March 2013

Vol. 157 No.
3 March 2013

Leveraging
Low-Grade
Fuels
Rethinking the Cost of Wind
Reverse Engineer Steam Blades
Heater Drain Piping Pitfalls
01_PWR_030113_Cover.indd 1 2/19/13 11:59:09 AM
W
E
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y

L
L
C

ONE SMALL WESTINGHOUSE REACTOR
Another giant step by
the true leader in
commercial nuclear energy
Westinghouse, the world leader in the development, licensing and
deployment of commercial nuclear energy plants, is again leading the
industry, this time with a 225 MWe integrated pressurized water reactor
that can generate electricity for a residential community of 180,000
homes without emitting any greenhouse gases.
And unlike other designs, the Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor
(SMR) is an outgrowth of proven, land-based nuclear reactor technology
that takes safety, reliability and constructability to unsurpassed levels.
To make this exciting new reactor a reality, Westinghouse, with the
full support and backing of its majority owner Toshiba Corporation,
is working with a distinguished group of partners, notably Ameren
Missouri, the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Associated
Electric Cooperative, Inc., e Empire District Electric Company,
Kansas City Power & Light Company and the Missouri Public Utility
Alliance.
Proud of our track record of success, but always looking to the future,
Westinghouse nuclear technology will help provide future generations
with safe, clean and reliable electricity.
Check us out at www.westinghousenuclear.com
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD
March 2013
|
POWER www.powermag.com 1
ON THE COVER
The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County has burned about 2,000 tons per
day of refuse-derived fuel to produce renewable electricity in its Palm Beach Renew-
able Energy Facility Unit 1 for more than 20 years. Unit 2, now under construction on
an adjacent site, will process up to 3,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day. The
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group Inc. won the design, build, and operate
contract for the 95-MW plant, along with consortium partners KBR Inc. and CDM
Constructors Inc. The new project is slated for completion in May 2015. Courtesy:
KBR Power & Industrial
COVER STORY: FUELS
24 Techno-Economic Considerations When Using Low-Grade Coal for Power
Generation
Cheap fuel is only economic if all the other variables fall in line. Thats the les-
son for coal-fired plants anywhere in the world using mine-mouth or other low-
grade coals. Heres how to assess the main factors, including boiler technology,
plant-mine relationship, transportation options, and more.
30 Expanded Honolulu WTE Plant Delivers Triple Benefits for Oahu
For island grids without local fossil fuel resources, waste not, want not is
more than an aphorismits an operating principle. On Oahu, a recently ex-
panded waste-to-energy plant turns trash into power while minimizing the acre-
age needed for landfills on the scenic island and saving the utility millions in
avoided fuel import costs.
36 Why Arent Construction and Demolition Wastes Considered Biomass Fuel?
Its wood. Its renewable. Its widely available. Yet construction and demolition
wasteeven after it has been processed to remove contaminantsis not clas-
sified as biomass by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That determina-
tion is letting a lot of potential fuel literally go to waste.
SPECIAL REPORT
WATER TREATMENT
40 Selecting a Combined Cycle Water Chemistry Program
Combined cycle gas turbine plants are the new darlings of the power generating
industry, but caring for them requires carefully selecting the right water chemis-
try regime for a specific plant configuration and plant staff. Heres your guide to
the pros and cons of each approach.
Established 1882 Vol. 157 No. 3 March 2013
Power in Mexico
The Spotlight on a Mexican Success Story, a sponsored report from Global Busi-
ness Reports, finds Mexico poised to become one of the top 10 most powerful
economies in the world, and its power sectora complicated mix of private sec-
tor participation and public ownershipis fueling its growth. Developing more-
robust gas and renewables infrastructures is high on the to do list. (After p. 46.)
www.powermag.com POWER
|
March 2013 2
FEATURES
EMISSIONS
62 Rethinking Winds Impact on Emissions and Cycling Costs
Wind power generates zero emissions. On that theres no debate. But zero emis-
sions doesnt necessarily mean zero impact on overall emissions. Just how much
effect wind capacity has on emissions and the cycling of other generation sources
is something that researchers and utilities are examining.
PLANT DESIGN
67 Steam Turbine Blade Reverse Engineering, Upgrade, and Structural Design
This detailed look at the process of reverse engineering includes a case study that
describes a developed engineering approach to designing and upgrading a steam
turbine blade from an existing part.
DEPARTMENTS
SPEAKING OF POWER
6 Should the U.S. Export Natural Gas?
GLOBAL MONITOR
8 Nations Agree to Legally Binding Instrument to Curb Worlds Mercury Emissions
10 THE BIG PICTURE: Stretching the Pipeline
11 Despite Pollution-Curbing Efforts, Dense Smog Covers Wide Swath of China
12 Hungary Inaugurates Subsurface Repository for Nuclear Plant Waste
FOCUS ON O&M
16 How to Avoid Feedwater Heater Drain Design Pitfalls
LEGAL & REGULATORY
22 Align Generation Reliability and Firmness of Fuel Supplies
By Barbara S. Jost, partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
71 NEW PRODUCTS
COMMENTARY
76 Biogas: An Alternative Energy Source
By Sarah K. Walls, partner, Cantey Hanger LLP
Get More POWER on the Web
Online, associated with this issue (on our homepage, www.powermag.com, during the
month of March, or in our Archives any time), youll find these web exclusives:
Brazil Drought Threatens Power Supplies
Japan Banks on LNG
POWER Digest, a selection of recent global power industry deals
Too Dumb to Meter, Part 9 with Uranium Rush and the New 49ers and Naked
Shorts at Westinghouse
And remember to check our Whats New? segment on the homepage regularly for just-
posted news stories covering all fuels and technologies.
Connect with POWER
If you like POWER magazine, follow us online (POWERmagazine) for timely industry news
and comments.

Become our fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine Group
67
11
16
35,000 hours.
Zero varnish.
In the battle against time and varnish, next-generation Diamond Class
Turbine Oil is a clear winner, proven to resist varnish

formations for more than 35,000 hours in lab tests. Also monitored in severe-duty turbines in power plants in Texas and South
Carolina, reformulated Diamond Class Turbine Oil has produced no varnish deposits after 15,000-plus hours of continuous service.
And counting. Get long-lasting turbine protection. Call 877.445.9198 or visit phillips66lubricants.com to learn more.
2013 Phillips 66 Company. Phillips 66, Conoco, 76, Diamond Class and their respective logos are registered trademarks
of Phillips 66 Company in the U.S.A. and other countries. T3-TRI-14280B
|
March 2013 4
Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com
Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw
POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access
Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rock-
ville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD
20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box
2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Email: powermag@halldata.com.
Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian
Addresses to: PitneyBowes, P.O. BOX 25542, London, ON
N6C 6B2.
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified ex-
ecutives and engineering and supervisory personnel in elec-
tric utilities, independent generating companies, consulting
engineering firms, process industries, and other manufactur-
ing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions:
$87 for one year, $131 for two years. In Canada: US$92 for
one year, US$148 for two years. Outside U.S. and Canada:
US$197 for one year, US$318 for two years (includes air
mail delivery). 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 847-763-9509. 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 847-763-
9509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata
.com or write to POWER, P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076.
Please include account number, which appears above name
on magazine mailing label or send entire label.
Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is
granted by the copyright owner for those registered with
the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com, to
photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the flat
fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom use
for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send pay-
ment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal
reference use without the express permission of TradeFair
Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for special per-
mission or bulk orders should be addressed to the publisher
at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042.
ISSN 0032-5929.
Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000
Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright
2013 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION
Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
480-820-7855, editor@powermag.com
Managing Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
Executive Editor: David Wagman
Gas Technology Editor: Thomas Overton, JD
Senior Writer: Sonal Patel
European Reporter: Charles Butcher
Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Steven F. Greenwald; Jeffrey P. Gray;
Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Dick Storm; Dr. Justin Zachary
Graphic Designer: Joanne Moran
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com
Marketing Director: Jamie Reesby
Marketing Manager: Jennifer Brady
ADVERTISING SALES
Sales Manager: Matthew Grant
Southern & Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/
Latin America: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com
Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com
UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/
Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, ptrautes@accessintel.com
Italy/France/Spain/Portugal: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it
Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com
India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com
South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, peterhkwon@hanmail.net
Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478
Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177, nmedia@tm.net.my
Classified Advertising
Diane Hammes, 512-250-9555, dianeh@powermag.com
POWER Buyers Guide Sales
Diane Hammes, 512-250-9555, dianeh@powermag.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service: powermag@halldata.com, 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509
Electronic and Paper Reprints: Wrights Media, sales@wrightsmedia.com, 877-652-5295
List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, j.felling@statlistics.com, 203-778-8700
All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887
BUSINESS OFFICE
TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042
Vice President and Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 713-343-1887, briann@tradefairgroup.com
Vice President, Energy and Engineering Events: Daniel McKinnon
ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC
4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850
301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com
Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour
Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo
Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto
Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley
Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra
Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek
Vice President, Production & Manufacturing: Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko
Power & Industrial Services
Combustion Improvement Systems
Visit us at the Electric Power Show Booth #117
Brian King, PE, will present a paper on OFA upgrades to
reduce NOx on Wednesday, May 15.
800.676.7116 www.piburners.com info@piburners.com
Higher
Eiciency.
More
Reliability.
Lower
Emissions.
Over Fire Air Systems
Multi Zone
Low NOx Burners
Fire Up with Turnkey Combustion Optimization
Systems from Power & Industrial Services
Our proprietary Combustion Optimization Systems with
Low NOx Burners, Over Fire Air Systems, Comprehensive
Testing and Tuning and patent-pending technology ofers
the industrys only one-stop, full-service solution to custom
design, engineering, manufacturing and installation, with:
Comprehensive Coal and Burner System Review
Baseline Testing
New Burner System Design
In-house Manufacturing Facilities
Complete Project and Construction Management
Start-Up and Performance Testing
QSTI Certiied Testing
RATA Testing also available
Power & Industrial Services

Combustion Improvement Systems
Visit us at the Electric Power Show Booth #117
Brian King, PE, will present a paper on OFA upgrades to
reduce NOx on Wednesday, May 15.
800.676.7116 www.piburners.com info@piburners.com
Higher
Eiciency.
More
Reliability.
Lower
Emissions.
Over Fire Air Systems
Multi Zone
Low NOx Burners
Fire Up with Turnkey Combustion Optimization
Systems from Power & Industrial Services
Our proprietary Combustion Optimization Systems with
Low NOx Burners, Over Fire Air Systems, Comprehensive
Testing and Tuning and patent-pending technology ofers
the industrys only one-stop, full-service solution to custom
design, engineering, manufacturing and installation, with:
Comprehensive Coal and Burner System Review
Baseline Testing
New Burner System Design
In-house Manufacturing Facilities
Complete Project and Construction Management
Start-Up and Performance Testing
QSTI Certiied Testing
RATA Testing also available

|
March 2013 6
SPEAKING OF POWER
Should the U.S. Export
Natural Gas?
C
ontroversy concerning natural gas
exports flared the day the U.S. Ener-
gy Information Administration (EIA)
released its estimate that U.S. natural gas
exports could begin in 2021. The EIAs
analysis was revealed in the early release
of its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012,
made public in December 2011. The EIAs
analysis also found increased natural gas
exports lead to higher domestic natural
gas prices. As the saying goes, its the
second-worst problem we could have.
Surprising many, the recent AEO2013
Early Release (Dec. 5, 2012) adjusted
the EIAs initial date of export estimate,
pushing it up from 2021 to 2016. The
magnitude of natural gas production and
potential export remains staggering, and
proven reserves continue to sharply rise
each year. However, there is a wide gulf
between proven natural gas reserves and
actually building liquefied natural gas
(LNG) export terminals.
Almighty Dollar
On one side are environmentalists, mem-
bers of Congress, and even a newly formed
industry group that have come together
to oppose the construction of new export
terminals, although for distinctly different
reasons. The American Public Gas Associa-
tion, along with Alcoa, Celanese Corp., Dow
Chemical, Eastman Chemical, Huntsman
Corp., and Nucor Steel recently formed the
coalition Americas Energy Advantage. The
lobbying organizations purpose is obvious-
ly to appeal to government to limit natural
gas free trade to protect member markets
and balance sheets. Hypocritically, the
members expect to continue unobstructed
free trade of the chemical and metal com-
modities they produce. Jack Gerard, head
of the American Petroleum Institute, called
the coalition seriously misguided.
On the other side are developers wish-
ing to build new export terminalsand
more members of Congress. The Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE), under Section 3 of
the Natural Gas Act, must grant a permit
for natural gas exports to countries that
have entered into a free trade agree-
ment (FTA) with the U.S., like Mexico and
Canada. Those agreements are de jure in
the public interest. Projects that involve
non-FTA countries, such as Japan and EU
nations, require the DOE to make a public
interest determination. There are currently
17 applications for non-FTA LNG export
terminals in the DOE review queue, with
only a single project approved so far.
The problem facing the DOE is rational-
izing the process for determining public
interest. The DOE began by subcontract-
ing the analysis to the EIA, its energy
statistics organization. In January 2012,
the EIA released its report, Effect of In-
creased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic
Energy Markets. That reports conclu-
sions, limited by the lack of a global mac-
roeconomic model for LNG exports, failed
to answer the question.
Exports Are a Net Beneit
The DOEs second effort was to subcontract
the work to NERA Economic Consulting.
NERAs report, Macroeconomic Impacts of
LNG Exports from the United States, re-
leased in early December 2012, focused on
international natural gas market factors and
macroeconomic impacts on the U.S. econo-
my that result from LNG export expansion.
NERAs study found that under each of
the 63 scenarios studied, the U.S. would
enjoy a net positive economic impact from
LNG exports to non-FTA countries, and
those benefits increase with increasing
LNG exports. LNG exports have net eco-
nomic benefits in spite of higher domes-
tic natural gas prices, according to the
report. This is exactly the outcome that
economic theory describes when barriers
to trade are removed.
The biggest winners are obviously natu-
ral gas producers that can sell their prod-
uct at a higher price on the global market,
particularly where competing natural gas
supply prices are pinned to the market
price of oil, such as in Europe. The report
identified the industries that will experi-
ence serious competitive impacts as
energy-intensive, particularly those that
compete in global markets, like the mem-
bers of Americas Energy Advantage. The
DOE declined to endorse the NERA report
results but said its conclusions will be in-
cluded as part of its deliberations.
Several senators wasted no time in
commenting on the NERA report conclu-
sions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
noted, Its clear from the study that ex-
porting LNG would be beneficial to the
U.S. economy, and the greater the level
of exports, the greater the benefit. Sen.
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), incoming chair of the
Senate Environment and Natural Resources
Committee and LNG export skeptic, called
the NERA report seriously flawed in a
letter sent to Energy Secretary Steven Chu
on Jan. 10. He also used Dow Chemical as
an example of an impacted company.
The NERA report concluded that job
losses will occur but that they will be
minor and will be absorbed by a com-
mensurate increase in like jobs in other
parts of the economy (ironically, the same
logic used by green power proponents
when speaking of fossil power industry job
losses). Those who depend on government
transfer payments (Social Security and the
like) will always be the most vulnerable to
energy price increases, the report noted.
Bravo to energy companies willing
to invest billions in building the next
generation of LNG export terminals, and
a Bronx cheer to those companies lob-
bying for trade barriers to prop up bal-
ance sheets. Exporting natural gas may
kick up the countrys GDP and overall
economic activity, but the impact of
importing energy dollars for a change
is priceless.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs
editor-in-chief.
There is a wide gulf between proven natural
gas reserves and actually building liquefied
natural gas export terminals.
TWO GREAT
COMPANIES.
ONE BRIGHT
FUTURE.
How do you create a global company built
for the future? By combining two powerful
histories in pursuit of a bold visionto help
companies around the world contribute to
healthier, safer environments.
Building on the achievements of Pentair and Tycos Flow Control
businesses, comprised of Valves & Controls, Thermal Controls
and Water & Environmental Systems, the new Pentair delivers
exceptional depth and expertise in filtration and processing, flow
management, equipment protection and thermal management.
From water to power
From energy to construction
From food service to residential
Were 30,000 employees strong, combining inventive thinking
with disciplined execution to deploy solutions that help better
manage and utilize precious resources and ensure operational
success for our customers worldwide. Pentair stands ready
to solve a full range of residential, commercial, municipal and
industrial needs.
PENTAIR.COM
TWO GREAT
COMPANIES.
ONE BRIGHT
FUTURE.
How do you create a global company built
for the future? By combining two powerful
histories in pursuit of a bold visionto help
companies around the world contribute to
healthier, safer environments.
Building on the achievements of Pentair and Tycos Flow Control
businesses, comprised of Valves & Controls, Thermal Controls
and Water & Environmental Systems, the new Pentair delivers
exceptional depth and expertise in filtration and processing, flow
management, equipment protection and thermal management.
From water to power
From energy to construction
From food service to residential
Were 30,000 employees strong, combining inventive thinking
with disciplined execution to deploy solutions that help better
manage and utilize precious resources and ensure operational
success for our customers worldwide. Pentair stands ready
to solve a full range of residential, commercial, municipal and
industrial needs.
PENTAIR.COM
|
March 2013 8
Nations Agree to Legally Binding
Instrument to Curb Worlds Mercury
Emissions
Mercury emissions from power plants in 137 United Nations member
countries could be subject to strict controls and reductions if an in-
ternational treaty is signed by participating nations this October.
After wrapping up four years of complex negotiations to pre-
pare a global instrument on mercury, governments of nations par-
ticipating in the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
initiative on Jan. 19 agreed in Switzerland to the text of a legally
binding instrument, which they called the Minamata Conven-
tion on Mercury. The text of the convention, named after the
Japanese city where serious health damage occurred as a result
of methyl mercury pollution in the mid-20th century, will be open
for signature at the Diplomatic Conference in Japan, from Oct.
7 to 11, 2013. It will become legally binding once 50 countries
have ratified and agreed to be bound by it.
The fifth session of UNEPs Intergovernmental Negotiating Com-
mittee ended with governments including the U.S., European Union,
China, and India agreeing to actions to reduce mercury emissions to
the air from power plants and other sources, reduce the use of mer-
cury in products and industrial processes, and address mercury supply
and trade. The treaty would control mercury emissions and releases
from large industrial facilitiesincluding coal-fired power plants and
industrial boilers, certain kinds of smelters (handling zinc and gold,
for example), waste incineration, and cement clinker facilities.
It calls for the installation of Best Available Technologies for
new power plants and facilities and would legally bind countries
to implement plans that would bring emissions down from exist-
ing ones. The plans for existing sources would take into account
national circumstances, and the economic and technical feasi-
bility, and affordability of the measures, within 10 years after
the accord is ratified.
The negotiations, which were held over five sessions between
2010 and 2013, had initially sought to set thresholds on the
size of the plants or level of emissions to be controlled, but with
countries disagreeing on these specifics until the final week, the
nations agreed to defer that decision until the first meeting after
the treaty has been ratified.
Among its key aspects, the treaty would ban by 2020 the
export and import of a range of mercury-containing products,
including batteries, certain types of compact fluorescent lamps,
and soaps and cosmetics. And it would require countries to cre-
ate strategies to reduce the amount of mercury used by artisa-
nal and small-scale miners, requiring countries with legal small
gold-mining operations to develop national plans within three
years of the treatys enforcement to reduce or eliminate their
use of mercury.
UNEP: Worlds Mercury Emissions May Be Rising
after Decline
UNEP says that worldwide mercury emissions likely peaked in the
1950s to 1970s and then declined because of reductions from Eu-
rope, Russia, and North America. Some indications show that emis-
sions may be rising again, with increases from East Asia offsetting
continuing reductions in Europe and North America, it warns.
According to the international institutions Global Mercury
Assessment 2013, a document that updates global releases and
the environmental transport of mercury, an estimated 1,960 met-
ric tons (mt) of mercury were emitted to the atmosphere in 2010
as a result of direct human activity. An updated inventory of
emissions to air suggests that about 475 mt of mercury are emit-
ted by coal combustion, compared with just 10 mt from combus-
tion of other fossil fuels. More than 85% of the 475 mt estimated
is attributable to emissions from coal burning for power genera-
tion and industrial uses.
1. Quicksilver around the world. The United Nations Environ-
ment Programme (UNEP) estimates that global emissions of mercury
to air from a variety of human activities in 2010 totaled 1,960 metric
tons. This chart breaks down that total by region. The bulk of mercury
emissions in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa were released by
artisanal and small-scale gold mining practices, for which extensive
data gaps exist, UNEP admits. Source: UNEP
East &
Southeast
Asia, 40%
Sub-Saharan
Africa, 16%
South America, 13%
South Asia, 8%
Commonwealth of
Independent States
& other European
countries, 6%
EU27, 6%
North Africa, 1%
Australia, New Zealand
& Oceania, 1%
Middle Eastern States, 2%
Central America & the Caribbean, 2%
North America, 3%
Region undefined, 4%
2. Anthropogenic mercury emissions by source. About
24% of the worlds anthropogenic emissions of mercury came from
fossil fuel combustion in 2010mostly from coalthough the widely
varying mercury content of coal makes emissions estimates highly
uncertain, UNEP says. Estimated emissions of mercury from artisanal
and small-scale gold mining, the largest human-caused source, dou-
bled those reported in 2005owing partly to the high price of gold and
increased emission estimates. Source: UNEP
Artisanal &
small-scale gold
mining, 37%
Chlor-alkali
industry, 1%
Fossil fuel
combustion (power
& heating), 24%
Metal production
(ferrous & nonferrous),
18%
Cement production, 9%
Other, 6%
Waste incineration, waste & other, 5%
March 2013
|
But coal combustion isnt the biggest source of the worlds
mercury emissions, according to the report. It blames the
informal sector of artisanal and small-scale gold mining for
releasing a whopping 727 mt per year (mt/yr) to air. Artisa-
nal gold miners, who often are poor, typically use mercury to
create an amalgam separating gold from other materials, but
they then have to separate the mercury from the gold. Though
UNEP admits there are data gaps because collecting infor-
mation about this sector is challenging owing to its widely
dispersed and unregulated nature, it suggests the significant
increase comes in large part from China, where the practice
was banned in 1996.
Increases in Mercury Emissions from Power Plants
Notable in Asia
The report notes that coal combustion for power generation for
industrial purposes continues to increaseparticularly in Asia.
But it also points out that air pollution controls at some power
plants and stringent regulations have reduced mercury emissions
from coal plants, and thus offset some part of the emissions
arising from increased coal consumption.
Countries showing improvements include the U.S., where coal
generators are rushing to meet the initial April 2015 compli-
ance deadline for the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs)
December 2011promulgated Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS). An agency Information Collection Request (ICR) from
2010 suggests that electric generating units emitted about 29
mt of mercury that year, but it extrapolates from a 2005 finding
(because the ICR did not cover total U.S. anthropogenic emis-
sions) that 53 mt of the nations total 105 mt of mercury emis-
sions came from electric generating units.
This claimthat power plants were responsible for 50% of
mercury released in the countrywas repeated in documents jus-
tifying the EPAs 2011-finalized MATS rule. The agency admitted,
however, that power plants will emit 27 mt of mercury in 2016
even if MATS is not enforced, constituting 42% of the nations
total of 64 mt of anthropogenic mercury emissions.
Meanwhile, UNEP explains the decrease from 53 mt in 2005
to 29 mt in 2010 in U.S. mercury emissions from coal plants as
largely attributable to new regulations that have resulted in
changes in the sources of the coal that is burned in large power
plants and the installation of mercury controls as well as controls
on sulphur dioxide and particulates that have the co-benefit of
further reducing mercury emissions.
Anthropogenic mercury emissions from Asian power plants
particularly in Chinaare also expected to decrease because
many of the new coal-fired power plants have state-of-the-art
pollution controls installed, the report foresees. Stationary com-
bustion of all fuels in Asia emitted about 622 mt per year, consti-
tuting about 64% of the regions total. According to the report,
China and India dominate the regions emission inventories, but
a handful of Southeast Asian countries also contribute signifi-
cantly to the total.
In 2005, Chinas total mercury emissions from its power plants
totaled about 108.6 mt. That number had fallen by 34 mt in 2008
with the enactment of mandates limiting sulfur dioxide emissions,
which resulted in the installation of flue gas desufurization (FGD)
technologies and the shutdown of smaller, inefficient units. A
2
0
1
3

B
r
a
n
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

L
L
C

A
l
l

R
i
g
h
t
s

R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Providing you access to
the safest, smartest and
most efficient specialty
services.
Brand is the leading provider of integrated specialty services to the power industry.
Our unique multi-service approach delivers significant savings to our clients on their
maintenance, outages and capital projects by reducing manpower requirements,
improving communication through a single point of contact, and ultimately, delivering
enhanced productivity.
For more information contact us at:
281.404.9397 or info@beis.com
www.beis.com
SCAFFOLDING | COATINGS | INSULATION | REFRACTORY | FIREPROOFING | CUI MANAGEMENT
HOT TAPPING | CATHODIC PROTECTION | FORMING AND SHORING | FIELD MACHINING
Creating Client VALUE
is our Business
|
March 2013 10
THE BIG PICTURE: Stretching the Pipeline
World natural gas demand climbed to 3,361 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2011, increasing in all regions, with the exception
of Europe. Countries with the largest volumetric gains in consumption were China (21.5%), Saudi Arabia (13.2%), and Japan
(11.6%). North America, led by the U.S. (2.4%), became the second-largest consumer market after Asia-Pacific. In 2011, gas
demand growth was accompanied by expanding international pipeline flows (which have increased about 3.7% per year since
2009) and inter-regional transport capacity. Here are some of the longest pipelines recently built as well as noteworthy ones
in the pipeline. Sources: POWER, International Energy Agency, Cedigaz
Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, Senior Writer
CHINAS WEST-EAST GAS PIPELINE PROJECT: Xinjiang Autonomous Region to Yangtze Delta and Pearl Delta Region
(Phase I commissioned in 2004, Phase II, slated for 2014, Phase III, 2015)
ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE: Colorado to Ohio
(Commissioned 2009)
NORD STREAM PIPELINE: Russia to Germany
(First line commissioned 2011, second line, 2012)
PLANNED PROJECTS
SOUTH STREAM PIPELINE: Russia to Germany
This $16.89 billion project, which seeks to
diversify Russian gas routes to Europe in reaction
to repeated disputes with Ukraine, is expected to
come online in 2018.
TRANS-SAHARAN GAS PIPELINE: Nigeria to Algeria
Political disputes in Sub-Saharan Africa make this project's estimated commissioning in 2015 unlikely.
RECENT PROJECTS
NABUCCO PIPELINE: Turkey to Austria
Competing projects could derail this $9.47 billion European Union-backed project that seeks to reduce European dependence
on Russian gas. Completion slated for 2017.
GASODUCTO DEL NORESTE: Bolivia to Argentina
This $2.67 billion project could
come online as early as 2016
ALASKA-TO-ASIA PIPELINE: Alaska North Slope to South Alaska
Several hurdles for this $65 billion project that seeks to liquefy and ship gas to
Japan and South Korea have cleared, but it may not be ready for a decade or more
given its scale, technical, legal, political, and nancial barriers.
Phases I-III: 10,560 miles, 64 bcm/y
759 miles, 55 bcm/y
1,679 miles, 16.5 bcm/y
2,565 miles, 30 bcm/y
900 miles, 10 bcm/y
800 miles, capacity unknown
SAND HILLS PIPELINE: West Texas to East Texas
This $1 billion project will be a major link between the liquids-rich Eagle Ford
Shale and Permian producing regions and growing Gulf Coast market. Completion
expected in the second quarter of 2013.
720 miles, 30 bcm/y
March 2013
|
UNEP technical briefing document also claims that by 2008, more
than 95% of Chinas myriad coal-fired power plants had installed
electrostatic precipitators, and by 2009, 71% (about 460 GW)
had installed FGD.
Indias mercury issues, on the other hand, are much more com-
plex, suggests Dr. Lesley Sloss, who leads efforts by the Inter-
national Energy Agencys Clean Coal Centre to track and analyze
the worlds mercury emissions. She says in an October 2012 study
(funded by the U.S. State Department) that in the South Asian
nation (which relied on high-mercury indigenous coal for about
70% of its heat and power production in 2007), coal combustion
currently releases mercury emissions of about 40 mt/yr. By 2016,
these emissions are expected to rise to 106 mt/yr and to more
than 148 mt/yr by 2021. New laws could curb this output, Sloss
notes, but the likelihood of nationwide mandates to curb mercury
emissions are small.
Indian coal is low in sulfur, and sulfur dioxide emission lim-
its have not been a prioritythough a law exists that would
require new coal plants over 500 MW to provide space on site
to allow for the installation of FGD technology in the future.
And India does not have nitrogen oxide emission limits, though
emission limits introduced in 1981 have prompted many plants
to be retrofitted with particulate control systems, mostly elec-
trostatic precipitators.
Compared to India, several Southeast Asian countries have in-
stalled, or are installing some of the most advanced combustion
and pollution control systems available, Sloss says. About 80%
of Indonesias 10 GW of coal-fired capacity has sulfur control
systems in place, for example. And in Thailand, where coal use is
expected to increase by a factor of four by 2021, most coal plants
have installed FGD and de-NO
x
systems.
In many countries, mercury control is assumed to be ex-
pensivethis misconception needs to be corrected with dem-
onstrations of cost-effective mercury control options at real
plants in Southeast Asia, Sloss concludes. UNEP has produced
an interactive process optimization guidance document (POG)
that should help plant operators understand and maximize mer-
cury reduction on a plant-by-plant basis, tools that along with
expert workshops should be promoted throughout coal-heavy
Southeast Asia, she recommends.
Despite Pollution-Curbing Efforts, Dense
Smog Covers Wide Swath of China
Four bouts of dense smog described as the worst air pollu-
tion in recent memory enveloped more than half of China in
January, from the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei triangle in the north
of the country to Nanjing in the south, via the central city of
Wuhan (Figure 3). In Beijingwhich bore the worst of itthe
U.S. Embassys monitoring station reported a peak of fine par-
ticulates (PM2.5) of 755 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m
3
),
a level that is off the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys
Air Quality Index (which is limited to 500 g/m
3
). Chinese
monitors reported peak PM2.5 levels of 993 g/m
3
, which tre-
mendously exceeded the nations freshly implemented 24-hour
average standard for residential areas of 75 g/m
3
and is almost
When you own a
Since 1968
|
March 2013 12
40 times more than the World Health Organizations 24-hour
average standard of just 25 g/m
3
.
Beijing is certainly no stranger to smog. Pollution episodes
occur routinely; in July 2008, for example, the city forced half
of private cars off the road to improve air quality in advance of
the Olympic Games. But the smog that descended over the Bei-
jing-Tianjin-Hebei area over the periods of Jan. 68, Jan. 915,
Jan. 1719, Jan. 2223, and Jan. 2531 have been described
as much more extreme and of a longer duration. The Beijing
Meteorology Bureau attributed the spike at its worstbetween
Jan 10 and 13to very poor conditions of dispersal. With
low pressure at the surface, wind speeds fell, humidity increased
and an inversion layer formed, causing pollution to accumulate,
a spokesperson said. It was as if someone had put a lid on the
city, the China Dialogue commented.
Research results issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences
(CAS) in early February suggested that surging fine particulate
contributions in January were caused almost 25% by vehicle
emissions, 20% by coal combustion, and the remainder by cook-
ing. Wang Yuesi, a CAS researcher under a group that studies
haze causes and control, called for a focus on limiting industrial
pollution and improving the process of coal burningenhancing
desulfurization, denitration, and dedusting in the combustion
process. Dust from construction sites should also be brought un-
der control, and more attention should be given to emissions
from diesel-powered cars and to fuel quality, he said.
Other experts have gone further, calling for a coal consump-
tion cap policy that would limit the growth of coal usage in air
pollution areas. Many cite a recent World Research Institute pa-
per that estimated there are proposals to build up to 558 GW of
new coal-fired capacity in Chinarepresenting a 73% increase in
the energy-intensive nations 2011 thermal power capacity. Com-
pared with other Chinese cities, Beijings record on replacing coal
with cleaner substitutes is sound, however: In 2012, it slashed
its coal consumption by 700,000 metric tons.
On the renewables front, China as a whole has also made gains.
It has established a goal of increasing its use of nonfossil energy
to 15% of primary energy consumption by 2020, and greatly in-
creased wind power over the last several years (see Renewable
Energy Development Thrives During Chinas 12th Five-Year Plan
in our December 2012 issue). Meanwhile, the central Ministry of
Environmental Protection has already begun planning coal con-
sumption cap pilots for the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, the Pearl River
Delta, Yangtze River Delta, and Shandong city cluster as part of
its 12th Five-Year Plan for Air Pollution Prevention and Control in
Key Areas. That document also sets targets for reduction of key
pollutants by 2015, such as reducing PM 2.5 in the Beijing-Tian-
jin-Hebei region and the Yangtze and Pearl River Deltas by 5%.
Over the short term, Beijing and other cities are developing air
pollution emergency response measures, such as those taken by
Beijings Municipal Bureau of Environmental Protection in Janu-
ary. During the four intense bouts of smog, Beijing suspended
work at 28 construction sites, clamped down on emissions from
58 factories (that reportedly reduced particulate emissions by
30%), and took 30% of government vehicles off the road.
The haze, which made international headlines, will require
longer-term solutions, Li Keqiang, who will replace Wen Jia-
bao as premier in March, admitted in a state radio broadcast
in January. Li, the most senior official to comment on the
situation to date, applauded a mandate from Chinas Ministry
of Environmental Protection that requires 74 major cities to
monitor and publically report data for particulates and other
pollutants based on new air quality standards that came into
effect on Jan. 1. He also highlighted Chinas efforts to regu-
late industry, specifically through two new regulations pro-
mulgated in February 2012 (after public outcry) that revised
ambient air quality standards, including PM2.5, and developed
a new definition of Chinas Air Quality index. Pollution is
not a problem that emerged only a few days agoits a long-
term issue, and fixing it will take a long time. But we need to
do something about it, he said. Production, construction,
consumption cannot come at the price of hurting the environ-
ment.
Hungary Inaugurates Subsurface
Repository for Nuclear Plant Waste
Construction of a $310 million repository about 250 meters below
Earths surface for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste
from the operation and future decommissioning of Hungarys
power plants reached a significant milestone at Bataapati. Inau-
gural ceremonies for the National Radioactive Waste Repository
(Figure 4) were held last December, opening the first disposal
chamber that will hold 4,600 drums of radioactive waste in 510
3. In a haze. As residents of Beijing and many other Chinese cities
were warned to stay inside in January due to the worst periods of air
quality in recent history, NASAs Terra satellite captured this image from
space on Jan. 14. It shows extensive haze, low clouds, and fog over
northeastern China, when fine particulates peaked at 755 micrograms
per cubic meter in Beijing. The brightest areas tend to be clouds or
fog, which have a tinge of gray or yellow from the air pollution. Other
cloud-free areas have a pall of gray and brown smog that mostly blots
out the cities below, NASA says. In areas where the ground is visible,
some of the landscape is covered with lingering snow from previous
storms. Source: NASA
If youre thinking productivity, upgrade to a smarter grease.
2012 Exxon Mobil Corporation
All trademarks used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries unless indicated otherwise.
All greases are not created equal. In fact, ours are engineered smarter right from the start. With
an advanced formulation designed to provide all-around, balanced performance for the severe
conditions experienced by todays equipment.
Whats more, our high-technology greases offer a controlled release of oil and additives. They
know just the right amount to release, lubricating for extended protection. Providing greases that
stick better so they stay exactly where theyre needed making them easier to use, helping
reduce maintenance and replacement costs. Adding up to greater productivity. Learn more about
our advanced engineered greases for advanced productivity at mobilindustrial.com.
If youre thinking productivity, upgrade to a smarter grease.
|
March 2013 14
reinforced concrete containers. More chambers are to be built to
eventually accommodate 40,000 cubic meters of waste.
The facility is being built by the Public Limited Company for
Radioactive Waste Management (Radioaktv Hulladkokat Ke-
zelo Kft., RHK Kft), formerly the Public Agency for Radioactive
Waste Management (PURAM). The state-owned body carried out
site investigations for more than 10 years before finally focus-
ing on building the repository in granite in the south of the
country. The government accelerated licensing of the facility in
2006, and surface facilities for the repository were opened in
October 2008.
Hungary has four nuclear reactors that generate about 43%
of its power (about 30% is generated with gas, 18% with
coal, and the remainder is imported from its neighbors, mainly
Slovakia). All four of its reactors, housed at the Paks Nuclear
Power Plant, are Russian-designed VVER-440s that first gener-
ated power in the 1980s. Paks Units 2, 3, and 4 are scheduled
to be closed between 2014 and 2017 (though the Hungarian
Parliament has approved 20-year extensions for all the units).
Paks 1s license was extended to 2032.
The March 2009 approval for a new nuclear plant by the Hun-
garian Parliament has prompted Paks to consider building two
new 1-GW reactors at the Paks site. A decision is expected this
year, and possible contenders for the tender are AREVAs EPR, the
Atmea1, Atomstroyexports VVER-1000, Westinghouses AP1000,
and South Koreas APR-1400.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, at
the end of 2010, a global radioactive waste inventory reported
that there were approximately 61.4 million m
3
of short-lived,
low- and intermediate-level waste (LILWSL), 13.9 million m
3
of long-lived, low- and intermediate-level waste (LILWLL), and
423,000 m
3
of high-level waste (HLW). Disposal facilities for
low-level waste were operational or under construction in sev-
eral countries, including Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Repub-
lic, France, India, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Romania, Slovakia,
Spain, and the UK.
A LILW disposal complex similar to the one at Bataapati is un-
der construction at Gyungju, in the Republic of Korea. That facil-
ity began in 2010 accepting the first 1,000 drums of waste from
the twin-reactor Ulchin nuclear plant for outdoor storage until
the $730 million underground repository can be commissioned in
mid-2014. The completed repository is expected to have a num-
ber of silos and caverns about 80 meters below the surface with
an initial capacity of about 100,000 drums.
Sonal Patel is POWERs senior writer.
4. Burying waste. Hungarys National Radioactive Waste Reposi-
tory at Bataapati, a facility that will eventually hold all low-level and
intermediate radioactive waste from the countrys four nuclear power
plants, was inaugurated in December. Courtesy: PURAM
Nol-Tec Systems, Inc.
425 Apollo Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651.780.8600 sales@nol-tec.com www.nol-tec.com
MATS compliant mitigation of Hg SO
2
SO
3
HCI HF
Customized innovation based on proven technology
Flexible design to meet your precise needs
Better distribution means better mitigation
Call 651-780-8600 today to begin an analysis
of your pollution mitigation needs.
With Nol-Tecs Sorb-N-Ject technology, youll get uniform delivery of dry sorbent,
including activated carbon proven even distribution through resistive splitting.
And better distribution means better removal of pollutants.
Sorb-N-Ject
Dry Sorbent Injection including Activated Carbon
Sorb-N-Jects
Resistive Splitter
Technology
Reliable, automated operation and control
Scalable installation to to cover scope of any system
On-site, self-contained testing systems
T
eam is a worl d- class service company with the right peopl e,
technol ogy and experience needed to keep your plants online
and in production. Our highly skill ed technicians work to earn
your continued trust and conf idence one job at a time.
Satisf ying customer needs since 1973
True 24/7/365 availability
More than 100 worl dwide l ocations
3, 200+ trained and certif ied service specialists
Worl dwide stock of in-house service equipment
Bundl ed approach helps you realize cost savings
Improved productivity meets or exceeds your goals
+1- 800- 662- 8326 | www.teamindustrialservices.com
Scheduled maintenance,
inspections, emergency
responseTeam delivers
Leak
RepaiRs
FieLd Heat
tReating
FieLd
MacHining
VaLVe
inseRtion
Hot taps /
Line stops
tecHnicaL
BoLting
VaLVe
RepaiR
nde/ndt
inspection
eMissions
contRoL
pipe RepaiR
seRVices
tuRnaRound
seRVices
pipeLine
seRVices
T
eam is a worl d- class service company with the right peopl e,
technol ogy and experience needed to keep your plants online
and in production. Our highly skill ed technicians work to earn
your continued trust and conf idence one job at a time.
Satisf ying customer needs since 1973
True 24/7/365 availability
More than 100 worl dwide l ocations
3, 200+ trained and certif ied service specialists
Worl dwide stock of in-house service equipment
Bundl ed approach helps you realize cost savings
Improved productivity meets or exceeds your goals
+1- 800- 662- 8326 | www.teamindustrialservices.com
Scheduled maintenance,
inspections, emergency
responseTeam delivers
Leak
RepaiRs
FieLd Heat
tReating
FieLd
MacHining
VaLVe
inseRtion
Hot taps /
Line stops
tecHnicaL
BoLting
VaLVe
RepaiR
nde/ndt
inspection
eMissions
contRoL
pipe RepaiR
seRVices
tuRnaRound
seRVices
pipeLine
seRVices
|
March 2013 16
How to Avoid Feedwater Heater Drain
Design Pitfalls
Feedwater heaters are used to preheat boiler feedwater by
condensing steam extracted from several stages of the steam
turbine. Feedwater heaters enhance the thermal efficiency of
the power plant by reducing the amount of fuel burned in
the boiler to produce a specified power. At the same time,
the steam energy extracted from the turbine by the feedwater
heater helps to reduce the rate of energy rejection to the en-
vironment via the condenser.
Steam extracted from the turbine for feedwater heating is con-
densed on the shell side of the feedwater heater. The hot conden-
sate collects in the shell and drains to the next lower pressure
heater or condenser. A level control valve and piping maintains
the proper condensate level in the shell. The condensate level
control in the heater shell is very important. High condensate
levels can adversely affect steam turbine operation, while low
levels can cause steam blow-through, damaging the heater inter-
nals and drain piping.
This article explores the complexities and key issues associ-
ated with selecting the proper pipe sizing/layout and control
valve design that must control hot condensate flow from the
feedwater heaters. The biggest challenge occurs when hot con-
densate flashes to steam as pressure decreases in the drain pip-
ing. The flashed steam produces a two-phase flow mixture that
can restrict flow in the drain system and thus upset operation of
the heater shell level control. The flashed steam can also erode
the control valve internals and drain piping.
Complex Heater Design
The feedwater heater shell can comprise up to three separate
zones within the shell: the desuperheating, condensing, and
drain cooling zones. First, the incoming superheated steam en-
ters the optional desuperheating zone, where it is reduced in
temperature until reaching saturated conditions. Next, the steam
enters the condensing zone, where the saturated steam changes
state, at the saturation temperature, to become saturated liquid.
Finally, steam condensate enters the optional drain cooling zone,
where it is subcooled below the saturation temperature by the
incoming feedwater.
In multizone heaters, the normal heater drains are con-
nected to the outlet of the drain-cooling zone and therefore
are capable of handling subcooled condensate. The normal
drains are routed through a level control valve to the next
lower pressure heater, which also improves the cycle effi-
ciency. In contrast, emergency drains are typically connected
to the condensing zone, where they discharge condensate at
saturated temperature and pressure conditions through a sep-
arate line and level control valve directly to the condenser.
The drains from the lowest high-pressure (HP) heater in the
typical Rankine cycle are routed to the deaerator.
Many Complex Calculations
Maintaining the proper condensate level in the heater shell
is critical. Therefore, the heater drain level control valve and
piping system must be adequately designed to discharge the
hot condensate flow across the specified operating range of
the plant. Guidance and commentary on how to complete a
successful design is provided in the remainder of this article.
See the sidebar Step-by-Step Calculation Procedure for a
summary of the discrete calculation steps described in the
article.
Review Drains from Feedwater Heater to Level
Control Valve
The drain piping upstream of the level control valve should be
designed to handle single-phase condensate without steam
flash. For proper operation, the drain should be adequately
subcooled to prevent steam flashing when line pressure de-
creases due to frictional pressure drop or elevation change
(upward-rising pipe). The frictional pressure drop is mini-
mized by using guidelines such as the Heat Exchange Insti-
tute (HEI) criterion of heater nozzle velocity not exceeding 4
ft/sec at operating temperature. However, the velocity-based
Step-by-Step Calculation Procedure
The main text describes the calculations and their sequence
in much detail. The following is a step-by-step guide that
will be useful to those wishing to develop an Excel spread-
sheet or for those who merely desire an overview of the cal-
culation process.
Step 1. Gather the required inputs:
Upstream/downstream heater pressures
Condensate flow rate and supply temperature
Pipe size and length/orientation for piping upstream/down-
stream of control valve
Step 2. Calculate critical pressure at the exit of the control valve.
Step 3. Check critical pressure against the saturation pres-
sure and the downstream heater pressure to establish the cor-
rect exit pressure for pressure gradient calculations and to
establish single-phase or two-phase flow in piping downstream
of the control valve.
Step 4. Calculate piping resistance (K + f L/D) for the piping
segment downstream of the control valve, working backwards
from the downstream heater.
Step 5. Assume value for control valve outlet pressure (P
2
)
downstream of control valve with the calculated exit pressure
and input the associated fluid properties in the modified Ber-
noulli equation.
Step 6. If the right-hand side of the modified Bernoulli equa-
tion matches the left-hand side, then the assumed value of P
2

is correct. Otherwise, change the value for P
2
and repeat until
the correct value for control valve outlet pressure is obtained.
Note that the value for P
2
will change as the downstream piping
resistance (K + f L/D) changes.
Step 7. Ensure that control valve inlet pressure is calculated
using conventional single-phase flow line pressure drop.
Step 8. Once control valve inlet/outlet pressures are es-
tablished, the control valve datasheet can be filled out for
the vendor to supply a suitable valve for flashing/cavita-
tion service.
2012 Baldor Electric Company
Full Service
Baldors service programs for large motors and generators
can reduce your risk of unexpected downtime while
extending the useful life of your machines. Through
our exclusive maintenance plans and ABBs LEAP and
MACHsense diagnostic and monitoring programs, Baldor
services can help predict failures before they occur,
putting an end to unexpected downtime emergencies.

Call or log on for complete information on how to put our
team at your service today.
baldor.com 479-646-4711
2012 Baldor Electric Company
Scan the QR code with your
smartphone to learn more
http://qr2.it/Go/1109169
|
March 2013 18
design approach should be verified and revised, if necessary,
by ensuring that line pressure after elevation and frictional
change does not drop below the saturation pressure.
The pressure loss caused by increasing elevation (upward-
rising pipe) is ideally minimized by placing all HP heaters
side by side on the same elevation in the plant and the
low-pressure (LP) heaters side by side on a lower elevation.
However, the deaerator must be installed at a much higher
elevation because of the boiler feed pumps net positive
suction head requirements. Therefore, when the lowest HP
heater drains to the deaerator, the drain line pressure change
due to elevation becomes significant. For example, the low-
est pressure HP heater must drain from a low elevation (say,
7 meters) to the deaerator at a higher elevation (say, 30
meters), thus making the elevation difference (30 7 = 23
meters) very significant.
Elevation differences are particularly important at part-load
operation, when the differential operating pressure between the
HP heater and the deaerator decreases. In this case, the level
control valve should be located so that the line pressure does
not drop below the saturation pressure for all operating cases
upstream of the level control valve. Otherwise, the control valve
flow capability will be significantly reduced and the potential for
erosion in the piping system will increase.
Calculate Pressure at Drain Piping Exit Downstream
of Level Control Valve
The drain piping downstream of the level control valve can han-
dle single-phase flow or two-phase flow, or the initial part of the
drain flow can be single phase, changing to two phase farther
downstream.
In all cases, the pressure drop in the piping can include sig-
nificant static head, which must be considered in determining
the control valve outlet pressure (P
2
). Of course, the static head
is much larger for single-phase flow due to the presence of the
fully liquid column downstream of the control valve.
Single phase is promoted by subcooling condensate in the
upstream heater drain cooler. In drain piping downstream of the
control valve, single-phase flow is indicated when critical exit
pressure is found to be higher than the saturation pressure.
The pressure in the drain piping exit downstream of the con-
trol valve depends on whether this section has single-phase,
1. Go with the flow. A typical feedwater heater with condensate
drain lines is shown. Courtesy: Bechtel Power Corp.
Steam in
Condensate
drain line
Feedwater in
Channel and
channel cover
Feedwater
out
800.787.7325
e-mail: industrial@sealeze.com
www.sealeze.com
ISO 9001 Certiied
For more than 25 years, Sealeze has helped design and manufacturing
engineers design solutions.
Adaptive Brush
Seal Solutions for
Air Preheaters
High performance. Long life.
Sealezes patent-pending brush-based
sealing system delivers reliability and
extended functional service life.
Replace seals less often
Consistent effective sealing, 2-5 times longer than
standard seals
Inherent high elasticity allows dissipation of stress
under deformation; reducing drag, wear and sudden
failures.
More effective than other seal
Conforms to sealing surface
Each ilament is lexible, conforming to varying gap
sizes and surface irregularities for a continuous seal
Thousands of ilaments, nestle tightly together
creating a
high integrity seal. Under pressure these ilaments
pack even tighter.
XtraSeal HT
March 2013
|
two-phase nonchoked, or two-phase choked flow. The critical
pressure at the exit is required to determine if the flow is choked
or nonchoked.
Technical literature provides several methods for calculating
this critical pressure. One useful methodology is based on the
homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM) for two-phase flow and
involves simultaneous solution of energy and momentum con-
servation equations. That is the approach used for calculating
critical pressure in this article.
This critical pressure at the exit (P
ce
) corresponds to choked
flow at the downstream heater inlet based on pipe diameter,
flow rate, and saturation pressure (P
sat
) of the fluid at the
temperature it leaves the upstream heater. As discussed below
and shown in Figure 2, P
ce
can then be compared against P
sat
and against the downstream heater pressure (P
2dh
) to select
the correct pressure at the exit.
Once the pressure at the exit is determined, the pressure
gradient is calculated working backwards from the drain pip-
ing exit at the downstream heater toward the level control
valve outlet, considering single-phase flow or two-phase flow
(using HEM), as applicable.
There are three scenarios to be considered when determining
the end receiver inlet pressure:
If P
ce
> P
sat
, then there can be no steam flash, and the entire
section of drain piping downstream of the level control valve
must be treated as having single-phase flow. In this case, P
sat

is considered as the end receiver pressure and the single-phase
pressure drop worked backwards to establish the control valve
outlet pressure P
2
.
If P
ce
< P
sat
and P
ce
> P
2dh
, then steam flash is occurring (un-
der choked flow conditions) and the section of drain piping
downstream of the level control valve must be considered as
having two-phase flow. In this case, P
ce
must be used as the
end receiver pressure instead of P
2dh
. The two-phase pressure
drop is then worked backwards to establish the control valve
outlet pressure P
2
.
If P
ce
< P
sat
and P
ce
< P
2dh
, then steam flash is occurring (under
nonchoked flow conditions) and the section of drain piping
downstream of the control valve must be considered as having
two-phase flow. However, in this case P
2dh
can be used in the
flow calculation as the end receiver pressure. The two-phase
pressure drop is then worked backwards to establish the con-
trol valve outlet pressure P
2
.
Calculate Control Valve Outlet Pressure
If there is no condensate flash, the section of drain piping
downstream of the level control valve (up to the downstream
heater) must be treated as single phase. In this case, the
SOME THINK
LONG-DISTANCE
TRANSPORT IS
INFRASTRUCTURE-
INTENSIVE.
WE THINK
DIFFERENT.
Transporting materials from remote locations has tradition-
ally required signicant infrastructure investments in road
or rail links, vehicles, personnel and fuel. BEUMER oers
an economical, e cient and environmental alternative
long-distance overland conveying. This gives you a dedicated,
around-the-clock transport link at the fraction of the cost
of infrastructure development. The reduced noise and air
pollution minimises environmental impact and improves
personnel safety. Add to that a high degree of design exi-
bility and customisation and you can see why overland
conveying makes a big dierence to operational e ciency
and environmental protection.
For more information, visit www.beumergroup.com
2. Pressure points. Locations of drain line pressures referenced
in the article are shown. Courtesy: Bechtel Power Corp.
|
March 2013 20
conventional Darcy equation can be used for liquid conden-
sate pressure drop calculations using P
sat
as the downstream
heater pressure. This calculation, along with adjustments for
static head and velocity head, will establish the control valve
outlet pressure.
If condensate flash is present, the fluid in the section of drain
piping downstream of the level control valve (up to the down-
stream heater) must be treated as two-phase flow. In this case,
the general flow equation (modified Bernoulli equation) can be
used to determine the upstream pressures starting with small
pipe sections backward from the receiving heater:
Where, K = piping component resistance coefficient; f = fric-
tion factor; L = piping equivalent length, ft; D = piping di-
ameter, ft; I = 0 for horizontal pipe, +1 for vertical pipe
(down flow), or 1 for vertical pipe (up flow); W = flow, lb/
sec; A = pipe area, ft
2
; = density, lb/ft
3
; P = pressure, psia;
subscripts A and B represent the upstream and downstream
conditions, respectively.
The integral expression can be approximated as (P
A
P
B
)(
A
+
B
)/2 for small pipe sections and the general flow equation used
in several steps to cover the downstream piping.
The general flow equation can be used to establish the up-
stream density
1
and the corresponding pressure P
1
and is best
executed with commercially available computer software. How-
ever, if software is not available, this equation is still fairly man-
ageable using a spreadsheet program.
Because the downstream receiving heater pressure P
2dh
(or
the critical pressure at the exit in the case of choked flow)
and saturation pressure P
sat
are known, the amount of steam
flash can be computed. Knowing the amount of steam flash,
the density of liquid vapor mixture
B
can be evaluated at the
downstream point. For the upstream point, a trial and error
method can be used by selecting a value of P
1
, then calculat-
ing P
1
/P
sat
and corresponding steam flash and corresponding
density
A
. The density values are then used in the general
flow equation and the process is repeated for
A
until the
equation balances.
The two-phase mixture density (based on HEM) can be
computed from the quantity of steam flashed as follows:
MIX

= (W
G
+ W
L
)/(W
G
/
B
+ W
L
/
B
), where W
G
and W
L
are flashed
steam and condensate flow rate in units of lb/hr, respectively
and
G
and
L
are steam and condensate density in units of
lb/ft
3
, respectively,
In the special case where the downstream piping has vary-
ing piping diameters (such as a reducer attached to the control
valve), the critical pressure at the exit should be evaluated for
the different diameters. If P
ce
at the smaller end of the reducer
works out to be greater than the saturation pressure, then the
flow is liquid at the valve outlet (and the pressure should be set
at the saturation pressure).
The key to sizing and selecting the best control valve is estab-
lishing the correct value of P
2
. The control valve sizing selection
also involves determining the pressure at the control valve inlet
P
1
, but this value is fairly simple to calculate because it is based
on single-phase liquid flow.
Check Heater Drain Valve Cavitation/Flashing Conditions
The heater drain control valve may be subject to cavitation or
flashing service, which could damage valve internals and piping.
It is therefore important to establish clearly whether the valve
is subject to cavitation or flashing so the appropriate mitigating
methods can be used.
The heater drain control valve sizing depends on the al-
lowable pressure drop (P
a
) across the valve. The allowable
pressure drop is the smaller of the actual pressure drop and
the choked pressure drop.
The engineer responsible for checking the adequacy of a new
or an existing design should include the following items on the
review checklist:
The pressure drop between the upstream heater and the
downstream heater should be adequate to pass the required
flow during both full-load and some selected reduced-load
operating conditions.
Heater locations and elevations should be properly determined,
because this can contribute significantly to the total pressure
drop between the heaters. The effect is especially true for the
lowest HP heater draining to the deaerator, and LP heaters
draining to the next lower heater, where the static head be-
comes significant relative to the difference in heater pressures.
The drain line from the heater outlet to the control valve should
be designed so that single-phase condensate flow exists up to
the control valve.
The drain line from the control valve outlet to the receiving
heater inlet should be designed for two-phase flow. The two-
phase flow should not occur at the control valve outlet but at
some distance from the control valve. If the two-phase flow
occurs at some distance from the control valve outlet, then
the static pressure due to the liquid head must be considered
in the pressure drop calculation for the piping downstream of
the control valve.
The control valve should be properly sized based on correct
values of valve inlet pressure P
1
and valve outlet pressure
P
2
. The inlet pressure P
1
can be calculated in a straight-
forward manner by computing the pressure drop between
the upstream heater and the control valve using the Darcy
equation for single-phase flow. The outlet pressure P
2
may
be based on single-phase or two-phase flow. The computa-
tion is more involved for two-phase flow, requiring use of
the general flow equation.
The control valve should be checked for cavitation against the
valve manufacturers recommended index to determine if dam-
age mitigation is required or not.
The control valve should be checked for flashing and steps taken
to minimize its damaging effect on valve internals and down-
stream piping.
Design Review Checklist
March 2013
|
The choked pressure drop, for valves installed without inlet/
outlet fittings, can be predicted by the following equation:
P
choked
= F
L
2
x (P
1
F
F
P
v
), where F
L
= liquid pressure recovery
factor provided by valve manufacturer; P
1
= upstream pressure
at valve inlet, psia or kPa; F
F
= liquid critical pressure ratio
factor = 0.96 0.28SQRT(P
V
/P
C
); P
C
= critical pressure of liquid,
psia or kPa; and P
V
= vapor pressure of the liquid at flowing
temperature, psia or kPa.
The choked pressure drop corresponds to choked flow in the
valve created by the formation of gas bubbles when the fluid
pressure drops below the vapor pressure at the valve vena con-
tracta. The formation of gas bubbles at the valve vena contracta
depends on the downstream pressure (P
2
), meaning the valve
could be in cavitating service or flashing service.
Consider Effects of Cavitation
Cavitation occurs in the valve only in single-phase liquid ser-
vice across the valve. As the liquid flows through the control
valve, the pressure falls from the inlet pressure until a point
is reached when the local fluid pressure falls below the vapor
pressure. At this point, vapor bubbles are formed. The poten-
tial for cavitation damage occurs when the downstream pres-
sure (P
2
) again rises above the vapor pressure and the vapor
bubbles collapse.
As mentioned previously, if the actual pressure drop is
higher than the choked pressure drop, the choked pressure
drop is the allowable pressure drop for control valve sizing.
However, at these conditions, fully developed cavitation can
be expected with its high potential for damage to valve inter-
nals and downstream piping.
If the actual pressure is less than the choked pressure, the
actual pressure is the allowable pressure for control valve
sizing. But, to establish the damage potential from cavita-
tion, this value of actual pressure drop must be compared
to the P associated with the cavitation index provided by
the valve manufacturer. Instead of the cavitation index, some
valve manufacturers use the cavitation coefficient, calculated
as K
C
= P x (P
1
P
v
). The cavitation coefficient K
C
assumes
that a valve may function without damaging cavitation at
any pressure less than the pressure drop calculated using the
coefficient.
Another commonly used cavitation index () is defined by
the Instrument Society of America (ISA) in publication ISA-
RP75.23-1995, where = (P
1
P
v
)/(P
1
P
2
).
The valve manufacturer can provide the minimum recom-
mended value for sigma at various conditions, including
incipient cavitation, onset of damaging cavitation, or manu-
facturers recommended value. These values may need to be
adjusted for pressure scale effect (PSE), size scale effect
(SSE), and pipe reducer effect (defined in ISA-RP75.23-1995)
in case the reference conditions used for establishing dif-
fer from the service conditions. The adjusted value of un-
der service conditions may be higher than the manufacturers
recommended value (after adjustments for PSE, SSE, and pipe
reducer effect).
Based on the above considerations, cavitation in control
valves can be mitigated by two methods:
Modify system operating conditions so that either valve outlet
pressure remains below the vapor pressure, thus creating only
flashing conditions but no cavitation, or minimize valve pres-
sure drop so that exceeds the valve manufacturers minimum
recommendation.
Use multistage trims or anticavitation trim in the control
valve. This type of trim divides the overall pressure drop into
several stages, thus preventing the pressure at the vena con-
tracta of any individual stage from falling below the vapor
pressure. Some flashing service damage can be minimized by
use of hardened trim material or upgraded metallurgy for valve
body and use of target flanges in the downstream piping.
Finally, if the downstream pressure is lower than the vapor
pressure at the flowing temperature of the fluid, the fluid will
flash, resulting in a vapor-liquid mixture. This mixture moving
at high velocities often causes erosion in the valve internals and
downstream piping. Some flashing damage can be minimized by
use of hardened trim material or upgraded valve body metallurgy
and use of target flanges in the downstream piping
Additional Design Considerations
Designing heater drain piping and the associated control valve is
complex and requires careful evaluation to ensure that the heater
drains function properly and are capable of passing the required
flow over the intended range of operation. To aid the engineer
responsible for checking the adequacy of the design, use the
checklist provided in the sidebar Design Review Checklist. By
following this procedure you can be assured of producing a ro-
bust design that will operate under all expected plant operating
conditions for many years.
S. Zaheer Akhtar, PE is the assistant chief & technical advi-
sor to the PGESCo manager of engineering, on assignment from
Bechtel Power Corp. to PGESCo, Cairo, Egypt.
Stop Abrasion
Damage!
Mineral based ceramic linings from
Abresist Kalenborn reduce the high
cost of maintenance for years in
pipes, cyclones, ducts, chutes,
flumes, conveyors, and fans.
Anything in your plant that
takes punishment from
abrasive materials
can be protected
with the appropriate
lining. Call, fax or visit
our website for information and
literature on the full line of Abresist
Kalenborn products.
5541 North State Road 13, Urbana, IN 46990
Toll Free: 800-348-0717 Fax: 888-348-0717
www.abresist.com E-mail: info@abresist.com
k
a
le
n
b
o
rn
The Wear Protection People
Abresist Kalenborn Corporation
|
March 2013 22
Align Generation Reliability
and Fuel Supply Firmness
By Barbara S. Jost
M
ore and more electricity is generated by natural gas. This
trend is likely to persist. Hydraulic fracturing technology is
increasing domestic supplies and enabling natural gas pric-
es to remain at historic lows. These circumstances encourage fuel
switching by electric generators. Cheaper fuel allows less-expensive
electricity, but the long-term consequences of this trend could well
be less-reliable electric service if the fuel used to generate a grow-
ing portion of the nations electric power lacks firmness.
Increasing Reliance on Gas
In August 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) convened five regional conferences to address whether
current market structures and regulations are adequate to sup-
port the electric sectors increasing reliance on gas-fired genera-
tion. These conferences were well attended (by more than 1,200
registrants) and FERC was inundated with written comments and
associated recommendations on whether the increasing use of
gas in lieu of oil/coal was making electric service less reliable
and, if so, how to solve this problem. In addition, concerns were
raised about two related but subsidiary issues: communication,
coordination, and information sharing across the electric and gas
industry; and disconnects between the scheduling for electricity
and gas.
In November, FERC issued a staff report summarizing the re-
sults of its information-gathering and an order directing actions
on the two subsidiary issues. However, FERC left the threshold
question unanswered: When power is needed, how best to ensure
that generators with firm delivery obligations have reliable up-
stream fuel resources and, if they do not, who should bear the
resulting reliability costs?
Based on regional conference comments, such electric resource
adequacy is of greater concern in areas with organized capacity
markets than in those areas where vertically integrated utilities
operate. Organized capacity markets such as the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic do not currently provide an incentive for generators
to purchase firm contracts for gas pipeline transportation. The
staff report notes that [p]articipants in virtually all regions with
capacity markets indicated that their capacity markets do not
consider the firmness of a generators fuel supply when clearing
resources. It adds that appropriate incentives to deliver firm en-
ergy are necessary to better ensure that gas-fired generators are
able to reliably deliver firm energy; reliance on nonfirm pipeline
capacity to deliver gas to power plants is inconsistent with the
firm energy delivery obligation.
In areas where there are vertically integrated utilities, such as
the Southeast, the correlation between the firmness of delivery
of natural gas to power plants and resource reliability appears
to be less of an issue. Many entities are subject to integrated
resource planning requirements that specify that electric genera-
tors have firm pipeline transportation service and/or storage.
Unresolved Cost Allocation
At the regional conferences, pipeline operators, not surpris-
ingly, urged that generators be required to hold firm capac-
ity/storage. Generators maintain that pipelines should (and
some already have) design more flexible transportation ser-
vices that can meet generator seasonal demands without
potentially costly gas system expansions. Natural gas local
distribution companies (LDCs) appear wary of electric indus-
try suggestions that regional gas infrastructure planning is
needed. The LDCs also complain that the costs of serving
electric generator variability are already being shifted im-
properly to LDCs and ultimately to their customers.
Yet the staff report shies away from offering any possible
remedies or even a path for resolution with respect to the con-
sequences of less-than-firm transportation service and electric
resource adequacy. FERC concurs with the staff report that re-
source adequacy issues . . . should continue to be addressed
in the first instance by market participants, states, and other
stakeholders in each region.
Consistent with FERCs deferral to the regions approach, the
North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) generally favors
a requirement for generator firmness that would account for
the multiple ways to firm up the fuel supply, but NERC nonethe-
less does not see a need for a national standard. It concurs that
the issues can be addressed on a regional basis. More recently,
however, a consulting firm has proposed that from a system reli-
ability standpoint, NERC should act by redefining firm power
on a fuel-neutral basis so that generators who want to bid into
power markets would have to firm up fuel reliability.
FERC Defers Decision
That electric resource adequacy is not an immediate concern in
all parts of the country is not an adequate reason for FERC to
defer to the regions for solutions. Indeed, resource reliability
concerns are most pressing in organized regional transmission
organization/independent system operator capacity markets that
are already comprehensively regulated by FERC. Nor is the fact
that organized markets vary in design an adequate excuse for de-
ferral. The costs of ensuring that natural gaspowered generators
are delivered fuel sufficient to ensure electric resource adequacy
will be substantial regardless of the resolution.
Understandably, and as made clear by the staff report, stake-
holders differ widely on how to proceed, and their proposals typi-
cally align with their economic interests in the outcome. That
these issues may be difficult to resolve is not an excuse for inac-
tion. FERC needs to commence the appropriate proceeding de-
signed to provide a national and comprehensive policy direction
for the electric and gas industries on this imperative issue.
Barbara S. Jost (barbarajost@dwt.com) is a partner in the
Washington, D.C., office of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Achieving Zero Liquid Discharge

When a public utility client needed upgrades to the
FGD efuent system at a coal plant, Tisha Scroggin
and Don Schilling took a long, hard look at how it could
be done. Applying recent experience, the pair helped
the utility install a zero liquid discharge (ZLD) system
in less than 20 months. With a nal cost of approximately
$45 million per 100 gpm treated, the ZLD
system eliminated a discharge point and
was completed on a schedule that deed
industry norms. In the long run, the
installation gave the utility cost and
regulatory certainty by removing future
needs for additional equipment.
WHERE WATER
and
POWER MEET
CUSTOMI ZED WATER SOLUTI ONS THAT FI T YOUR POWER PLANT
As a nationwide technical leader in ZLD system development,
Don has 40 years of experience consulting with utilities on the
water requirements for coal and other power plants. Tisha has led
the installation of ZLD systems for clients facing regulatory challenges to their
power plant water systems. They are two of our experienced professionals
who can help you identify the water alternative that ts:
Zero liquid discharge
Customized wastewater treatment and water management
Constructed wetlands
Landll and pond management
Bottom ash handling
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
www.burnsmcd.com/water-team
E n g i n e e r i n g , A r c h i t e c t u r e , C o n s t r u c t i o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d C o n s u l t i n g S o l u t i o n s
|
March 2013 24
FUELS
Techno-Economic Considerations
When Using Low-Grade Coal for
Power Generation
R
egardless of a power plants objectives
or the relationship between a plant and
an associated coal mine, the availabil-
ity of a low-grade coal resource creates the
possibility for a symbiotic relationship. In or-
der to harness the benefits of such a relation-
ship between power generation and coal min-
ing, certain techno-economic considerations
should be kept in mind.
Because the variables are numerous, a few
clarifications are in order to start. In this ar-
ticle, low-grade coals refers to lignite and
subbituminous coals with a calorific value
(CV) of less than 18 MJ/kg (7,725 Btu/lb)
and ash quantities of greater than 40% by
weight. These coals are further characterized
by varying/inconsistent volatile matter (VM),
high inherent moisture, high sulfur, and a low
Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI).
Steam Pro and Steam Master proprietary
software (from Thermoflow Inc.) were used
to generate some of the data used in this ar-
ticles charts and table. Efficiency, coal con-
sumption, and capital expenditure (CAPEX)
graphs assumed a 300-MW single-reheat
subcritical steam cycle. The graphs only in-
dicate the relationship among CAPEX, plant
efficiency, coal consumption, and CV for
this power plant design specification. Whats
more, a power plants economic viability de-
pends on several project-specific factors such
as plant CAPEX and operating expenses
(OPEX), the availability of a favorable power
purchase agreement (PPA) and coal supply
agreement (CSA), transmission infrastruc-
ture, coal and limestone costs, water costs,
labor costs, and so on.
This article considers only plant CAPEX
and OPEX as major factors contributing
The use of low-grade coal is becoming synonymous with circulating fluidized bed (CFB)
power plants. Although CFB technology may often be a better choice than pulverized
coal technology, that is not always the case. Owners and developers need to consider
several technical and economic factors before making this decision.
By Chudi Egbuna, MSc.Eng. (Mech.) Pr Eng., Parsons Brinckerhoff Africa
Courtesy: Cleco
FUELS
March 2013
|
to power plant economic viability. Power
plant OPEX constitutes variable and fixed
operation and maintenance costs (such as
coal, limestone, fuel oil, water, and labor).
The OPEX discussion is limited to the cost
of coal, including transportation, as a major
contributor to power plant operating costs.
Power plant and coal mine relationships and
their interactions with CAPEX and OPEX
depend on the specific circumstances of a
project, which can be numerous. As a result,
the described relationships and interactions
have been limited and simplified somewhat.
Plant Technology
Subcritical power plants are known to achieve
efficiencies between 30% and 36% on aver-
age, while supercritical and ultrasupercritical
power plants can achieve efficiencies up to
40% and 45%, respectively. The CV of the
coal generally affects the plants ability to
achieve these efficiencies in that the lower the
coal CV, the less likely a plant will operate in
the higher regions of its efficiency class. This
is especially true when a plant has not been
designed to burn a specific grade of coal. To
maximize a power plants potential to utilize
low-grade coal, plant technology should be
selected that is least likely to be affected by
coal quality.
Most of the technologies used in thermal
coal power generation are independent of
the coal being used. The main technologies
of concern are boilers, their associated fuel-
handling and -processing equipment, and
their emissions control technology.
Boiler Technology. Generally, a con-
ventional pulverized coal (PC) boiler will
function properly, provided there is minimal
deviation from the range of coal specification
for which it was designed. Significant varia-
tions in coal characteristics in PC boilers such
as VM content are dangerous and could lead
to tube rupture and boiler explosions. Arch-
fired PC boilers by Foster Wheeler have been
developed to address low-volatile coals but
not a wider range of VM coal feed for a spe-
cific design. Figure 1 depicts the relationship
between PC and circulating fluidized bed
(CFB) boilers and coal grade.
Varying and inconsistent coal types can
be processed into an acceptable fuel by
several available coal beneficiation pro-
cesses, in which case a PC boiler can be
used, even for low-grade coals. However,
where minimal downstream coal prepara-
tion is available, the CFB boiler is gener-
ally more capable of handling coal quality
inconsistencies. Although CFB boilers are
capable of handling a wider range of fuels
by virtue of their fuel firing/coal combus-
tion system, they are limited by their ther-
mal design to a specific range of fuel. For
this reason, multifuel combustion or cofir-
ing with dual fuels such as biomass and
coal in CFB boilers is not always achiev-
able.
An important aspect of boiler choice is the
auxiliary power consumption associated with
fuel processing and emissions control. In PC
boilers that use mills to grind coal, this is
important from a fuel processing viewpoint.
Generally, higher plant auxiliary loads result
in lower plant efficiency. The finer pulver-
ized coal required for a PC boiler results in
higher auxiliary load requirements and lower
plant efficiency. Therefore, for a specific
plant design, a lower HGI will result in high-
er auxiliary power to achieve the required
coal fineness and, consequently, a lower
overall plant efficiency. CFB boilers, on the
other hand, do not require fine coal, and so
a PC plants grinding mills are replaced by
crushers in CFB plants, which reduce coal
processing auxiliary power consumption re-
quirements (see table).
Should the coal HGI decrease for the PC
plant, there will be a consequent increase
in auxiliary power requirements and a de-
1. Combustion characteristics. A conventional PC boiler will function properly, pro-
vided there is minimal deviation from the range of coal specification for which it was designed.
Source: Adapted from S.J. Goidich, Supercritical Boiler Options to Match Fuel Combustion
Characteristics, Foster Wheeler North America, 2007
PC arch-fired
Anthracite,
petroleum coke
PC wall-fired
Bituminous, subbituminous, lignites
CFB
High-ash waste coals
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
H
i
g
h
e
r

h
e
a
t
i
n
g

v
a
l
u
e

(
M
J
/
k
g
)
Volatile content (% dry ash free)
Power distribution summary. The first two data columns illustrate typical auxiliary and
miscellaneous loads as a percentage of total auxiliary load required by a PC and CFB plant of
the same capacity burning a low-grade coal with an HGI of 50. The last two columns illustrate a
decrease in sulfur removalrelated auxiliary power requirements to 13% and 6%, respectively,
for the CFB and the PC plant. Source: Chudi Egbuna
Plant system
Low-grade coal (HGI = 50) Low-grade coal (S <1%)
CFB plant PC plant CFB plant PC plant
Boiler PA & SA fans (%) 17 6 16 6
Boiler ID fan (%) 9 10 9 10
ESP (%) 2 2 3 3
Cooling tower fans (%) 3 2 3 2
BFP and booster pumps (%) 32 27 33 30
Other pumps (%) 6 8 7 8
Miscellaneous and other auxiliaries (%) 12 9 12 10
Transformer losses (%) 1 1 1 1
Ash handling (%) 15 9 13 10
Boiler fuel delivery (%) 3 13 3 14
Sulfur scrubbing equipment (%) 0 13 0 6
Total (%) 100 100 100 100
Notes: BFP = boiler feed pump, ESP = electrostatic precipitator, HGI = Hargrove Grindability Index, ID = induced draft,
PA = primary air, S = sulfur, SA = secondary air.
FUELS
|
March 2013 26
crease in plant efficiency. This is not the
case with CFB plants, which are less sensi-
tive to coal HGI.
Where low-grade coals with high sulfur
content (>1% sulfur by weight) are being
used, the auxiliary power requirements re-
lated to sulfur removal in CFB and PC plants
are negatively affected, the consequence be-
ing a reduction in plant efficiency. In CFB
plants, this increase in auxiliary power con-
sumption is experienced in ash handling due
to the increase in sorbent requirement for
desulfurization and a consequent increase in
bottom ash mass flow. In PC plants, this in-
crease in auxiliary power consumption is ex-
perienced at the desulfurization equipment.
Desulfurization accounts for 15% and 13%
of the total auxiliary and miscellaneous loads
for the tables specific CFB and PC plants,
respectively.
The far right columns of the table illustrate
similar CFB and PC plants using low-grade
coal but with sulfur content less than 1%, and
show a decrease in sulfur removalrelated
auxiliary power requirements to 13% and 6%
for the CFB and PC plant, respectively. This
reduction translates into higher efficiencies
in both plants. Note that the single largest
auxiliary power requirement in all conven-
tional Rankine cycle steam plants is from the
boiler feedwater pumps. Therefore, although
the auxiliary power requirements for mills/
crushers and sulfur removal are important in
the choice of boilers, they account for a small
percentage of overall plant auxiliary power
requirements and have marginal impact on
overall plant efficiency.
Emissions Control. For power plant
projects requiring World Bank (WB) fi-
nancing or financiers and for host coun-
tries requiring adherence to WB standards,
proper emissions control equipment capa-
ble of achieving the prescribed emissions
limits must be installed. PC boilers re-
quire additional equipment in the form of
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers
to achieve WB emission limits on SO
x
.
In CFB plants, this can be achieved with
in-situ capture by the direct addition of
limestone into the boiler furnace without
the need for additional equipment. Sul-
fur content alone does not determine the
grade of the coal, as some higher-grade
coals exhibit higher sulfur contents than
lower-grade coals. High sulfur content is
an indicator of the coal grade and affects
plant performance, as discussed previous-
ly. Regardless of the coal grade, the SO
x

capture methods for CFB and PC plants
remain as introduced above.
NO
x
control in PC plants can be achieved
using selective catalytic or selective non-
catalytic reduction (SCR/SNCR) equipment
and low-NO
x
burners. CFB plants inher-
ently operate below temperatures at which
NO
x
is typically formed (1,500C). The lower
operating temperature of CFB plants is also
ideally suited for the in situ capture of SO
x
.
The low operating temperature of CFB boil-
ers is usually sufficient for non-degraded air-
shed situations; however, in degraded airshed
situations, SCR/SNCR may be installed to
achieve the prescribed NO
x
limits.
Particulate matter (PM) control in both
CFB and PC plants is identical and requires
the use of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)
or baghouse fabric filters. Some low-grade
coals exhibit high silica and alumina content
in their ash, which increases ash resistivity,
thus reducing the PM collection efficiency
of ESPs. Low-sulfur coals also exhibit high
ash resistivity and may necessitate the use of
baghouse fabric filters. For CFB plants with
in-situ SO
x
removal, the use of ESPs is not
recommended. Baghouse fabric filters are
therefore the preferred PM control technol-
ogy as they are unaffected by ash resistivity.
Generally, if a coal mine can ensure a coal
specification within a suitable range for a
PC plant over the life of the plant (approxi-
mately 30 years), PC technology can be used.
Achieving this range will normally require
more downstream preparation (beneficiation)
of the coal feedstock, especially if the coal
supply consists of discards from coal mining.
Where securing this range cannot be ensured,
and where the range of coal feedstock is
likely to be inconsistent and varied, or if the
coal mine is unwilling to invest in beneficia-
tion, then a CFB plant is the better choice.
Most often, where discard coal is the source
of feedstock, CFB plants are preferred.
Project Economics
Because low-grade coals have low energy
content, larger quantities will be required
to achieve a certain power plant output than
would be required using higher-grade coal
with higher energy content. The farther away
the power plant is from the mine(s), the
greater the fuel OPEX, especially where low-
grade coals are used. Up to a 40% increase
in boiler coal consumption can be required
by decreasing the utilized coals CV from 20
MJ/kg to 14 MJ/kg. This could translate into
significant coal transportation costs and, con-
sequently, a higher OPEX.
Where a power plants owners intend to
source from a single mine, that plant can
be designed for the specific low-grade coal
being supplied. When a power plant is not
at a mine mouth, it may be worthwhile to
improve the coal quality and thereby lower
the cost of transportation to minimize coal
OPEX. For a fixed power plant capacity
and distance from a coal mine, a lower
grade of coal at a lower price will incur
2. Showing Improvement. The percentage change in CAPEX and efficiency with calo-
rific value (CV) for typical CFB and PC plants is illustrated. In general, the screening curves
assume that as the efficiency of the plant increases with increasing CV, the CAPEX decreases
(see Figure 4). For example, for a hypothetical CFB plant, a CV of 14,000 kJ/kg corresponds
to an efficiency of 31.6% and CAPEX of $2,320 for a baseline design. If the quality of the fuel
were improved to 21,210 kJ/kg, then the efficency increases 6%, to 33.5%, and the CAPEX
decreases 15%, to $2,022/kW. Naturally, the baseline design CAPEX depends on many site-
specific design features as well as the contracting methods and equipment suppliers. Source:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Africa

CFB efficiency

CFB CAPEX

PC efficiency

PC CAPEX
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
13,500 14,500 15,500 16,500 17,500 18,500 19,500 20,500 21,500
Calorific value (kJ/kg)
FUELS
|
March 2013 28
higher transportation costs because of the
higher tonnages to be transported. A bet-
ter quality coal at a higher price will incur
lower transportation costs because of the
lower tonnages to be transported.
Where a power plants owners intend
to source low-grade coal from multiple
mines, the coal qualities could be similar
or different. Sourcing coal from mines
that are significantly distant from one an-
other or on different coal seams typically
means that coal blending will be required
to achieve the coal specification for which
the plant is being designed.
Power PlantCoal Mine
Dependencies
The following coal mine and power plant
project relationships or dependency scenar-
ios could exist.
The Power Plant Is Solely Respon-
sible. In this scenario, responsibility for the
power plants economic viability rests solely
on the plant. The coal mine is not necessar-
ily an exporter of coal or a supplier of coal
for power generation, and the power plant
decides what quality and price are needed.
Because lower coal quality often implies a
lower coal price, building a power plant de-
signed to burn low-grade coal while maintain-
ing acceptable plant efficiency may result in
better plant economic viability than building
a power plant to burn coal requiring greater
OPEX. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship
among CAPEX, efficiency, and coal CV for
CFB and PC plants.
In both the CFB and PC plants, as the
coals CV improves, CAPEX decreases and
efficiency increases. This may be attribut-
ed to smaller boiler plant and equipment,
smaller bulk material-handling infrastruc-
ture, and less auxiliary power consump-
tion. An increase in CV, however, implies
an increase in coal costs. The overall coal
OPEX (cost at source plus transport costs)
will depend on project specifics with re-
spect to proximity of the power plant to the
coal mine(s).
Viability Rests Partly with the Mine.
In this scenario, the power plants eco-
nomic viability rests slightly on the mine,
in that it is in the mines interest to provide
the power plant with as high a coal grade
as it can, because the plant is the prima-
ry source of its revenue. Here, additional
capital investments for beneficiation may
be considered to attain the quality required
by the power plant while achieving the re-
quired coal qualities for export. This im-
plies that cost of the coal to the power plant
(OPEX) may increase while some savings
in power plant CAPEX may be achieved.
This arrangement could lead to better over-
all economic viability for both the power
plant and coal mine, assuming that both are
owned by the same entity.
No Incentive for Beneficiation Equip-
ment. This scenario is similar to the first
scenario above in that responsibility for
the power plants economic viability rests
solely on the plant. The difference is that
no incentive exists on the part of the coal
mine for beneficiation equipment invest-
ment, and the low-grade coal is often a
byproduct of the export coal beneficiation
process. The power plant therefore must
be designed and optimized around the
low-grade coal. In such situations, CFB
plants often are preferred. The power plant
CAPEX may be relatively higher, but the
plant can operate efficiently with a lower
OPEX and be economically viable.
Mine and Power Plant Have the Same
Owner. This scenario is similar to the second
one, in which viability rests in part with the
mine; however, the coal mine is fully depen-
dent on the power plant for its revenue. This
is often a situation where the mine and power
generation project are owned by the same en-
tity. There is, therefore, a need to optimize
the CAPEX and OPEX of both the mining
and power generation projects. The capital
investment required to develop a power plant
is usually far greater than that required to de-
velop an associated captive coal mine. Cer-
tain coal mine infrastructural costs may be
added to the power plant. These added costs

CFB coal consumption

PC coal consumption
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
C
o
a
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
t
/
h
r
)
15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000
3. Coal burn. The CFB plant exhibits 1% to 2% higher coal consumption than the PC plant
for a given fuel CV. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Africa

CFB plant

PC plant
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
C
A
P
E
X

(
%
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
13,500 14,500 15,500 16,500 17,500 18,500 19,500
20,500 21,500
4. CAPEX change. For the same coal CV, the CAPEX of a CFB plant is less than that of a
PC plant. This normalized data is used in the efficiency and CAPEX screening curves illustrated
in Figure 2. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Africa
FUELS
March 2013
|
may have a negligible effect on power plant
viability but a significantly negative impact
on the coal mines viability. If the coal mine
is producing predominantly low-grade coal,
it may be advantageous to minimize any cap-
ital investments for beneficiation and design
the power plant based on run-of-mine coal. In
such situations, a CFB plant is preferred.
Coal Consumption
CFB plants with the same thermal duty as PC
plants typically have higher coal consump-
tion. This is due to the higher combustion
efficiency of PC boilers. The ultrafine coal
particles (around 200 microns in size) in the
PC boiler provide a larger surface area for
more efficient combustion compared to the
larger coal particles (typically 6 mm) in CFB
boilers. CFB plants are therefore designed
to recirculate the unburned coal particles so
that combustion efficiencies approach those
achievable in PC plants.
This higher coal consumption accounts
for the marginally lower efficiencies achiev-
able in CFB plants. Figure 3 illustrates this
difference with an increase in coal CV. The
CFB plant exhibits 1% to 2% higher coal
consumption than the PC plant.
This 1% to 2% increase in coal consump-
tion represents about 1.2 tons/hour (t/hr) more
coal for the CFB plant than is required for the
PC plant, and it implies that CFB plants have
higher coal OPEX than PC plants. However,
this does not necessarily imply that PC plants
are more economically viable. To explain this
notion, Figure 4 illustrates the effect of coal
CV on plant CAPEX for CFB and PC plants.
The figure shows that for the same coal CV,
the CAPEX of a CFB plant is less (for lower
CVs, more so) than that of a PC plant. This
remains the case up to higher coal CVs on
the horizontal axis, where the CAPEX values
intersect. The figure also illustrates that CFB
plants are less sensitive to variation in coal
quality (in this case coal CV) than PC plants.
Assuming a low-grade coal of 16 MJ/kg
with a price of $30 per metric ton and an av-
erage power plant capacity factor of 90%, an
increase in coal consumption of 1.2 t/hr over
a 30-year plant life totals approximately $8.5
million. For this coals CV, the CAPEX of a
CFB plant is about 3% less than that of an
equivalent PC plant. In present terms, the cal-
culated $8.5 million increase in coal OPEX
is only a fraction of the present 3% CAPEX
savings achieved in building a CFB plant that
uses lower-grade coal.
Optimizing the Design
Low-grade coal can be used advantageously
for power generation. Although CFB plants
offer some operational flexibility with respect
to coal, PC plants are also capable of utilizing
low-grade coal profitably, depending on the
specific circumstances of the project.
In practice, limitations exist on the amount
of information available to a developer/own-
er at project conceptualization to perform
studies. There also are limits on the feasi-
bility studies that can actually be performed
economically. The result of being unaware of
techno-economic considerations early in the
project development phase is often a subop-
timal project. Though this may not be a fatal
flaw, it may account for irrecoverable and
substantial losses in profitability.
Finally, the use of low-grade coal is de-
pendent on the specific circumstances of
the power generation project; using high-
er-grade coal ultimately may be a better
option for long-term plant viability and
profitability.
Chudi Egbuna is a thermal-mechanical
engineer for power generation and works
for Parsons Brinckerhoff Africa.
D o y o u h a v e f l o w s u p t o
1 , 4 0 0 U S G P M ( 3 2 0 m
3
/ h r ) ,
h e a d s u p t o 3 , 4 0 0 f e e t
( 1 , 0 0 0 m ) , p r e s s u r e s u p t o
1 , 5 0 0 p s i g ( 1 0 0 b a r ) ,
t e m p e r a t u r e s f r o m 2 0 F t o 3 0 0 F ( - 3 0 C t o 1 4 9 C ) , a n d s p e e d s
u p t o 3 , 5 0 0 R P M ? T h e n y o u n e e d C a r v e r P u m p R S S e r i e s m u s c l e !
D e s i g n e d f o r m o d e r a t e t o h i g h p r e s s u r e p u m p i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s , t h e R S i s
a v a i l a b l e i n f i v e b a s i c s i z e s w i t h o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e t o 1 , 0 0 0 H P . A s a
s t a n d a r d , w i t h a p r o d u c t l u b r i c a t e d r a d i a l s l e e v e b e a r i n g a n d t w o m a t c h e d
a n g u l a r c o n t a c t b a l l b e a r i n g s f o r t h r u s t , i t o n l y t a k e s a m e c h a n i c a l s e a l o n
t h e l o w p r e s s u r e , s u c t i o n s i d e t o s e a l t h e p u m p . O p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e
b a l l b e a r i n g s o n b o t h e n d s w i t h a n o u t b o a r d m e c h a n i c a l s e a l , v a r i o u s s e a l
f l u s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s a n d b e a r i n g f r a m e c o o l i n g . T h e s e f e a t u r e s m a k e
t h e R S i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r I n d u s t r i a l a n d P r o c e s s a p p l i c a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g
P r e s s u r e B o o s t S y s t e m s , B o i l e r F e e d , R e v e r s e O s m o s i s , D e s a l i n a t i o n
a n d M i n e D e w a t e r i n g . W h a t e v e r y o u r a p p l i c a t i o n ,
l e t u s b u i l d t h e m u s c l e y o u n e e d !
1 9 7 0 D o d g e S u p e r B e e
R S S e r i e s
C r e a t i n g V a l u e .
C a r v e r P u m p C o m p a n y
2 4 1 5 P a r k A v e n u e
M u s c a t i n e , I A 5 2 7 6 1
5 6 3 . 2 6 3 . 3 4 1 0
F a x : 5 6 3 . 2 6 2 . 0 5 1 0
w w w . c a r v e r p u m p . c o m
R S P M a d 0 1 3 0 1 2 _ L a y o u t 1 1 / 3 1 / 1 2 8 : 5 2 A M P a g e 1
|
March 2013 30
FUELS
Expanded Honolulu WTE Plant
Delivers Triple Benefits for Oahu
Covanta Energy and the City and County of Honolulu recently completed a $300 mil-
lion expansion of a 20-year-old waste-to-energy (WTE) facility. The plant is now capa-
ble of processing up to 3,000 tons of municipal refuse daily, recycling all the metals,
and generating up to 90 MWenough to supply nearly 10% of Oahus electricity.
By Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
O
ahu or The Gathering Place is the
most populated of the islands in the
State of Hawaii with just under one
million permanent residents. Aptly named, the
island hosts up to six million visitors each year
who expect fun in the sun and a swim in clear
ocean waters. One reason the island remains
a tourist paradiseits pristine beautycan
be attributed to the solid waste, recycling, and
energy management programs designed by the
City and County of Honolulu.
High population density on an island
of less than 600 square miles leaves little
open space for new development, and set-
ting aside space for a new landfill is out of
the question, so the million tons of solid
waste produced each year pose a signifi-
cant concern. The island is also searching
for new sources of electricity, because the
State of Hawaii has no indigenous fossil
fuel resources. Historically, electricity was
generated by burning imported liquid fuels
from the mainland and elsewhere. Today,
there is a rapidly growing biofuels indus-
try plus geothermal, photovoltaic, and
wind energy plants offsetting imported
liquid fuels. Theres also one of the largest
and most flexible waste-to-energy (WTE)
plants in the U.S. The Honolulu Program
of Waste Energy Recovery, or H-POWER,
located on a 28-acre site in Kapolei, is the
cornerstone of the City and County of Ho-
nolulus long-term efforts to reduce fuel
oil imports, significantly reduce the vol-
ume of landfilled materials, and recycle
metals found in solid waste (Figure 1).
H-POWER entered service in 1990 and
is owned by the City and County of Ho-
nolulu (which encompasses the entire is-
land). It has been operated since 1993 by
Covanta Energy Corp. On Oct. 9, 2012,
the 900-ton-per-day expansion that pushed
plant capability up to 90 MW was dedi-
cated. According to City and County of
Courtesy: Covanta Energy
1. Expanded facility. The new Boiler 3 is
shown in the center of the photo. The existing
refuse-derived fuel Boilers 1 and 2 are behind
Boiler 3 in the enclosed building shown in the
photo. The two steam turbines are housed in
another enclosed building behind Boilers 1 and
2. The plant is capable of processing 3,000 tons
per day of municipal solid waste, producing up
to 90 MW, and recycling all of the entering fer-
rous and nonferrous metals. A time-lapse video
of the construction can be viewed at www
.youtube.com/watch?v=NdxKLu2c-Hg. Cour-
tesy: Covanta Energy
FUELS
March 2013
|
Honolulu Refuse Division Chief Manny
Lanuevo, the plant is now capable of pro-
cessing 85% of Oahus post-recycled mu-
nicipal solid waste and supplying up to10%
of the islands electricity needs (Figure 2).
The renewable power produced by the
plant is sold to Hawaiian Electric Co.
(HECO), offsetting its need to import about
one million barrels of oil each year. HECO
purchases electricity based upon a time-of-
day rate linked to a price index plus a 5
cents per kWh capacity payment. Unique-
ly, the contract purchase price is lower than
HECOs current avoided cost, and HECO
passes the purchased electricity through to
its customers.
The original plant consists of two water-
wall furnace boilers (Boilers 1 and 2) with
reverse-traveling stoker grates that can
process up to approximately 2,100 tons per
day of refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The two
boilers produce steam for a single 57-MW
steam turbine (Turbine 1). Boilers 1 and 2
are fitted with a semi-dry flue gas scrub-
ber with lime injection and a fabric filter
baghouse.
The RDF is prepared by first preprocess-
ing municipal solid waste through a series
of conveyers and shredders for removal
of any nonprocessible and nonburnable
materials. The preprocessing system uses
magnets to pull ferrous metals (tin cans)
and uses eddy current separators to extract
nonferrous metals (aluminum cans) from
the waste stream for recycling. The volume
of ash produced by the boilers is one-tenth
of the volume of municipal waste volume
combusted (Figure 3).
A continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) measures the stack gas
for emissions, such as carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen,
and opacity. The CEMS also sends signals
to the control room so that operators can
continuously monitor flue gas quality and
the performance of each boiler. The CEMS
data is electronically saved, reviewed, and
summarized into routine reports submit-
ted to the Hawaii Department of Health.
For the entire plant, exceedances are rare,
and the plant is routinely recognized by
the State of Hawaii for reliably meeting its
emissions limits.
Burn What Comes
Covanta Energy received a contract from
the City and County of Honolulu to design,
build, and operate the expanded facility in
mid-2009. Covanta hired Parsons Corp. as its
general contractor in December 2009 for the
fast-track project. Parsons was responsible
for plant design and engineering, installation,
and commissioningall without interfering
with operation of the existing facility. Burns
& Roe provided process design services and
technical support to Covanta for direct pur-
chase of the plants major equipment.
The expansion project added a China-
based Anhui Jinding Boiler Co. Ltd. mass-
burn boiler (Boiler 3) and a Siemens 33-MW
steam turbine (Turbine 2) that increased the
plants solid waste processing capacity to
about 3,000 tons per day and electricity ca-
pacity to 90 MW.
Additional equipment installed during
the expansion project included a Martin
GmbH reverse reciprocating grate system
that is integrated with the boiler, a tipping/
receiving building, and an AMEREX spray
dryer absorber (SDA) and a fabric filter
baghouse. The SDA uses a lime/water slur-
ry mixture to neutralize and cool acid gases,
such as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chlo-
ride. The fabric filter baghouse removes
particulate matter (fly ash) and provides a
secondary acid gas neutralization surface
on the filter cake. The stack of Boiler 3 is
monitored with a CEMS like that used on
Boilers 1 and 2. A Jervis B. Webb material-
handling system collects the ash produced,
ready for transportation to the landfill.
The addition of a mass-burn boiler adja-
cent to the two existing RDF-fueled boil-
ers provides increased operating flexibility
to the plant and is unique among the 40
municipal waste-fired plants that Covanta
owns and/or operates. Instead of prepro-
cessing solid wastes prior to burning, the
mass-burn boiler burns anything and every-
thing that is placed on the traveling grate.
For example, a mattress or tire placed on
the grate will burn to completion, and the
steel that remains is recycled, not sent to
the landfill. Covanta operators are now
able to direct large waste items to the new
Boiler 3 instead using landfill disposal, as
in the past (Figure 4).
Unique Operations Scheme
Increased operating flexibility is achieved
by using a combined steam header system;
that is, the steam from all three boilers is
piped to a common header from which
2. Outdoor plant. The structural steel in the center of the photo houses the new Boiler 3.
Moving from the boiler to the right is the spray dryer absorber (SDA) scrubber, the fabric filter
baghouse, and the stack. A continuous emissions monitoring house is located on top of the
stack inlet ductwork. The enclosed Boilers 1 and 2 are located behind Boiler 3, and the steam
turbine building is located in between. Courtesy: Covanta Energy
3. Remote fuel handling. Waste enter-
ing the new section of the building is man-
aged by a remote-controlled overhead bridge
crane with an electro-hydraulic orange-peel
grapple directed by manipulation of joysticks
located in the new main control room. The
fuel for Boilers 1 and 2 is pushed on the floor
to the in-feed conveyors by loaders and bull-
dozers. Courtesy: Covanta Energy
Dont miss three days illed with exclusive industry coverage,
focused co-located events, hands-on access to new solutions,
and targeted networking opportunities.
PRESENTED BY:
EXCLUSIVELY COLOCATED WITH:
SECURE YOUR SEAT!
Register online at
www.electricpowerexpo.com
with VIP Code PWRMAR
for a FREE visitor pass!
FLEXIBILITY &
ADAPTABILITY:
The New Hallmarks
for Power Generation
ROSEMONT, IL
MAY ,
250+ Utility & Industry Leaders Speaking | 50+ Conference Tracks
3 Co-Located Events | 5,000 Attendees | 450 Exhibitors
3 Days of Focused Educational & Networking Opportunities!
Dont miss three days illed with exclusive industry coverage,
focused co-located events, hands-on access to new solutions,
and targeted networking opportunities.
PRESENTED BY:
EXCLUSIVELY COLOCATED WITH:
SECURE YOUR SEAT!
Register online at
www.electricpowerexpo.com
with VIP Code PWRMAR
for a FREE visitor pass!
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Moderator, Industry Leaders Roundtable & The Three Rs: Rules,
Regulations and Reactions Mega Session
MANAGING EDITOR: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
Show Previews/Daily Editor &
Women in POWER Generation
EXECUTIVE EDITOR: David Wagman
ELECTRIC POWER Content Director & Moderator, State of the Industry
Keynote Session & Speaker Renewable Energy Session 4E
Wind Power Development
GAS TECHNOLOGY EDITOR: Thomas W. Overton, JD
Co-Chair, Gas Turbine/Combined Cycle Power Plants Session 2D
What Does the Market Expect from Gas Plants?
SENIOR WRITER: Sonal Patel
Show Previews/Daily Writer &
Women in POWER Generation

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Kennedy Maize
ELECTRIC POWER & Plant Management Institute,
Advisory Board Member
Meet the POWER Editors at ELECTRIC POWER:
ROSEMONT, IL
MAY ,
DONALD E. STEPHENS
CONVENTION CENTER
250+ Utility & Industry Leaders Speaking | 50+ Conference Tracks
3 Co-Located Events | 5,000 Attendees | 450 Exhibitors
3 Days of Focused Educational & Networking Opportunities!
FUELS
|
March 2013 34
each of the two steam turbines receives
900 psig, 830F superheated steam. For ex-
ample, Covanta expedited startup of Boiler
3, placing it in service before the steam tur-
bine system, due to a new power purchase
agreement delay. The steam produced by
Boiler 3 was added to the common steam
header to produce additional electricity
from Turbine 1, as the original plant was
boiler-limited. Excess steam produced by
Boiler 3 was desuperheated and bypassed
around the steam turbine directly to a by-
pass condenser.
Turbine 1 operates on steam header pres-
sure control, but Turbine 2 operates on speed
control when synchronized to the HECO
grid, through a single electrical interconnec-
tion point. This requirement is peculiar for
several reasons: the small size of the plant
compared to all other HECO resources, the
plant is typically operated as a baseload re-
newable energy resource, and the unique
electrical interconnection requirement for
HECOs power distribution system.
There were a few growing pains with
the large mass-burn boiler during startup,
but the problems were resolved prior to
commercial operation. For example, ad-
ditional reciprocating grate temperature
thermocouples and wider-angle air- and
water-cooled cameras were added to re-
solve combustion problems experienced
early in the Boiler 3 startup. The recipro-
cating grate system on Boiler 3 is the larg-
est ever produced by Martin GmbH.
A Long-Term View
The City and County of Honolulu reached
agreement with HECO in June 2012 for a re-
vised and expanded 20-year power purchase
agreement for electricity produced by the
H-POWER plant. Earlier, Covanta had nego-
tiated a new 20-year operating and mainte-
nance agreement with the City and County of
Honolulu that became effective in 2012.
H-POWERs historical performance met-
rics certainly justified its investment in the
expansion project. The numbers are the envy
of any fossil fuelfired power plant manager.
According to Facility Manager Robert Web-
ster, the plant operates 24/7 like any baseload
utility plant with an average capacity factor
in the range of 93% to 94%. The new ad-
dition (Boiler 3 and Turbine 2) is predicted
to operate at 97.5%. The availability of the
older plant averages around 90%, but the
new equipment is expected to enable 94%
availability. The value of the common steam
header design is apparent.
More importantly, power generated by
the expanded facility will offset the need
to import about one million barrels of oil
each year. According to Webster, during its
22 years of operation, H-POWER has al-
4. Mass-burn boiler added. Boiler 3 is a
mass-burn boiler, which means it will consume
any combustible objects, even mattresses and
tires. Any metal remaining after combustion is
recycled. Courtesy: Covanta Energy
Meet stringent EPA regulations
by using a cost-efcient alternative solution.
Sturtevants Simpactor
Mill
The cost to retrot older plants with dry sorbent grinding mills and injection
systems involves much less capital outlay to meet new regulations than an
expensive wet scrubbing system. Sturtevants Simpactor
Mill is designed for

the rigors of DSI (Dry Sorbent Injection). It has proven to be highly effective at
reducing SOx emissions in small to mid-size coal red power plants. DSI systems
equipped with Sturtevants Simpactor
cost less because they use up to 40%

less sorbent; beneting from a corresponding reduction are disposal costs.
Low maintenance
Low energy consumption
with high throughput
Easy to operate
Optional liner
& pin material available
Sturtevant, Inc.
348 Circuit Street
Hanover, MA 02339
T (800)992-0209
F (781)829-6515
FUELS
March 2013
|
ready processed 13 million tons of waste,
eliminating 15 million barrels of imported
oil and saving 500 hundred acres of land
that would otherwise be used for landfills.
The plant has also recovered 450,000 tons
of metals for recycling, about the weight of
four aircraft carriers.
Only the problem of ash disposal remains
for the City and County of Honolulu to re-
solve before closing the loop on its entire
solid waste and recycling ecosystem. Ash
produced from the three boilers currently
goes to the local landfill. Covanta and the
City have completed some pilot testing to
show its viability for use as building prod-
uct additives, much as the ash produced
from coal-fired plants is used in road con-
struction and brick products. Reuse of the
ash as a construction material is governed
by very strict regulations, even though the
ash is sterilized and is inert, having been
combusted at furnace temperatures near
2,000F. An environmental review of a pro-
posed ash reuse plan presented by Covanta
is ongoing, and a positive result is expect-
ed, particularly as historical ash toxicity
tests have always been negative. The posi-
tive economic and environmental rewards
make ash reuse a key business objective for
both the City and County of Honolulu and
Covanta.
Award-Winning Plant
H-POWER has been recognized often for its
contributions to the business and technolo-
gy of producing electricity from municipal
waste. In 2007, H-POWER was designated
as an Occupational Safety and Health Ad-
ministration Voluntary Protection Program
Star Facility, and the following year it was
awarded first place for excellence in safe-
ty and health by the American Society of
Safety Engineers and Hawaii Occupational
Safety and Health. The facility was recog-
nized as a Top 250 Hawaiian Business by
Hawaii Business Magazine in 2011. Most
recently, in late 2012, it received a Facil-
ity of the Year award from the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers for its
metals and energy recovery.
Mayor Peter Carlisle summed up the
project well in his comments presented at
the plant dedication (Figure 5). The project
team built a plant that ranks among the
very best waste-to-energy conversion plants
in the entire world. This is something we all
should be proud of, its good for the envi-
ronment, its good for the taxpayers.
Hoomaikai Ana (congratulations) to the
City and County of Honolulu and to the staff
of H-POWER for a job well done.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs
editor-in-chief.
5. Cutting of the ribbon. On Oct. 9,
2012, Mayor Peter Carlisle dedicated the new
facility at the H-POWER plant. From left to
right, Director of Environmental Services Tim
Steinberger, former Mayor Mufi Hannemann,
current Mayor Peter Carlisle, and Covanta En-
ergy COO Seth Myones. Courtesy: State of
Hawaii, Governors Office
www. vi ct oryenergy. com | t el : 918. 274. 0023 | hot l i ne: 877. 783. 2665
F O L L O W A L E A D E R
Patented HRSG design solutions
for combustion turbine and
process exhaust streams
Shop-assembled modular solutions
minimizeconstruction/ieldcost
Industrys highest steam production
eficienciesforreinementand
processing applications
Long-term reliability under the most
extreme demands
Full line of economizers and
industrial-duty air pre-heaters
Thermal oil heaters and other
secondary heat recovery
equipment
Modularization minimizes time and
laborcostsintheield
Unparalleled in-house engineering
staffbringsapplicationspeciic
expertise to every project
COMPLETE
MODULARIZATION
Specializing in advanced steam generation technology
and heat recovery applications.
INNOVATIVE
BOILER DESIGN
C0GENERATION
EXPERTISE
PROVEN
EFFICIENCIES
|
March 2013 36
FUELS
M
any U.S. industrial coal users and
utilities are investigating alternative
generation options as the regulatory
squeeze on coal-fired combustion increases.
Some of these options include natural gas con-
version of solid fuel steam generators, decom-
missioning of existing coal-fired steam genera-
tors and replacement with natural gas combined
cycles, and the use of renewable fuel sources.
Given the historic volatility of natural gas prices
and suppressed energy demand growth in re-
cent years, many utilities have been reluctant
to make the switch to a completely natural gas
fleet. Some are considering biomass, because
the many new environmental rules and regula-
tions that call for reductions of coal-fired power
plant emissionsthe Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS), Carbon Pollution Standard,
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Ruleexempt bio-
mass combustion.
Like natural gas, biomass fuels are uniquely
situated as a potential replacement for coal, par-
ticularly where retrofits of existing solid fuel
boilers already have air quality control equip-
ment. Although biomass may not be the opti-
mal fuel for combustion in a steam generator
designed for coal combustion, the operational
issues experienced with biomass combustion
are well understood. Additionally, 30 of the 50
states plus the District of Columbia have renew-
able portfolio standards (RPS) that give the bio-
mass plant certain benefits, in addition to federal
production tax credits.
Each state has a unique RPS eligibility time-
line that generally falls between 2015 and 2025.
Each RPS will also have a different standard
or requirement for generation from renewable
sources, ranging from 10% to 33%. With such
a large portion of energy potentially coming
from renewable sources, energy producers must
focus on developing baseload renewable power
generation in the future.
Wind and solar power generation are inter-
mittent and often unpredictable resources that
depend on natures cooperation. Hydroelectric
and geothermal resources offer baseload op-
tions but are not universally accepted RPS tech-
Why Arent Construction and
Demolition Wastes Considered
Biomass Fuel?
You may be surprised to learn that even with the increased demand for biomass
fuels for power generation, construction and demolition fuel is classified as solid
waste, not biomass. Reconsidering this designation is critical as U.S. environmental
regulations tighten emission profiles for solid waste combustion units and renew-
able portfolio standards expand.
By Brandon Bell, PE, KBR Power & Industrial
Courtesy: Public Service of New Hampshire
FUELS
March 2013
|
nologies. Hydroelectric power, for example, is
restricted by technology (pumped storage does
not qualify in all states or existing plants are not
counted) and in some states is restricted by the
amount of potential generation.
Biomass power generation on the other hand,
is an acceptable technology under all RPSs and
offers a historically reliable baseload generation
option. So, why havent more industrial facili-
ties and utilities made the conversion of existing
coal steam generators to biomass?
A Challenging Fuel
The sourcing of biomass fuels is not a straight-
forward design or operational problem. Bio-
mass fuel types and supplies vary significantly
by region, and long-term fuel contracts are very
difficult to secure. Furthermore, fuel density,
morphology, and moisture content can dramati-
cally affect transportation costs and often dictate
the best combustion technology. It is because
of these design and availability challenges that
many potential users are hesitant to make the
leap to biomass power.
The most commonly considered biomass fuel
is virgin wood chips due to their wide regional
availability, although several other sourcing op-
tions do exist. Agricultural byproducts such as
corn stover act as an opportunity fuel during the
harvest season but are not typically available on
a year-round basis. Processing byproducts such
as bagasse and rice husks are typically available
year round and have very few uses but are usu-
ally only available in small quantities. Purpose-
grown energy crops such as miscanthus and
switch grass are also a viable solution, but as
with agricultural byproducts, they will not pro-
vide a stable year-round fuel source (Figure 1).
Despite these challenges, the quantity of
biomass fuel required to provide the amount
of power required by large industrial users and
utilities cannot be ignored. Because of the lower
energy content of biomass fuels, the volumetric
throughput is typically between three and six
times that of coal. In addition to handling large
volumes of fuel, reduced boiler efficiency from
unprocessed fuels such as wood lead to reduced
boiler efficiencies and increased mass flows of
fuel. Typically, one million tons of virgin wood
chips are required on a yearly basis to provide a
net output of 80 MW.
Procuring such large amounts of fuel is chal-
lenging, but there are ways to work around that
problem. For example, Portland General Elec-
tric is proposing a full biomass conversion on its
585-MW Boardman Plant. The utility is inves-
tigating the use of a purpose-grown energy crop
called giant cane as a replacement for the coal
now used. The project was prompted by a settle-
ment of legal challenges brought by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Sierra Club. As a result of this resolution, the
Boardman Plant has installed new environmen-
tal control systems and must stop using coal at
the plant by December 31, 2020.
To control the amount of material that will
be handled by the facility, the giant cane will be
processed by the torrefaction method prior to
combustion in the steam generator. Torrefaction
will heat the biomass fuel in a sub-stoichiometric
atmosphere at temperatures between 400F and
600F to drive off moisture and superfluous vola-
tiles but will not combust the char left behind.
The volatiles lost in the process will be collected
and combusted to provide the heat needed for
torrefaction. The resulting material is typically
pelletized to provide an energy-dense material
with a heating value similar to that of subbitumi-
nous coals. Approximately 8,000 tons a day of
biomass will be needed to maintain Boardmans
design power output.
The substantial amounts of biomass required
will force agricultural expansion in the region
to support the plants fuel needs. Even with the
required agricultural expansion, Boardman is
fortunate to reside in a location that can sup-
port the considerable amount of fuel required
to maintain a baseload biomass plant. Neverthe-
less, the plant will have its operations affected if
droughts or other upsets to growing conditions
occur. Secondary biomass fuel supplies need to
be considered in the event that growing condi-
tions are not optimal. In the case of Boardman, a
utility spokesperson has said that after it switch-
es to biomass, the plant will likely run only dur-
ing summer and winter peak seasons.
Most biomass conversion projects also will
require substantial investment in new capital
equipment. The transportation, receiving, dust
suppression, storage, and sizing equipment for
wood-related fuels differ significantly from
equipment found at coal plants. Coal tends to
be dry and has a high energy density for a solid
fuel, whereas wood tends to be low in energy
density and high in moisture. Existing air qual-
ity equipment may also require upgrades to
match the new fuel.
Biomass conversions are not always an at-
tractive option for large industrial facilities and
utilities, particularly because of the large supply
of biomass fuel required and the challenges as-
sociated with securing long-term fuel contracts.
Classifying C&D Fuel
Construction and demolition (C&D) fuel is typi-
cally categorized as a biomass fuel as it largely
consists of wood. Because of its woody compo-
sition, C&D fuel is analogous to that of a typical
pelletized biomass fuel and, as such, biomass
material-handling systems can be properly de-
signed to handle the fuel. The classification of
C&D fuels is necessarily broad and generally
includes building-related debris, disaster debris,
and land-clearing debris. Unfortunately, these
potential renewable fuel sources are not classi-
fied as a biomass fuel by the EPA, and therefore
they are not exempt from more stringent envi-
ronmental regulations.
The current Non-Hazardous Secondary Ma-
terials That Are Solid Wastes Rule classifies
C&D as a solid waste and as such makes it
subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) standard un-
der Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Section 129 was specifically added in 1990 to
address emissions from solid waste combustion.
Because solid waste incineration units were
added to the CAA, the EPA is required to set
new source performance standards (NSPS) for
new units, establish emission guidelines (EG)
for existing units, and use a maximum available
control technology (MACT) type of approach
for both new and existing units.
1. Processing wood fuel. A typical biomass material-handling system is shown. The fuel-
handling system must be designed with a particular fuel in mind. Courtesy: KBR Power & Industrial
FUELS
|
March 2013 38
The Regulatory History
The recent promulgation of the CISWI (Dec. 20,
2012) is an update of a decade-old rule. On Dec.
1, 2000, the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for
CISWI units. On Jan. 30, 2001, the Sierra Club
filed a petition challenging the CISWI rule. As a
result of a federal court decision that addressed
the method by which the EPA set MACT floors
(see Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA
[255 F.3d 855, DC Cir. 2001]), the EPA volun-
tarily vacated the CISWI. On Sept. 22, 2005, the
EPA issued the CISWI Definition Rule to better
define the term solid waste.
Almost two years after promulgation of
the CISWI Definition Rule, on June 8, 2007,
the courts vacated and remanded it due to its
inclusion of all facilities combusting any sol-
id waste material. The December 2012 final
decision incorporates updates to the Defini-
tions Rule and the voluntary vacatur of the
2000 CISWI (Table 1).
Solid Waste Classification
If C&D were to be granted a classification
change from a solid waste to a biomass fuel,
facilities wishing to use the fuel for power
generation would have less-stringent emission
limitations. These facilities would be regulated
by the recently promulgated (Dec. 21, 2012)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major/Area Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Pro-
cess Heaters (Boiler MACT) under Section 112
of the CAA. This is a significant change, as the
Boiler MACT regulations for biomass combus-
tion are far less onerous than the limits imposed
by the CISWI for burning the same materials
(see Tables 2 to 5 for a comparision of the differ-
ence in emission limits).
As part of the Non-Hazardous Secondary
Material Rule (NHSMR), C&D can be re-
classified from a solid waste to clean C&D
if it can pass the EPAs Legitimacy Criteria
evaluation. The requirements to reclassify
C&D fuel as a nonwaste fuel are fourfold:
the material must be managed as a valuable
commodity; have a meaningful heating val-
ue; be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that
recovers energy; and contain contaminants at
levels comparable to or lower than those in
traditional fuels which the combustion unit is
designed to burn.
The first NHSMR test requires a fuel man-
agement plan that shows C&D waste is a valu-
able commodity. This plan must meet three
standards as outlined by the EPA:
The storage of the nonhazardous second-
ary material (C&D) prior to use must not
exceed reasonable time frames.
Where there is an analogous fuel, the nonhaz-
ardous secondary material must be managed
in a manner consistent with the analogous
1990 2000 2001 2005 2007 2012
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act created
CISWI Rule promulgated
Voluntary EPA vacatur of CISWI Rule
CISWI Definition Rule promulgated
CISWI Definition Rule vacated and remanded
CISWI Rule (voluntary vacatur & definition rule) promulgated
Table 1. The long history of the CISWI Rule. Source: EPA
Pollutants Incinerators ERUs, solids Waste-burning kilns
Small, remote
incinerators
HCl (ppmv) 29 0.20 (biomass units)
/ 13 (coal units)
3.0 300
CO (ppmv) 17 260 (biomass units)
/ 95 (coal units)
110 (long kilns) / 790
(preheater/precalciner)
64
Pb (mg/dscm) 0.015 0.014 (biomass units)
/ 0.14 (coal units)
0.014 2.1
Cd (mg/dscm) 0.0026 0.0014 (biomass units)
/ 0.0095 (coal units)
0.0014 0.95
Hg (mg/dscm) 0.0048 0.0022 (biomass units)
0.011 0.0053
PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 34 11 (biomass units) /
160 (coal units)
4.6 270
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) 4.6 0.52 (biomass units)
/ 5.1 (coal units)
1.3 4,400
Dioxin, turans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.13 0.12 (biomass units)
0.075 180
NO
x
(ppmv) 53 290 (biomass units)
/ 340 (coal units)
630 190
SO
2
(ppmv) 11 7.3 (biomass units) /
650 (coal units)
600 150
Table 2. CISWI emission limits for existing units. Source: EPA
Pollutants Incinerators ERUs, solids Waste-rurning kilns
Small, remote
incinerators
HCl (ppmv) 0.091 0.20 (biomass units)
/ 13 (coal units)
3.0 200
CO (ppmv) 17 240 (biomass units)
/ 95 (coal units)
90 (long kilns) / 190
(preheater/precalciner)
13
Pb (mg/dscm) 0.015 0.014 (biomass units)
/ 0.14 (coal units)
0.014 2.0
Cd (mg/dscm) 0.0023 0.0014 (biomass units)
0.0014 0.67
Hg (mg/dscm) 0.00084 0.0022 (biomass units)
0.0037 0.0035
PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 18 5.1 (biomass units) /
160 (coal units)
2.2 270
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) 0.58 0.52 (biomass units)
/ 5.1 (coal units)
0.51 1,800
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.13 0.076 (biomass units)
0.075 31
NO
x
(ppmv) 23 290 (biomass units)
/ 340 (coal units)
200 170
SO
2
(ppmv) 11 7.3 (biomass units) /
650 (coal units)
28 1.2
Table 3. Boiler MACT emission limits for existing biomass units. Source: EPA
FUELS
March 2013
|
fuel or otherwise be adequately contained to
prevent releases to the environment.
If there is no analogous fuel, the nonhaz-
ardous secondary material must be ad-
equately contained to prevent releases to
the environment.
The fuel management plan standard was
set as a means to differentiate typical wastes
from those that have some economic value.
Therefore, if C&D waste is used as a nonhaz-
ardous secondary material, it must be handled
in the same manner as a facility using wood
chips as its fuel source.
Most C&D wood is typically not transported
directly to the plant from the location where it
originated; usually, it has an intermediate stop
where sorting and processing occurs to clean up
the final product. The sorting process identifies
wood containing contaminants such as treated
wood (for example, railroad ties) or non-wood
materials, removes these items from the mate-
rial stream either with a mechanical separator or
by human sorting. Technologies such as x-ray
fluorescence analyzers are used to identify any
painted or treated wood that the initial separation
missed. After removal of contaminated C&D,
the remaining material is typically reduced in
size and compacted to a specific density to meet
the purchasers specifications. After preprocess-
ing the fuel, there is no difference between tradi-
tional biomass fuels and processed C&D waste
fuel, thereby demonstrating that the fuel has
economic value.
The second NHSMR test is to verify that the
C&D fuel has a meaningful heating value. As
defined by the EPA, a fuel that has a meaning-
ful heating value is one with an as-fired heat
content of 5,000 Btu/lb. For comparison, the
heating values for unprocessed virgin chipped
wood range from 4,100 Btu/lb to 4,900 Btu/
lbbelow the definition of meaningful heat-
ing value as outlined by the EPA. Typically, the
heating value of C&D will vary greatly, depend-
ing on the source, but a reasonable estimate
ranges from 6,700 Btu/lb to 9,000 Btu/lb, with
an average heat content of 8,200 Btu/lb. This
places C&D well above the minimum require-
ments and confirms that it has a heating content
of meaningful value, and in the range of that for
lignite or subbituminous coal.
The third qualifying test requires the unit to
recover energy, which is a given for a developer
of a new power generation plant or the conver-
sion of an existing plant. Any existing unit that is
currently being operated in a manner for power
generation will qualify as a combustion unit
that recovers energy. A new unit that is being
designed would need to have the same charac-
teristics as a boiler or process heater to meet this
qualification.
The final qualifying test is if the fuel produc-
es contaminants at levels comparable to or lower
than those in traditional fuels. This is where the
opportunity for using C&D as a biomass fuel
becomes challenging.
The definition of contaminants is such that
the C&D fuel, which has a multitude of pol-
lutants by its very nature, is the same as virgin
wood or clean cellulosic biomass. As defined
by the EPA, a contaminant is defined as all pol-
lutants listed in Clean Air Act sections 112(b) or
129(a)(4). Section 112(b) of the CAA defines
the 187 pollutants that have been classified as
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) while Section
129(a)(4) defines nine pollutants consisting of
criteria pollutants and HAPs. Likewise, virgin
wood emissions will vary depending on what
species of wood is used. The EPA has not pro-
vided guidance as to what baseline emissions
for virgin wood will be used to set the emission
standard. Using clean cellulosic biomass to set
the air emissions contaminant loadings that are
indistinguishable from virgin wood is an unrea-
sonable burden for C&D waste.
Lost Opportunities
The EPA contends that no analysis that meets its
expectations has yet been provided to show that
C&D is of a quality on par with virgin wood
even after C&D waste has been processed and
sorted to remove contaminated waste. Without
being able to clear this last hurdle, C&D mate-
rials do not meet the nonhazardous secondary
material requirements and retain their solid
waste classification.
Additionally, partial use of C&D wastes as
a biomass fuel is problematic, as using any per-
centage of solid waste in the combustion process
will automatically reclassify a unit as a commer-
cial and industrial solid waste incineration unit.
As defined by the EPA, such unit redesignation
occurs if any commercial or industrial facility
that combusts, or has combusted in the preced-
ing six months, any solid waste.
Classifying C&D as biomass would open up
many new fuel sources that can provide valu-
able baseload renewable power generation;
more utilities and industrial users would find
the conversion of coal-fired steam generators
to biomass plants attractive. Unfortunately, the
EPAs unreasonable emission rule interpretation
effectively eliminates C&D fuels from any con-
sideration as a future renewable fuel source.
Brandon Bell, PE (brandon.bell@kbr.
com) is a principal mechanical engineer
with KBR Power and Industrial, Chicago.
Table 5. Boiler MACT emission limits for new units. Source: EPA
Subcategory
Filterable PM
(or total selected
metals) (lb/MMBtu
heat input)
HCl
(lb/MMBtu
heat input)
Mercury
(lb/MMBtu
heat input)
CO (ppm
@ 3% O
2
)
Alternate CO
CEMS limit
(ppm @ 3% O
2
)
Wet stoker/sloped
grate/other
0.037 (2.4 E-04) 0.022 5.7 E-06 1,500 720
Kiln-dried stoker/sloped
grate/other
0.32 (4.0 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 460 ND
Fluidized bed 0.11 (1.2 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 470 310
Suspension burner 0.051 (6.5 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 2,400 2,000
Dutch ovens/pile burners 0.28 (2.0 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 770 520
Fuel cells 0.020 (5.8 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 1,100 ND
Hybrid suspension grate 0.44 (4.5 E-04) 0.022 5.7 E-06 2,800 900
Note: ND = no data.
Table 4. CISWI limits for new units. Source: EPA
Subcategory
Filterable PM
(or total selected
metals) (lb/MMBtu
heat input)
HCl
(lb/MMBtu
heat input)
Mercury
(lb/MMBtu
heat input)
CO (ppm
@ 3% O
2
)
Alternate CO
CEMS limit
(ppm @ 3% O
2
)
Wet stoker/sloped
grate/other
0.030 (2.6 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 620 390
Kiln-dried stoker/sloped
grate/other
0.030 (4.0 E-03) 0.022 8.0 E-07 460 ND
Fluidized bed 0.0098 (8.3 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 230 310
Suspension burner 0.030 (6.5 E-03) 0.022 8.0 E-07 2,400 2,000
Dutch ovens/pile burners 0.0032 (3.9 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 330 520
Fuel cells 0.020 (2.9 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 910 ND
Hybrid suspension grate 0.026 (4.4 E-04) 0.022 8.0 E-07 1,100 900
Note: ND = no data.
March 2013
|
WATER TREATMENT
however, implementation of this program
was sometimes confusing, and some of the
units operating on equilibrium chemistry
still experienced failures, but now the fail-
ures were linked to hydrogen damage.
The latest revision to this long history of
phosphate drum water treatment programs is
the phosphate continuum (PC) treatment pro-
gram introduced by EPRI in 2004. Two forms
of phosphate treatment are provided for un-
der the PC programphosphate continuum
low (PC(L)) and phosphate continuum high
(PC(H))but there is no distinct boundary
distinguishing the two treatments, neces-
sitating the term continuum to describe
the program. PC(L) treatment is designed
for units using high-quality demineralized
makeup water using low levels (0.2 to 3 mg/l)
of phosphate to deal with low-level impuri-
ties in the cycle. PC(H) treatment is designed
for units using lower-quality makeup water
and increased amounts (approximately 3 to
10 mg/l) of phosphate to deal with impurities
in the cycle.
PC chemistry requires the addition of TSP
and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to the steam
drums/evaporators, ammonia and/or an
amine to the condensate/feedwater system to
control the pH of these streams, and possibly
an oxygen scavenger to the condensate/feed-
water system for dissolved oxygen control.
The operating ranges of pH and phosphate in
the steam drums/evaporators are bounded by
the ratio of sodium (Na) to phosphate (PO
4
) =
3 and TSP + 1 mg/l NaOH (Figure 1).
Caustic Treatment Programs. Caustic
treatment (CT) programs have been used
successfully in drum-style units where dif-
ficulties with phosphate hideout have been
experienced. CT programs have been his-
torically more popular in European countries
than in the U.S.; many U.S. units abandoned
the use of these treatment programs in the
1960s due to caustic gouging problems in
higher-pressure units. Recently, however,
this type of treatment program has been re-
gaining popularity in the U.S. as plants inves-
tigate solutions to deal with the challenges
encountered in utilizing phosphate treatment
programs.
In CT programs, a low concentration
of sodium hydroxide is added to the drum/
evaporator water to achieve the recommend-
ed pH in the drum and provide protection
against corrosion. As in phosphate treatment
programs, ammonia and/or an amine is also
added to the condensate/feedwater system
for controlling the pH of these streams, and
an oxygen scavenger may be added to the
condensate/feedwater system for dissolved
oxygen control.
The sodium hydroxide dosage rate is
determined based on drum operating pres-
sure to control the amount of sodium car-
ryover in the steam to a target of less than
2 g/l. As drum pressure increases, the
dosage rate of sodium hydroxide decreas-
es along with the protection level that this
treatment program provides. Therefore,
CT programs are impractical for imple-
mentation in units operating above 2,400
psi (Figure 2).
All-Volatile Treatment Programs. All-
volatile treatment (AVT) programs have
a long history of successful application in
conventional fossil units and are applicable
to combined cycle power plants that operate
1. Phosphate continuum control chart. The chart provides a visual interpretation of
the phosphate continuum operating ranges illustrating target pH and phosphate concentrations.
Source: Derived from EPRI Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery
Steam Generators, Technical Report 1010438, March 2006
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
p
H

a
t

2
5
C
mg/l PO
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PC(L) PC(H)
TSP +1 ppm NaOH
Na/PO
4
= 3.0
2. Caustic injection control chart. This is a visual interpretation of the sodium hydroxide
dosing rates recommended by EPRI. Source: Derived from EPRI Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for
Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery Steam Generators, Technical Report 1010438, March 2006
S
o
d
i
u
m

h
y
d
r
o
x
i
d
e

(
p
p
m

N
a
O
H
)
Drum pressure (psia)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400
Normal operating level
|
March 2013 40
WATER TREATMENT
Selecting a Combined Cycle Water
Chemistry Program
The lifeblood of the combined cycle plant is its water chemistry program. This is
particularly true for plants designed for high pressures and temperatures
as well as fast starts and cycling. Even though such plants are increasingly
common, no universal chemistry program can be used for all of them.
By Colleen M. Layman, HDR Inc.
I
n 1957, just a little more than 50 years
ago, the first heat recovery steam genera-
tor (HRSG) was connected to a gas tur-
bine and the combined cycle power plant was
born. However, it was not until the mid-1970s
that advances in high-temperature materials
and air-cooling of gas turbine blades made
the combined cycle power plant commer-
cially attractive. Development of the com-
bined cycle power plant design has rapidly
improved, and today a variety of both simple
and complex plant configurations exist.
As designers strive to optimize cycle ef-
ficiency and heat recovery, the designs grow
more intricate, involving multiple pressure
circuits, complex piping arrangements, and
exotic materials. These increases in cycle
complexity and efficiency have also been
associated with increases in the number of
HRSG tube failures. Data compiled by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in-
dicated that of the top five modes of HRSG
tube failure, four (flow-accelerated corrosion,
corrosion fatigue, under-deposit corrosion,
and pitting) had links to or could be influ-
enced by cycle chemistry. (See the sidebar
for additional resources on these subjects.)
In the past, many attempted to apply the
same guidelines established for industrial wa-
ter tube drum-type boilers to combined cycle
power plants. For instance, in 1994 the ASME
Research Committee on Water and Steam in
Thermal Systems published a Consensus on
Operating Practices for the Control of Feed-
water and Boiler Water Chemistry in Mod-
ern Industrial Boilers (ASME Publication
CRTD-34), but in 2001 it issued errata exclud-
ing HRSGs used in combined cycle power
plants from this original consensus document.
As the volume of operating experience
on HRSG and combined cycle power plants
grew, it became clear that this class of power
generating equipment had unique chemistry
considerations that needed to be addressed
in a different fashion than typical water-tube
drum-type industrial or power boilers. In fact,
last year the ASME Research Committee on
Water and Steam in Thermal Systems issued
recommendations specific to combined cycle
power plants.
What Makes Combined Cycle
Plants Special?
There are so many different design configura-
tions that selecting the proper chemistry plan
and establishing optimal chemistry operating
limits can be challenging. Therefore, it is im-
possible to develop universal guidelines.
Unlike most conventional fossil or nuclear
power units, combined cycle power plants
generally operate at several temperatures
and pressures. Multi-pressure HRSG circuits
(low pressure [LP], intermediate pressure
[IP], and high pressure [HP]) within a com-
mon HRSG casing are the norm rather than
the exception, and these different circuits
may be drum circuits, once-through circuits,
or a combination of both styles.
Combined cycle plants also are designed
with complex flow patterns; during startup,
some tubes in the HRSG may sit stagnant
or even flow in the opposite direction from
operation. IP steam may be utilized for com-
bustion turbine cooling. The unit may be de-
signed for fast starts or rapid cycling, which
can strain a chemistry program by restricting
the plants ability to tolerate chemistry holds,
which have been standard fare in traditional
fossil units. A whole host of design and oper-
ation variations can exist and may affect the
choice of chemistry program and limits.
By carefully considering each specific
units design and operational parameters,
however, a solid chemical treatment plan
can be developed that balances the top con-
cerns of plant operators today: flexibility,
cycling service, economics, and ease of use
coupled with the need to protect and main-
tain plant assets.
Todays Treatment Programs
Four basic types of cycle chemistry pro-
grams are described by EPRI, ASME, the In-
ternational Association for the Properties of
Steam and Water, and other entities. They are
phosphate treatment, caustic treatment, all-
volatile treatment, and oxygenated treatment
programs. Phosphate and caustic treatment
programs are only applicable to drum-style
units, while oxygenated and all-volatile pro-
grams can be implemented on once-through
or drum-style units.
Phosphate Treatment Programs. Phos-
phate treatment programs for boiler waters
have been around for nearly 70 years and
are probably the most commonly utilized
treatment programs in drum-style units. Co-
ordinated phosphate chemistry was first in-
troduced in the 1940s by Whirl and Purcell
and was based on the addition of trisodium
phosphate (TSP) to the drum water.
In the 1950s, congruent phosphate treat-
ment was introduced. This program, which
was based on maintaining a sodium-to-phos-
phate ratio in the range of 2.2 to 2.8, was
designed to combat the problem of caustic
gouging that many plants operating on coor-
dinated phosphate programs were experienc-
ing. Despite the successes that many plants
experienced operating on the congruent
phosphate program, some units, particularly
those operating at higher pressures (greater
than 2,000 psi) and with higher heat fluxes,
developed problems with phosphate hideout.
The 1990s brought another phosphate
treatment program in response to those units
that were having difficulty with phosphate
hideout: equilibrium phosphate treatment.
The theory behind equilibrium phosphate
treatment was that each unit must indepen-
dently determine its own equilibrium point
for phosphate. This approach considers the
different operating conditions of each boiler,
such as boiler firing rate, unit cleanliness,
heat flux, and fuel variations, all of which
can affect the maximum concentration of
phosphate that a unit can tolerate without
scale building up on boiler surfaces.
The shift to equilibrium phosphate treat-
ment was a positive step for many opera-
tors dealing with phosphate hideout issues;
|
March 2013 42
WATER TREATMENT
with high-quality demineralized water and
very good feedwater quality. There are two
basic variations of AVT programs utilized in
plants today: oxidizing all-volatile treatment
AVT(O) and reducing all-volatile treatment
AVT(R). Full-flow condensate polishing is
strongly recommended for units designed
to operate using either AVT(O) or AVT(R)
chemistries due to the extremely limited abil-
ity of units operating under these chemistry
regimes to tolerate contaminant ingress. Pol-
ishers are especially necessary for units de-
signed with seawater or high total dissolved
solids (TDS) circulating cooling water.
AVT(O) is only applicable to units de-
signed with all-ferrous metallurgy and uti-
lizes ammonia or a neutralizing amine to
elevate the pH of the condensate and feed-
water to maintain a pH greater than 9.4 in
the LP drum, thus minimizing flow acceler-
ated corrosion (FAC). This typically requires
that the pH of the condensate/feedwater be
controlled to a minimum level of 9.6. A pH
adjustment chemical is the only additive for
the cycle in this treatment scheme. The dis-
solved oxygen concentration in the system is
controlled solely through mechanical means,
creating a slightly oxidizing environment and
a slightly positive oxidization reduction po-
tential (ORP).
AVT(R) is recommended for units de-
signed with copper alloys in the system and
units with steam hosts. Like AVT(O), this
program utilizes ammonia or a neutralizing
amine to elevate the pH of the condensate
and feedwater. However, the pH under this
treatment scenario is limited to a maximum
of 9.1 in order to minimize copper transport
in the system. An oxygen scavenger such as
hydrazine or carbohydrazide is also added
to the condensate/feedwater to control dis-
solved oxygen in the system and provide
protection of the copper-based alloys. The
addition of the oxygen scavenger creates a
reducing environment and a corresponding
negative ORP.
Oxygenated Treatment Programs.
Oxygenated treatment (OT) programs are not
commonly utilized in combined cycle power
plants due to the cycling nature of most plant
designs, but these treatment programs may
be applicable for some baseloaded plants or
for plant designs that include once-through
HRSG pressure circuits.
OT programs, also sometimes called com-
bined water treatment (CWT) programs, use
oxygenated high-purity water to minimize
corrosion and FAC in the feedwater system.
This type of chemistry is only suitable for
units that contain all-ferrous metallurgy in
the cycle and that do not experience routine
cyclic operation. Full-flow condensate pol-
ishers are required in the design to maintain
the feedwater purity required to employ these
treatment regimes.
OT utilizes ammonia or a neutralizing
amine to elevate the pH of the condensate
and feedwater. Copper alloys in the cycle,
downstream of the condensate polisher, are
not compatible with OT programs, as the
presence of oxygenated water will result
in dissolution of those alloys at an acceler-
ated pace. In a drum-style circuit, the pH is
maintained within the range of 9.0 to 9.4;
in a once-through style circuit, a lower pH
range is frequently permitted, approximate-
ly 8.0 to 8.5.
The optimal pH of the circuit must be de-
termined in the field and should be based on
minimization of iron transport in the cycle.
An oxidant is also fed to the condensate/
feedwater to create the oxidizing conditions
in the cycle that promote formation of the
protective cover layer on the ferrous ma-
terials. The most commonly used oxidant
is oxygen gas. Air and liquid oxygen are
also utilized in some plants. Air, however,
contains undesirable contaminants such as
carbon dioxide and, therefore, its use is gen-
erally discouraged.
Chemistry Selection
Recommendations
Ideally, selection of the proper chemistry
protocol should be done early in a projects
design phase, and material selection and
component specification should be per-
formed with the specific chemistry-monitor-
ing and control requirements in mind. Design
parameters for the unit and the chemistry
program need to go hand-in-hand; there is no
one-size-fits-all chemistry program, and even
the best treatment program cannot compen-
sate for improper material selection or poorly
designed system components.
The process of selecting the chemistry
treatment program needs to keep the unique-
ness of the combined cycle plant in mind
and should consider many plant parameters,
including steam purity requirements, con-
denser cooling system design, presence and
type of condensate polishers, potential for
condensate contamination, condensate and
feedwater system metallurgy, cycle design,
operating pressure, the use of duct burners,
cycling service or quick-start requirements,
and the availability of a chemist to quickly
implement corrective actionshould it be
required.
HRSG and Steam Turbine. In selecting
the best cycle chemistry treatment program
and deriving operational chemistry limits
specific to a given unit, one should begin by
compiling and analyzing the steam turbine,
HRSG, and combustion turbine original
equipment manufacturers (OEM) specified
chemistry limits. The easiest way to do this,
in general, is to begin with the steam turbine
OEM limits and work backwards through the
cycle to calculate the chemistry required in
the HRSG and condensate/feedwater to meet
these limits, considering the manner in which
Looking for More HRSG Water Chemistry Resources?
The POWER online archives are an excellent resource for those re-
searching plant water chemistry topics, as well as other plant de-
sign, operation, and maintenance issues. For example, the following
are 10 related articles, in alphabetical order, that discuss real-world
experience with plant water chemistry and tube corrosion.

Condensate Polishers Add Operating Reliability and Flexibility,
August 2008
Consider Startup Controls to Avoid Boiler Deposits and Under-
deposit Corrosion, May 2009
Cycle Chemistry Commissioning Deserves Its Own Strategy,
September 2012
Designing HRSGs for Cycling, March 2006
Designing Steam Cycles to Avoid Corrosion, April 2006
Make Your Plant Ready for Cycling Operations, August 2011
Organics in the Boiler and Steam: Good or Bad? September 2006
Put a Lid on Rising Chemical Costs, September 2008
Ten Years of Experience with FAC in HRSGs, September 2010
Water Chemistry an Important Factor to Consider for Cycling
HRSGs, May 2007
You can search the archives by issue (at the Archives link) or
by keyword, using the Search box in the upper right corner of our
homepage, www.powermag.com. The updated search feature now
automatically searches POWER and all sister publicationsCOAL
POWER, GAS POWER, MANAGING POWER, and POWERnews.
March 2013
|
WATER TREATMENT
the plant is designed to operate.
In some instances, however, the HRSG or
combustion turbine components may have
limits based on their design or operation that
are more stringent than the chemistry require-
ments dictated by the steam turbine limits.
One specific example is a combustion turbine
design where IP steam is utilized for cooling.
In this instance, the purity of the IP steam to
meet the combustion turbine requirements
is more stringent than the purity that would
normally be required based on steam turbine
OEM limits. This is why it is important to
collect and review all chemistry guidelines
supplied by the OEMs for all major pieces
of equipment.
The addition of multiple separate pressure
circuits to the HRSG to supply IP or LP steam
for services such as deaeration and feedwa-
ter heating has been an important improve-
ment in the steam cycle efficiency and has
been applied to most combined cycle power
plant designs. Steam from these IP and/or
LP circuits replaces the steam extraction
regenerative feedwater heating design used
in conventional steam power cycles. This
design combines separate HRSG circuits
with varying operating pressures within a
common HRSG casing but typically utilizes
a common condensate/feedwater system to
supply water to all of the circuits.
Its true that IP and LP circuits may have
less-stringent chemistry requirements than
the HP circuit strictly based on operating
pressure under standard water tube boiler
guidelines. But the intermingling of conden-
sate, feedwater, and steam systems within
the combined cycle power plant generally
requires all HRSG circuits to be restricted
to the same chemistry limits as the highest
pressure circuit.
Although originally intended to improve
simple cycle plant efficiency by absorbing
and utilizing the waste heat from a gas tur-
bine or turbines in a steam turbine, many
HRSGs are now designed to incorporate the
routine use of duct burners. The use of duct
burners can significantly increase the operat-
ing pressures of all HRSG circuits and con-
siderably increase the units steaming rate.
When choosing operating chemistry limits
and the appropriate treatment for the HRSG,
operators and designers need to consider
these higher operating pressures as limiting
design conditions.
Operating experience has shown that the
most prevalent cause of phosphate hideout
in a HRSG is operation of the duct burners.
The degree of hideout experienced general-
ly varies with the firing capacity of the duct
burners: The greater the rate at which a unit
is duct fired, the more severe the hideout is-
sues experienced generally are. Frequency
of duct burner use should be factored into
the chemistry selection process, and unit
testing during duct burner operation should
be performed to determine how a given
unit will respond if a phosphate treatment
program is selected for application at the
facility. If phosphate hideout is severe and
maintenance of proper drum chemistry be-
comes a challenge, the operator may be bet-
ter served by implementing a caustic or AVT
program at the plant.
Several once-through HRSG designs are
available that do not include a steam drum
in one or more of the various HRSG pres-
sure circuits. Drum-type units utilize a steam
drum not only for water/steam separation but
also for concentration and removal of impu-
rities in the system. Once-through units, on
the other hand, are designed such that feed-
water is pumped into the HRSG in the liquid
phase and is converted to steam as it passes
through the heat exchangers in the HRSG.
No provisions are provided in this design for
concentration and mechanical removal of
Total Material Control
You dont have to live with dust and spillage.
Total Material Control
starts with a good foundation
Registered trademark of Martin Engineering Company in the US and other select locations.
2013 Martin Engineering Company. For additional information visit martin-eng.com/trademarks.
A Global Company
call 800.544.2947 | visit martin-eng.com |
email info@martin-eng.com
EVO
Transfer Point System

Proper belt support
Effective edge-sealing system
Easy-to-service wear liner
Modular skirtboard
Dust collection or suppression
Contact Martin today to get started
on a solution that works for you.
The MARTIN
Air Cleaner
can be used as a stand-alone
dust collector system, or to
supplement existing central
dust collection
systems. To
learn more visit
bit.ly/WOC0Mg
or scan this code.
|
March 2013 44
WATER TREATMENT
impurities. Whatever contaminants are pres-
ent in the feedwater are transported to the
turbine in the steam. Therefore, condensate
and feedwater must be maintained very pure
and must match the steam turbine OEMs
steam purity requirements. Condensate pol-
ishing is crucial to establishing and main-
taining this high level of purity in the cycle,
and chemistry choices are limited to OT and
AVT programs.
At drum pressures of 2,400 psi or higher,
contaminants such as sodium and chloride
present in the boiler water easily vaporize
with the steam and carry over to the steam
turbine. This is due to the partition coef-
ficient, or the ratio of the concentration of
these contaminants in the steam versus in the
water, which begins to increase rapidly at
pressures above 2,400 psi. Due to concerns
with carryover, phosphate and/or sodium
hydroxide addition is not recommended for
HRSG drums operating 2,400 psi or higher
drum pressures.
Condensate/Feedwater System. Selec-
tion of a cycle chemistry treatment program
is significantly simplified when the system
metallurgy is all ferrous and no copper alloys
are present in the cycle. This includes the
condenser tubes, feedwater heater tubes, con-
densate and feedwater pumps, and any heat
exchangers belonging to a host that receives
steam supply from the plant. Copper alloys
possess excellent heat transfer characteristics
but are susceptible to ammonia attack and,
therefore, the presence of these alloys in the
system limits operating pH in the condensate
and feedwater to approximately 9.1. Opera-
tion at this lower pH does also increase the
systems risk of FAC. Systems with copper
alloy components can not operate on AVT(O)
or OT. Chemistry treatment programs for
these units are limited to AVT(R), phosphate,
or caustic.
For all-ferrous units, all four types of
treatment programs are applicable. However,
it is strongly recommended that oxygen scav-
engers not be utilized in all-ferrous systems
due to the potential link between a reducing
environment in the condensate/feedwater and
single-phase FAC. Two-phase FAC, on the
other hand, which is common in many HRSG
LP evaporator circuits, is not impacted by re-
ducing or oxidizing chemistry (the addition
or absence of an oxygen scavenger). To pro-
tect against two-phase FAC, boosting the pH
of the LP evaporator by adding sufficient am-
monia (in AVT programs), TSP (in phosphate
treatment programs), or sodium hydroxide
(in phosphate and/or caustic programs) di-
rectly to the LP drum to increase the pH of
the drum water above 9.6 is recommended.
Adding phosphate or caustic, however, is
not always possible in the LP evaporator. The
chemical treatment of the LP drum varies
depending on HRSG arrangement. In some
configurations, each of the HRSG drums
receives feedwater in parallel from the con-
densate/feedwater system. In other configu-
rations, some of the drums are in series with
drum water from one drum (usually the LP)
providing feedwater to other steam drums
(usually IP and HP drums). In configurations
where the LP drum is the feedwater source
for higher-pressure (IP and HP) drums, phos-
phate or sodium hydroxide cannot be added
to the LP drum to provide protection against
two-phase FAC. The same challenge exists
in designs where water from the LP drum
is used for steam attemperation. In designs
where water from the LP drum is used for
steam attemperation, the LP drum water
must meet the same purity requirements as
the steam itself and, therefore, the addition of
caustic or phosphate to the LP steam water is
not permitted.
Whether or not the condensate system
is designed to include condensate polishers
POWER magazi ne POWERnews COAL POWER
GAS POWER MANAGI NG POWER POWER Handbook
powermag. com POWER connect
Careers i n POWER ELECTRI C POWER
To subscribe, visit
www.powermag.com/subscribe
or call 847-763-9509.
www.powermag.com
If you need information on
the global power
generation industry,
look to first.
IN PRINT, IN PERSON, AND ONLINE
DetailedDesignEPCCM
StudiesOwner&Bank
Engineering
UtilitiesIPPsIndustry
UniversitiesOEMs
Banks/Investors
BiomassSolar(Thermal&PV)Simple&CombinedCycle
WindFluidizedBed/PC/StokerBoilersBiofuelsMSW
GasiicationLandillGasPyrolysisPlantImprovements
AirPollutionControlCHP/CogenerationEnergySavings
Engine-GeneratorsFacilities/Buildings&Systems
FiveBiomassPowerplantsNowinDetailedDesign
OwnersEngineerNowfora900MWCombined
CycleRepoweringProject
PrelimDesignNowfora1.2MGPDIndustrial
WastewaterDesalinationPlant
CompletedDesignandStartupofa300MW
CombinedCycleRepoweringProject
CompletedDesignandStartupofaConcentrating
SolarThermalPowerTowerProject
OwnersEngineerNowfora4xLM6000Simple
CyclePowerPlant
VariousPowerPlantServiceProjects
Chairman/CEO President/COO VPEngineering Mgr.Civil/Structural
Mgr.
Electrical
Mgr.Mechanical
Sr.
ProjectMgr.
Sr.
ProjectMgr. ChiefMech.Eng.
Mgr.Bus.Develop.
For career opportunities e-mail a resume in conidence to: recruitment@bibb-eac.com
Bus.Dev.LA
PowerMag112012.indd1 12/4/20129:13:17AM
Check out the new POWER iPad app!
Go to e App Store on
your iPad and search
POWER magazine
Get the latest power industry news,
trends, and business & regulatory info
right at your ngertips.
Enjoy our latest complete issues
everything in the print edition
and more!
For more information on
POWER magazine, visit
www.powermag.com
10_PWR_030113_SR_Water_p40-46.indd 45 2/13/13 4:51:48 PM
|
March 2013 46
WATER TREATMENT
has a big impact on the selection of the cycle
chemistry program. The design of any unit
must include a means to handle the ingress of
any impurities that may enter the system via
condenser tube leaks, air in-leakage, makeup
demineralizer operational issues, and the
like. If condensate polishers are included as
part of the plant design to remove any impu-
rities that find their way into the system, AVT
and OT chemistry programs can be utilized.
If no condensate polishers are included in the
plant design, phosphate or caustic treatment
programs should be employed to buffer or
neutralize any ingress of impurities and mini-
mize corrosion and deposition in the system.
Plant Operating Regimes Must Be
Considered
The proper water treatment process must
be selected for the operating conditions and
type of equipment, as just discussed. How
the equipment is operated is equally impor-
tant, as the water treatment process may be
remarkably different at a baseload plant, a
cycling plant, and one of the new generation
of fast-start plants.
Cycling Service Considerations. Al-
though phosphate treatment programs are
designed to provide good buffering capabil-
ity for drum units, cycling operation while
utilizing these treatment regimes has been
linked historically with phosphate hideout
problems, where the concentration of the
phosphate in the boiler/HRSG seems to dis-
appear and reappear as the unit makes sig-
nificant load changes. When the phosphate
disappears, operations staff typically try to
correct the situation by adding more chemi-
cal, which usually results in an overfeed
situation when load changes again and the
phosphate reappears.
Any drum-level control problems that re-
sult as part of the load swings can also result
in mechanical carryover of phosphate and
sodium from the drum to the superheater
sections and the steam turbine, leading to po-
tential deposition and corrosion. Oxygenated
treatment programs are also best suited for
steady loadtype operations, whether the unit
is a drum or once-through type boiler.
Boilers operating in a cycling mode are
best served chemistry-wise by employing an
AVT program coupled with full-flow conden-
sate polishing to remove any contaminants
that may enter the cycle. Units with copper-
bearing alloys in the steam system should
employ AVT(R) chemistry, where ammonia/
amine is added to the condensate/feedwa-
ter to control pH and an oxygen scavenger
is also added to the condensate/feedwater
to minimize dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion. Ferrous-only units are best served by
implementing an AVT(O) chemistry program
where ammonia/amine only is added to the
condensate/feedwater. It is recommended
that inorganic chemicals (such as ammonium
hydroxide and hydrazine) be used as the pH
adjuster and oxygen scavenger, but there are
numerous organic substitutions on the market
today that will also yield good results when
properly applied under the advice of a water
treatment expert.
Fast-Start or Rapid-Response De-
signs. Several fast-start or rapid-re-
sponse HRSG designs have made their
way into the combined cycle market in
recent years. These unitsdeveloped usu-
ally through collaborative efforts among
the steam turbine, gas turbine, and HRSG
OEMsfeature combined cycle power plant
designs that are intended for quick startups
and/or very quick and frequent load swings.
These designs, while providing the swift re-
action to the electric grid needs that todays
power market demands, also complicate
steam cycle chemistry issues.
Chemistry, like the HRSG and steam tur-
bine equipment, must now also be flexible
enough to respond to fast startups and/or
very quick and frequent load swings. These
plants cannot tolerate chemistry holds that
have been standard in traditional fossil units
and still meet their startup time or load swing
guarantees. Therefore, use of high-quality
makeup and maintenance of condensate/
feedwater purity are primary concerns for
projects that utilize a fast-start or rapid-re-
sponse design.
Such plants should ideally include per-
manent condensate polishers as part of their
standard design to maintain condensate and
feedwater purity and minimize chemistry
holds. For Siemens once-through Benson
boiler design, for instance, condensate pol-
ishers are required because the HP portion
of the HRSG is designed to operate on OT
chemistry, and therefore condensate polish-
ers are a key part of this chemistry treatment
program. For other fast-start designs, AVT
chemistry programs coupled with a conden-
sate polisher are generally the best choice to
maintain a clean cycle and respond rapidly
to changes.
Other Water Chemistry Issues
Plants incorporating an air-cooled condenser
(ACC) for condensation of the steam turbine
exhaust have unique requirements for their
cycle chemistry treatment program.
The ACC design consists of a very large
surface area for condensation of the exhaust
steam. Though this large surface area works
well for heat transfer purposes, it can up-
set the steam-water cycle chemistry. Newly
erected ACCs are difficult to completely
clean and tend to contribute a substantial
amount of contaminants to the cycle during
initial startup and even during unit restart if
vacuum has been broken. The large surface
area also increases the likelihood of iron
transport in the system, particularly during
initial startup and during unit restarts, and
the potential for air in-leakage in the system.
Owners should seriously consider including
a condensate polisher when using an ACC.
FAC concerns are also common in the
ACC. In order to minimize FAC in an ACC,
the pH in the early condensate must be in-
creased above that required for an equivalent
water-cooled condenser. HP feedwater pH
should be maintained in the range of 9.6 to
9.8 to minimize FAC in the ACC. This may
require supplemental chemical injection for
the HP steam drum or HP feedwater.
Steam from auxiliary boilers is frequently
utilized in combined cycle power plants for
purposes such as pegging the deaerator dur-
ing startup, holding vacuum overnight, or
hotwell sparging. The purity of the steam
coming from the auxiliary boiler must be
the same as the steam produced in the main
cycle. Therefore, the chemical treatment pro-
gram utilized for the auxiliary boiler must be
compatible with the operating pressure and
temperatures of the main cycle, even though
the auxiliary boiler typically operates at low-
er pressures and temperatures.
For instance, nonvolatile oxygen scaven-
gers are frequently used in industrial boilers
operating at low pressures (less than 800 psi).
However, if the industrial boiler is serving as
an auxiliary boiler that is supplying steam to
an HRSG with a HP pressure of over 800 psi,
volatile oxygen scavengers such as hydrazine
or carbohydrazide must be used in treating
the auxiliary boiler, just as in the main steam
cycle.
Consider Plant Staffing
The plant staffing plan and operating expe-
rience level of the team may also affect the
choice of chemistry treatment for a unit. Man-
aging a high-performance chemistry program
(AVT or OT) requires tighter operating con-
trols, more supervision of plant makeup wa-
ter treatment systems and chemical additions,
and a higher-level knowledge of steam cycle
chemistry practices. An operations team sup-
ported by a dedicated on-site plant chemist
or chemistry technician specifically trained
in these practices is preferable. If the facil-
ity is unable to provide this level of support
and supervision of steam cycle chemistry, the
better option is to use a phosphate chemical
treatment program, which can be more for-
giving when system upsets occur.
Colleen M. Layman (colleenlayman@
hdrinc.com) is the energy-water manage-
ment practice director for HDR Inc.
3
Global Business Reports // POWER MEXICO March 2013
www.gbreports.com
Global Business Reports
POWER MEXICO
3
Global Business Reports // POWER MEXICO
an extension and embodiment of gov-
ernment energy policy. In contrast to
PEMEX, however, CFE has arguably been
more successful at developing collabora-
tion between public and private interests
and fostering foreign investment. There
are, for example, no issues in the power
industry comparable to the dearth of re-
ining capacity that forces Mexico to ex-
port oil and import gasoline. On the con-
trary, CFEs igures are strong across the
board: 98% of the population have access
to electricity; interruption time per cus-
tomer (ITC) was 9.3 minutes per annum
in 2012, compared to 59 minutes in 2010;
and the connection of new customers to
the grid has similarly fallen from 6.9 days
in 2009 to 1.5 days today, whilst industry
has seen the improvement from a 37 day
waiting time to three. Though CFE de-
fends the Mexican peoples right to have
access to electricity as cheaply as possi-
ble, in recent years, thanks to the intro-
duction of IPPs and Public Finance Works
(OPFs) which are similar to Build, Lease,
Transfer agreements (BLT) the Mexi-
can power sector has nonetheless been
able to diversify and develop the best
practices that private sector competition
can promote.
Independent Power Producers
The 1992 Electricity Public Service Law
allows for some private investment in
generation, provided that the energy
generated is not for public use but for
self-supply, co-generation, export, or for
sale to CFE through a long-term power
purchase agreement (PPA). Both export
and sale to CFE come under the banner
of independent power production, a term
covering any authorized power plant of
over 30 MW and catering to those two
markets. Co-generation and self-supply,
on the other hand, are variations of the
same thing: the consumer generates the
power used, in some cases with the help
of an external company in which the gen-
eration project, for the purposes of legal-
ity, is treated as a joint venture. Avoiding
competition with CFE, private participa-
tion in essence cannot have direct access
Manufacturing Excellence: Air Compressor in
the Mexico City factory of Atlas Copco
birth in 1937. Perhaps ironically, the state-
owned monopoly was conceived as a way
of protecting Mexican end-users from
the exploitation of a foreign-owned
monopoly (85% of investment in trans-
mission and distribution from 1900 to 1910
was British).
Mexicos Balancing Act
Like PEMEX, the government-owned oil
and gas giant, CFE is a company that is
4
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
6
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
8
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
ing system has resulted in the distortion
of market signals, making investment
more dificult and less proitable. Mex-
ico has the potential to produce a lot
more conventional and non-conventional
gas shale and as you produce more,
the argument for infrastructure obvi-
ously increases. There is an interest
right now in importing more shale gas,
which is also a justiication for increased
infrastructure. Mexico has a system
in which energy prices, especially
the fuels from the oil industry
gasoline, crude oil, fuel oil and natural
gas have had their prices linked histori-
cally to the prices in the United States;
in other words, the reference price.
Essentially, if you have a cubic meter of
natural gas in Mexico, why would you
sell it in Mexico for $2 when you can
sell it in the US for $4? As a result, the
prices have been linked and this is a
system that has worked reasonably well
in the past. However, with natural gas,
this system starts to have cracks; the
natural gas at $3 per cubic feet in
Mexico relects conditions in the US
market in which there is a glut of natural
gas, where there is vast infra-
structure that we do not have in
Mexico. The price of natural gas
in Mexico of $3 per cubic feet is artii-
cial; it does not relect the realities of the
Mexican market, nor does it relect infra-
structure and supply. It is a gas price that
is causing demand to rise with no ability
to in fact meet that demand, he says.
Despite these fears, Calvillo, CEO
of Fermaca, is quietly conident of
his companys ability to retain competi-
tive costs, a key advantage which allowed
Fermaca to win the Chihuahua bid.
Calvillos focus is on the opportunities
he sees in the market during the golden
age of gas.
Once these pipelines are built and on-
line, Fermaca will be responsible for the
transportation of 20% of Mexican gas
consumption. In the past three years,
our growth has been phenomenal; we
are 10 times bigger in terms of company
value. Now were seeking to win several
of these projects and position ourselves
as the most important natural gas pipe-
line company in Mexico. We have in-
vested $600 million in the past four years
and have been very fortunate to close
our inancing.
The Impact of Subsidies
Another factor that continues to
make gas extremely attractive in Mexi-
co is the presence of subsidies, which
affect the market in a number of ways.
The CFE tariff structure is designed
to subsidize the cost of electricity that
is consumed by residential and agricul-
tural end-users and offers preferential
rates to low consumption households
whilst penalizing high consumption
households. However, as a direct method
of tackling poverty this is ineffective. In
2009 The World Bank claimed that the
subsidies delivered through the tariff
structure are regressive, with the poor-
est 40% of households capturing only
about 30% of the subsidies. This is
signiicantly less than they would receive
if subsidies were randomly distributed
to all utility customers. In contrast, the
richest 40% of households receive 50%
of the subsidies.
These subsidies also create an unfa-
vorable regulatory environment for re-
newables which, whilst already seen to
be more expensive and less proitable
than conventional fuels, must in addition
compete within the Mexican market on
an uneven playing ield.
The Renewables
Sector: In need of a
helping hand?
Whilst some countries in Europe have set
aside subsidies for technologies whose
appropriateness is not immediately appar-
ent, Mexico does not have subsidies for
renewables yet possesses some of the
best resources in the world. The develop-
ment of renewables has become headline
news as climate change fears grow, but
it also plays an important role in protect-
ing against price shocks through a diver-
siied energy basket. Estefano Conde,
manager of social communication for
CFE, highlights the achievements in the
sector to date: Former President Calde-
ron aimed to increase the participation of
renewables in the energy matrix to 25%
and, at the close of his administration,
CFE met that goal. A key factor in
this is the development of major hydro-
electric projects.
Mexicos further aim to source of 35%
of its energy from clean energies by 2026
will be achieved through the markets
unique synergy between political will and
private means.
Vicente Garca Montero, commercial
director of Isolux Corsan Mexico, the
Spanish engineering giant, explains the
balance as it applies to the Isolux Corsan:
Our main client is CFE as they are the
main player. Now that the private sector
is increasingly important due to co-gener-
ation and self-supply, we are diversifying
our client base into the private sector. We
offer assistance in transmission and wind
farms projects for example.
IPPs supply 23.1% of Mexicos energy,
which represents 12,213 MW, but with
IPPs aside, the private sector permits
represent an extra 10,011 MW of installed
capacity, 48% of which is self-supply and
33% is co-generation (the rest consists
Prospective Shale Gas Basins
Source: US Energy Information Administation
300km
GULF OF MEXICO
Maltrata
Pimienta
Eagle Ford,
La Casita
Pimienta Tamaulipas
PACIFIC OCEAN OO NN CC
9
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
9
of projects too small to count under the
IPP scheme, along with export and import
projects). Despite the lack of subsidies,
the renewables sector has seen good
growth and an inlux of foreign direct in-
vestment (FDI). In 2012, there were 200
plants for renewable power generation
either open or under construction, and
between 2003 and 2012, despite CFEs
hold over the industry, FDI in renewables
reached $6.9 billion. The majority of these
investors have come from Spain, US,
France, Japan, and Denmark, and their
investments center around the states
of Chihuahua, Baja California (which
has strong solar potential), Nuevo Len,
Tamaulipas, and Oaxaca (both of which
have strong wind potential).
The Competitive Edge
Renewables have a number of competi-
tive advantages contributing to investor
interest. In remote areas of Mexico in
which connection to the grid is dificult
and expensive, renewables are cheaper.
In addition, the stability of renewables
and their downward trend with regards
to costs allows for long-term energy plan-
ning in a way that the more volatile prices
of gas make dificult. Lastly, and perhaps
ironically, the very thing that may discour-
age the use of renewables for some us-
ers the CFE tariff subsidies are also
what can make renewables more attrac-
tive to others. High consumption users
in the manufacturing sector that require
energy during peak hours are heavily
charged and will ind self-supply schemes
and co-generation projects better value
for money than buying directly from CFE.
Co-generation
Co-generation, as distinct from IPPs, is
being used with success by Mexicos
industries as an alternative to relying
on CFE, whilst nonetheless avoiding di-
rect competition. The 250-MW Eurus
wind project was developed by Acciona
Energy for CEMEX, a Mexican multi-
national cement producer. Grupo Bimbo,
Mexicos main bread producer, is sup-
plying its plants with energy generated
from a 90MW wind plant in partnership
with Renovalias subsidiary Desarrollos
Elicos Mexicanos. Small, private hydro-
power projects have also been developed
and represent 292 MW of capacity. Partly
due to private investment and partly due
to CFEs own commitment to the devel-
opment of renewables, installed capac-
ity has increased from 12,092 in 2006
to 14,095 MW. Pedro Pradanos, director
general of Dalkia, a co-generation and en-
ergy eficiency company, explains what
400 kV Substation Julie - Veracruz I Mexico,
Courtesy of Isolux
Leading automation technology
Festo feels like home in practically all places we give the automation. Both in the
automation of classic discontinuous industrial processes (Developed step by step) as in
many areas of process automation. Our industry segments global and specic knowledge
let us guarantee to the customer the right products and services and together reach the
desired objective.
Av. Ceyln 3
Col. Tequesquinhuac
54020 Tlalnepantla,
Estado de Mxico
+52 (01) 55 5321 66 00
www.festo.com/mx
10
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
CAT, CATERPILLAR, their respective logos, ACERT, Caterpillar Yellow, the Power Edge trade dress, as well as
corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.
2012 Caterpillar. All Rights Reserved.
POSSIBLE
Because of Cat
Gas Power Systems

Electric utilities across Latin America can rely on power plants from
Caterpillar to sustain economic growth with reliable electricity. With
Cat gas generator sets, you can quickly install megawatts of power
to serve the areas where the energy is needed most. And youll have
the condence of local Cat experts to back you up, while your own
customers enjoy the progress that you made possible.
Visit us at www.catelectricpowerinfo.com/gas
GAS-FUELED PRODUCTS. PEOPLE-FUELED SUPPORT.
11
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
11
Dalkia can offer to its clients: Co-genera-
tion, which we regularly get involved in, is
one of the main solutions available in the
Mexican energy market and can generate
electrical, thermal, and/or other energies.
Dalkias co-generation projects represent
nearly 5000 MW of installed capacity
worldwide. In Mexico, we are currently
developing a co-generation project in
Queretaro with an industrial client. Here,
we are installing the 2 MW CHP system
and will maintain and operate it for the
next seven years. This will allow the cli-
ent to achieve more than 30% in savings.
The project started off with an energy
analysis, after which we presented a vari-
ety of options and solutions to the client.
We recommended one, and developed it.
We are not committed to a single tech-
nology; we seek a comprehensive tailor-
made solution for each case and each cli-
ent in particular.
Rushing Wind
Wind power potential in Mexico is es-
timated at 71,000 MW and in the past
few years has seen strong growth. Due
to the meteoric conditions, wind is the
strongest of all the renewables in Mex-
ico. Adrian Katzew, general manager for
Vestas Mexico, Central America and the
Caribbean, one of the market leaders of
wind turbine manufacturing in the world,
details the factors that have drawn Vestas
and similar companies to Mexico: The
move away from subsidies for renewa-
bles in Europe, along with the expiry of
the production tax credits in the US next
year, has shifted demand from mature
markets to emerging markets. It is a
phenomenon that is extremely interest-
ing; growing up in Mexico, I would have
never thought that Mexico would become
a leading, world-class example of macro-
economic and inancial management, and
yet here we are. Mexico is attracting for-
eign investment and we are seeing a new
wind market emerge. Wind power today
from a cost point of view is more attrac-
tive than any other alternative; there are
no subsidies, and yet wind power is suc-
ceeding in Latin America and the Carib-
bean. In addition, the dificulties of inan-
cial institutions in Europe has resulted in
a dificulty in inancing projects, but the
role of multilateral agencies in supporting
development in emerging markets allows
the inancing of projects. As a result, it
is easier to inance projects in emerging
markets, which is fueling our growth. In
Mexico, CFE and self-consumers are in-
vesting in wind power because they have
found that it is more competitive.
Solars First Steps
Solar, in contrast to wind, has yet to be
developed. The cuts in subsidies in Eu-
rope have caused a glut of solar panels
that has pushed the price of equipment
down, and the attractiveness of the tech-
nology up. As a result, solar companies
typically report a year-on-year growth of
up to 100%, though this percentage is
taken from a very low baseline and the
market is still immature. The potential,
however, is very strong. Mexico is locat-
ed across the Sun Belt and is among the
countries with the highest solar power
generation potential worldwide. The so-
lar radiation potential in the northwest
of the country can exceed 6 kWh/m2
per day. In addition, Mexico is the main
supplier of photovoltaic solar modules in
Latin America, with a production capacity
of more than 276 MW, which also opens
up opportunities to supply the near-by
US market. Latin America overall, and
Mexico in particular, has declared its in-
terest in this source of renewable energy
and there is a lot of growth potential in
this area. Taking this into account as well
as the global decrease in the price of the
panels, we believe that 2013 will be the
year that will offer many possibilities for
the photovoltaic sector. However, in or-
der for the photovoltaic developments to
be proitable we need to make sure that
the tariffs offered in the Mexican market
are competitive not only with respect to
the ordinary sources of energy but also
with respect to the wind power tariffs,
says Miguel Angel Alonso Rubio, director
general of the Mexican chapter of
Spanish renewables giant Acciona.
Yes(ca) to Hydro-power
Hydroelectric power is, of all renewables,
the most developed and widely accepted
as competitive. With a hydroelectric po-
tential of 53,000 MW, Mexico conirmed
its commitment to hydropower with the
opening of La Yesca, arguably the most
important infrastructure project of the
Calderon administration. Built by con-
struction irm ICA, La Yesca has a capac-
ity to hold 2.39 billion square meters of
water and an installed capacity of 750
MW. CFEs ambitions cannot be realized
without private sector help. Raul Casas,
service and rehabilitation manager at An-
dritz Hydro, an international hydropower
equipment design and manufacturing
company, describes the context of the
market: The Mexican market is not a
ixed volume market; it is cyclical and de-
pends on the political situation. It is dif-
icult for CFE to maintain a well-deined
agenda of scheduled projects. CFE is cur-
rently trying to deine the next big project
after La Yesca. We work mainly with the
operational side of CFE, and the coordi-
nation of hydro to improve, maintain, and
enhance, the performance of existing
hydroelectric plants.
Geothermal and Biogas
Projects of the scale of La Yesca are not
conined to hydropower however; at
750MW, the Cerro Prieto Geothermal
Power Station is the largest of its kind in
the world and geothermal energy poten-
tial in Mexico is greater than 40,000 MW.
Biomass is also a rapidly growing sector
that has a number of attractive opportu-
nities, many of which are in the Veracruz
area. Gaston Aragon of CAT explains:
Opportunities are in the north where
there are large ranches with cows and
horses which allow us to produce energy
from the waste using biogas process-
es. In this way, companies can reduce
their energy bill. It is an emerging mar-
ket in the whole of Latin America that
consists of natural waste that is subject
to anaerobic digestion, which as a result
produces biogas that can be used to
power motors. A whole technology must
be built around maintaining a stable envi-
ronment so that the bacteria do not die;
temperature and food supply must always
be kept optimal to maintain the levels of
biogas produced.
The Forks in the Road
The exact breakdown of the projected
35% of clean energies has been split by
SENER into three possibilities scenarios:
Firstly and arguably the easiest way of
achieving the 2026 aim is to develop
a matrix with a focus on nuclear, which
would account for 18.1% of Mexicos en-
ergy. Vicente Estrada-Cajigal, president
of the National Solar Energy Association
(ANES) disapproves: The National En-
13
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
13
Services: A Key Area for
Private Participation
Services and energy eficiency are two
key areas in which the private sector can
be involved in the power industry in Mex-
ico. Whilst according to CFE, IPPs will re-
main a secondary method of generation
despite their advantages, the only limits
on the need for services are the size and
demand of the industry itself. 2012 was
a comparatively quiet year for contrac-
tors and suppliers as CFE hesitated to
increase spending during an election
year, preferring to wait until the political
change was inalized before making
signiicant budgetary decisions. As a
result, though the market has slowed
in the past year, with the advent of
business-friendly President Pea Nieto
and CFEs own aims of extending
and maintaining its services, CFEs
spending will be renewed in 2013. In
a speech given to the industry at the
Technological Museum of CFE (MUTEC)
on 17th October 2012, former President
Caldern explained: One of our priorities
over the last years has been to modern-
ize the Mexican energy industry. This has
been very important for us as it has a direct
effect on the competition in the industry,
the economic growth and the overall wel-
fare of our society. We know that our coun-
try relies heavily on the energy industry
and that it is key for the development of
our country and this is why we have taken
well planned steps that will have direct ef-
fects on its advancement.

Growth projections
It is this will to modernize and advance
within the federal government, and by ex-
tension CFE, that will push demand in the
private sector. Lillian Lopez, general man-
ager at Marley Mexicana which provides
water-based cooling systems and solutions
for power plants, is positive about the mar-
kets opportunities for Marleys business.
Compared to last year, this year has seen
a lot of movement in the industry which
has given many small businesses the budg-
ets to invest in our types of products. We
now cover 65% of the market, which is a
very good position to be in. Our hopes for
growth this year may appear conservative
at 15%, but this is a natural stutter caused
by the election. With political stability re-
stored, these igures will pick up again.
From 2011 to 2012 our growth was 35%,
she explains.
Alejandro Gutierrez Vera, general manag-
er of Mexican company Serpro, is also very
positive: Over the past 10 years we have
achieved a growth of about 100%, and
since 2010, we have grown 20%. 35% of
the electricity produced by the CFE is regu-
lated by Sepro products. Pemex and the
CFE are our biggest customers in Mexico
and we also serve customers in Guatema-
la, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argen-
tina, Colombia and El Salvador. We are a
Mexican company with Mexican engineers
and have great expectations for growth.
Energy eficiency
Another key area in which there is growth
within the energy services industry is the
14
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
energy eficiency sector. In a market in
which high consumption users are heavily
penalized through the tariff structure, an ini-
tial investment in streamlining a companys
electrical infrastructure means larger sav-
ings in the long term. Speaking at MUTEC,
Caldern highlighted CFEs commitment
to eficiency: CFE, together with National
Finances, is working on a program that will
allow more than 200,000 SMEs [small and
medium enterprises] to implement energy
eficient practices by changing their lamps
or their machinery, for example. The SMEs
are vital for the future of any economy and,
in Mexico, they generate eight out of 10
working opportunities. We have provided
these companies with the opportunity
to take credit to improve their energy ef-
iciency and reduce their operating costs,
which will ultimately beneit the inal con-
sumer. This program has already resulted in
a savings as high as 60 million kW and a de-
crease of carbon emissions of 26,000 mt.
The private sector also provides
high eficiency solutions, whether through
installing smart lighting that switches
off in areas of buildings that are not be-
ing used, more frequent cleaning of air
conditioning equipment, and switching
to more modern heating and cooling
systems. Multinationals such as Schnei-
der Electric and General Electric have a
wide array of solutions to offer, but lo-
cal companies are nonetheless able to
play a role. As both CFE and the private
sector come to realize the advantages
of energy eficiency, the sector will
continue to grow. Right now there is
a wonderful opportunity in the Mexican
energy market for energy eficiency
companies as the CFE tariff structure is
already expensive for medium industrial
users. On the other hand, the current
price of gas is cheap mainly because of
the inluence of shale. As a result, there
is an impetus for companies to seek other
options, whether energy supply or
co-generation. In addition, the new climate
change law encourages renewable and
co-generation projects which adds to the
Dalkias potential in the Mexican market,
Pradanos of Dalkia says.
Within both the power sector and the
manufacturing sector, energy eficiency
goes hand-in-hand with eficiency of pro-
duction, as the production (and generation)
process increasingly incorporates smarter
operating systems. Automation today in
Mexico is a necessity, as Mexico needs
to compete globally. As a result, eficiency
and productivity need to increase,
and automation is one key method that
can achieve this. Mexico used to be
very famous for its cheap labor, but this
work method is not eficient. It is automa-
tion that has the most relevance for the
future of Mexico. The automation sec-
tor will continue to grow, and we will be
able to generate added value for our end
customers, asserts Jose Luis Salinas,
Key Accounts Manager for Oil and Gas,
Chemical and Energy at Festo Mexico, the
automation multinational whose cutting-
edge work has included braincomputer
interface (BCI).
Though 2012 was a period of reduced
CFE spending due to the uncertainties
of the political climate, 2013 will be
15
www.gbreports.com
POWER MEXICO
15
a year of renewed development and growth
in the CFE supply sector. Its key players are
primed to make the most of the opportuni-
ties available.
Mexicos Vision
SENERs Program for Works and
Investments in the Energy Sector (POISE),
which is an outline of Mexicos energy
strategy for the next 15 years, is ambitious
in its vision. It identiies 43,992 MW of
additional capacity that must be in-
stalled to meet with demand. 6,462 MW
of this is already accounted for by
projects that are currently in the construc-
tion phase or have entered the bidding
process, but another 37,529 MW is for
future projects that have yet to be
deined. In addition, 539 MW of
modernization must take place. During
this period, the government plans to
invest 100 billion pesos each year
(approximately just under $8 billion),
with the bulk of it dedicated to
generation at 52%, whilst distribution
accounts for 20%, transmission 14.1%,
and maintenance 13.3%. This inlux
of investment suggests a strong
commitment to POISEs aims and, for
the investor and company willing to work
within a market shaped by an SOE, there
are a lot of opportunities arising.
Santiago Barcon, managing director
at Arteche, a global company offering
automation solutions, is positive: In the
energy sector, the next 20 years will be
extraordinary. Population growth, prod-
uct consumerism linked to new lifestyles,
and equipment obsolescence will all
trigger opportunities for growth in a
wide range of industries, including of
course our own. For example, there will be
a need to renew parts of already installed
wind farms. There is economic stability
and availability of labor, which allows one
to plan with fewer worries. We currently
export products, but my dream is to export
engineering. We are in the same time
zone as the USA and our engineers are
as good or better as the ones from the
United States; we can compete. Rather
than watching fatalist and overly negative
news reports, Mexicans and the wider
international community must realize
there is a lot to be done and that can
be done in Mexico.
Though the energy sector remains and
will remain for the foreseeable future under
state control, the industry has nonetheless
been able to implement the best practices
that the private sector can provide, and in
addition has succeeded in attracting the
foreign investment that is vital to meet
both the growing needs of the Mexican
population and the clean energy require-
ments. With CFE behind the sector and
committed to pushing the development of
both gas infrastructure and renewables for-
ward, the future for Mexico is bright.
For additional and up-
to-date information on
Mexicos Power Industry, visit Mexicos periodi-
cal publication at http://energiahoy.com
|
March 2013 62
EMISSIONS
Rethinking Winds Impact on
Emissions and Cycling Costs
Recent reports by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and others suggest
that the emissions-reducing benefits of renewable energy sources such as
wind and solar may have been overstated and the cost of cycling fossil-
fueled plants underestimated. These findings may change how utilities and
policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of wind and solar energy.
By David Wagman
T
he American Wind Energy Associa-
tion (AWEA) said in early January that
1,833 MW of wind power capacity
had been installed during the third quarter of
2012. Those additions brought total installed
wind capacity for the first three quarters of
the year to 4,728 MW and pushed the total
installed wind capacity in the U.S. to 51,630
MW, from more than 40,000 turbines. AWEA
also reported that as of September 2012, more
than 8,400 MW of capacity were under con-
struction in 29 states and Puerto Rico. Whats
more, the wind industry has added more than
35% of all new U.S. generating capacity dur-
ing the past five years, second only to natural
gas.
All of that new wind capacity is aimed, at
least in part, at displacing fossil-fueled gen-
erating sources and reducing atmospheric
and greenhouse gas emissions such as ni-
trous oxide (NO
x
), sulfur dioxide (SO
x
), and
the still-unregulated carbon dioxide (CO
2
).
Wind generation has inherent benefits: The
turbines produce no emissions during their
operating lifetimes and have no fuel cost. But
some industry observers contend that adding
intermittent resources such as wind and solar
energy to the system actually increases rather
than decreases greenhouse gas emissions.
Those observers point out that many
power generators add fast-start gas-fired
generating units (generally aeroderivative
gas turbine and gas-fired engines) to back
up renewable resources and generate power
during the times when the sun doesnt shine
or the wind doesnt blow. Those fossil-fueled
resources are variously available as spinning
reserves or as fast-start machines that can
rapidly ramp to respond to changing output
from renewable resources. Observers also
contend that cycling or turndown operations
at baseload coal and natural gasfired plants
to accommodate wind and solar also may
increase air emissions because those fossil-
fueled plants end up operating at less-than-
optimal levels.
A fact sheet published by AWEA said that,
on average, adding 3 MW of wind energy to
the U.S. electric grid reduces emissions from
fossil power plants by 1,200 pounds of CO
2

per hour. It said adding this amount of wind
would at most require anywhere from 0 to
0.01 MW of additional spinning reserves,
and 0 to 0.07 MW of non-spinning reserves.
AWEA said it is likely that those reserves
would be provided by zero-emission hydro-
electric resources, but even under a worst-
case scenario in which a fossil fuel plant
with an efficiency penalty of 1.5% must be
used for reserves and all of the non-spinning
reserves would be activated, the increase in
emissions would still be less than 1 pound of
CO
2
. Given that hydropower is always dis-
patched first and seldom cycled, and coal still
provides around 40% of the electricity nation-
wide and is being cycled, this is a narrow and
highly unlikely scenario (see sidebar).
AWEA said that although the wind may
suddenly slow down at one location and
cause the output from a single turbine to
decrease, regions with high penetrations
of wind energy may have hundreds or even
thousands of turbines spread over hundreds
of miles. As a result, it typically takes min-
utes or even hours for a regions total wind
energy output to change significantly. Yet
when the resource does unexpectedly drop,
the amount of that reduction must be added
immediately to the grid, first with spinning
reserve capacity or with fast-start assets.
The unpredictability of the resource ex-
plains the large number of gas-fired assets
built over the past several years. The trade
group said that gas-fired units make it rela-
tively easy for utility system operators to ac-
commodate these changes without relying on
reserves. It said the task of accommodating
variations in output can be made easier by us-
ing forecasting, which allows system opera-
tors to predict changes in wind output hours
or even days in advance with a high degree
of accuracy.
Assessment Shortcomings
Despite the AWEA fact sheet, industry observ-
ers have found room to question the claimed
environmental benefits of wind energy. For
example, two researchers, Warren Katzenstein
and Jay Apt of Carnegie Mellon University,
wrote in 2009 that life-cycle assessments of
renewable energy projects often failed to ac-
count for emissions from backup and cycling
fossil-fired generation sources. The pair found
that CO
2
emission reductions from a wind or
solar photovoltaic (PV) system coupled with a
natural gas system are likely to be 75% to 80%
of those assumed by policymakers. Even for
the best system they analyzed, NO
x
reductions
with 20% wind or solar PV penetration were
30% to 50% of those expected.
To estimate emissions from fossil-fueled
generators that are called on to compensate for
variable wind and solar power, the Carnegie
Mellon authors modeled a combination of
variable renewable power with a fast-ramping
natural gasfired turbine. They used a regres-
sion analysis of measured emissions and heat
rate data taken at 1-minute resolution from two
types of gas turbines to model emissions and
heat rate as a function of power and ramp rate.
They next determined the required gas turbine
power and ramp rate to fill in the variations in
1-minute data from four wind farms and one
large solar PV plant, and, finally, computed
the emissions from the regression model.
The research team obtained 1-minute reso-
lution emissions data for seven General Elec-
tric LM6000 natural gas combustion turbines
(CTs) and two Siemens-Westinghouse 501FD
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) turbines.
The LM6000 CTs had a nameplate power
limit of 45 MW and utilized steam injection
to mitigate NO
x
emissions. A total of 145 days
of LM6000 emissions data was used in the re-
gression analysis. The Siemens-Westinghouse
501FD NGCC turbines had a nameplate pow-
er limit of 200 MW with GEs dry low-NO
x
(DLN) system and an ammonia selective cata-
lytic reduction (SCR) system for NO
x
control.
March 2013
|
EMISSIONS
The Facts About Wind Energys Pollution Reductions
Editor: The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently con-
tacted POWER to request an opportunity to respond to the editorial
Under Siege published in the December 2012 issue. The following
is AWEAs response to that editorial.
As wind energys growth has continued, spurred by improving
technology and declining costs, wind energys role in reducing
harmful pollution has become even clearer. Empirical data for the
United States and Europe clearly indicates not only that wind
energy results in the expected pollution reductions by directly
offsetting the use of fossil fuels at power plants, but that by
displacing the most expensive and therefore least efficient power
plants first, wind energy results in even larger pollution savings
than expected.
There is no dispute that every MWh of wind energy added to the
power grid displaces a MWh that would have been produced by the
most expensive power plant currently operating, which is typically
the least efficient fossil-fired power plant. However, some have
attempted to claim, without support, that adding wind energy
to the power system can negatively affect the efficiency of other
power plants, reducing the emissions savings produced by wind
energy.
Fortunately, a large body of real-world data is now available
to assess how wind energy affects the efficiency of other power
plants, allowing one to approach the question from multiple an-
gles. To start with, the U.S. Department of Energy collects detailed
data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power plants, as
well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants.
By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in
states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against
how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the un-
supported hypothesis that wind energy has a negative impact on
the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants.
The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and
in fact, states that use more wind energy have seen the effi-
ciency of their fossil-fired power plants fare slightly better than
states that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the
20 states that obtain the most electricity from wind saw their av-
erage efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010,
versus 2.65% in the other 30 states. Increases in the efficiency
at natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top
20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% im-
provement respectively. The efficiency of fossil-fired power plants
fared comparably well in the top 10 wind states (which obtain
between 5% and 16% of their electricity from wind), with coal
plant efficiency increasing by 0.51% in the top 10 wind-using
states and declining by 2.65% in the other 40 states, while gas
plant efficiency improved by 0.78% in the top 10 wind states and
2.17% in the other 40 states.
Similar results can be found in International Energy Agency
data for Europe, which shows that the top 5 wind countries (which
obtain between 7% and 23% of their electricity from wind) saw
the average efficiency of their natural gas power plants increase
by 11% as they ramped up their use of wind energy from 1999-
2010, larger than the 7% increase in efficiency seen across all of
OECD Europe. Over that time period, coal plant efficiency fell by
1% in the top 5 wind countries and remained unchanged across all
OECD Europe countries.
Another method to assess whether wind energy is producing
the expected emissions savings is to calculate whether increases
in the use of wind energy are correlated with decreases in the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted per MWh produced. A correla-
tion coefficient of 0 would indicate that there is no statistical
relationship between wind energy output and emissions inten-
sity, a coefficient of -1 would indicate that wind output increases
always coincided with increases in emissions, and the observed
coefficients of nearly +1 indicate that increases in wind output
nearly always coincided with major decreases in emissions. The
correlation between increasing wind energy output and declin-
ing emissions intensity in the leading wind energy countries over
the period 1999 to 2010 was extremely strong, with a correlation
coefficient of .77 for Denmark, .82 for Germany, .86 for Portugal,
.90 for Spain, and a whopping .96 for Ireland.
These correlation coefficients were far higher than for any other
possible explanatory factors for the observed decreases in emis-
sions intensity, such as increased use of hydroelectric or nuclear
energy, increased use of natural gas instead of coal, changes in
the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants, or changes in electricity
imports or exports. If wind energy were causing large declines in
the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants, zero or negative corre-
lations would have been found, instead of correlations approach-
ing 1.
These findings are further confirmed by the preliminary results
of a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
that uses empirical data from another source, EPAs network of
power plant continuous emissions monitors, to evaluate the im-
pact of wind energy on the efficiency of all fossil-fired power
plants in the Western U.S. The in-depth, multi-year, and peer-re-
viewed analysis found that even in a scenario with wind providing
25% of all electricity in the Western U.S., winds total impact on
the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants would be negligible,
accounting for less than 0.2% of the emissions savings produced
by wind energy. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions declined by
2934% in the 25% renewable energy case. Moreover, the analy-
sis found that adding wind energy to the grid actually slightly
increases the average efficiency of coal and natural gas combined
cycle power plants by offsetting the least efficient plants.
No matter how one approaches the question, the data is clear
that wind energy greatly reduces fossil fuel use and pollution.
Moreover, the results discussed above are in addition to a large
body of independent grid operator, utility, and government analy-
ses and data that have already examined how wind energy inter-
acts with the power system and unanimously found that wind
energy produces pollution savings that are as large or larger than
expected.
Michael Goggin is the manager of transmission policy at the
American Wind Energy Association.
|
March 2013 64
EMISSIONS
Emissions data for 11 days was obtained for
the 501FD combined cycle machine. The re-
newables data included 1-second, 10-second,
and 1-minute resolution and was from four
wind farms and one large solar PV facility
in the Eastern Mid-Atlantic, Southern Great
Plains, Central Great Plains, Northern Great
Plains, and Southwest regions of the U.S.
Based on their analysis, the authors con-
cluded that the conventional method used to
calculate displaced emissions was inaccurate,
particularly for NO
x
emissions. They said that
if system operators recognize the potential for
ancillary emissions from gas generators used
to fill in for variable renewable power, they
can take steps to produce a greater displace-
ment of emissions. They said that by limiting
generators with GEs DLN system to power
levels of 50% or greater, ancillary emissions
can be minimized. Operation of DLN con-
trols with existing firing modes that reduce
emissions when ramping may be practical.
They also said that on a time scale compat-
ible with renewable portfolio standard imple-
mentation, design and market introduction of
generators that are more appropriate from an
emissions viewpoint may be feasible to pair
with variable renewable power plants.
Utility Perspective
Utilities that have relatively high and grow-
ing amounts of intermittent renewable re-
sources on their systems also have analyzed
renewable integration costs, paying particu-
lar attention to the cost of wear and tear on
equipment and increased maintenance at ex-
isting conventional facilities.
For example, Public Service Company
of Colorado (PSCo), a unit of Xcel Energy,
prepared a report for state regulators in Au-
gust 2011 that said the utility would add
around 700 MW of wind power to its sys-
tem by 2015, in line with its 2007 Colorado
Resource Plan. That additional wind capacity
meant PSCo would have around 1,934 MW
of nameplate wind generation capacity on
its system. One shortcoming of its planning
process, however, was its failure to consider
wind-induced cycling costs. With growing
amounts of wind on its system, the utility
said the cost impacts both of unit cycling and
wind curtailments will increase, making it
important to consider those costs as part of its
future planning decisions. The importance of
such calculations was highlighted for a single
hour last spring when wind energy supplied
57% of the Colorado systems electricity.
With an ever-larger wind portfolio, the
depth and frequency of cyclical operation of
baseload units will increase and affect more
and more generators, the PSCo report said.
Coal-fired units that have historically been
base loaded will be required to turn-down
to their minimum capacity, or possibly turn
off entirely. These cycling evolutions will be
occurring more rapidly and more frequently
with greater levels of wind generation.
The study said that any plant cycling causes
component wear-and-tear costs. In particular,
when a thermal generator is turned off and
on, the boiler, steam lines, turbine, and aux-
iliary components endure large thermal and
pressure stresses. Eventually, those stresses
can cause component failures and drive up
maintenance costs. During low-load opera-
tion, pressures and temperatures fluctuate
in pipes and tubes, causing fatigue and, ul-
timately, early failure. Fatigue further erodes
the designed stress tolerances of full-output
operation, or creep tolerance. PSCo identi-
fied this creep-fatigue interaction as one of
the most important phenomena contributing
to component failure.
Wind-induced cycling costs among PSCos
coal-fired fleet pose an additional hidden
cost of integrating wind generation onto the
system, the report said. It is appropriate to
determine this additional wind integration cost
and appropriately burden incremental wind
power with this cost in future resource plan-
ning efforts. A sample of the cost findings is
shown in Table 1.
The study evaluated two coal plant cycling
protocols. The first (referred to as curtail)
involved cycling coal plants down to their
economic minimum generation levels to ac-
commodate wind and curtailing wind in ex-
cess of the level needed to meet system load.
The second protocol (referred to as deep
cycle) involved cycling coal plants down to
their lower emergency minimum levels to ac-
commodate wind and curtailing wind in ex-
cess of the level needed to meet system load.
Although the analysis identified no signif-
icant difference in the cost of each protocol,
the deep-cycle protocol was found to maxi-
mize wind output while minimizing coal burn
and associated CO
2
emissions. PSCo said
this protocol may result in reduced system
reliability as a result of routinely operating
baseload coal units down to their emergency
minimum loading levels. It said such a con-
dition would increase the wear and tear on
these units and possibly lead to more coal
unit outages. In contrast, the curtail protocol
would result in slightly less wind generation
than the deep-cycle protocol but would avoid
deep cycling the coal units and the potential
downside of reduced system reliability under
a deep-cycle protocol.
PSCo chose deep cycling as the preferred op-
erational protocol for its system in the near term,
given that there was no distinct cost advantage
to either protocol. However, it stopped short of
considering some additional factors that it said
could influence total costs. In particular, chang-
es in SO
2
and NO
x
emissions that may occur to
accommodate wind due to reduced coal burn or
coal units operating at suboptimal generating
levels were not considered.
Reevaluating Impacts
The Carnegie Mellon and PSCo studies,
among others, urge a systemwide approach
to understanding wind and solar energys
effects on emissions. These studies helped
lead researchers at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) to acknowledge
in 2012 that many efforts to assess the emis-
sions benefits of wind had failed to account
for ancillary emissions from generating units
that cycle or ramp to compensate for the re-
newable resources intermittent generation.
In a paper given at the IEEE Power and En-
ergy Society General Meeting in San Diego
last July, NREL researchers, along with ana-
lysts from Intertek-APTECH (IA), said that
regional integration studies have shown that
wind and solar may cause fossil-fueled gen-
erators to cycle on and off and ramp more
frequently. They identified increased cycling,
deeper load following, and rapid ramping as
leading to potential wear and tear on fossil-
fueled generators. They said this additional
wear and tear can lead to higher capital and
maintenance costs, higher equivalent forced
outage rates, and degraded performance over
time. Whats more, they said that heat rates
and emissions from fossil-fueled generators
may be higher during cycling and ramping
than during steady-state operation.
The conference paper concluded that the
impacts of generator cycling and part-loading
Table 1. PSCo scenario results from 2011 to 2025. The dollar values are shown
as present value. Source: Wind Induced Coal Plant Cycling Costs and the Implications of Wind
Curtailment for Public Service Company of Colorado, August 2011
Installed
wind
Cycling
protocol
Cycling cost
component ($,
million)
Curtailment cost
component ($,
million)
Total levelized
annual cost ($,
million)
Total levelized
cost ($/MWh)
2 GW Curtail 3.60 1.20 4.82 0.77
2 GW Deep cycle 5.10 0.10 5.21 0.83
3 GW Curtail 5.00 3.30 8.30 1.03
3 GW Deep cycle 8.20 0.60 8.75 1.08
March 2013
|
EMISSIONS
can be significant; however, these impacts are
modest compared with the overall benefits of
replacing fossil-fueled generation with vari-
able renewable generation.
The NREL/IA team along with GE En-
ergy built on this initial work with a second,
more comprehensive study using continuous
emissions monitoring (CEM) data obtained
from the Environmental Protection Agency to
model ramping and cycling effects across the
Western Interconnection based on a variety of
scenarios of solar and wind penetration. The
impacts of solar- and wind-induced cycling on
emissions proved to be mixed, one of the re-
ports authors told POWER in an interview.
My conclusion regarding SO
2
is there is
hardly any increase at all, since SO
2
is con-
trolled by scrubbers, said Steve Lefton, di-
rector of power plant projects at IA. He said
plant operators can control SO
2
emissions
during ramping and cycling events by bring-
ing more scrubber modules online sooner.
Lefton said that analysis of hundreds of coal-
fired units showed that SO
2
limits were ex-
ceeded only a few times and only for brief
periods of time during startup or ramping.
NO
x
emissions, by contrast, are a function
of temperature, meaning their production
likely will be higher until temperatures at the
SCR inlet reach around 500F. He character-
ized the resulting increase in NO
x
emissions
as minor and said that it takes time to raise
SCR inlet temperatures high enough to sup-
port efficient catalytic reduction.
Dr. Greg Brinkman, an NREL mechani-
cal engineer and analyst, and report coauthor
with Lefton, said that NO
x
emission rates
(in pounds per megawatt-hour) from a typi-
cal coal-fired unit would be 14% less when
operated at part load compared to operating
the unit at full load. For gas units, NO
x
emis-
sions are roughly 10% to 20% higher during
part-load operation compared to full-load
operation. NREL modeled the response of
the electric power system to renewable pen-
etration, considering part-load, startup, and
ramping emission penalties. Most emission
rates at fossil-fueled generators changed by
less than 2%, he said.
CO
2
emissions rates from the average
coal plant dont change; SO
2
, and NO
x
emis-
sions rates from average coal, gas combined
cycle, and gas combustion turbine plants
increase or decrease by up to 2%, depend-
ing on plant type and the mix of wind and
solar. SO
2
emissions rates from coal plants
increased or decreased depending on the mix
of wind and solar. Viewed from the perspec-
tive of avoided emissions, CO
2
, SO
2
, and NO
x
benefits from wind and solar were all within
5% of what we expected based on the typical
emission rates of the displaced generators,
Brinkman said.
Effects on Maintenance Costs
Although any change in emissions appears to
be relatively minor, the same cannot be said
for maintenance costs due to ramping and
cycling.
From all reports, Id say weve either
been spot on or under-projecting cycling-re-
lated damage that results from fossil-fueled
units following intermittent renewable sourc-
es, said Lefton. Yes, wind is a great thing,
but its not free.
Turbine blade damage and generator fail-
ures were linked to ramping. These findings
came after Lefton and his team analyzed
some 400 data sets that included long-term
operating and maintenance costs and cycling
data. The findings showed that even combus-
tion turbines and reciprocating engines de-
signed for quick starts, ramping, and cycling
showed higher maintenance costs, elevated
numbers of forced outages, and increasing
numbers of generator failures.
Generator failures used to be rare, but
now they rank third in insurance claims filed
for combined cycle machines, Lefton said.
He noted higher incidences of heat recovery
steam generator tube failures as well as more
frequent turbine overhauls. Other maintenance
issues linked to cycling include thermal barrier
coatings that spall off, leaving the base metal
exposed and vulnerable to cracking.
Dr. Debra Lew, an analyst with NREL and
coauthor of the report, said while coal units
cost the most to start up, gas-fired combustion
turbines appear to be the most susceptible to
higher maintenance costs as a result of ramp-
ing and cycling caused by wind and solar
penetration because these units are started the
most often. She said that wear and tear as a
result of cycling to follow renewable energy
may increase operations and maintenance
costs for all types of fossil generation by $35
million to $157 million a year across the West-
ern Interconnection, as shown in Table 2, for
wind and solar penetrations up to 33%.
Last November, Lefton and several of
his colleagues at IA presented a paper, The
Increased Cost of Cycling Operations at
Combined Cycle Power Plants, at the Inter-
national Conference on Cyclic Operation of
Power Plants & CCGT. The paper reported
that higher penetration of renewables on the
North American grid is increasing the num-
ber of on-off and load-cycling operations,
which the authors said will increase the need
for spinning reserve megawatts, their costs,
and the startup charges for putting combined
cycle plants online.
The desire for faster online times increas-
es the severity of damage during gas turbine
starts and is increasing thermal transients
with more rapid gas turbine acceleration
and higher mass gas flows at higher exhaust
temperatures that reach heat recovery steam
generators (HRSGs). The paper said these
factors affect the gas turbine and the HRSGs,
as well as the balance of plant and water
chemistry, ultimately reducing overall plant
reliability. The average starts on these gas
turbines/combined cycle units are increas-
ing, and run times are generally decreasing.
Though capacity factors may be decreasing,
production costs will likely rise significantly
due to cycling operations. The paper sug-
gested that cost estimates made by industry
often underestimate by a large margin the ac-
tual costs that cycling operations can incur,
as shown in Table 3.
Wind Farm Life Expectancy
Wind farm life expectancy also may reduce cal-
culated environmental benefits and increase the
Scenario
Cycling and
ramping costs
Increased cycling and ramping
caused by renewables
Increase in cycling and ramping
cost compared to no renewables
No renewables $271$643 million NA NA
High wind $321$769 million $50$126 million 18%20%
High mix $306$738 million $35$95 million 13%15%
High solar $324$800 million $53$157 million 20%24%
Table 2. Renewables increase cycling and ramping costs. Source: NREL
Unit type
Typical industry value (without
consideration of true costs) Potential range of total costs
Small drum $5,000 $3,000$100,000
Large supercritical $10,000 $15,000$500,000
GT simple cycle $100 $300$80,000
GT combined cycle $200 $15,000$150,000
Table 3. Estimated cycling costs are often wrong. Costs provided in this table
are per cycling event. Source: Steve Lefton, et al.
|
March 2013 66
EMISSIONS
total investment needed to achieve environmen-
tal goals, particularly in the UK and Europe.
A December 2012 report, published by the
UK-based Renewable Energy Foundation and
written by Gordon Hughes of the University
of Edinburgh, scrutinized wind farm lifecycle
emission benefits. The foundation in the past
has criticized the UK governments Renewables
Obligation policy, saying the subsidy distorts
markets as well as the generation mix.
The Hughes study examined wind farm
performance in the UK and Denmark and con-
cluded that, after allowing for variations in wind
speed and site characteristics, the average load
factor of wind farms declines as they age, prob-
ably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age,
the contribution of an average UK wind farm
to meeting electricity demand was said to have
fallen by as much as one-third.
The report said this performance decline
means that it is rarely economic to operate
wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years.
Investors who expect a return on their in-
vestment over 20 to 25 years will be dis-
appointed, the report said. Whats more,
policymakers who expected wind farms built
before 2010 to contribute toward CO
2
targets
in 2020 or later should allow for the possibil-
ity that the total investment required to meet
those targets will be much larger than previ-
ous forecasts suggested.
The study based its findings on data reflect-
ing the monthly output of wind farms in the
UK and Denmark. Normalized age-perfor-
mance curves were estimated using statistical
techniques that allowed for differences be-
tween sites and over time in wind resources,
and other factors. The normalized load factor
for UK onshore wind farms was found to de-
cline from a peak of about 24% at age one to
15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline
in the normalized load factor for Danish on-
shore wind farms showed a fall from a peak
of 22% to 18% at age 15. For offshore Danish
wind farms, the normalized load factor was
shown to fall from 39% at the start of com-
mercial operation to 15% at age 10.
Hughes said that the reasons for the ob-
served declines in normalized load factors
could not be fully assessed using the data
available, but he speculated that outages due
to mechanical breakdowns appeared to be a
contributing factor.
Hughes said that analysis of site-specific per-
formance showed that the average normalized
load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at
age one declined significantly between 2000
and 2011. In addition, he found that larger wind
farms had worse performance than smaller wind
farms. Adjusted for age and wind availability,
the overall performance of wind farms in the
UK has deteriorated markedly since the be-
ginning of the century, he found.
According to Hughes, these findings have
implications for policy toward wind generation
in the UK. First, they suggest that the current
government subsidy is extremely generous
if investment in new wind farms remains prof-
itable despite the decline in performance due
to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK
governments targets for wind generation will
require a much higher level of wind capacity
and capital investment than current projections
imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered
to wind generators may require modifications,
because few wind farms will operate for more
than 12 to 15 years.
In releasing the report, the Renewable En-
ergy Foundation said that policymakers who
were expecting wind farms built before 2010
to contribute toward CO
2
targets in 2020 or
later must allow for the likelihood that the
total investment required to meet these tar-
gets will be much larger than previous fore-
casts suggested.
David Wagman is executive editor
of POWER.
For more information, call Wrights Media
at 877.652.5295 or visit our website at
www.wrightsmedia.com
Leverage branded content from POWER magazine to create a more
powerful and sophisticated statement about your product, service,
or company in your next marketing campaign.
Contact Wrights Media to nd out how we can customize your
acknowledgements and recognitions to enhance your companys
marketing strategies.
Content Licensing for
Every Marketing Strategy
Marketing solutions t for:
Outdoor
Direct Mail
Print Advertising
Tradeshow/POP Displays
Social Media
Radio & Television

Logo Licensing | Reprints | Eprints | Plaques
March 2013
|
PLANT DESIGN
Steam Turbine Blade Reverse
Engineering, Upgrade, and
Structural Design
Steam turbine blade cracking often suggests the need for an upgraded blade
design. Follow the process of reversing engineering a failed blade to pro-
duce a more reliable and efficient design.
By Eugene A. Chisley, PhD, PE and Eric Prescott, Alstom Thermal Services
B
lade reverse engineering is widely
recognized as a crucial step in the
product design cycle. Blade surface
reconstruction is an iterative process to de-
velop mathematical models from existing
physical objects for finite-element analysis
(FEA), computational fluid dynamics, and
rapid prototyping in order to reduce product
design lead time.
In this process, precise data point mea-
surement is important to create a valid shape.
Due to the complexity of blade shape, the re-
sultant model geometry change can lead to a
large alteration in turbine performance (see
sidebar). Therefore, blade shape control is
critical in the design process. In essence, the
blade is a complex cantilever beam, and gen-
erating an accurate simulation result makes
turbine blade analysis challenging.
Finite-element analysis is the accepted
tool for turbine blade structural analysis.
Both the model development upgrades and
analysis will be discussed.
Turbine Blade Design Fundamentals
Turbine blade design involves blade solid
model development, thermo-aerodynam-
ics, and structural mechanics disciplines.
The process of reverse engineering begins
with determining the function of the ma-
chine part (referred to as capturing design
intent). The accuracy of reverse engineer-
ing is limited by the applied measurement
and computer-aided modeling techniques.
A few of the major limitations are wear of
the part; numerical, sensing, and approxi-
mation errors; and manufacturing meth-
ods. In order to ensure and enhance blade
efficiency, optimizing the shape design of
rotating and stationary blades is essential.
The necessary steps for turbine blade re-
verse engineering are similar to those used
in a new-product development practice
(Figure 1).
The process for steam turbine blade design
from concept to actual product is an iterative
one that includes computer-aided design
(CAD) models, including blade surface for
computer-aided manufacturing, FEAand,
if necessary, computational fluidized dy-
namics; reliability performance analysis;
and design modification. The following case
study presents an industrial application of an
integrated reverse engineering approach to
turbine blade design. The study describes a
developed engineering approach to designing
and upgrading a steam turbine blade from an
existing part.
Data Point, Surface, and Cross-
Section Generation
Turbine blades present challenges to manu-
facturers to produce and maintain the blades
complex free-form surfaces and seemingly
convoluted shapes. Contact measuring devic-
es cannot gather enough data points to cre-
ate an accurate surface profile of the airfoils
irregular shape. Laser scanning is the best
measurement method to capture the turbine
blades entire complex features. After scan-
ning the blade from multiple perspectives,
the points of cloud data are rotated into the
same reference frame and assembled into an
exact 360-degree, 3-D model of the scanned
part.
The data points for this case study were
edited using Geomagic Studio software.
Following that, the blades entire 3-D sur-
face was generated in the same environ-
ment. A perfect CAD model is necessary
for machining and FEA because turbine
blades must be highly consistent in shape,
1. Process steps. Schematic of the blade model development process. Source: Alstom
Thermal Services
Laser scan of the blade Hard gauge measurement
Blade reverse engineering
Input sample blade
CMM profile & general data
Airfoil model generation Blade root design
Assemble blade model by links
(base, blade, tenon)
Blade manufacturing
Quality check
Blade finite element analysis
Yes
No
|
March 2013 68
PLANT DESIGN
weight, and geometry in order to avoid vi-
bration and other performance-impeding
characteristics. The entire CAD model
can be compared with the original part to
ensure the models quality. The inspection
for this case study was performed with
Geomagic Qualify engineering software.
Inspection of the model and the original
part indicated very good agreement (~0.1
mm).
Tenon Inspection, Analysis, and
Installation
Quality inspection of the turbine shaft as-
sembly extends to the wheel steeple and the
blade in order to collect information about
the parts structural integrity and to draw a
conclusion about the repair process, which
can include actual repair or redesign. In
this case, nondestructive testing (NDT) of
the blades tenon revealed that a crack had
initiated at the root of the tenon radius area
(Figure 2).
The crack in the area of the tenon root
at the base of the existing blade probably
was caused by an improper size root radius,
which could initiate cracking after the rivet-
ing process. The cracks appear to propagate
after every cycle of the turbine operation se-
quence. Analysis was needed to determine
the crack initiation mechanism at the root of
the tenon.
A 2-D FEA indicated a distortion at the
tenon root radius area after peening, as
shown in Figure 3. Peening the tenon in-
volves deliberate plastic deformation, mak-
ing it easy to understand the importance of
high ductility in the blade material.
Low ductility may create serious prob-
lems during the peening process, including
cracks and even fractures in the tenons. The
most critical process is riveting the tenon
to deform it into the classic river shape
as part of the shroud attachment process;
without this step, the tenon could not be
attached. Clearly, correct assembly of the
shroud band segments and riveting of the
tenons are critical to long-term reliability.
The accepted refurbishment technique for
blade tenon assembly is to reattach or rese-
cure the cover band. Weld repair for blades
where the crack was detected is one tech-
nique that was applied for purposes of this
case study. Additional use of under-cover-
band brazing further increased security of the
attachment.
Alstoms Long Turbine Blade
Alstom introduced its LP75 Last Stage Blade1 (LSB) last November
for nuclear steam turbines. Alstom claims this 75-inch blade is
the longest in the world and its exhaust area of 58 square meters
is the largest of any on the market. Designed for use in the low-
pressure section of Alstoms Arabelle nuclear steam turbine, the
LP75 builds on Alstoms existing LP69 turbine blade to improve
performance and achieve the best possible efficiency from nuclear
steam turbines (Figure 4).
The LP75 provides a reduction of one-fifth in exhaust losses
compared with the existing LP69. This means that energy waste is
minimized while electrical output can be maximized. Depending on
project-specific conditions, an output gain of 10 MW is expected.
With this new blade, the Arabelle LSB line now offers three sizes
(LP57, LP69, and LP75) and greater flexibility in plant design.
Featuring the same welded rotor technology and lightweight LSB
design of those earlier models, the LP75 also uses similar manu-
facturing processes and shares many parts, the result of a progres-
sive product evolution.
4. Longest in the world. Alstom claims that the 75-inch-long
last stage blade on its Arabelle nuclear steam turbine is the lon-
gest in the world. The Arabelle steam turbine currently powers six
nuclear units and is under various stages of construction in another
18 units in four countries. Courtesy: Alstom
2. Tenon crack. Comparison of the origi-
nal part with the developed model revealed a
crack that began at the root of the tenon ra-
dius area. The areas with the highest stress
are shown in red. The three figures on the
right represent the blade cross-section near
the root, mid-section, and tip. Source: Alstom
Thermal Services
3. Distortion revealed. 2-D ANSYS
model of the blade tenon after peening. The
lower graphic indicates some distortion of
the root radius after peening. Source: Alstom
Thermal Services
March 2013
|
PLANT DESIGN
Shaft Steeple Inspection and
Redesign
NDT of the steeple revealed that a crack initi-
ated at the root of the steeple hooks radius
areas and appeared in every hook. In order
to modify the stress field at the cracked area
of the steeple hooks, a fir tree steeple con-
figuration was proposed at the joint between
the turbine blade and the disk. This joint rep-
resents the most critical load path within that
assembly. A fir tree hook blade configuration
has been commonly implemented in turbines
because this design can accommodate mul-
tiple areas of contact over large contact loads.
Figure 5 displays the proposed fir tree blade-
steeple configuration as a possible repair so-
lution. The new blade base design is shown
in Figure 6.
Design of the fir tree geometry was car-
ried out using a commercially available CAD
package. The model was defined parametri-
cally in order to incorporate changes through-
out the design optimization process. Every
step of the modeling process was checked
to make sure an adequate geometry could be
produced; otherwise, a geometry failure was
a signal to the optimizer to cancel or modify
the model and the analysis. The blade root
and the disk-steeple geometry were defined
in the same way as the basic tooth, with fur-
ther parameters and rules needed.
Because the fir tree steeple cross-sectional
geometry is constant along the root center
line, it is possible to assume that stress is
present in two dimensions, although the load
is actually in three dimensions. Nonetheless,
it is still possible to assume that each section
behaves essentially as a 2-D axial-symmetric
problem with different loading applied on the
hooks.
In order to verify the feasibility of the
fir tree configuration, comprehensive 2-D
axial-symmetric (steeple) and 3-D (blade)
FEAs were executed on the original and the
updated fir tree region of the blade disk as-
sembly. Two main goals of these analyses
were to create a geometric feature capable
of fitting into the existing steeple domain (in
other words, the part can be machined into
the existing straight hook geometry) and to
decrease significantly the notch stress con-
centration in order to increase the structures
low cycle fatigue life.
A 2-D finite element model was de-
veloped using commercial ANSYS code,
and axial-symmetric boundary conditions
were applied. High mesh density was used
throughout the interface region where a steep
5. Proposed configuration. Schemat-
ic of the proposed fir tree configuration and of
the original part comparison. Source: Alstom
Thermal Services
6. New blade base design. The de-
sign of the proposed fir tree base of the blade.
Source: Alstom Thermal Services
|
March 2013 70
PLANT DESIGN
gradient in stress and strain was expected.
The 2-D models were meshed with eight-
node quadrilateral elements that provided a
much better solution. The results of the FEA
indicated that the peak stresses at the notch
areas were reduced significantly using the fir
tree root configuration.
With the aim of ensuring accuracy of the
finite-element model solution, a 3-D blade
model was developed. The turbine stage was
made up of 20 pieces of seven-pack blade
assemblies. To obtain an accurate finite-ele-
ment model solution, it was crucial to recre-
ate real working conditions, especially when
modeling a part of a large assembly. A cyclic
boundary condition was applied to the model
to analyze the entire stage, and frictional con-
tact elements were installed (with a friction
factor = 0.15) between the blade-steeple in-
terface surfaces. The model was meshed with
10-node tetrahedron elements, where the
contacting surfaces and the hook radius areas
were refined to increase accuracy. All mod-
els were subjected to centrifugal loading by
allowing the disk and the attached blades to
rotate with a specific angular velocity. In this
study, the angular velocity was 3,600 revolu-
tions per minute.
The equivalent stress distribution of the
base line and the fir tree blade hooks is
shown in Figures 7 and 8. The results in-
dicate that by applying fir tree root con-
figuration, the overall stress level is reduced
significantly. It can be seen that reduction in
the maximum notch stress on the order of
25% can be achieved for fir tree root design,
and the low cycle fatigue life is increased
proportionally.
In multistage turbomachinery, the interac-
tion between the nozzles and the blades gen-
erates an excitation force on the blades, which
comes from the wake of the upstream/down-
stream nozzles. The fundamental frequency
of the excitation force due to the interaction
between the nozzle and the blade is the ro-
tor speed multiplied by the nozzle count. If
the blades natural frequency coincides with
the frequency of the excitation forces, the re-
sultant stress may cause blade failure due to
high-cycle fatigue.
Modal analysis is a powerful tool to as-
sist in identifying and eliminating this fa-
tigue problem. In this study, FEA was used
to investigate turbine blade responses under
running conditions. Finite-element modeling
can be used to predict vibratory natural fre-
quencies and mode shapes. The rotor speed
at which significant forced vibration may oc-
cur is predicted with frequency speed. The
natural frequency of each blade vibration
mode predicted by modeling and the forc-
ing frequencies as the function of the rotor
speed can be displayed on a single graph.
The intersection of the curves generated by
this analysis indicated the integral order reso-
nance points at which the possible vibratory
stresses exist.
Eugene A. Chisley, PhD, PE,
and Eric Prescott are with Alstom
Thermal Services.
7. Reducing stress. The base line blade
hooks equivalent stress distribution is illus-
trated. Areas in red represent the presence
of very high stresses during operation and
where the cracks occurred in the root radius.
Source: Alstom Thermal Services
8. Improving fatigue life. The fir tree
blade hooks equivalent stress distribution
has been significantly reduced with the new
attachment design. Source: Alstom Thermal
Services
torque isnt tight (what?)
tension is!
Structural Bolting 101:
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
F
I
E
L
D
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
E
X
P
E
R
T
I
S
E
info@appliedbolting.com
www.appliedbolting.com
See why torque isnt tight!
Scan with smartphone.
1 800 552 1999
the best way to bolt!
to ensure proper bolt tension.
use S qu i r t e r D T I s *
*USAs only Quenched and Tempered DTIs per ASTM, RCSC and the Fastener Quality Act.
Modal analysis is
a powerful tool to
assist in identifying
and eliminating this
fatigue problem.
March 2013
|
NEW PRODUCTS
TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
Quick-Release Mount for Fire Extinguishers
A new modular and durable quick-release mount for popular re-extinguisher
sizes is now available from Off-Road Solutions (ORS). The system uses two
pieces of 6061-T6 billet aluminum: one attaches to the extinguisher
while the other piece secures to a xed object. The 3/16-inch
hinge pin and 3/8-inch quick-release pull pin with detent ball
are made from stainless
steel. Pulling the release
pinwhich comes with a
6-inch nylon rip cord
and is tethered by a 6-inch
nylon-coated lanyardallows
the ORS mount to swivel apart
for fast re extinguisher
removal. The mount also
adapts easily to shovels,
ashlights, and other
tools. The ORS Quick
Release Mount is universal.
It ts popular re extinguisher sizes
with user-supplied mounting hardware
such as hose clamps, nylon motorcycle
straps, or heavy-duty cable ties. ORS
offers optional hose clamps as well as
upgraded billet clamps for 2.5-pound
extinguishers and 1.75-inch rollbar
tubing. (www.quickreleasemount.com)
Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.
New HRSG Line for
100-MW Gas Turbines
ATCO Emissions Management (ATCO)
announced the addition of heat
recovery steam generators (HRSGs)
to its line of gas turbine auxiliary
equipment for the power, oil, gas,
and cogeneration markets. The new
HRSG product, an energy recovery
heat exchanger that recovers heat
from a hot gas stream, will initially
serve facilities with gas turbines
up to 100 MW. The companys
nitrogen oxide and noise reduction
technologies with heat recovery have
enabled it to offer all acoustic, air
emissions, and heat recovery scope
on gas turbine projects, it says.
Each HRSG is custom-designed in
Minneapolis, then fabricated in OEM-
approved manufacturing facilities
around the globe. (www.atcoem.com)
EPA-Compliant Particulate Monitor
Filtersenses new continuous particulate emissions monitor and baghouse leak
detector incorporates Automatic Zero and Span Checks to eliminate manual
calibration audits, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and other regulations
for fabric lter particulate emissions monitoring. In addition to internal self-checks,
the companys eld-proven induction-sensing and protected-probe technologies may
also provide enhanced reliability over older opacity and triboelectic technologies,
particularly in difcult applications such as coal, steel, and cement spray dryers.
Benets include EPA compliance, eliminating cleanup costs, preventing the escape
of valuable powders, and protecting downstream equipment such as blowers and
HEPA lters. (www.ltersense.com)
|
March 2013 72
Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance,
Project Engineering and Project Management,
Business and Project Development,
First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions.
Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:
POWER PROFESSIONALS
P.O. Box 87875
Vancouver, WA 98687-7875
email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com
(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292
www.powerindustrycareers.com
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
READER SERVICE NUMBER 202
CAREERS IN POWER
NAES Corporation is a leading provider of
3rd party O&M services to the Independent
Power Industry. As we continue to grow, we
have constant needs for power professionals
across the nation.
For more info, log onto:
www.naes.com/careers
GAS TURBINES FOR SALE
LM6000
FRAME 9E
FRAME 5
50/60Hz, nat gas or liq fuel,
installation and service available
Available for Immediate Shipment
Tel: +1 281.227.5687
Fax: +1 281.227.5698
John.clifford@woodgroup.com
Coal power plant technology reduces parasitic load.Creates additional
available power with no additional coal required.Proven in operating plant
conditions. Sound patent position. Interested parties reply to:

Global Licensing Opportunity
P.O. Box 621
West Chester, Ohio 45071 or
globallicensingopportunity@yahoo.com
|
March 2013 72
NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK
Copper Power to 69KV; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor
Underground UD-P & URD, Substation Control Shielded
and Non-shielded, Interlock Armor to 35KV, Thermocouple
BASIC WIRE & CABLE
Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292
E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com
WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com
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 t.
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
OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD
Turbine Controls
Woodward, GE, MHC
Parts and Service
TurboGen (610) 631-3480
info@turbogen.net
READER SERVICE NUMBER 204 READER SERVICE NUMBER 205
John R.Robinson Inc.
Ph# 800-726-1026
Condenser &
Heat Exchanger Tools
www.johnrrobinsoninc.com
CLEAN CONDENSER TUBES IN SECONDS
GC11 TUBE CLEANING GUN & CLEANERS
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
FOR SALE/RENT
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090
POWER
EQUIPMENT CO. wabash
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
Ofce 1-800-286-6069
Ofce (281) 359-4006
PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com
Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.
Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems
BoilerCleaningDoctor.com
PRODUCT Showcase
Protects from live parts
Keeps NFPA 70E HRC=0
meltric.com
800.433.7642
SAFETY
SHUTTER
(on receptacle)
SAFETY
PLUGS
PROTECT FROM ARC FLASH
OFF BUTTON
Safely breaks load
UL Switch-Rated
Rated up
to 200A
600V
March 2013
|
Model A100
Plug Resistant
Orifice for critical
drain lines
CU Services LLC
725 Parkview Cir,
Elk Grove Vlg, Il 60007
Phone 847-439-2303
rcronfel@cuservices.net
www.cuservices.net
When a plugged
drain line would
mean disaster...
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
CONTACT: Diane Hammes
PHONE 512-250-9555 FAX 512-213-4855 dianeh@powermag.com
To Advertise in POWER Classieds
The Sourcebook for Competitive Powerplant Management
Order your copy online at www.powermag.com/powerpress or call 888-707-5808
This manual covers all aspects of the business, from the startup of
a plant, to safety issues, day-to-day operations, keeping it protable,
leadership principles, stang solutions and more. The Sourcebook for
Competitive Powerplant Management will quickly become your number
one go-to industry resource.
Table of Contents:
Section 1: The Need for Change
Section 2: Operating the Plant - Thriving Through Initial Startup
Section 3: O&M Fundamentals
Section 4: Prot-Centered Maintenance
Section 5: Safety & Environmental
Section 6: Business Management
Section 7: Leaders in the Powerplant - Critical Leadership Principals
Epilogue: Stepping into the Ring
Appendices
Appendix A: Professional Organizations
Appendix B: Licensing Requirements for Steam-Plant Operations
Appendix C: Glossary of Abbreviations
Available in a PDF format. 355 pages.
|
March 2013 74
Regardless of the surface, MoleMaster
has a media blasting solution for:
From Abrasive Blasting using a wide variety
of media to low-abrasive Dry Ice Blasting,
MoleMaster does it all safely and eficiently!
www.molemaster.com
Toll Free: 800.322.6653 Fax: 740.374.5908
info@molemaster.com
Media Blasting Services
Cleaning surfaces
Sanitizing surfaces
Preparing surfaces for painting
Routine cleaning or to remove smoke
and other surface stains
READER SERVICE NUMBER 214 READER SERVICE NUMBER 215 READER SERVICE NUMBER 216
March 2013
|
Technol ogi es f or coal - f i r ed power pl ant s ar e evol vi ng rapi dl y, and
COAL POWER has evol ved t oo. I n i t s l at est onl i ne f or mat you get
ever yt hi ng you val ued i n pr i nt and so much mor e:
Access t o COAL POWER wher ever you can use a br owser.
Techni cal ar t i cl es, coal power news, bl ogs, opi ni on, and i nf or mat i on.
Easy r et r i eval of ar chi ved COAL POWER f eat ur es.
I nst ant access t o our adver t i ser s f or mor e i nf or mat i on about t hei r pr oduct s.
The abi l i t y t o comment on st or i es and shar e your knowl edge wi t h t he
coal - bur ni ng power pl ant communi t y.
J ob boar d.
Subscr i be t oday f or e- mai l al er t s when each new i ssue i s post ed.
e- mai l : subscr i be@coal power mag. com
Then vi si t t he onl i ne home of COAL POWERwww. coal power mag. com
From the edi tors of POWER: The onl i ne magazi ne devoted to
the coal -fi red power generati on i ndustry
POWER
CP ad_7x4.875.indd 1 5/13/10 2:00:00 PM
Advertisers index
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Abresist Kalenborn 21 14
www.abresist.com
Applied Bolting 70 22
www.appliedbolting.com
Baldor electric 17 11
www.baldor.com
Beumer 19 13
www.beumer.com
Brand energy 9 6
www.beis.com
Burns & Mcdonnell 23 15
www.burnsmcd.com
Carver Pump 29 17
www.carverpump.com
exxon/Mobil 13 8
www.exxonmobil.com
Foster Wheeler Cover 4 23
www.fwc.com
Hytorc inc 11 7
www.hytorc.com
insituform 1 2
www.insituform.com
Martin engineering 43 20
www.martin-eng.com
nol-tec systems 14 9
www.nol-tec.com
Orion instruments Cover 3 24
www.orioninstruments.com
Paharpur 27 16
www.paharpur.com
Pentair valves & Controls 7 5
www.pentair.com
Phillips 66 3 3
www.phillips66lubricants.com
Power industrial 5 4
www.piburners.com
sealeze 18 12
www.sealeze.com
sturtevant 34 18
www.sturtevantinc.com
teAM industrial servce 15 10
www.teaminc.com
victory energy 35 19
www.victoryenergy.com
Westinghouse Cover 2 1
www.westinghousenuclear.com
Page
Reader
Service
Number
ClAssiFied Advertising
Pages 72-74 to place a classified ad, contact diane Hammes,
512-250-9555, dianeh@powermagcom
Page
Reader
Service
Number
14_PWR_030113_Classified_p72-75.indd 75 2/13/13 7:07:35 PM
|
March 2013 76
COMMENTARY
Biogas: An Alternative
Energy Source
By Sarah K. Walls
M
ost professionals in the energy industry know about bio-
mass; fewer of us are conversant with biogas. This com-
mentary explains the basics of biogas, with a focus on its
current use and future potential as a source of electrical power.
What Is Biogas?
Biogas is produced from anaerobic digestion of biodegradable or-
ganic matter, or biomass. Bacteria present in, or added to, the
biomass ferments it anaerobically (without oxygen), through bio-
chemical reactions. The constituents of biogas include methane
(60% to 80%), carbon dioxide (20% to 40%), and trace amounts
of hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, and other impurities. Cleaning to
remove impurities and moisture is necessary before biogas can
be used as an energy source for certain alternatives, such as
compressed natural gas. This purification is known as upgrad-
ing the biogas. Rendering biogas to be at least 98% methane
produces a product known as biomethane. Biomethane per-
forms identically to conventional fossil fuel natural gas, with all
the same benefits and uses, and is one of the cleanest and most
efficient alternative energy sources.
Major sources of biogas include municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, industrial waste treatment facilities, landfills, and
agricultural sources such as manure and energy crops. In the past,
such facilities used anaerobic digestion for stabilization, pathogen
reduction, and volume reduction of wastes prior to disposal or
land application. In many cases, biogas was simply flared.
Biogas now is developing into a significant alternative energy
source. Using biogas to produce electricity satisfies several regu-
latory concerns at once. Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced,
because the release of methane is prevented; green and renew-
able energy is produced; volumes of waste requiring storage and
disposal are reduced.
Uses of Biomethane
Advantageous uses of biomethane include combined heat and
power (CHP), boiler fuel, and injection into natural gas pipe-
lines, along with use of compressed biomethane and liquefied
biomethane for vehicle fuels. CHP systems, which produce both
mechanical and thermal energy, can use biogas to produce elec-
tricity. The electricity produced can be used on-site, which reduces
the facilitys electrical costs, or fed into mainstream power grids.
CHP uses for biogas include internal combustion engines, combus-
tion gas turbines, microturbines, fuel cells, and steam turbines.
In other countries, especially in Europe, where the cost of
electricity is much higher than in the U.S., anaerobic digestion
for biogas production is used widely. Anaerobic digestion facili-
ties utilizing energy crops, such as corn, are already built or
in progress in Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, and Denmark.
These facilities produce biogas, whereas in the U.S., energy crops
are being used for production of fuel alcohol or ethanol. The
production of biogas from energy crops is much more energy-
efficient than the production of ethanol: For the same quantity
of energy crop converted to alternative energy, the net energy
value produced is greater with biogas.
The Kyoto Protocol has pushed other countries to establish
renewable energy targets and promote development of renew-
able energy technologies. Germany was the first nation to enact
feed-in-tariff (FIT) laws promoting biogas. The FIT legislation
requires utilities to buy the electricity produced by biogas gen-
erators. Even German farmers can generate electricity from bio-
gas and sell it to the grid.
Slow Start in the U.S.
Certain barriers have prevented broader use of biogas in the U.S.
These barriers include less-than-favorable economics, lack of
capital, technical complications, and air permitting delays. How-
ever, while the up-front capital investment necessary is high,
benefits over the entire life cycle can exceed the initial costs.
The Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility in Fort Worth,
Texas, is a prime example of using biogas to produce electricity.
This cutting-edge municipal facility uses low-Btu methane bio-
gas generated as a by-product of its anaerobic sludge digesters,
six of which have been upgraded to take in high-strength liquid
industrial wastes to supplement biogas production. The raw, un-
treated biogas, combined with biogas contributed by a nearby
landfill, passes through a dehydrator prior to being burned as
fuel in two 5.2-MW combustion turbines. The waste heat from
the engines is combined with additional biogas in a duct burner
to fire boilers, which produce steam. The steam is used to oper-
ate two steam turbines that operate two of the 1,000-horsepow-
er blowers, which provide aeration for the activated biological
treatment part of the facility. Once all units are operating, the
facility will produce more biogas than is needed for its own op-
eration and will have additional electricity to sell to the grid or
trade for uses at other facilities.
Bright Future in the U.S.
The future of biogas in the U.S. will depend to a large extent
upon the price of natural gas. Last year, President Obamas Ex-
ecutive Order 13624 recognized the barriers that have led to
under-investment in CHP and directed certain agencies and ex-
ecutive departments to convene stakeholders with the goal of
accelerating investment in industrial energy efficiency, and in
CHP in particular. A national goal was set of 40 GW of new, cost-
effective CHP by the end of 2020a 50% increase from today.
Biogas has much potential, and there has never been a better
time for owners, state and federal government leaders, lenders, and
utilities to work together to accomplish this challenging goal.
Sarah K. Walls (swalls@canteyhanger.com) is a partner with
Cantey Hanger LLP.
EXPERIENCE MATTERS. WlLh Lhousands of lnsLallauons across Lhe globe ln some of Lhe world's LoughesL
condluons and appllcauons, Crlon lnsLrumenLs proves dally LhaL we are Lhe leadlng suppller of magneuc
level lndlcauon. ConLacL us Loday Lo nd ouL how we can apply C8lCn lnS18uMLn1S Lechnology Lo help
solve your level appllcauons.
- POWER - 8enlng - Chemlcal - ulp & aper
- Cll & Cas Lxplorauon & roducuon - MlllLary - WasLewaLer
www.orlonlnsLrumenLs.com - 2103 Cak vllla 8oulevard - 8aLon 8ouge, Loulslana - 70813 - 866-33-C8lCn - 223-906-2343 - f: 223-906-2344
Crlon lnsLrumenLs, MagneLrol, Aurora, and !uplLer are reglsLered Lrademarks of MagneLrol lnLernauonal. ALlas and 8eveal are Lrademarks of MagneLrol lnLernauonal.
Schedule a vlslL Lo our manufacLurlng faclllLy
ISO 9001
Advanced MLl wlLh
lnLegraLed Culded Wave
8adar level Lransmluer.
8aslc, hlgh-performance
MLl sulLable for a varleLy
of appllcauons.
leaL ur l ng
wl de l ndl caLor
paLenL pendlng
MagneLosLrlcuve Level
1ransmluer
Whats your
of conidence?
#1 Magnetic Level Indicator
#1 Magnetostrictive Level Transmitter
Reliablycapturesthemostparticulates,acidgases,
Usestheleastamountofwater,powerandspace
Usestheleastamountofyourcapitalandoperatingbudget
Canberetrofittedtoanyboilertype
*As of Oct ober 2012, accordi ng t o Ener gy I nf r ast r uct ure Updat e repor t f rom t he Feder al Ener gy Regul at or y Commi ssi ons Of f i ce of Ener gy Proj ect s
The proof i s t he number s - 46% of new el ect r i cal gener at i ng
capaci t y i n t he U. S. i s f rom renewabl e sources.
Pl an now to attend the onl y al l -renewabl es event RETECH.
www. RETECH2013.com
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Regional Haze ...
Whats Next?
With an unpredictable path forward for US air regulation,
flexible compliance strategies are taking on a new meaning.
Foster Wheelers circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) scrubber
technology is about as flexible as you can get:
Reliablycapturesthemostparticulates,acidgases,
heavy metals and organic compounds
Usestheleastamountofwater,powerandspace
Usestheleastamountofyourcapitalandoperatingbudget
Canberetrofittedtoanyboilertype
Please visit us at www.fwc.com/GlobalPowerGroup.
The most flexible pollution control
technology on the market:
CFB Scrubber Technology
by Foster Wheeler

March 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol. 157 No.

Turbine Oil is a clear winner, proven to resist varnish

Power & Industrial Services

CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD

Achieving Zero Liquid Discharge

Mill is designed for

cost less because they use up to 40%

Transfer Point System

Gas Power Systems

Radio & Television

You might also like