large unit vs. small unit retrofit considerations for multi-pollutant emission control
DESCRIPTION
Large Unit vs. Small Unit Retrofit Considerations for Multi-Pollutant Emission Control. William T. Stark. APPA Engineering & Operations Technical Conference March 8, 2004. Basis of Presentation. 1600 MW, PRB coal-fired, base load plant - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Large Unit vs. Small Unit RetrofitConsiderations for Multi-PollutantEmission Control
William T. Stark
APPA Engineering & Operations Technical ConferenceMarch 8, 2004
Basis of Presentation
1600 MW, PRB coal-fired, base load plant 100 MW, Illinois Basin, bituminous
coal-fired, intermediate load plant Individual units ranging in size from
10 MW to 550 MW pulverized coal-fired
Regulatory Considerations
8-hr Ozone Standard
PM2.5 Standard
Regional Haze Rule
Utility Boiler MACT
Industrial Boiler MACT
Clear Skies Act of 2003
Clean Power Act of 2003
Clean Air Planning Act
Interstate Air Quality Rule
Utility Boiler MACT
Option 1 Emission standards by coal rank Averaging allowed for facility Incorporates Ontario Hydro Method
and continuous sampling (Method 324)
Option 2 Cap-and-Trade program
Industrial Boiler MACT
Applies to coal-fired units < 25 MW Large units (>10 MMBtu/hr) must
meet PM or metals standard, as well as HCl and Hg limits
Proposal contains initial testing and compliance requirements
Interstate Air Quality Rule
General Affects 29 eastern states and DC Proposal requires upwind states to
revise SIPs to include control measures to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2
Options are to participate in cap-and-trade program or comply with state budget set by EPA
Interstate Air Quality Rule
Proposed Caps and Allocations SO2 allocations made in proportion to
Title IV allowances. Overall a 50% reduction for 2010 and a 65% reduction for 2015
NOx allocations based on highest year of heat input for state during 1999-2002
Compliance on an annual basis
Wet Scrubber Capital Costs
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unit Size, MW
Cap
ital
Co
st, $
/kw
Wet Scrubber Capital Costs*Line Drawn to Show Trend
Wet Scrubber O&M Costs (1% S Coal)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Capacity Factor (%)
O&
M C
ost
s ($
/MW
HR
)
25 MW 60 MW 200 MW 500 MW*Line Drawn to Show Trend
Spray Dryer Absorber Capital Costs
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unit Size, MW
Capi
tal C
ost,
$/kw
SDA Capital Cost*Line Drawn to Show Trend
Spray Dryer Absorber O&M Costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Capacity Factor (%)
O&
M C
ost
s ($
/kw
)
25 MW 60 MW 200 MW 500 MW*Line Drawn to Show Trend
SCR Capital Costs
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unit Size, MW
Cap
ital
Co
st,
$/kw
SCR Capital Cost*Line Drawn to Show Trend
SCR O&M Costs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Capacity Factor (%)
O&
M C
ost
s ($
/MW
hr)
25 MW 60 MW 200 MW 500 MW*Line Drawn to Show Trend
Mercury Control
Concurrent reductions resulting from control of SO2 and/or PM
Sorbent Injection
Sorbent injection systems cost in the vicinity of $1.5 – 3.0 million
Depending on removal requirements, a baghouse may be required in addition to the sorbent injection system
Baghouse Capital Costs
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unit Size, MW
Cap
ital
Co
st,
$/kw
Baghouse Capital Cost*Line Drawn to Show Trend
Emission Control Scenarios for Consideration
Emission control for each individual unit Emission controls for combined flue gas
streams from units Use of high efficiency controls on larger
units with less control on smaller units Use of multi-pollutant control
technologies
Summary Comments
Compliance could be costly Items to consider:
Capacity factor Load shifting Fuel switching Shutdown of units