform Commission on May
26, 2015) points out that if thermal power enterprises purchase
coal produced by illegal coal mines, the amount they are allowed
to generate will be reduced, as punishment.
The coal industry in China has suffered from serious depression since 2012, and the tragedy continues in 2016. Fortunately,
the opportunities above have provided great support, and the
coal industry is striving to work its way out of the depression.
The coal industry in China still has bright prospects.
Niu Dongxiao, PhD, a professor at North China Electric Power
University (NCEPU), has been named distinguished Cheung
Kong Scholar by the Ministry of Education and has outstanding
achievements in the field energy management, load forecasting, energy system evaluation, and more. Song Zongyun and
Xiao Xinli are doctoral students in the School of Economics and
Management, NCEPU.

www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

The GRISLEY V-PLENUM AIR SUPPORTED CONVEYOR


RETROFIT is a component-based method that upgrades
roller-based conveyors to more reliable and dust-tight airsupported conveyors. Designed according to CEMA standards,
the V-Plenum utilizes the roller conveyors existing support
structure, drive mechanism, and belt.
The V-Plenum retrofit provides all of the inherent benefits
of air-supported conveying. The Grisley V-Plenum offers a
complete environmentally effective solution to handling coal
dust. The V-Plenum creates an inherent duct. It is totally dust
tight, and eliminates all idlers. The V-Plenum retrofit is the
most efficient dust-tight conveyor available.
Visit us at www.grisley.com for complete information.
READER SERVICE NUMBER 19

s premium product

showcase for the latest


products and technologies in
the power generation industry.
to subscribe to the e-letter, please visit
www.powermag.com/e-letter-signup
26032

CIRCLE 20 ON READER SERVICE CARD

Clear summer skies ...


SOLVAir Solutions helps control SO2 emissions
from glass furnaces!

The purity and beauty of glass might belie the fact that its manufacture produces
acid gas emissions, which must be mitigated if glass manufacturers are to comply with
clean air regulations. SOLVAir sodium bicarbonates control of SO2 , the primary acid gas
in glass furnaces, has proven highly efective for over 30 years.
Since the mid-eighties, sodium bicarbonate has been used to help reduce acid gas
emissions in a wide variety of industries, including glass manufacturing plants, coal-ired
power plants, biomass, municipal waste incinerators and industrial boilers. Contact us
today at 303.489.9183 or go to solvair.us for comprehensive information on our products
and services.

Natural Solutions
800-765-8292
www.solvair.us
Copyright 2016, SOLVAir Natural Solutions, LLC. All Rights Reserved

You might also like