Power - October 2013 PDF

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

V
o
l
.

1
5
7

N
o
.

1
0
Vol. 157 No. 10 October 2013

Top Plants: Five Exemplary
Coal-Fired Plants
Cofiring Gas and Coal
The Heat Is on for Carbon
Emissions
Reciprocating Engines Play
Many Roles
01_PWR_100113_cover.indd 1 9/16/13 2:55:01 PM
Your search for expertise ends
with us. We build better boilers.
Satised customers discover the power of our practical knowledge the ability to design and build
boilers that operate efciently, safely and cleanly in a variety of industrial applications, including
rening, petro-chemical and power generation. The know-how of our engineers and technicians
combined with our expanded facilities and equipment, including a new membrane panel welding
machine results in economic value and competitive advantage for you. Weve been designing
and building boilers for people who know and care since 1996.
WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5;6.indd 2 9/15/13 8:05:39 PM
October 2013
|
POWER www.powermag.com 1
ON THE COVER
Duke Energys Edwardsport integrated gasification combined cycle plant is one of this
years coal-fired Top Plant Award winners. The cover image shows one of the two gasifica-
tion towers that produce syngas, which is burned in the combustion turbines. Courtesy:
Duke Energy
COVER STORY: COAL-FIRED TOP PLANTS
28 Cliffside Steam Station Unit 6, Cliffside, North Carolina
Development of this supercritical plant entailed procuring an air permit from the
state that included a first-of-its-kind carbon mitigation plan. The new Cliffside unit
boasts some of the highest operating conditions in North America and is 23% more
efficient than the units it replaced.
32 Edwardsport Generating Station, Knox County, Indiana
Despite a torturous path to completion that included cost overruns more often as-
sociated with nuclear plants, Duke Energys integrated gasification combined cycle
plant is a milestone in the development of next-generation coal power technology.
The plants emissions, water use, waste generation, and gross thermal efficiency all
surpass whats possible at the best pulverized coal plant.
34 Mundra UMPP, Gujarat, India
India is going big with coal-fired capacity, and Mundra, the first of several planned
ultra-mega power projects (UMPPs), weighs in at 4 GW. The plantwhich has al-
ready won several awards for construction, design, and safety practicesalso is the
first in India to use 800-MW supercritical boiler technology.
38 Prairie State Energy Campus, Washington County, Illinois
This 1,600-MW mine-mouth plant is the largest U.S. coal-fired plant to be built in
three decades. The supercritical plants state-of-the-art emissions controls result in
emissions that are one-fifth the national average for coal-fueled plants.
40 Shentou Second Power Plant, Shuozhou City, Shanxi Province, China
A 4 x 500-MW coal plant is setting an example for China and the world with an inno-
vative process that recycles its low-grade waste heat to produce hot water for central
heating. The solution has enabled the closure of smaller, more polluting facilities in a
nation trying to provide both cleaner air and more power for its people.
SPECIAL REPORT: COAL-TO-GAS CONVERSIONS
44 Practical Considerations for Converting Boilers to Burn Gas
Refueling a boiler that originally burned coal or oil so it can burn natural gas impacts
the entire boiler gas path. Heres what you need to be aware of, from boiler modifica-
tions to emissions issues.
48 Utility Options for Leveraging Natural Gas
Owners of coal-fired power stations that wish to balance their exposure to coal-fired
generation with additional natural gasfired generation have several options to con-
sider. This article reviews the four most practical ones and offers three case studies
examining their economics.
Your search for expertise ends
with us. We build better boilers.
Satised customers discover the power of our practical knowledge the ability to design and build
boilers that operate efciently, safely and cleanly in a variety of industrial applications, including
rening, petro-chemical and power generation. The know-how of our engineers and technicians
combined with our expanded facilities and equipment, including a new membrane panel welding
machine results in economic value and competitive advantage for you. Weve been designing
and building boilers for people who know and care since 1996.
WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM
Established 1882 Vol. 157 No. 10 October 2013
32
38
40
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
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5.indd 1 9/13/13 1:04:31 PM
www.powermag.com POWER
|
October 2013 2
2001(1,000days)
2004(2,000days)
2007(3,000days)
2010(4,000days)
2013(5,000days)
What is the limit to KOMIPO?
Going far past 5,000 days of trouble-free operations
The third unit of Korea Midland Powers thermal power plant in Boryeong achieved a monumental record when it reached 5,000 days
of trouble-free operations as of September 1, 2013. This can be attributed to the companys relentless efforts to ensure only the most
advanced technologies are employed at its power plant facilities. As proven through its overseas building, owning and operating (BOO)
projectscoal-fired power plants in Cirebon and Tanjung Jati, Indonesia, a hydro power plant in Pakistan and the Siam Solar PV Plant
in ThailandKorea Midland Powers technology and experience in the construction and operation of power plants will take the company
to a new level on its way to becoming one of the leading power plant operators in the world. This historic feat of reaching 5,000 days of
trouble-free operations is only the starting point for even greater accomplishments in the future.
5,000 days
Trouble-free operations
Major Overseas Projects
Build, Own and Operate(BOO)
- Cirebon Thermal Power Plant in Indonesia(Commercial operation on July 2012)
- Siam Solar PV Plant in Thailand(Commercial operation on March 2013)
- Wampu Hydro Power Plant in Indonesia(Under construction)
- Semanka Hydro Power Plant in Indonesia(Under development)
- Boulder Solar PV Plant in U.S.(Under development)
- Lower Spat Gah Hydro Power Plant in Pakistan(under development)
- Minami-Awaji PV Plant in Japan(Under development)
Merger & Aquisition(M&A)
- Navanakorn Combined-Cycle Thermal Power Plant in Thailand(Commercial
operation on August 2013)
Operation & Maintenance(O&M)
- Tanjung Jati Thermal Power Plant in Indonesia(Commercial
operation on November 2011)
- Lebanon Combined-Cycle Thermal Power Plant(February
2006~February 2011)
Iraqi
Libya
U.S.
Indonesia
UAE
Lebanon
Pakistan
Taiwan
Vietnam
Thailand
Japan
FEATURES
EMISSIONS
62 Turning the Heat Up on Carbon Emissions
Within the past year, the likelihood of U.S. coal-fired generation being subject to
unmeetable carbon emissions rules within just three years increased significantly.
We look at the regulatory history and the limited compliance options.
68 Reducing SCR Fly Ash Accumulation with Improved Reactor Inlet
Airflow
When the staff of a Kansas plant had to clean twice the typical amount of fly ash
from the selective catalytic reduction system during an outage, they turned to com-
putational fluid dynamics flow modeling to determine the cause and correct flow
variances to the catalyst.
GAS POWER
72 Reciprocating Engines Continue to Be Flexible Workhorses
Low gas prices and flexible operating parameters are making reciprocating engines
even more widely popular for a range of applications. We look at some recent case
studies and technology improvements.
NUCLEAR POWER
76 NuScale Puts Single-Minded Focus on Small Modular Reactor
One of a handful of contenders in the emerging small modular reactor market,
NuScale has financial backing from a major engineering construction company, is
engaged in large-scale testing, and is making regulatory progress toward what it
hopes will be commercial deployment early next decade.
DEPARTMENTS
SPEAKING OF POWER
6 When Policy and Construction Timelines Diverge
GLOBAL MONITOR
8 New Measures Pit Indian Generators Against Equipment Makers
10 China Cancels 2-GW Coal Plant on Pollution Concerns
10 Japan Prepares to Float Offshore Wind Industry
12 THE BIG PICTURE: Emissions Enforcement
14 New Power-to-Gas Plant Inaugurated in Germany
15 SMR Technology Contest Gets New Player
16 POWER Digest
FOCUS ON O&M
20 Replacing Multiple Turbine and BOP Control Systems with a Single
Platform
LEGAL & REGULATORY
26 LNG Exports: Who Gets to Decide?
By Richard M. Glick, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
81 NEW PRODUCTS
COMMENTARY
88 Will Washington Finally Resolve the Nuclear Waste Dilemma?
By David Boyd and Greg White, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners
57 Power in Southeast Asia
Power in Southeast Asia: Cubs on a Growth Spurt, a sponsored report from Global
Business Reports, looks at the increasing power needs of the most consistent
growth region in the global economy. With its countries at various stages of market
liberalization, and many seeking to diversify their generation sourcesincluding
renewables, the region presents an exciting market for investment.
44
68
14
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5.indd 2 9/13/13 1:16:57 PM
2001(1,000days)
2004(2,000days)
2007(3,000days)
2010(4,000days)
2013(5,000days)
What is the limit to KOMIPO?
Going far past 5,000 days of trouble-free operations
The third unit of Korea Midland Powers thermal power plant in Boryeong achieved a monumental record when it reached 5,000 days
of trouble-free operations as of September 1, 2013. This can be attributed to the companys relentless efforts to ensure only the most
advanced technologies are employed at its power plant facilities. As proven through its overseas building, owning and operating (BOO)
projectscoal-fired power plants in Cirebon and Tanjung Jati, Indonesia, a hydro power plant in Pakistan and the Siam Solar PV Plant
in ThailandKorea Midland Powers technology and experience in the construction and operation of power plants will take the company
to a new level on its way to becoming one of the leading power plant operators in the world. This historic feat of reaching 5,000 days of
trouble-free operations is only the starting point for even greater accomplishments in the future.
5,000 days
Trouble-free operations
Major Overseas Projects
Build, Own and Operate(BOO)
- Cirebon Thermal Power Plant in Indonesia(Commercial operation on July 2012)
- Siam Solar PV Plant in Thailand(Commercial operation on March 2013)
- Wampu Hydro Power Plant in Indonesia(Under construction)
- Semanka Hydro Power Plant in Indonesia(Under development)
- Boulder Solar PV Plant in U.S.(Under development)
- Lower Spat Gah Hydro Power Plant in Pakistan(under development)
- Minami-Awaji PV Plant in Japan(Under development)
Merger & Aquisition(M&A)
- Navanakorn Combined-Cycle Thermal Power Plant in Thailand(Commercial
operation on August 2013)
Operation & Maintenance(O&M)
- Tanjung Jati Thermal Power Plant in Indonesia(Commercial
operation on November 2011)
- Lebanon Combined-Cycle Thermal Power Plant(February
2006~February 2011)
Iraqi
Libya
U.S.
Indonesia
UAE
Lebanon
Pakistan
Taiwan
Vietnam
Thailand
Japan
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5.indd 3 9/13/13 1:19:38 PM
|
October 2013 4
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION
Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
editor@powermag.com
Consulting Editor: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Gas Technology Editor: Thomas Overton, JD
Associate Editor: Sonal Patel
Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; Brandon Bell, PE; Charles Butcher, David Daniels, PE;
Steven F. Greenwald; Jeffrey P. Gray; Jim Hylko, PE; Kennedy Maize;
Dick Storm, PE
Senior Graphic Designer: Michele White
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com
Marketing Manager: Jennifer Brady
ADVERTISING SALES
Associate Publisher: 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 Burleson, 512-250-9555, dburleson@powermag.com
POWER Buyers Guide Sales
Diane Burleson, 512-250-9555, dburleson@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: Michael Grossman, 713-343-1887, mgrossman@accessintel.com
Vice President, Energy and Engineering Events: Daniel McKinnon
Energy Events Content Director: David Wagman
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, Digital Media & Design : Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko
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: IMEX Global Solutions, P.O. BOX 25542, Lon-
don, 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: For licensing and reprints of POW-
ER magazine content, please contact Wrights Media at 877-
652-5295 or niademarco@wrightsmedia.com.
Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000
Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright
2013 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5.indd 4 9/13/13 1:25:47 PM
02_PWR_100113_TOC_p1-5.indd 5 9/13/13 1:28:34 PM
|
October 2013 6
SPEAKING OF POWER
When Policy and Construction
Timelines Diverge
H
ave you ever been surprised to have
a nice gift rejected? Well, thats
what happened to the POWER team
this summer.
This spring, we chose an interesting and
diverse set of plants from around the world
to recognize as Top Plant Award winners.
However, in two cases, a plant chosen for
an award refused to be recognized. In one
case, the please dont write about us re-
quest came up front; in the other case, it
came after work on a story had started.
One was a coal plant; the other was a gas
plant. Both were in the same country. Can
you guess which one?
The chosen plants were deserving of
awards, and we could have written the
stories anyway, but we didnt want to
rub salt in their wounds. You see, in both
cases, the generating companies were
publicity shy because they had already
been burned. They had developed and
commissioned state-of-the-art facilities
with every expectation that they would
be needed and valued, only to have power
policy and markets shift so dramatically
that the now-unprofitable plants are ei-
ther offline or due to be shuttered. (If you
guessed Germany, youre right. In August,
RWE announced it would take 3,100 MW
of fossil-fueled capacity offline, E.ON had
shut down or idled 6,500 MW, and Stat-
kraft idled 1,200 MW in Germany due to
weakened demand and increased renew-
able generation.)
Even if you believe the swings in Ger-
manys energy policy over the past few
years were motivated by the best of in-
tentions, you have to acknowledge that
project developers are suffering whip-
lash. A nuclear phase-out announced in
2000 was followed by life extensions for
nuclear plants in 2010 and then a mora-
torium the following year. Meanwhile, a
strong push for renewables and against
coal was complicated when high natural
gas prices and a need to back up renew-
ables led to calls for new coal plants.
Its no wonder that exemplary new fossil
generation facilities, built with the ex-
pectation that their baseload or peaking
output would be needed (and in some
respects still is), suddenly find that
policy decisions and market forces have
squeezed them from both sides, mak-
ing them uneconomic to operate. (For
details of these policy twists, see Ger-
manys Energy Transition Experiment in
the May 2013 issue.)
Out of Synch
Germany isnt the only place where the
fate and reputation of a power plant has
changed dramatically between project
approval and commissioning. In the U.S.,
Duke Energys Edwardsport integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
plant, one of the coal-fired Top Plants
announced in this issue, has also been
bruised. Though some of the reputation-
al wounds that project experienced were
self-inflicted, the original rationale for
building the next-generation coal plant
seemed sound at the time. As Bob Pel-
tier notes in his profile of the Indiana
plant, Duke promoted IGCC technology
for Edwardsport despite its larger capital
cost, in anticipation of federal cap-and-
trade legislation. However, that carbon
regulation never materialized, which
made the plants cost escalations much
harder to stomach.
Both in Germany and Indiana, next-
generation technology projectswith ad-
mirable efficiency and optimal emissions
profileswere developed to be industry
leaders and exemplars. Although energy
policy can turn on a dime, power plant
construction projects cannot. But does
that mean the reputation of plants devel-
oped under previously supportive policy
regimes should suffer?
All Technologies Face Policy Risk
Historically, in the U.S. at least, nuclear
plant construction has faced the greatest
risk from policy vagarities and retroactive
changes in nuclear plant regulations. But
these days, virtually all generating tech-
nologies have some exposure to risk from
policy shifts. Renewable projects can be
affected by changes in feed-in tariffs or
permitting and interconnection rules.
Coal plants built with the best available
control technology can find themselves
subject to new or more stringent regu-
lations. Even gas-fired generation could
find itself hobbled if, for example, green-
house gas emissions regulations tighten
or restrictions on hydraulic fracturing
send gas prices back up.
Some might say the answer is zero
regulation and zero government policy,
but in a democracy, the public expects
elected officials to craft policy responsive
to (inevitably changeable) societal goals,
whether those are cleaner energy, cheaper
energy, or local energy. Admittedly, politi-
cians and policy wonks often fall short of
optimizing competing goals. But human
limitations dont let anyone off the hook.
The need to provide electricity for growing
populations around the globe is just one
reason we need project developers and
equipment makers to take calculated risks
in developing better technology options.
How, then, do we encourage innovation
and avoid punishing those who push tech-
nology frontiers but get stranded when
policy signals change?
Join the Conversation
If you have a practical solution to this
conundrum that you think would work in
the U.S. or another country, share your
thoughts by adding a comment to the on-
line version of this column at powermag
.com. Your comment could be featured in
our next issue.
While youre on our new mobile-opti-
mized website, notice the other ways you
can be part of the POWER community
by joining the conversation on Twitter,
Facebook, or LinkedIn; participating in a
webinar or event; discovering a solution
presented by an advertiser, a Decision
Briefs host, or a Buyers Guide listing; or
by posting or finding a job. This industry
is increasingly complex, and though we
are but a small part of it, we aim to offer
the best ways for all stakeholders to inter-
act with each other.
Gail Reitenbach, PhD is editor of
POWER. Follow her on Twitter @GailReit
and the entire editorial team
@POWERmagazine.
GEAD178-04_POWER_200x273.indd 1 9/5/13 1:37 PM
03_PWR_100113_SOP_p6-7.indd 6 9/13/13 1:33:56 PM
GEAD178-04_POWER_200x273.indd 1 9/5/13 1:37 PM
03_PWR_100113_SOP_p6-7.indd 7 9/13/13 1:34:45 PM
|
October 2013 8
New Measures Pit Indian Generators
Against Equipment Makers
Energy-hungry Indias power sector is financially hemorrhaging
due to a number of critical issues relating to the availability of
coal and gas, its loss-making state power distribution companies,
and costly delays stemming from land acquisition and permit ap-
provals. Recent measures by the government aimed at bolstering
the countrys $25 billion domestic electrical equipment sector
could make matters worse, a number of generators have said.
The Indian government in early September extended a policy
that mandates domestic sourcing of supercritical equipment by
central and state-owned generating companies like NTPC. The
Ministry of Heavy Industries has, meanwhile, been contemplat-
ing intervention to make it mandatory to force developers of
major projects (like ultra-mega power plants) to buy domestic
equipment.
Local equipment makers like Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
(BHEL), Larsen & Toubro, Thermax, and BGR Energy have ap-
plauded the moves, which they say comes at a time when fresh
orders from private power generators have dried up. But power
generators are decrying the move as anti-competitive, saying
foreign competitors enjoy more flexibility in pricingan im-
portant consideration because it limits project costs and, as a
result, electricity tariffs. In a letter to the minister of finance,
the Association of Power Producers calls instead for an enabling
environment that removes investment impediments to increase
investor confidence.
The measures possible impacts are underscored by the vol-
ume of work to be done. Along with expanding transmission and
distribution (T&D), the government has plans to increase power
generation in the country from 200 GW in 2012 to about 400
GW by 2022. Additionally, in late August, India approved infra-
structure projects worth $27.8 billion to revive economic growth,
which has faltered as the rupee quickly crashed to record lows in
recent months. In late August as this article was being written,
financial analysts were struggling to make sense of the rupees
value plunge into what they described as uncharted territory
while others cautioned the situation was vastly compounded by
investors who were fleeing domestic markets, which are facing
stiff economic challenges and volatile global markets. The gov-
ernments solution entails reviving 36 stalled projects in sectors
from oil, gas, and power to roads and railways. These include
18 power projects with an investment of $12.6 billion and nine
infrastructure projects worth $2.1 billion.
According to the Ministry of Heavy Industries, generation
equipment (boilers, turbines, and generators) makes up about
a fourth of Indias domestic electrical equipment sector, the re-
mainder of which is dedicated to T&D (Figure 1). With about
500,000 employees, the sector contributed 1.4% to the nations
gross domestic product (GDP) over 2011 and 2012 and 10% to the
manufacturing GDP. Over that period, electrical equipment made
up just 1.5% of total exports but about 3.2% of total imports,
and that trade deficit continues to widen every year, which is a
matter of serious concern, says the ministry.
This is because projections indicate that despite importing
43% of needed electrical equipment, the domestic generation
equipment sectors total manufacturing capacity of 25 GW per
year will double to 40 GW by 2015, when more joint ventures
begin productionmeaning it will be sitting on massive surplus
capacity. A Mission Plan for 20122022 released by the Heavy
Industries Ministry in July seeks to provide a level playing field
to the domestic sector vis--vis foreign manufacturers, who are
enjoying support from their respective governments with respect
to subsidies on raw material, incentives for export, low cost of
funds, better infrastructure. Besides increasing import duties on
electrical equipment, the ministry suggests allowing imports of
cold-rolled grain-oriented electrical steel at a zero customs duty,
mandating type testing of some equipment domestically, and es-
tablishing product ratings and specifications. But it also calls for
forcing foreign suppliers of heavy equipment to set up phased
manufacturing facilities in India.
Indias own shortfalls include a lack of important research and
development, the ministry acknowledges. It urges government
backing of efforts by Indian companieslike BHEL, which has
developed a demonstration model based on integrated gasifica-
tion combined cycle and advanced ultrasupercritical technology.
Then, it cautions, the country must tackle skill shortages that
are compounded by inadequate curriculums in technical training
institutes. In due time, India should also boost exports of power
equipment with help from the Export-Import Bank of India and
the Central Power Research Institutewhich should work to see
that all certification is accepted in foreign countries. Ultimately,
the power sectors bigger problems stemming from land acquisi-
tion and permit delays must be tackled to help the domestic
generation equipment sector flourish.
1. Estimated segment size of Indias electrical equip-
ment sector (201112). Indias $25 billion electrical equipment
industry made up of 500,000 employees is classified into two sectors:
generation equipment (consisting of boilers, turbines, and generators),
which contributed $6.5 billion over 20112012, and transmission and
distribution equipment, which provided the larger share of $13.4 billion.
Other electrical equipment, including instrument transformers, surge ar-
restors, stamping and lamination, insulators, insulating material, industrial
electronics, indicating instruments, and winding contributed $5.2 billion.
Source: Indian Electrical and Electronics Manufacturers Association
Other electrical
equipment
21%
Boilers
15%
Turbines
7%
Cables
15%
Transmission lines
and conductors
13%
Generators
3%
Transformers
10%
Switchgear &
controlgear
8%
Rotating
Machines
5%
Energy meters
2%
Capacitors
0%
HYTORC, Division UNEX Corporation +1 201 512-9500 Sales@HYTORC.com www.HYTORC.com
Puller-Free
Simplied
Precision
Tensioning!
7FA CASING
TIME STUDY
Number of Fasteners stretched simultaneously to the
desired load: Horizontal Joint: 2 on each side, Vertical
Joint: 2 on each side.
Total Time: 1 hour, 27 Minutes!
Next Time - ZIP IT!
Make Safety a Habit
Reliability a Fact!
Switch from hydraulic tensioning or hydraulic torque to
Stretch-to-Load without replacing the bolts. Just click
the tools on the reusable nuts and stretch all bolts to
the desired load within 5%, hands-free from a safe
distance. There is no puller to fail, no reaction
arm to pinch, no bolt relaxation, no torsion or
side load, no measuring, just straight axial
bolt load to compress the joint evenly
amongst all fasteners or to loosen it up
as if it had a ZIPPER!
HYTORC Casing-Bolt
TOOL KIT

Everything you need for the Horiztals and Verticals of
the 7FA in one single box!
Since 1968
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 8 9/13/13 1:38:41 PM
Puller-Free
Simplied
Precision
Tensioning!
7FA CASING
TIME STUDY
Number of Fasteners stretched simultaneously to the
desired load: Horizontal Joint: 2 on each side, Vertical
Joint: 2 on each side.
Next Time - ZIP IT!
Make Safety a Habit
Reliability a Fact!
Switch from hydraulic tensioning or hydraulic torque to
Stretch-to-Load without replacing the bolts. Just click
the tools on the reusable nuts and stretch all bolts to
the desired load within 5%, hands-free from a safe
distance. There is no puller to fail, no reaction
arm to pinch, no bolt relaxation, no torsion or
side load, no measuring, just straight axial
bolt load to compress the joint evenly
amongst all fasteners or to loosen it up
as if it had a ZIPPER!
HYTORC Casing-Bolt
TOOL KIT

Everything you need for the Horiztals and Verticals of
the 7FA in one single box!
Since 1968
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 9 9/13/13 1:40:57 PM
|
October 2013 10
China Cancels 2-GW Coal Plant on
Pollution Concerns
In a noteworthy measure this August, Chinese authorities
scrapped proposals for a 2-GW coal-fired power plant, citingfor
the first timeconcerns about air pollution. And as the authori-
ties in Baguang, eastern Shenzhen, asked the Shenzhen Energy
Group to stop preparatory work for construction of the new coal-
fired plant, the city announced it would not put forward any new
plans to build coal power plants in the future.
The development is noteworthy because China has plans to
build up to 558 GW of new coal-fired capacity in Chinarep-
resenting a 73% increase in the energy-intensive nations 2011
thermal power capacityaccording to the World Research In-
stitute. But it does not come entirely as a surprise because the
nation has been taking astonishing strides to address its wide-
spread pollution problems.
In March, the countrys National Development and Reform Com-
mission (NDRC) called for greater efforts to reduce the discharge
of major pollutants. Since then, small gains have been seen as
filters have been installed on its massive coal-fired power fleet.
The Ministry of Environmental Protection also recently said it
would hold accountable those officials who fail in their duty to
cope with air pollution this winter.
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 has greatly
increased wind power over the past several years.
Meanwhile, Beijing in September unveiled another set of mea-
sures, including limiting the number of new vehicles on the roads
and closing or upgrading the facilities of nearly 1,200 companies,
to curb its own pollution problems, which have in the past set off
international alarms. The city experienced the worst of bouts of
dense smog that enveloped half the country in January, recording
peak fine particulate levels of 993 micrograms per cubic meter
almost 40 times more than the World Health Organizations 24-
hour average standard (Figure 2).
Pollution concerns are resulting in rigid policy measures from a
number of surprising countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin
in July signed new rules to drastically increase financial penal-
ties for breaking national and air water pollution laws. The new
rules, applicable to businesses, sole proprietors, organizations,
legal entities, and officials within those legal entities, seek to
help the country transition to cleaner technologies, according
to some experts. Others say the higher fines may appease the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which
has recommended Russia increase sanctions to reduce illegal pol-
lution as part of its admittance to the organization that oversees
the International Energy Agency.
And in June, the U.S. released a climate action plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions about 17% below 2005 levels if all
other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well.
Measures outlined in the plan include directing the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete car-
bon pollution standards proposed in April 2012 for new power
plantsand to set up carbon rules for existing plants.
Japan Prepares to Float Offshore Wind
Industry
A prototype 100-kW floating wind turbine that has been tested
off Nagasaki near Japans Kabashima Island since May 2012 is
slated to be replaced by a full-scale, grid-connected 2-MW wind
turbine this fall. The demonstration backed by Japans Ministry
of Environment, Kyoto University, Fuji Heavy Industries, Toda
Construction, and the National Maritime Research Institute of
Japan features a floating spar buoy wind turbine built by Japan
Steel Works and Hitachi. Following initial operation and data col-
lection, the project will be upgraded to a Fuji Heavy Industries
2-MW wind turbine. The project will mark a major point of prog-
ress for the worlds infant deep water offshore wind industry.
According to a new report from the European Wind Energy As-
sociation, at the end of 2012, 1,662 turbines totaling 5 GW of in-
stalled offshore wind capacity were spread across 55 wind farms in
10 European countries. But, with the exception of two turbines,
Europes grid-connected offshore wind turbines rely on fixed founda-
tions, and the vast majority of those are on monopile foundations,
the organization notes. Gravity-based substructures are the second-
most-common foundation type, followed by space frame structures.
Only Statoils 2.3-MW Hywind projectthe worlds first large-scale
floating wind structure installed in 2009 in Norwayand the 2-MW
Windfloat, installed off the Portuguese coast in 2011 by Principle
Power and EDP, are installed on floating substructures.
At least six experimental floating structures are in a test phase
globally: SeaTwirl, SWAY, Blue H, and Poseidon in Europe; the
WindLens in Japan; and the DeepCwind floating turbine in the
U.S. Another 35 designs for water depths of more than 50 meters
are under development worldwide. The majority (60%) are lo-
cated in Europe, 10% are in the U.S., and 23% are in Japan.
Experts say deep water offshore wind potential in the U.S. is
immense, owing to long coastlines and a good wind resource,
but there are no offshore wind farms operating to date. In May
2013, the University of Maine and the DeepCwind consortium
comprising 30 companiesput online the first 20-kW prototype
(Figure 3). Also, the Department of Energy has announced $168
million in funding over the next six years for seven offshore wind
demonstration projectsincluding three floating projects.
In Japan, which has the worlds sixth-largest Exclusive Eco-
nomic Zone and a long maritime heritage, more than 80% of
offshore wind energy resources are located in deep waters. The
countrys government has been funding research on deep offshore
structures for more than two decades, but interest has kicked up
since the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident as the govern-
ment focuses on putting online more renewables. An estimated 5
GW to 6 GW have been envisioned for the country by 2030.
2. In a haze. China has made astonishing strides in addressing
widespread air pollution concerns. This image shows air pollution at
Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong in 2007. Source: Wikimedia Commons
TIME STUDY
Number of Fasteners stretched simultaneously: 2 at a time.
First 12 oclock and 6 oclock and then 9 oclock and 3 oclock
at 50% of the desired load. Then always 2 opposite from each
other at 100% of the desired load, plus one fnal check pass.
HYTORC Load
Coupling TOOL KIT
Puller-Free
Simplied
Precision
Tensioning!
7FA COUPLING Next Time - ZIP IT!
Make Safety a Habit
Reliability a Fact!
Since 1968
Switch from conical pullers to no pullers! Leave the bolts,
place reusable and precision weighted nuts on their ends
and stretch the bolts universally to the desired load
within 5% to obtain circumferential even compression
without side load, torsion or bolt relaxation.
If a safer, faster and simpler way to assemble and
disassemble Load Couplings has long been on
your mind, the HYTORC Load Coupling Tool
Kit is like a ZIPPER. Just contact your
local HYTORC offce.
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 10 9/13/13 1:42:08 PM
TIME STUDY
Number of Fasteners stretched simultaneously: 2 at a time.
First 12 oclock and 6 oclock and then 9 oclock and 3 oclock
at 50% of the desired load. Then always 2 opposite from each
other at 100% of the desired load, plus one fnal check pass.
HYTORC Load
Coupling TOOL KIT
Puller-Free
Simplied
Precision
Tensioning!
7FA COUPLING Next Time - ZIP IT!
Make Safety a Habit
Reliability a Fact!
Since 1968
Switch from conical pullers to no pullers! Leave the bolts,
place reusable and precision weighted nuts on their ends
and stretch the bolts universally to the desired load
within 5% to obtain circumferential even compression
without side load, torsion or bolt relaxation.
If a safer, faster and simpler way to assemble and
disassemble Load Couplings has long been on
your mind, the HYTORC Load Coupling Tool
Kit is like a ZIPPER. Just contact your
local HYTORC offce.
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 11 9/13/13 1:44:20 PM
|
October 2013 12
THE BIG PICTURE: Emissions Enforcement
Since 1999 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated what is perhaps its most
comprehensive enforcement initiative, it has issued complaints, notices of violations, and adminis-
trative orders for hundreds of coal units under the Clean Air Acts New Source Review (NSR) program.
The agency alleges that these units failed to obtain a Prevention of Signicant Deterioration (PSD)
permit to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) prior to modifying the units in a manner
that increased emissions of air pollutants. More than 70% of the nations coal-red eet is under
investigation for NSR violations. Copy and art by Sonal Patel, associate editor
VIOLATION SETTLEMENTS TO DATE
EPAS NSR PROGRESS
Violations Resolved by Coal-Fired Capacity NSR Investigations by Coal-Fired Units
Note: Figures compared with U.S. coal eet universe of 1,136 units
Source: EPA
Source: EPA
Notes:
a
Number of coal units involved;
b
Estimated
control costs; Sources: EPA, GAO
1999-
2010
FY2011 FY2012
Units under
investigation
Units in
compliance
804
830
836
328 425 461
1999-2010:
118 GW
2011-2012:
139 GW
EPA enforcement
goal by FY2016:
253.3 GW
U.S. coal eet:
338 GW
1. Wisconsin Power and Light (Apr.
2013)7
a
; >$1B
b
2. Dominion Energy (Apr. 2013)7;
>$325M
3. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
(Jan. 2013)6; >$300M
4. Louisiana Generating (Nov.
2012)3; >$250M
5. Dairyland Power (June 2012)3;
>$150M
6. Tennessee Valley Authority (April
2011)59; $3B-$5B
7. Northern Indiana Public Service
Co. (Jan. 2011)11; $600M
8. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric
(July 2010)4 ;>$275M
9. American Municipal Power (May
2010)4; $0
10. Westar Energy (Jan. 2010)3;
>$500M
11. Ohio Edison Co. (Aug. 2009)29;
>$1.1B
12. Kentucky Utilities Co. (Feb.
2009)1; >$135M
13. Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District (Aug.
2008)2; >$400M
14. American Electric Power (Oct.
2007)46; >$4.6B
15. East Kentucky Power (July 2007)6;
>$600M
16. Nevada Power Co. (June 2007)4;
>$60,000
17. Alabama Power Co. (Apr. 2006)2;
>$200,000
18. Minnkota Power and Square Butte
Electric (Apr. 2006)3;>$100M
19. Illinois Power Co. and Dynegy
Midwest Generation (Mar. 2005)10;
>$500M
20. South Carolina Public Service
Authority (Mar. 2004)12; >$400M
21. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co.
(June 2003)3; >$30M
22. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Apr.
2003)23; >$600M
23. Virgina Electric and Power Co. (Apr.
2003)20; >$1.2B
24. ALCOA (March 2003)3; >$330M
25. PSEG Fossil (Jan. 2002)4; >$337M
26. Tampa Electric Co. (Feb. 2000)10;
>$1B
1
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
6
6
14
14
14
23
14 2
11
2
2.6M tpy
Total pollution
reductions required
by EPA coal unit
NSR enforcement
actions since 1999
$14.8B
Total estimated
control costs for 289
involved coal units
resulting from NSR
enforcement actions
since 1999
7 years
Average time to
conclude an NSR
violation settle-
ment between the
EPA and coal
generators
$629M
Total environmental
mitigation projects,
not including $92M
in civil penalties,
required by NSR
coal settlements
Convection / Backpass Goals
Goal Tracking with Reduced EGOT
Balancing & Optimizing Steam Temperatures
Priority Sootblowing
Furnace Goals
Goal Tracking with Reduced FEGT
Thermal Impact Monitoring
Priority Sootblowing by Determining
Furnace Slagging Patterns
Convection
Furnace
SentrySeries
Goal Based ISB Control Systems

...beyond intelligent sootblowing
2013 Diamond Power International, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed to meet todays boiler cleaning needs by responding to changing
operating conditions, changes like fuel switching, fuel blending, even swings in
power demand!
SentrySeries
Goal Based ISB works to YOUR GOALS!

740.687.4334
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 12 9/13/13 1:45:10 PM
Convection / Backpass Goals
Goal Tracking with Reduced EGOT
Balancing & Optimizing Steam Temperatures
Priority Sootblowing
Furnace Goals
Goal Tracking with Reduced FEGT
Thermal Impact Monitoring
Priority Sootblowing by Determining
Furnace Slagging Patterns
Convection
Furnace
SentrySeries
Goal Based ISB Control Systems

...beyond intelligent sootblowing
2013 Diamond Power International, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed to meet todays boiler cleaning needs by responding to changing
operating conditions, changes like fuel switching, fuel blending, even swings in
power demand!
SentrySeries
Goal Based ISB works to YOUR GOALS!

740.687.4334
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 13 9/13/13 1:46:08 PM
|
October 2013 14
Including the prototype WindLens project in Hakata Bay
which features two wind turbines of just 3 kW eachat least
three national offshore wind projects have been announced, one
of which could use a floating substructure. That project is sup-
ported by Japans Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and
involves a $250 million demonstration off the coast of Fuku-
shima. Plans call for the installation of several floating offshore
turbines, including three types of floating substructures with two
different turbine sizes: 2 MW in phase 1 and 7 MW in phase 2.
The Fukushima offshore project is being developed by an indus-
try consortium led by Marubeni Corp. and includes Mitsubishi
and Hitachi. Mitsubishi has, meanwhile, announced plans for the
development of a new 7-MW turbine with a hydraulic drive, de-
signed to operate on semi-submersible floating platforms in deep
water off the coast of Fukushima. Among the consortiums ambi-
tious goals are to reach 1 GW of floating capacity.
New Power-to-Gas Plant Inaugurated in
Germany
A new 2-MW power-to-gas (P2G) plant inaugurated by Germanys
E.ON in late August will convert excess wind energy into syn-
thetic natural gas that can then be fed into the regional gas grid,
where it can be used to produce heat and power.
The plant in Falkenhagen, Germany, essentially uses hydrogen-
electrolysis with methanization. That involves splitting water
using surplus renewable energy to create hydrogen and oxygen.
A chemical reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide generates
methaneor synthetic natural gas. The Falkenhagen facility pro-
duces 360 cubic meters of hydrogen per hour, and over a 24-hour
period, the facility will store about 30 MWh of energy (Figure 4).
Canadian firm Hydrogenics Corp. provided the plant to E.ON
as a turnkey project, including supply, installation, connection,
and commissioning of the hydrogen production facility, consist-
ing of gas compression, master controls, as well as a five-year
service and maintenance agreement. The developer of hydrogen
generation and fuel cell products is now working on a second P2G
plant for E.ON in the city of Hamburg. That much-watched facility
will contain the worlds single largest megawatt-scale proton ex-
change membrane (PEM) stacka type of fuel cell that produces
the most power for a given weight or volume of fuel cell. PEM fuel
cells also have a high power density and cold-start capability.
These projects serve as a platform for upcoming Power-to-Gas
facilities not only in Europe but around the world, said Daryl
Wilson, CEO of Hydrogenics in a statement.
For Germany, which is transitioning to a renewable future,
the inauguration of the E.ON plant is of particular significance
because it provides much-needed storage capacity to balance
fluctuations in solar and wind power generation. It is also well-
suited to the countrys infrastructure. Germany reportedly has a
4. A new power-to-gas shift. E.ON and partner Swissgas in
August inaugurated a new 2-MW power-to-gas plant in Falkenhagen,
Germany to convert excess wind energy into synthetic gas that can be
stored in the regional gas grid. Courtesy: E.ON
spun castings
sand castings
investment castings
Schmidt + Clemens is your partner
for the supply of high grade special
steel solutions.
www.schmidt-clemens.de
Schmidt + Clemens GmbH + Co. KG
Kaiserau 2 51789 Lindlar Germany
Phone: +49 2266 92-507
Fax: +49 2266 92-538
sp@schmidt-clemens.de
Conference & Exhibition
Florida / USA
12 14 November, 2013
Booth 1484
Your leading partner for the power technology
3. An industry buoy. One of the first concrete-composite float-
ing platform wind turbines in the U.S. was deployed off the coast of
Castine, Maine, in May. The 65-foot-tall VolturnUS prototype is one-
eighth the size of a 6-MW, 423-foot rotor diameter turbine design en-
visioned for commercial installation. The project is expected to collect
data to validate and improve floating wind turbine designs while help-
ing address technical barriers to greater offshore wind cost reductions.
Courtesy: University of Maine
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 14 9/13/13 1:48:12 PM
October 2013
|
natural gas storage reservoir equivalent to more than 200 TWh.
The fledgling P2G energy storage technology, which is still
relatively expensive, is strongly being promoted by Germanys
federal power and gas agency, the Bundesnetzagentur. One of
the biggest challenges of transforming Germanys energy system
is finding ways to integrate the increasing share of intermittent,
renewable-source energy, said Germanys Economics Minister Dr.
Philipp Rsler at the inauguration ceremony. To ensure that Ger-
manys power system remains stable and that our economy con-
tinues to have the energy it needs, we not only have to rapidly
expand energy networks but also require innovative solutions like
the P2G unit here in Falkenhagen.
The project is also supported by Swissgas, which represents
more than 100 local natural gas utilities. The organization holds
a 20% capital stake in the facility and an agreement to purchase
a portion of the gas produced.
For more on P2G technology, see Progress for Germanys Pow-
er-to-Gas Drive in POWERs November 2012 issue.
SMR Technology Contest Gets New
Player
Joining the growing list of major small modular reactor (SMR)
technology developers is California-based General Atomics, which
says its patented Energy Multiplier Module, EM
2
, is one of the
most advanced high-performance reactors in the world.
The company has partnered with CB&I and Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries to design and develop the school bussized reactor
that it says produces 500 MWt and is 53% efficient. The helium-
cooled fast-neutron high-temperature reactor operates at 850C
and would be fueled with 20 metric tons of used pressurized
water reactor fuel or depleted uranium in addition to 22 metric
tons of enriched uranium (Figure 5).
The EM
2
s features include running 30 years without refueling
(compared to 18 months for current light water reactors), requir-
ing no cooling water, and siting flexibility. It also incorporates
a truck-transportable high-speed gas turbine generator, which
means lower up front capital costs for utilities, as well as lower
electricity costs for consumers, the company says. EM
2
is also
designed to provide three times the energy per pound of fuel
compared to current technology and reduce waste by 80% utiliz-
ing just a single pass through the fuel cycle.
5. New kid on the block. The Energy Multiplier Module being
developed by San Diegobased General Atomics is a small modular
reactor that is helium cooled and operates at temperatures of 850C.
It incorporates a truck-transportable high-speed gas turbine generator.
Courtesy: General Atomics
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 ofers
an economical, ef 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 diference to operational ef ciency
and environmental protection.
For more information, visit www.beumergroup.com
BEU_PipeConveyor_Power_GB_99x273_4mm.indd 1 05.08.13 17:15
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 15 9/13/13 1:50:04 PM
|
October 2013 16
General Atomics recently threw in its bid for the second round
of Department of Energy (DOE) funding through a cost-shared
partnership for up to two SMR designs. At least three other
companies are vying for the opportunity that could accelerate
commercialization of an SMR design by 2022: NuScale Power of
Corvallis, Ore. (see the article on that technology in this issue);
Westinghouse Electric, based in Pittsburgh, Pa.; and Holtec In-
ternational, based in Marlton, N.J. An announcement from the
DOE is expected in September.
The first cost-share funding award went to Babcock & Wilcox
(B&W) for its mPower SMR technology. The exact level of fund-
ing to B&W has not been disclosed, though that company has
since said that the cost-share award will enable it to accelerate
research and development spending to meet program milestones
and allow it to limit net spending to between $85 million and
$95 million in 2013 alone.
POWER Digest
Jordans First Nuclear Reactor Gets Construction Green
Light. Jordanian regulators on Aug. 20 granted permission for
construction to begin at the Jordan Research and Training Reac-
tor (JRTR) at the Jordan University for Science and Technology
north of Amman. The 5-MWt version of the Korea Atomic Energy
Institutes 30-MWt Hanaro design is expected to cost $130 million.
The reactor is expected to be operational in 2016, built by South
Koreas Daewoo Engineering Construction with involvement from
Korea Nuclear Energy Promotion Agency. Jordan is looking to build
a 1,200-MW nuclear power plant by 2020 and a second one by
2025. The countrys power demand is expected to double by 2030,
and officials say new nuclear will be integral to supplying energy
(over 95% of which is currently imported) for the country.
MHI Gets Taiwan Order for 2.6-GW J-Power Gas Turbines.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and CTCI Corp. on Sept.
4 received a full-turnkey order from Taipower for a project to
construct a 2,600-MW gas turbine combined cycle (CCGT) power
plant in Tunghsiao Township, Miaoli County, Taiwan. The project
consisting of three islands of CCGT power generation systems will
feature two of MHIs most advanced M501J gas turbines, one
steam turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, and three gen-
erators. MHI will be responsible for the manufacture and supply
of the gas and steam turbines. CTCI will handle construction and
installation at the plant site as well as EPC work for the balance
of plant. The generators will be produced by Mitsubishi Electric
Corp. The three CCGT islands are slated to begin operations se-
quentially between September 2016 and June 2017.
Brazils Newest Wind Auction Garners Contracts for 66
New Wind Farms. Contracts were secured to purchase power
from about 1,500 MW of nameplate generating capacity that is
slated to come online by September 2015 in Brazils Aug. 23 wind
energy auction closed by ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agen-
cy). Of the 9 GW proposed, contracts were awarded to companies
that offer to sell energy for the lowest price to the countrys
electricity distributors. Those prices had an average of R$110.51/
MWh (US$46.3/MWh). A total of 66 wind parks successfully bid
for contracts to power Brazils national grid for a period of 20
years. These will be installed at a total cost of about $2.28 bil-
lion in the states of Bahia (28), Cear (6), Pernambuco (7), Piau
Natron
X
is the Clear Choice Against Acid Gases.
Natron
x
proudly ofers the EnProve product line of sodium sorbents specifcally
developed for the optimal removal of acid gases.
Count on us to deliver reliable sorbents and optimize your Dry Sorbent Injection
system performance.
For removal of HCl, SO
2
, SO
3
and HF
emissions, Natron
x
is the clear choice.
For more information, call us today at
855.285.7652 and visit us at our website at
www.natronx.com.
Your Compliance Game Plan?
natronx.com
Natron
x
Technologies, LLC
469 North Harrison St. | Princeton, NJ 08543 | 855.285.7652
Natronx_Power_1013.indd 1 9/3/2013 9:51:31 AM
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 16 9/13/13 1:52:31 PM
Natron
X
is the Clear Choice Against Acid Gases.
Natron
x
proudly ofers the EnProve product line of sodium sorbents specifcally
developed for the optimal removal of acid gases.
Count on us to deliver reliable sorbents and optimize your Dry Sorbent Injection
system performance.
For removal of HCl, SO
2
, SO
3
and HF
emissions, Natron
x
is the clear choice.
For more information, call us today at
855.285.7652 and visit us at our website at
www.natronx.com.
Your Compliance Game Plan?
natronx.com
Natron
x
Technologies, LLC
469 North Harrison St. | Princeton, NJ 08543 | 855.285.7652
Natronx_Power_1013.indd 1 9/3/2013 9:51:31 AM
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 17 9/13/13 1:53:00 PM
|
October 2013 18
(14), Rio Grande do Norte (7), and Rio Grande do Sul (4).
ADB, Indonesia to Build Cross-Border Link from West
Kalimantan to Malaysia. In a key development, the Asian De-
velopment Bank (ADB) and the government of Indonesia an-
nounced on Aug. 28 that they will build an 83-kilometer (km)
high-voltage power transmission line linking the Indonesian
province of West Kalimantan with Sarawak in Malaysia. The link
will allow West Kalimantancurrently entirely powered with
costly oil by state-owned power firm Perusahaan Listrik Negara
(PLN)to receive hydropower from Sarawak. The project entails
a 145-km distribution line, distribution feeder extensions, and a
new substation to improve the reliability of power in West Ka-
limantan. The cross-border line and substation will enable 230
MWh to be exchanged every hour between the two systems. The
interconnection project is expected to save PLN an estimated
$100 million annually in avoided oil generation. ADB is currently
preparing a second loan project to finance the transmission line
on the Malaysia side. Both countries have agreed to complete
the construction by December 2014, and power flow will start
Jan. 1, 2015.
Argentina and Peru Announce Hydropower Contracts
Worth Combined $6.7B. Argentina and Peru in August sepa-
rately announced contracts to boost hydropower production.
Argentinas government awarded the construction of two hydro-
electric dams to a consortium of Gezhouba (China), Electroing-
enieria, and Hidrocuyo (Argentina). The two dams located in
the province of Santa Cruz in Patagonia, southern Argentina
Nstor Kirchner and Jorge Cepernicare worth $4.1 billion
and will have a generation capacity of 1,740 MW. Construction
should end in 2017 or early 2018. Meanwhile, Perus minister
of energy announced a new bidding process to award projects
worth $2.6 billion to generate 1,100 MW from hydropower by
20172018. The government is also working with energy regu-
lator Osinergmin on another 250-MW set of renewable energy
projects that will be operational by 2016, including the instal-
lation of 500,000 solar panels across Peru with the participa-
tion of private investors.
Mexico Unveils Major Energy Reform Proposal. Mexico
on Aug. 13 unveiled an energy reform draft that proposes to
open the energy sector to foreign investors for the first time in
75 years. The measure could restructure Pemex, an oil and gas
company owned by the state since the nationalization wave in
1938, into one dealing with exploration and production and the
other with industrial reform. The reform could also encourage
profit-sharing over production-sharing. The measure will now be
reviewed by Parliament.
Poland Begins Extracting Fracked Natural Gas. The Polish
deputy environment minister in late August announced that Lane
Energy Poland, a company controlled by ConocoPhilips, has been
extracting about 8,000 m
3
/d of gas (2.9 mcm/y) since the end
of July 2013. Though a lower yield than at sites in Canada and
the U.S., and too small to qualify as commercial production, this
volume is the highest in Europe to date. Gas is being extracted at
a depth of 3,000 meters using fracking. Poland consumed 18.27
bcm of natural gasmostly imported from Russiain 2012. The
nation supports shale gas exploration and has issued more than
100 shale gas exploration licenses to various firms.
Sonal Patel is a POWER associate editor.
Nol-Tec Systems, Inc.
425 Apollo Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651.780.8600 sales@nol-tec.com
www.nol-tec.com
MATS and MACT compliant mitigation of
Hg SO
2
SO
3
HCI HF
Nol-Tecs proven DSI technology
Call 651-780-8600 today to begin an analysis
of your pollution mitigation needs.
Nol-Tecs Sorb-N-Ject dry sorbent injection systems are
custom-designed to suit your specifc air pollution migitation
needs. Our experts look at every variable to guarantee
compliant levels for your emissions.
We develop systems to be scalable and fexible, so youll
never get a cookie-cutter solution from Nol-Tec.
Sorb-N-Ject
for systems large or small
Dependable, continuous sorbent fow, with
redundant design as needed
Reliable automated operation and control, for
optimal performance and consistent costs
On-site, self-contained testing systems, to ensure
the precise results you need
2013 United Rentals, Inc.
Doing
whatever
it takes to
help you
get the
job done.
We are relentlessly focused
on helping you build a safer,
better, stronger future,
and we have your back
UnitedRentals.com | 800.UR.RENTS
Aerial | Earthmoving | Trench Safety
Power & HVAC | Tool Solutions | Technology
13-URI-1537 Power Magazine R1.indd 1 9/6/13 9:20 AM
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 18 9/13/13 1:55:25 PM
2013 United Rentals, Inc.
Doing
whatever
it takes to
help you
get the
job done.
We are relentlessly focused
on helping you build a safer,
better, stronger future,
and we have your back
UnitedRentals.com | 800.UR.RENTS
Aerial | Earthmoving | Trench Safety
Power & HVAC | Tool Solutions | Technology
13-URI-1537 Power Magazine R1.indd 1 9/6/13 9:20 AM
04_PWR_100113_GM_p8-19.indd 19 9/13/13 1:57:23 PM
|
October 2013 20
Replacing Multiple Turbine
and BOP Control Systems
with a Single Platform
Termoyopal, a utility based in Bogota, Co-
lombia, recently repowered its power plant
at Yopal, Colombia, by replacing three gas
turbines with refurbished units and up-
grading the remaining two turbines. The
repowering employed three GE Frame 5
gas turbine generators, which were relo-
cated to this site from the U.S. following
mechanical refurbishment. Termoyopal
had successfully operated the existing
units for many years and its staff were al-
ready very knowledgeable in the operation
of the plant, as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of their existing turbine and
balance-of-plant (BOP) control systems.
The arrival of the replacement units
presented Termoyopal with the oppor-
tunity to resolve issues its staff had
identified with the original units, while
rationalizing the control and operation
of the entire plant. Termoyopal especially
wanted to simplify its personnel training
and parts inventory requirements, while
at the same time gaining improved ac-
cess to plantwide data and maintaining
a high level of reliability and control.
Turbine Technology Services (TTS) under-
took a consolidation of a majority of the
disparate systems onto a single platform.
The goal was to modernize and simplify
the entire plant control, increasing the
available system data, while offering an
interface tailored to the operators and
maintenance engineers specifications for
plant operations.
Beginning in the fall of 2011, TTS began
the installation of what was to be the first
of five turbine control, generator control,
and BOP programmable automation con-
troller (PAC)based systems.
The original control systems for these
units consisted of a mix of legacy GE MKI-
Is, MKIV, and third-party Modicon-based
programmable logic controller (PLC) con-
trol systems. In addition, each gas turbine
had its own gas conditioning skid with a
PLC-based controller that was not stan-
dard between skids. To add further compli-
cation, in the neighboring gas plant that
was the primary gas supply source for the
power plant, Termoyopal had a primary
gas-conditioning skid (for controlling the
gas supply pressure and removing liquid
condensate from the fuel) that also had
its own PLC system that was isolated from
the gas plant and power plant distributed
control systems (DCSs).
With this daunting variety of con-
trol systems, Termoyopals maintenance
personnel needed to be proficient with
several programming languages and
hardware platforms. They also had to
maintain an inventory of spares for each
system type.
System Upgrades
At the core of the system upgrade per-
formed by TTS was Rockwell Automations
PlantPax system, which provides a scal-
able architecture for easily adding process
components, both hardware and software.
Cybersecurity was a top priority for Ter-
moyopal, and the PlantPax system allows
for all of the Rockwell control products to
be easily integrated into the plants secu-
1. Unification. The upgraded HMI allowed a unified view of the upgraded system, such as the gas fuel system with electric valves shown
here. Courtesy: Turbine Technology Services
NEMA and IEC Designs
Unmatched Quality
Superior Reliability
Global Sales and Support
Baldor now offers the most complete line of large AC
motors in the world. BaldorReliance
motors deliver
ratings to 1,500 Hp from stock and custom motors
available to 15,000 Hp, alongside ABB induction and
synchronous motors up to 100,000 Hp. Every large AC
motor is designed and built for superior reliability, energy
savings and rugged performance.
Plus, our large AC motor line includes both NEMA and
IEC configurations assuring you the motor you need
meets frame, enclosure and duty cycle standards for any
applicationanywhere in the world. One source for all
your global motor needs. Only from Baldor and ABB.

baldor.com 479-646-4711
2013 Baldor Electric Company
Download a QR reader app
and scan this code for
more information.
http://qr2.it/Go/1031261
Together
Well Do
BIG Things.
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 20 9/13/13 2:01:06 PM
NEMA and IEC Designs
Unmatched Quality
Superior Reliability
Global Sales and Support
Baldor now offers the most complete line of large AC
motors in the world. BaldorReliance
motors deliver
ratings to 1,500 Hp from stock and custom motors
available to 15,000 Hp, alongside ABB induction and
synchronous motors up to 100,000 Hp. Every large AC
motor is designed and built for superior reliability, energy
savings and rugged performance.
Plus, our large AC motor line includes both NEMA and
IEC configurations assuring you the motor you need
meets frame, enclosure and duty cycle standards for any
applicationanywhere in the world. One source for all
your global motor needs. Only from Baldor and ABB.

baldor.com 479-646-4711
2013 Baldor Electric Company
Download a QR reader app
and scan this code for
more information.
http://qr2.it/Go/1031261
Together
Well Do
BIG Things.
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 21 9/13/13 2:02:20 PM
|
October 2013 22
rity scheme. The system provided to Ter-
moyopal was designed with multiple levels
of security clearances so that each user
account could be customized for secure
access to the system.
TTSs TMS-1000 control system uses
Rockwells RSLogix5000 programming
software. RSLogix5000 follows the indus-
trial programming standard IEC 61131-3
and features the following programming
languages: Ladder Logic, Structured Text,
Sequential Function Chart, and Function
Block. These programming tools combined
with an intuitive operator interface (HMI)
platform would give Termoyopal the tools
to operate its power plant with much
greater facility than before.
The ability to easily network all the
units together also meant that all the unit
data could be viewed on HMI stations ei-
ther locally or remotely (Figure 1).
Execution
The plant upgrade began with the GE
Frame 6B unit. The plant was conducting
a mechanical overhaul of the unit, and in
order to minimize the outage, Termoyo-
pal mobilized TTS technical advisors to
begin instrumentation upgrades and an
on-base unit rewire while the mechani-
cal works were still in progress. As part of
the system upgrade, TTS provided various
instrumentation enhancements, including
a performance monitor instrumentation
package and software algorithms to calcu-
late unit efficiency. With this information,
Termoyopal would be able to assess unit
historical performance and better deter-
mine when to schedule unit maintenance
based on OEM recommendations. Other
instrumentation upgrades were installed
to improve available data from the unit
or improve reliability, including new flame
scanners and transmitters on the lube oil
and hydraulic oil circuits.
TTS then upgraded each of the Frame 5
units, replacing the existing turbine control
system and generator excitation and protec-
tion systems. TTS performed the same on-
base rewire and instrumentation upgrades as
on the Frame 6. Two of the units were con-
verted from liquid-only operation to dual fuel
with the addition of gas fuel and fuel purge
systems. This work was carried out while in
the Sulzer Turbo Services Houston facility,
where a complete mechanical and electrical
overhaul and rehabilitation took place. The
new gas fuel systems included state-of-the-
art all-electric stop and control valves, which
greatly simplified installation and gas fuel
operation.
All the units were equipped with a TTS
TMS-1000S control system, the simplex
version of the standard TMS-1000 turbine
control system, and aTMS-1000G digital
generator control and protection system.
The TMS-1000S is fully integrated with
the TMS-1000G through both hardwired
connections and communication con-
nections using industrial standard com-
munications protocols, such as Modbus,
to facilitate easy integration of functions
and the collection and presentation of
turbine and generator operational and
diagnostic information.
The TMS-1000S is built using the L72
ControlLogix processor. This allows the
TMS-1000S to be flexible in the ability
to accept a wide variety of signals, in-
cluding vibration with API 670 compliant
vibration modules. The TMS-1000G con-
sists of a digital AVR, digital generator
and transformer protection relays, syn-
chroscope with integrated check-synch,
automatic synchronizer, bus undervolt-
age relays, and a generator multifunc-
tion meter.
Scan the QR Code for more information
( 8 7 7 - 4 S I - P O W E R )
8 7 7 - 4 7 4 - 7 6 9 3
Over the past 30 years, Structural Integrity has built a team of over
200 industry experts providing comprehensive solutions to the energy
industry. We have innovative products and services for combined
cycle, fossil, nuclear and hydro power plants, as well as oil and gas
pipelines. By adding ANATECHs expertise, we can also help with
structural engineering and nuclear fuel and reactor technology.
Our clients look to us for our:
Industry knowledge of power plants, codes and how things work,
Extensive experience and leadership,
High quality, hard work and service.
Call us today and well generate a solution for you.
www.structint.com/power
Generating
Solutions for
CELEBRATING
Y E A R S
1983-2013
Tight Fit, Tight Timeline
Converting the bottom ash handling process of a power plant
from a wet sluicing system to a dry system was key to future
permit compliance. The utility needed the new equipment to t
within the existing space, and it needed the project operational
with a brief outage. Mike Roush led a team that included the
client/owner, designers, vendors and construction personnel
in a closely coordinated effort that fullled both requirements.
The process included initial equipment selection, contract
award, construction coordination and startup coordination.
The plant is now operating seamlessly with a submerged ight
conveyor and dry ight conveyors that handle the bottom ash,
air heater ash and economizer ash.
WHERE WATER
and
POWER MEET
CUSTOMI ZED WATER SOLUTI ONS THAT FI T YOUR POWER PLANT
Mikes experience includes 12 years of responsibility to coal power
plant owners for the design, project management, engineering
management, contract administration, eld work and startup of new
plants and plant upgrades. He is part of our team of experienced power plant
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
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 22 9/16/13 1:29:15 PM
Tight Fit, Tight Timeline
Converting the bottom ash handling process of a power plant
from a wet sluicing system to a dry system was key to future
permit compliance. The utility needed the new equipment to t
within the existing space, and it needed the project operational
with a brief outage. Mike Roush led a team that included the
client/owner, designers, vendors and construction personnel
in a closely coordinated effort that fullled both requirements.
The process included initial equipment selection, contract
award, construction coordination and startup coordination.
The plant is now operating seamlessly with a submerged ight
conveyor and dry ight conveyors that handle the bottom ash,
air heater ash and economizer ash.
WHERE WATER
and
POWER MEET
CUSTOMI ZED WATER SOLUTI ONS THAT FI T YOUR POWER PLANT
Mikes experience includes 12 years of responsibility to coal power
plant owners for the design, project management, engineering
management, contract administration, eld work and startup of new
plants and plant upgrades. He is part of our team of experienced power plant
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
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 23 9/13/13 2:04:49 PM
|
October 2013 24
Time synchronization hardware and software was provided to
integrate with the existing GPS time source. All components in
the system were synchronized to a single source to extend the
usefulness of the historical data displayed on the HMI.
For machine protection, a Rockwell Automation XM system was
installed for both independent electronic overspeed and com-
plete train vibration protection. Although this system is fully
independent, a DeviceNet communication link allows complete
integration of the system variables into the TMS-1000S. Detailed
vibration and overspeed screens were provided on the HMI for
operator use.
Where possible, such as for the local gas skids, remote I/O
blocks were located close to the equipment, and data was sent
to the central controller over a redundant ControlNet network.
The networks utilized both copper and fiber media, depending
on distance and plant location of the I/O modules. This approach
eliminated the need to run large amounts of wire from the base
controller to these modules, which provided a significant saving
in material and installation costs.
As part of the plant control system upgrade, TTS provided a
dual-language, multi-unit HMI. This HMI was server-client based,
allowing for additional HMIs to be easily added and integrated
into the HMI system as subsequent plant units were upgraded.
Termoyopal also wanted to make full use of the additional data
acquisition, storage, and presentation capabilities provided by
an integrated digital system. To accomplish this, TTS provided
a separate historian and worked with plant personnel to build
structured Excel reports that automatically read the data from
the HMI historian.
The standard turbine/generator control system graphics were
also modified and augmented to meet Termoyopals needs as
identified by site personnel. Operators now have the ability to
go online with each PAC to view and troubleshoot logic in real
time. Reports can be generated automatically, minimizing the
time it takes to create operator logs. Trends are available in both
real-time and historical format for system troubleshooting and
maintenance. There are dedicated screens for maintenance tests,
I/O screens by module, and system diagnostics. The new con-
trol platform helped an already well-informed and knowledgeable
staff become even better at the operation and maintenance of
their plant.
Several other upgrades were also performed, including:
Connection of the system to the Eaton/Cutler Hammer motor
control centers (MCCs) on site to allow for the monitoring and
storage of MCC starter information and for the presentation of
this information on the HMIs.
Integration of the existing plant GPS into the control system
to allow for synchronization and real-time stamping of data
and events.
Addition of Modbus communications to the gas plant, which
allowed data from the gas supply skid to be displayed in the
gas plants DCS.
The base control and protection system hardware and soft-
ware were essentially the same for all five units. This meant
that plant engineers and operators could learn about all the
units following a single training course. Training was provid-
ed to plant personnel on an ongoing basis as each individual
unit was upgraded and integrated into the system. Because
the BOP system control was also implemented using the same
basic hardware and software, only minimal additional train-
ing was required to allow for operational familiarity with
these systems.
Replacing its aging equipment and unsupported software plat-
forms allowed Termoyopal to realize some significant benefits.
These included:
Significantly reduced overall inventory and individual compo-
nent costs.
Reduced long-term personnel training costs.
Improved equipment system data acquisition, analysis, and
storage tools.
Improved operational and engineering productivity.
Improved system reliability and availability.
Significantly reduced overall cost of ownership.
Chris Crowell is project engineer with Turbine Technology
Services.
NRG is a registered servicemark of NRG Energy, Inc.
2013 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Maximum availability is our mission.
Top-decile performance is our measure.
At NRG Energy Services, our operations &
maintenance knowledge goes well beyond
the nuts and bolts.
nrgenergy.com/energyservices/oandm
Major Maintenance Programs
Operation and Maintenance

Environmental, NERC

and Regulatory Compliance
Reporting
Technical Support
ISO Scheduling
Call us today at 855.532.4984

Termoyopal also wanted to make
full use of the additional data
acquisition, storage, and presen-
tation capabilities provided by
an integrated digital system.
M319DL
WITH THE NEW
5500sc SILICA ANALYZER.
The Hach 5500sc Silica Analyzer is even
better at delivering reliable results through
a series of customer-driven advancements
that save you critical time and effort.
With lower maintenance and less downtime
it gives you more time to focus on other
priorities in the plant.
To explore the web app and experience
it for yourself, visit: hach.com/silicaapp
Or follow the QR Code:
7.875x10.75 PowerMag SILICA.qxp:7.875x10.75 PowerMag K1100.qxp 5/10/13 1:59 PM Page 1
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 24 9/13/13 2:08:16 PM
M319DL
WITH THE NEW
5500sc SILICA ANALYZER.
The Hach 5500sc Silica Analyzer is even
better at delivering reliable results through
a series of customer-driven advancements
that save you critical time and effort.
With lower maintenance and less downtime
it gives you more time to focus on other
priorities in the plant.
To explore the web app and experience
it for yourself, visit: hach.com/silicaapp
Or follow the QR Code:
7.875x10.75 PowerMag SILICA.qxp:7.875x10.75 PowerMag K1100.qxp 5/10/13 1:59 PM Page 1
05_PWR_100113_O&M_p20-25.indd 25 9/13/13 2:09:28 PM
|
October 2013 26
LNG Exports:
Who Gets to Decide?
Rick Glick
A
n abundance of North American natural gas, coupled with
high foreign demand, has sparked interest in exporta-
tion of natural gas. However, liquefied natural gas (LNG)
facilities are controversial. Some opponents raise safety con-
cernsaccidents, explosions, seismic events, climate change
while others assert that domestic gas prices will rise if exports
occur on a significant scale.
Whose job is it to establish and enforce standards for LNG
development and exports? The Natural Gas Act (NGA) gives the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdic-
tion over interstate gas pipelines. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
amended the NGA to clarify that FERC jurisdiction extends to
siting of LNG terminals. Thus, national energy policy central-
izes regulatory authority for LNG development in a single federal
agency, FERC.
Or does it? When Congress designated FERC to decide the full
range of LNG siting issues, it also preserved the authority of in-
dividual states conferred by the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Thus, LNG project
developers must secure permits for waste water discharges and
air emissions, in compliance with federally approved state stan-
dards. Similarly, developers must certify consistency with state
coastal management plans approved by the National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Some states have wielded these authorities in a manner that
exceeds any legitimate interest in enforcing local environmen-
tal standards. They have exploited their preserved environmental
authority to attempt to unilaterally veto LNG projects. CZMA has
been the weapon of choice.
CZMA v. LNG
The CZMA is intended to encourage states to preserve, protect,
and restore their coastal environments. The states are to de-
velop programs that include objectives, policies, and standards
to guide coastal development. Once NOAA approves the plan, the
state is eligible for federal funding to support further planning
efforts. The CZMA and NOAA rules require developers to certify
consistency with the state plan.
The CZMA contemplates local participation in the planning
process, but purposely restricts the role of local laws and con-
cerns. First, state coastal management plans must give adequate
consideration to the national interest in energy facilities. Sec-
ond, CZMA requires state plans to ensure that local regulations do
not unreasonably restrict land uses of regional benefit. Third,
state coastal management agencies have the ability to override
local zoning ordinances.
The states have been creative in their attempts at blocking
LNG development under their CZMA programs, but have been
challenged in court. In AES Sparrows Point v. Smith, a county
adopted an ordinance to stop an LNG project, and the Maryland
coastal management agency included the ordinance in its CZMA
coastal plan. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the
NGA preempted the ordinance because it had not been approved
by NOAA as an amendment to the state coastal plan. One judge
on the Fourth Circuit was more direct, saying that states lack
authority under the CZMA to ban LNG facilities and the ordinance
would have been preempted under any circumstances.
A second case, Weavers Cove Energy LLC v. Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council, involved a more subtle state ap-
proach to blocking LNG projects. State law required the coastal
agencys approval of dredging plans. Because the Weaver Cove LNG
project proposed disposal of dredged materials in Massachusetts
over which Rhode Island would have no jurisdiction, Rhode Is-
land argued that it could not process the developers consistency
certification. The First Circuit didnt buy Rhode Islands argument,
holding that FERC has exclusive domain over dredging issues, and
thus the NGA preempts the states dredging requirement.
Oregon CZMA Implementation
In recent years, three LNG terminals and gas pipelines have been
proposed in Oregon. All have encountered resistance at the lo-
cal level, which under Oregons implementation of CZMA is par-
ticularly troublesome. The Oregon Coastal Management Plan is a
simple compilation of state laws, local land use comprehensive
plans and regulations, and permits. The Oregon coastal manage-
ment agency recently adopted rules requiring local permits to
show consistency with the state coastal plan.
The net result is that local governments are given veto au-
thority over LNG projects that FERC has approved, and notwith-
standing that FERC would have reviewed many of the same issues
included in the local government process. There could be no more
explicit repudiation of congressional authority to impose a na-
tional program for the siting of energy facilities.
Even if the courts prevent the states from abusing their CZMA
authority to foil LNG projects, the added cost, uncertainty, and
delay imposed on developers can be just as destructive as if the
states are upheld. Whatever one may think about LNG facilities,
gas pipelines, or energy exports generally, the fundamental ques-
tion remains: Is there a national energy policy or not? As impor-
tant as local concerns are, they cannot be allowed to trump the
national interest or there will be few interstate infrastructure
projectshighways, telecommunications networks, or electric
transmission lines, to name a fewthat will withstand the Not
in My Backyard test.
Richard M. Glick (rickglick@dwt.com) is a partner in Davis
Wright Tremaine LLPs energy and environmental practice group.
Mr. Glick and his law firm represent one of the three LNG projects
being developed in Oregon.
06_PWR_100113_L&R_p26-27.indd 26 9/13/13 2:13:25 PM
06_PWR_100113_L&R_p26-27.indd 27 9/13/13 2:14:23 PM
|
October 2013 28
TOP PLANTS
Cliffside Steam Station Unit 6,
Cliffside, North Carolina
Owner/operator: Duke Energy
D
uke Powers deep roots in North
Carolina go especially deep in the
Appalachian Mountain range in the
western part of the state, where Dukethen
Catawba Power Co.got its start building
hydroelectric generating stations to power
the states nascent industrial sector.
One of its first fossil fuel plants was the
Cliffside Steam Station, which broke ground
in January 1939. Its first 80-MW unit came
online the following July. The new plant was
located along the Broad River about 50 miles
east of Charlotte, with the intent of taking
advantage of its proximity to the Appala-
chian coal fields to power North Carolinas
growing textile industry. Three more units,
ultimately totaling 198 MW, came online
during the 1940s. Unit 5, located about half a
mile from the original four-unit building, was
completed in 1972 and added 556 MW to the
plants capacity.
But by the 2000s, it had become clear that
the oldest units were reaching the end of their
useful life, and the Cliffside station would be
unable to meet rapidly growing electricity
demand in the area, while complying with
increasingly stringent state and federal emis-
sions regulations, without a major upgrade.
In mid-2006, Duke filed an application with
the North Carolina Utilities Commission to
retire and replace Units 1 through 4. Though
Duke had originally hoped to add two 800-
MW supercritical units to the site, the com-
mission ultimately approved only one of
them in early 2007.
Construction
The Shaw Group was selected build the plant.
Duke and Shaw created an integrated team to
address design, specifications, and pricing
for the project, instead of using a fixed-price
engineering, procurement, and construction
contract. Permission to begin construction
was issued in January 2008, and ground was
broken shortly afterward. The permit includ-
ed an additional project installing a wet flue
gas desulfurizer (WFGD) on Unit 5.
Although the air permit issued by the state
included a first-of-its-kind carbon mitigation
plan, the proposal to build a large new coal
plant on the site sparked strenuous opposi-
tion from area environmental groups. Plant
opponents were concerned primarily about
mercury emissions from the new Unit 6, even
though replacing the old units would result in
a dramatic net reduction. Much of the dispute
centered around what emissions levels were
mandated under the Clean Air Act and state
regulations, a determination that was compli-
cated by the Environmental Protection Agen-
cys delay in finalizing Maximum Available
Control Technology rules for new plants.
Opponents were unsuccessful in stopping
the project despite a series of lawsuits and
administrative actions, as well as sporadic
episodes of civil disobedience. Duke agreed
With a mandate to cut emissions, improve efficiency, and increase output, Duke
set out to replace the four World War IIera units at Cliffside Steam Station with a
modern, state-of-the-art supercritical plant. The result was one of the cleanest, most
efficient coal plants in the country, with twice the output and half the emissions of
its predecessor.
Thomas Overton
Courtesy: Duke Energy
Power Plant Parts
to go.
Fully designed as a nominal 600 MW GE steam turbine, this Unit 1 power block
is a coal-fred electric generating unit in waiting making it or its equipment a
perfect solution for a utility that projects demand and demands effciency.
Ready for re-siting and permitting, this plant design comes with complete
documentation of the power block specifcations and calculations and its
major equipment is 100% delivered. If you have interest in either the entire plant
design or the equipment, they are priced to move. Quickly.
For information, contact John Dills, Santee Cooper, at 843-761-8000, ext. 5772
or visit www.santeecooper.com/wpsale.
Engineered, Procured and Ready to Construct.
Get the free mobile app for your phone
http:/ / gettag.mobi
Download the MS Tag Reader App at http://gettag.mobi
to scan for design details and available equipment.
07_PWR_100113_TP_Cliffside_p28-31.indd 28 9/13/13 2:21:00 PM
Power Plant Parts
to go.
Fully designed as a nominal 600 MW GE steam turbine, this Unit 1 power block
is a coal-fred electric generating unit in waiting making it or its equipment a
perfect solution for a utility that projects demand and demands effciency.
Ready for re-siting and permitting, this plant design comes with complete
documentation of the power block specifcations and calculations and its
major equipment is 100% delivered. If you have interest in either the entire plant
design or the equipment, they are priced to move. Quickly.
For information, contact John Dills, Santee Cooper, at 843-761-8000, ext. 5772
or visit www.santeecooper.com/wpsale.
Engineered, Procured and Ready to Construct.
Download the MS Tag Reader App at http://gettag.mobi
to scan for design details and available equipment.
COVER STORY
|
October 2013 30
TOP PLANTS
in a settlement reached in early 2012 that it
would retire 1,667 MW of coal-fired capac-
ity and tighten pollution controls at Cliffside.
Although Duke had already publicly declared
its intention to retire the plants, the settlement
made the plans legally binding.
Workforce levels peaked in excess of 2,000
skilled workers on site, and over 15 million
hours were expended to complete the over-
all Cliffside modernization effort. Despite its
size and complexity, the five-year project was
completed with no serious accidents. Shaw
Group received the prestigious Building Star
award from the North Carolina Department
of Labor, recognizing its efforts to establish
and maintain a safe work environment.
The size of the project necessitated re-
routing nearby state highway 221A and con-
structing a new railroad bridge in order to
eliminate an at-grade railroad crossing. Duke
completed this phase for the state at its cost.
Advanced Design
The new Unit 6 boiler is a spiral-wound,
wall-fired, sliding pressure supercritical
steam generator supplied by Hitachi Power
Systems America that is capable of burning
a range of coals from bituminous to a 50-50
blend of bituminous and subbituminous, and
can supply up to 6 million pounds of steam
per hour. The Toshiba tandem compound
four-flow supercritical steam turbine gen-
erator is capable of various operating condi-
tions (Figure 1). The cycle achieves its very
high efficiency in part due to the supercriti-
cal steam conditions, with 3,992 psi/1,055F
main steam and 678 psi/1,075F reheat steam.
These are among the highest operating condi-
tions in North America and make Unit 6 23%
more efficient than the units it replaced.
The plant also includes advanced air qual-
ity control systems. The Alstom-supplied
arrangement is an innovative combination
of proven technologies that include a spray
dryer absorber (SDA), fabric filter baghouse,
and a wet flue gas desulfurizer. The system
removes 99.9% of fly ash, 99% of SO
x
, and
90% of mercury to meet particulate emis-
sion limits for coals having up to 27% ash.
Finally, Unit 6 was specifically built to ac-
commodate future carbon-control technolo-
gies when they become available.
Combined with the new emissions controls
on Unit 5, the modernized Cliffside Steam
Station will produce over twice the electric-
ity as compared with the original Units 1 to 5
while reducing SO
x
emissions by 80%, NO
x

by 50%, and mercury by 50%. Units 5 and 6
now share a common stack.
The new plant is efficient in other ways.
Unit 6, and specifically the AQCS, was de-
signed to reuse and recycle resources as
much as is practicable. While the old plant
had relied on the Broad River for cooling,
the new plant utilizes closed-loop cooling
towers. That change reduces withdrawals
from the river by almost 90%. Cooling tower
blowdown is used as makeup for the WFGD,
and the WFGD purge stream is used as make-
up for the SDA. Finally, the combustion and
WFGD by-products are recycled for use in
the construction industry.
Because of the clean, efficient design of
Unit 6, Duke received a $125 million Ad-
vanced Coal Project tax credit from the De-
partment of Energy.
The control systems for Unit 6 are as ad-
vanced as the power systems. Duke devel-
oped and implemented a digital monitoring
and control strategy that integrated the opera-
tor human machine interface within an Em-
erson Ovation digital control system (DCS),
eliminating almost all proprietary/standalone/
third-party controllers. Bus technologiesin
particular, Foundation Fieldbus in analog
control loopswere utilized to greatly re-
duce the quantity of hardwired instrumenta-
tion and control cabling and terminations.
Duke partnered with Emerson and Sch-
weitzer Engineering Laboratories to pilot a
first-of-a-kind direct memory access inter-
face between the DCS and smart protective
relays in all switchgear. This allowed reli-
able DCS control and monitoring of digital
control loops with essentially no hardwired
cabling or terminations required.
Up and Running
The $1.8 billion project was brought in on bud-
get, and Unit 6 entered commercial operation
on Dec. 30, 2012. Emissions and performance
testing were completed during the fourth quar-
ter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013.
Completing this unit advances Duke En-
ergys fleet modernization by allowing us to
retire older, less efficient units both at this
site and at other locations in North Carolina,
said Charlie Gates, Dukes senior vice presi-
dent of Power Generation Operations.
The contractual acceptance test demon-
strated that Unit 6 achieved a heat rate of
8,890 Btu/kWh net, among the best in the
country, while meeting the very stringent air
permit emission limits. The excellent heat
rate is attributed to low auxiliary loads and
the extremely efficient supercritical boiler
and supercritical steam turbine generator.
Cliffside Unit 6 has one of the most strin-
gent air quality permits in the country, and
our emissions testing program has demon-
strated that these sophisticated controls are
performing very well, Gates said. This unit
also has the flexibility to burn a wide range
of coals with superior emissions removal,
which allows us to purchase cost-effective
coals and provide additional savings to cus-
tomers while improving air quality.
Going forward, Units 5 and 6 are expected
to consume more than 4 million tons of coal
a year. The plant can stockpile 450,000 tons
on site. Units 14 were officially retired in
October 2011.
Thomas W. Overton, JD is POWERs gas
technology editor (on Twitter @thomas_
overton and @POWERmagazine).
1. Big red. One of Cliffside Unit 6s high-pressure turbine housings is lifted into place during
construction. Courtesy: Duke Energy
The power industry is challenged with evolving regulations
and the need to operate cost effectively with fuel exibility
and at the highest efciency. GE experts offer a complete
package of innovative solutions for your challenges and
tailor-made for your specic needs. We are your one
source for chemistry, equipment, and monitoring solutions
for all types of power plants. Your bonus - peace of mind in
a grid-variable power generation environment.
Scan the QR code
with your smartphone
to learn whats
inside GEs complete
package for the
power industry.
www.geimagination.com/CMS/Power
Delivering
reliability and
peace of mind
The power industry is challenged with evolving regulations
and the need to operate cost effectively with fuel exibility
and at the highest efciency. GE experts offer a complete
package of innovative solutions for your challenges and
tailor-made for your specic needs. We are your one
source for chemistry, equipment, and monitoring solutions
for all types of power plants. Your bonus - peace of mind in
a grid-variable power generation environment.
Scan the QR code
with your smartphone
to learn whats
inside GEs complete
package for the
power industry.
www.geimagination.com/CMS/Power
Delivering
reliability and
peace of mind
|
October 2013 32
T
here will surely be readers who will
disagree with our selection of the
Edwardsport Generating Station in-
tegrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
as a POWER Top Plant. Opponents argue the
final price tag for Edwardsport could have
purchased five times the nameplate rating of
natural gasfired generation while incurring
little technology or completion risk. Oth-
ers argue that the original decision-making
process was flawed given todays low price
for natural gas and that there is no compel-
ling regulatory requirement for pursuing
the carbon capture potential of IGCC tech-
nology. They forget that natural gas prices
were spiking and carbon control proposals
dominated the news at the time this project
was given a green light. Reduced demand
for electricity has also called into question
whether the plant is even needed, but again,
thats 20/20 hindsight. All will agree that the
decision to build the plant remains contro-
versial and discussions about it will likely
remain contentious.
Nevertheless, Edwardsport should be rec-
ognized as a Top Plant for two reasons.
First, Duke Energy decided that commer-
cializing state-of-the-art gasification tech-
nology was the right thing to do (although,
in retrospect, for the wrong reasons). At the
time, Duke was a strong supporter of several
ill-fated legislative carbon control propos-
als. Duke believed that climate legislation
is likely forthcoming and we would prefer
to lead the way on this issue. Edwardsport
provides that opportunity. Also, the then-
20% cost premium for the project was to be
offset principally by federal tax credits in-
cluded in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and by
avoiding the soon-expected cost of carbon
emission allowances.
Whatever your personal feelings about
carbon controls, one must appreciate Dukes
single-mindedness in deploying bleeding
edge technologies, particularly in an indus-
try customarily uninterested in serial No. 1
projects, particularly those with a nine- or
10-digit price tag.
The second reason for this award is that
Edwardsport remains too important to over-
look. It is one of only two IGCC projects that
will come to fruition in the near future as
developers have abandoned more than three
dozen similar projects over the past decade.
The power industry must learn from its good
and bad experiences and grow stronger. Ed-
wardsport is likely the first giant step on the
development path toward next-generation
coal combustion technology.
IGCC Has Potential
IGCC has many desirable operating char-
acteristics, such as lower air emissions,
Edwardsport Generating Station,
Knox County, Indiana
Owner/operator: Duke Energy Indiana
TOP PLANTS
Courtesy: Duke Energy
Duke Energy Indiana was at an energy crossroads a decade ago. The last two
operating units at the Edwardsport Generating Station were scheduled for re-
tirement, new baseload generation was required, and using Indiana coal to fuel
a new plant was desirable. Duke Energy selected integrated gasification com-
bined cycle (IGCC) technology to provide 618 MW of baseload power for its cus-
tomers. Duke Energy declared the IGCC plant commercial in June 2013.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
08_PWR_100113_TP_Edwardsport_p32-33.indd 32 9/13/13 2:28:25 PM
TOP PLANTS
October 2013
|
less water use, less solid waste generation,
and higher gross thermal efficiency than
a conventional pulverized coal plant with
modern emission controls. These benefits
increase when a plant burns high-sulfur
Midwestern coal, as Edwardsport does.
In fact, with IGCC, emissions of criteria
pollutants are generally an order of mag-
nitude cleaner than required by current
regulations. In general, the lower emis-
sions are possible because the pollutants
are removed before combustion rather than
post-combustion, as with a typical pulver-
ized coal plant. At Edwardsport, key pol-
lutants (particulates, sulfur, and mercury)
are removed between the gasifier and the
combustion turbines, when they are in a
more concentrated form and removal tech-
nologies are much more efficient.
Additionally, and a prime reason Duke
chose this technology in the first place, an
IGCC plant can be designed from the start,
or retrofitted, to capture carbon dioxide prior
to fuel combustion.
The Edwardsport 2 x 1 IGCC uses a coal
gasification system to convert coal into a
synthesis gas (syngas) that fuels the com-
bustion turbines (CTs). Bechtel Corp. was
responsible for project design and construc-
tion of the plant based on General Electric
(GE) gasification technology. GE provided
the process design and two separate trains
of its radiant quench gasification equipment.
The processcapable of using high-sulfur,
high-ash coals found in the Midwestcon-
verts the coal into a slurry and feeds it into
the gasifier along with oxygen, where it is
turned into raw syngas consisting of H
2
and
CO. The raw syngas is next scrubbed of fly-
ash, mercury, chlorides, and sulfur before it
is burned in the CTs.
GE also supplied two 7FB IGCC syn-
gas CTs, each rated at 232 MW, the single
320-MW four-flow reheat steam turbine,
and the plants Mark VIe distributed con-
trol system. Exhaust gas from each CT
travels through a Doosan-supplied two-
pressure heat-recovery steam generator to
produce steam that drives the steam tur-
bine (Figure 1). Air Products supplied the
air separation unit that produces oxygen
for the gasifier.
Development Speed Bumps
Duke received approval to construct Ed-
wardsport from the Indiana Utility Regula-
tory Commission (IURC) on Nov. 20, 2007,
despite the earnest objections of many con-
sumer and environmental groups. When
proposed in 2006, the project cost estimate
was ~$2 billion, net of potential tax credits.
Construction began in March 2008 and two
months later the project cost estimate was in-
creased to $2.35 billion. The planned startup
date was the summer of 2011.
Dukes clout within the political process
was apparent during 2009. The proposed
American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009 (ACES) was designed around the car-
bon control blueprint written by US-CAP, an
advocacy group of which Duke Energy was
a founding member. The bill barely passed
its June 26, 2009, House vote but was later
defeated in the Senate. Edwardsport was well
under construction by this time, reportedly
30% complete in October 2009.
Projects costs continued to inch up during
200910. By November 2009, Duke official-
ly adjusted its cost estimate upward by ~6%
($150 million), followed by another increase
of ~$530 million in April 2010. The plant
was reported to be 55% complete in July
2010. By November 2011, the cost estimate
had soared to nearly $3 billion.
The IURC capped the amount of recover-
able construction costs at $2.595 billion in
December 2012 as part of a 134-page settle-
ment agreement, although the additional
financing costs of $320 million are not in-
cluded in the cap. The project cost is now
estimated as ~$3.5 billion$1.5 billion
over the original estimateand the plant
was conservatively one year late entering
service. Duke Energy responded that the in-
creased costs were a result of the projects
scale and complexity.
Edwardsport was declared to be in com-
mercial operation on June 7, 2013, although
the plant was shut down for repairs six days
later, the Indianapolis Star reported. The out-
age was reportedly caused by damage to fans
required by the two gasifiers. Since repairs,
the plant has been running intermittently. A
monthly compliance report filed with state
regulators revealed the plant operated with
~10% capacity factor in June.
Dukes declared in-service date has reig-
nited the passions of those opposed to the
project. A Duke Energy spokesperson con-
firmed that the plant is expected to slowly
ramp up to its full capacity over the next 15
months, taking many industry observers by
surprise. Opponents suggest that Duke pre-
maturely declared the plant commercial to
take advantage of a loophole in the settle-
ment agreement: Capital repair costs that
occur subsequent to commercial operation
should come under the cost cap and could be
disguised as operation and maintenance costs
normally paid by ratepayers. A Duke spokes-
person disputes the accusation, noting, it all
depends on the repair. The IURC and other
advocacy groups will certainly closely scruti-
nize repair costs incurred subsequent to com-
mercial operation.
The project team of Duke, Bechtel, and
GE will unquestionably do what is necessary
to get the plant running reliably in the com-
ing months, although the controversies sur-
rounding the project will likely not subside.
The best way to quiet critics will be with a
history of reliable operation.
For unilaterally taking a significant step
in developing IGCC technology with car-
bon capture potentiala move that will
allow the use of domestic coal as a power
production fuel in the futureEdwardsport
Generating Station is recognized as a 2013
Top Plant. We look forward to reporting on
the plants full-load and reliable operation
in 2014.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE, is POWERs
consulting editor.
1. Complex arrangement. The air inlet filter to one of the two GE 7FB IGCC syngas
combustion turbines is shown on the far right, with the two-pressure heat recovery steam
generators are shown in the background. Courtesy: Duke Energy
08_PWR_100113_TP_Edwardsport_p32-33.indd 33 9/13/13 2:30:04 PM
|
October 2013 34
TOP PLANTS
Mundra UMPP, Gujarat, India
Owner/operator: Tata Power
I
ndias emergence as an economic power-
house has been tempered by acute power
shortages that stem from severe supply
side constraints. In August 2012, although
the countrys installed capacity soared to
207 GW, a crippling electricity deficit of up
to 12% persisted, centered on five northern
power-hungry states: Maharashtra, Madhya
Pardesh, Uttar Pardesh, Punjab, and Harya-
na. The government has planned to increase
its new generating capacity target from 76
GW to more than 88.4 GWthe bulk from
new coal capacityover its 12th Plan pe-
riod, which runs from 2012 to 2017, but it
also means to retire older energy-inefficient
plants and put in their place more advanced
supercritical thermal ones.
Complicating Indias energy dilemma is a
2005 initiative by Indias government to pro-
vide Power to all by 2012. To address the
deepening supply-demand chasm by incentiv-
izing the injection of increased private invest-
ment into power generation, the government at
that time also initiated an ambitious program
to build several ultra-mega power plants
(UMPPs). These comprise projects with an in-
stalled capacity of 4,000 MW to make power
available at a minimum cost through econo-
mies of scale of energy-efficient and envi-
ronmentally friendly technologies. However,
though it was a major initiative of the 11th
Plan (which ran from 2007 to 2012), so far,
power purchase agreements have only been
signed for four UMPPseach on a build-
own-operate basis via competitive tariff-based
bidding.
In 2005, the government appointed the
Power Finance Corp. (PFC) as the nodal
agency for developing UMPPs, which in
turn set up Special Purpose Vehicles that
are tasked with all initial development work,
including obtaining required land, water,
coal blocks, and environmental and other
clearances for the projecteven before the
projects are handed over to developers af-
ter bidding is resolved. The developers are
primarily responsible for arranging funding
and technology, placing orders for key equip-
ment, as well as executing and operating
the project. To date, 16 UMPPs have been
planned in various states, including Andhra
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Orissa, and Tamil Nadu.
The First UMPP
Tata Powers wholly owned subsidiary
Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. (CGPL) in 2006
won the first of four bids awarded since 2005
for the Mundra UMPP. This plantsited on
a well-connected site of about 1,305 hect-
ares in a coastal area south of Tunda village
in Mundra Taluka, in the Kutch District of
Gujaratis also the first of those projects to
fully go live. All five of Mundras 800-MW
units were commissioned between March
2012 and March 2013.
Between 2007 and 2009, Reliance Power
won bids for the remaining three UMPP
projects. In addition to the 3,960-MW Sasan
project in Madhya Pradesh, that company is
developing the six-unit 3,960-MW Krish-
napatnam plant in Andhra Pradesh (though
construction has now stalled) and the simi-
lar 3,960-MW Tilaiya project in Jharkhand,
whose construction has yet to begin (see more
in Indias First Coal Mine-Integrated Super-
critical Plant Synchronized in POWERs
May 2013 issue). Those delays have been
blamed on recent events, which have posed
a number of serious hurdles to both develop-
ers, forcing them to grapple with an array
of issues, from land acquisition and mine-
related clearances to a shortage of domestic
coal supply and unprecedented increases in
the prices of imported coal.
At 4,000 MW, CGPLs Mundra plants
significance to India is underscored. The
plant supplies 2% of the nations total pow-
er, including power to five Indian states:
Tata Powers 4-GW ultra-mega power plant near the port city of Mundra in the west-
ern state of Gujarat became fully operational this March despite serious fuel chal-
lenges, establishing Indias first 800-MW units based on supercritical technology.
Sonal Patel
Courtesy: Tata Power
PENNGUARD
Block Lining System

PROTECTING POWER
PLANT CHIMNEYS
Tel: 412 204 0028
sales@hadek.com
www.hadek.com
Hadek is the expert on power plant
chimney and ductwork protection,
and a global distributor of the
Pennguard
Block Lining System.

We deliver:
Research and feasibility studies
Detail engineering
Installation supervision
Lifetime Performance
Monitoring System
10 year limited warranty
Tomorrows chimney
design: lighter, cheaper,
built to last
The New Chimney Design from Hadek is a revolution in power
plant chimney construction.
Its slim and lightweight, but built to last even in seismic
regions. Its normally around five months faster and 20%
less expensive to build than traditional chimneys.
The design is simple: a smooth reinforced concrete shell, with
the Pennguard
Block Lining System applied directly to its

inside surface. So theres no need for a separate internal flue.
Why is the New Chimney Design the future?
Its low maintenance, with minimal risk of component failure.
Its long-lasting the Pennguard
lining has a projected service

life of at least 20 years. It has outstanding seismic tolerance.
Also it is designed specifically for a wide range of operating
conditions including low temperature FGD operation.
Make the New Chimney Design part of your plans.
Contact Hadek now: 412 204 0028, sales@hadek.com
Pennguard is a registered trademark of Henkel KGaA and is used with their permission
This advertisement is not to be considered a warranty concerning product performance
Concrete shell
Ambient temperature
15c (59F)
44c (111F)
23c(73F)
Pennguard
Block Lining
System protects against acid
condensate, high temperatures
and thermal shock
Flue gas stream
44c
23c(
130c (266F)
50c (122F)
HDK_NCD_POW.MAG_203x273_M08_AW 4/7/08 2:59 pm Page l
09_PWR_100113_TP_Mundra_p34-37.indd 34 9/13/13 8:15:11 PM
PENNGUARD
Block Lining System

PROTECTING POWER
PLANT CHIMNEYS
Tel: 412 204 0028
sales@hadek.com
www.hadek.com
Hadek is the expert on power plant
chimney and ductwork protection,
and a global distributor of the
Pennguard
Block Lining System.

We deliver:
Research and feasibility studies
Detail engineering
Installation supervision
Lifetime Performance
Monitoring System
10 year limited warranty
Tomorrows chimney
design: lighter, cheaper,
built to last
The New Chimney Design from Hadek is a revolution in power
plant chimney construction.
Its slim and lightweight, but built to last even in seismic
regions. Its normally around five months faster and 20%
less expensive to build than traditional chimneys.
The design is simple: a smooth reinforced concrete shell, with
the Pennguard
Block Lining System applied directly to its

inside surface. So theres no need for a separate internal flue.
Why is the New Chimney Design the future?
Its low maintenance, with minimal risk of component failure.
Its long-lasting the Pennguard
lining has a projected service

life of at least 20 years. It has outstanding seismic tolerance.
Also it is designed specifically for a wide range of operating
conditions including low temperature FGD operation.
Make the New Chimney Design part of your plans.
Contact Hadek now: 412 204 0028, sales@hadek.com
Pennguard is a registered trademark of Henkel KGaA and is used with their permission
This advertisement is not to be considered a warranty concerning product performance
Concrete shell
Ambient temperature
15c (59F)
44c (111F)
23c(73F)
Pennguard
Block Lining
System protects against acid
condensate, high temperatures
and thermal shock
Flue gas stream
44c
23c(
130c (266F)
50c (122F)
HDK_NCD_POW.MAG_203x273_M08_AW 4/7/08 2:59 pm Page l
|
October 2013 36
TOP PLANTS
the booming industrial western states of
Gujarat (1.8 GW) and Maharashtra (760
MW) plus Haryana (380 MW), Rajasthan
(380 MW), and Punjab (475 MW) in north-
ern India, which face debilitating electric-
ity shortages.
Among the worlds largest greenfield ther-
mal generation projects, the massive plant is
today also coal-heavy Indias most efficient
fully operational thermal power plant. The
project was completed in a record time of one
year from the date of commissioning of the
first 800-MW unit in March 2012 (Table 1).
That means the average gap between synchro-
nization of two units has been 3.5 months,
which is better than the baseline schedule of
four months and is much better than the five
months provided in original power purchase
agreements, says CGPL.
At the same time, the plant heralds the en-
try of 800-MW supercritical boiler technol-
ogy in India. According to CGPL, what sets
the plants technology apart from recircu-
lation type boilers in 500-MW subcritical
units commonly used in the country is that
the boilers for the supercritical 800-MW
units are a once-through type. As com-
pared to any other subcritical power plant
in India, the project avoids burning 1.7 mil-
lion metric tons of coal per year. Mundras
greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour
of energy generated are 750 grams of car-
bon dioxide (g CO
2
) per kWh, as compared
to Indias national average of 1,259 g CO
2
/
kWh for coal-based power plants. The
choice of imported coal also significantly
lowers sulfur emissions, the company says.
The plant uses significantly less than the
stipulated 1% sulfur and 10% ash content in
coal. All coal ash generated from the plant is
collected and stored within the plant prem-
ises in silos and ponds.
In-House Successes
The plant has won two Project Finance In-
ternational accolades for its brisk pace of
development: In 2008, it was awarded the
Asia-Pacific Power Deal of the Year for its fi-
nancing achievement in a span of 12 months,
and in 2012, it won the Infrastructure Excel-
lence Award in the Energy and Power catego-
ry for the execution of the Mundra UMPP.
But it is also recognized for innovative
practices, including the introduction of a
Safety Time Out session and a Safety In-
tervention Audit Team, which has resulted in
improved risk perception of employees and
increased safety awareness at CGPL Mun-
dra, the company says.
A number of in-house developments have
also helped construction and operation pro-
cesses. During the plants construction, the
project team invented and deployed funnel-
shaped welding spatter arrestors for works at
height. The plant also uses unique wind bar-
riers for the internal coal-handling system,
which has resulted in reduced coal dust fugi-
tive emissions to nearby villages.
During construction, CGPL also commit-
tedly interacted with the neighboring com-
munities10 predominantly agricultural
villages within a 10-kilometer radius of the
facilityto iron out agreements on land rates
and land title issues within families. CGPL
has since then engaged deeply with the vil-
lagers to improve employment and aid self-
sufficiency (via micro-finance programs),
education, health, drinking water, infrastruc-
ture, and rural energy. One way it mitigated
loss of grazing land was to provide fodder for
the villagers 3,000 cattle, an initiative that
has been recognized nationally and on the
state level.
Fuel Challenges
But the Mundra plant continues to grapple
with what is perhaps its biggest challenge:
procuring imported coal in a highly volatile
international market.
In 2007, Tata Power had contracted coal
from Indonesiathe preferred choice for
Indian developers due to advantages in lo-
gistics and mining costson terms that were
reflected in bid tariffs. In September 2010,
however, the Indonesian government issued
a regulation that obliged coal producers to
sell minerals and coal based on a regulated
benchmark price. The new regulations ren-
dered coal contracts between Tata Power
and Indonesian producers invalid and put
the company in the precarious position of
procuring imported coal at an unprecedent-
ed cost that increased 150% to 200% from
the start of the bid process. The coal price
change has made tariff-based prices of the
power purchase agreements between CGPL
and the five Indian states, cemented in April
2007, unviable.
Despite Indias Central Electricity Regu-
latory Commissions order this April to link
compensatory tariffs to international coal
prices (and its subsequent recommendation
that the projects gross compensatory tar-
iff be raised by 56 to 58 paise/kWh (about
$0.01/kWh as of August 2013) to help make
it profitable again), Tata Power continues to
flail financially on woes tied to international
loans secured for Mundra in 2008 that are
worth Rs. 17,000 crore. With the weak ru-
pee crisis that has recently hit India, Mundra
now faces a massive dollar loan liability of
$1.4 billion.
To address its fuel challenges and reflect
the change in the cost of Indonesian coal,
CGPL has begun blending and deploying al-
ternate coal called eco-coal, which it says
is equally environmentally friendly and low
in sulfur content but also cost competitive
and therefore helping to offset costs. Up to
70% blending is being done to offset some of
the cost impact due to steep increase in in-
ternational coal prices and we plan to maxi-
mize this to reduce overall cost of fuel, the
company says. This is a partial solution that
will mitigate large excursions in costs due to
devaluation of Indian rupee as well as in the
costs of fuel.
Mundras operational success in the fog
of so many uncertainties qualifies it as a
POWER Top Plant. But the future of other In-
dian UMPPs remains uncertain. One urgent
policy concern that Indias government will
need to deal with in the near future is to ag-
gressively scout and retain other global coal
resources. Besides, Tata Power says, it
needs to create enabling policy framework
wherein use of such imported fuels would be
dealt with properly specially in terms of its
commercial dispensation. Further, the rise in
imported coal fuel prices due to regulatory
issues in global markets including Indonesia
would also need to be dealt lest developers
would not create downstream investments
here in India to use imported coal.
For now, Tata PowerIndias largest in-
tegrated power companywill seek to fur-
ther diversify its portfolio of 6,899 MW in
thermal, hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal
generation. With the Mundra plant complet-
ed, the company has plans to add 26 GW by
2020, of which 20% will be from renewable
sources.
Sonal Patel is a POWER associate
editor.
Milestone Date
Letter of Intent received from the
Ministry of Power
Dec. 2006
Share purchase agreement with
Power Finance Corp.
Apr. 2007
Power purchase agreement with
procurers
Apr. 2007
Notice to proceed for boiler
(Doosan) and steam turbine
generator (Toshiba)
Sept. 2007
Financial closure Apr. 2008
Unit 1 commissioned Mar. 2012
Unit 2 commissioned July 2012
Unit 3 commissioned Dec. 2012
Unit 4 commissioned Jan. 2013
Unit 5 commissioned Mar. 2013
Table 1. Project milestones for the Mun-
dra UMPP. Source: Tata Power
www.TerraSource.com
Posimetricis a licensed trademark of GE Energy (USA) LLC.
TerraSource
Global is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) 2013, TerraSource
Global. All rights reserved.

Handling
a World
of Materials
Precise Product Sized for Maximum Yield The Leader in Uptime Since 1905
Impactors
Granulators
Roll Mills
Cage Mills Breakers
Grinders Coalpactors
Hammermills
Eliminate
Fugitive
Dust!
a brand of a brand of
Posimetric
Feeders
Improve plant safety with these
dust-free feeders.
For coal, limestone, biomass, crushed stone, sand, wood chips and more.
Gundlach Crushers
Phone: 1-618-233-7208
E-mail: BetterCrushers@GundlachCrushers.com
Pennsylvania Crusher
Phone: 1-610-544-7200
E-mail: Buster@PennCrusher.com
Models to Suit any Capacity
Uses Ultra-low Horsepower
Unmatched Reliability
Only One Moving Part
www.TerraSource.com
Posimetricis a licensed trademark of GE Energy (USA) LLC.
TerraSource
Global is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) 2013, TerraSource
Global. All rights reserved.

Handling
a World
of Materials
Precise Product Sized for Maximum Yield The Leader in Uptime Since 1905
Impactors
Granulators
Roll Mills
Cage Mills Breakers
Grinders Coalpactors
Hammermills
Eliminate
Fugitive
Dust!
a brand of a brand of
Posimetric
Feeders
Improve plant safety with these
dust-free feeders.
For coal, limestone, biomass, crushed stone, sand, wood chips and more.
Gundlach Crushers
Phone: 1-618-233-7208
E-mail: BetterCrushers@GundlachCrushers.com
Pennsylvania Crusher
Phone: 1-610-544-7200
E-mail: Buster@PennCrusher.com
Models to Suit any Capacity
Uses Ultra-low Horsepower
Unmatched Reliability
Only One Moving Part
|
October 2013 38
TOP PLANTS
Prairie State Energy Campus,
Washington County, Illinois
Owner/operator: Prairie State Generating Co., LLC
The 1,600-MW Prairie State Energy Campus uses the latest coal technology to burn
Illinois coal from the Lively Grove mine, located adjacent to the plant. In planning
since 2001, the second unit of the two-unit, $4.93 billion plant entered commercial
service in November 2012, thus completing the largest coal-fired plant built in the
U.S. in 30 years.
T
he Prairie State Energy Campus
(PSEC) is likely the last of the multi-
unit coal-fired power plants that will
be built in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.
The most recently commissioned coal plants
(SWEPCOs 600-MW John W. Turk, Jr. and
Duke Energys 825-MW Cliffside Unit 6) are
single-unit plants with no firm plans for fu-
ture expansion. The last two-unit coal-fired
plants completed as a single project were
Luminants Oak Grove power plant (2 x 800
MW) and We Energies Elm Road plant (2
x 615), both completed in 2010, but thats
where the similarity ends.
Peabody Energy Corp., the worlds largest
private-sector coal company, originally con-
ceived the development plan for PSEC in the
early 2000s. The plan called for strategically
locating a power plant adjacent to its Illinois
Basin coal reserves as a means to ensure fu-
ture fuel supplies and to minimize the impact
on rates caused by market price fluctuations
of delivered coal, including transportation.
Electricity customers benefit from steady, af-
fordable rates for decades to come because
the project also secured more than 30 years
of coal reserves located adjacent to PSEC.
Ninety-five percent of PSECs ownership
group are public power agencies and com-
munity-owned electric utilities, spread over
eight states. The Prairie State Energy Cam-
pus owners are not-for-profit, public power
entities including American Municipal Power
(23.36%), Illinois Municipal Electric Agency
(15.17%), Indiana Municipal Power Agency
(12.64%), Kentucky Municipal Power Agen-
cy (7.82%), Missouri Joint Municipal Elec-
tric Utility Commission (12.33%), Northern
Illinois Municipal Power Agency (7.60%),
Prairie State Power Inc. (8.22%), Southern
Illinois Power Cooperative (7.90%), and
Peabody Energy (5.06%) through its Lively
Grove Energy subsidiary. Each member of
the ownership group receives electricity from
the plant proportional to its ownership per-
centage and pays a like percentage of the
plants ownership and operating costs.
Central Location
PSEC is located on a 1,200-acre site that
includes both Prairie States Lively Grove
underground mine and the power plant. The
mine-mouth plant, located about 50 miles
southeast of St. Louis, consumes ~7 million
tons per year of Illinois Basin coal.
Construction of the $4.93 billion plant be-
gan in May 2007 with site preparation fol-
lowing several years of lawsuits and legal
challenges related to the plants air permit
that were finally resolved in favor of PSEC.
Purchase contracts for the steam generators,
steam turbines, and air quality control equip-
ment were concluded in June-July 2007. The
underground coal mine was operational in
2010. Unit 1 went online on June 6, 2012,
followed by Unit 2 on Nov. 3, 2012.
PSEC consists of two supercritical coal-
fired steam generators manufactured by The
Babcock & Wilcox Co. Each steam genera-
Courtesy: Prairie State Generating Co., LLC
10_PWR_100113_TP_PrairieState_p38-39.indd 38 9/13/13 8:31:21 PM
October 2013
|
TOP PLANTS
tor delivers main steam at ~3,800 psia and
1,055F at the superheater and reheater out-
lets. The steam generators are sliding pres-
sure, balanced draft units with spiral-wound
furnace wall construction. The tube materi-
als were selected to accommodate the use of
high-sulfur Illinois Basin coals. The state-of-
the art emissions controls were designed and
furnished by Siemens Power Generation Inc.
to remove 98% of SO
2
, 90% NO
x
, and more
than 99% of particulate matter, the most
common emissions. PSEC takes native Illi-
nois coal that contains more than 9 pounds of
SO
2
per million Btu and reduces emissions
to just 0.182 pounds of SO
2
per million Btu.
This results in emissions that are less than
one-fifth the national average for existing
coal-fueled plants.
The air quality control equipment arrange-
ment begins with low-NO
x
burners, followed
by a selective catalytic reduction system for
NO
x
control, an activated carbon injection
system for mercury control, a hydrated lime
injection system for hydrofluoric acid remov-
al, a dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for
particulate control, wet flue gas desulfuriza-
tion for SO
2
control, and a wet ESP for aerosol
control. PSEC reportedly spent ~$1 billion on
its air quality control systems alone.
Toshiba International Corp. supplied the
steam turbine-generators, nominally rated at
877 MW at an exhaust pressure of 3.0 inches
of mercury. Each steam turbine is a 3,600-
rpm, extraction condensing, reheat type
unit with eight stages of steam extraction
for feedwater heating and feedwater pump
supply. The electric generators are rated at
1,020 kVA and are direct-driven, two-pole,
hydrogen-cooled machines with secondary
water cooling.
Steam turbine exhaust steam is condensed
in a two-shell, single-pressure, water-cooled
surface condenser with stainless steel tubes.
Cooling water is circulated through the con-
densers and cooled by mechanical draft cool-
ing towers. The circulating water system for
each unit uses three 33%-capacity circulating
water pumps, and one auxiliary 100%-capaci-
ty cooling water pump. Makeup water is sup-
plied from the Kaskaskia River located about
15 miles west of the plant. A storage pond has
an on-site 30-day backup water supply.
Express Delivery
Coal from the mine is conveyed to PSEC and
placed on the coal storage pile at a rate of
2,600 tons per hour via conveyor system. In
the normal course of business, sufficient coal
to operate the plant for 24 hours is delivered to
the plant in 10 hours. Coal is reclaimed from
the coal pile at 2,600 tons per hour to surge
hoppers located near each steam generator.
The active coal pile holds approximately 10
days of fuel under normal operating condi-
tions. Space on the plant site has also been al-
located for an inactive coal pile that can store
fuel for up to 60 days under full-load opera-
tion. Rail service to the plant was configured
so that external supplies of coal, of a quality
specified in the plants air permit, could be
procured should there be an extended disrup-
tion in coal deliveries from the mine.
Bottom and fly ash from the boiler and
air quality control systems are collected
and combined with the wastes produced
by the flue gas desulfurization systems and
conveyed to the coal combustion residuals
(CCRs) storage area. Wastewater produced
by the plant, such as boiler and cooling tow-
er blowdown, is reused in the ash-handling
and flue gas desulfurization systems. Rail
service is also used for delivery of lime-
stone and disposal of CCRs. PSEC disposes
its CCRs in the newly constructed Near
Field, a monofill built to Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency standards that sits
directly adjacent to the power plant. CCRs
are transported to Near Field via conveyor,
further reducing the need for rail transporta-
tion. PSGC also maintains Jordan Grove, a
fully lined and managed monofill 12 miles
south of the campus.
Revised and Amended
PSEC, like any controversial power genera-
tion project, experienced delays caused by
permitting legal challenges and construc-
tion delays. Bechtel Power Corp. and Prai-
rie State Generating Co., LLC originally
entered into a time and material engineer-
ing-procurement-construction (EPC) agree-
ment with a targeted completion date, price,
and other performance requirements. In July
2010, a revised and amended EPC agree-
ment with a guaranteed completion sched-
ule was reached that fixed the total cost of
the project to PSEC at $3.999 billion, not
including the cost of the mine development.
According to Fitch, the rating agency for a
majority of the ownership group, the addi-
tional project cost was mitigated by the ad-
ditional protection provided by the amended
construction contract.
The project cost is certainly higher than
originally envisaged in the early 2000s
for a coal plant of this magnitude but still
much cheaper than for integrated gasifica-
tion combined cyclethe only other option
for combusting the available Illinois Basin
coalwhose U.S. projects now under con-
struction have experienced massive cost
overruns and missed schedules.
However, now that the plant is operational,
plant owners are enjoying reliable electricity
with little fuel price risk for the next 30 years.
In addition, ownership of the asset decreases
each owners exposure to the unpredictable
electricity spot market and to rising prices for
long-term bulk power purchases.
The ownership group is taking the long
view its investmentthe price of natural
gas, coal, and the cost to transport coal will
steadily rise into the future while PSECs
costs are under the owners control, unlike
most plants. I expect the owners investment
in PSEC will pay handsome dividends for
many years to come.
Both units have been performance tested
and each unit is now being dispatched at
higher than its nameplate capability: Unit 1
at 812 MW and Unit 2 in excess of 809 MW.
The tested net plant heat rate was reported by
PSEC as ~1% better than guarantee.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs con-
sulting editor.
1. Convenient coal. Coal conveyed from the mine is placed on the coal storage pile at a
rate of 2,600 tons per hour. Courtesy: Prairie State Generating Co., Ltd.
10_PWR_100113_TP_PrairieState_p38-39.indd 39 9/13/13 8:31:55 PM
|
October 2013 40
TOP PLANTS
Shentou Second Power Plant,
Shuozhou City, Shanxi Province,
China
Owner/operator: Shenhua Guoneng Energy Group Corp. Ltd.
A modern coal-fired power plant may operate with a thermal efficiency of 40% to
45%, which means that 55% to 60% of the fuel energy entering the plant is rejected
as waste heat up the stack or to the condensing system. Economic recovery of that
low-level energy has stymied plant designers for years. Shentou Second Power
Plant presents an excellent solution.
T
he 4 x 500-MW Shentou Second
Power Plant is located in Shuozhou
City in the northern Shanxi Province,
a region notable for its mining of coal and
other minerals. Construction of the plant
began in 1987, with Units 1 and 2 entering
commercial operation in July 1992 and Oc-
tober 1993, respectively. Several years later,
the plant was expanded with two additional
like-sized units that entered service in 2005.
The electricity produced by the plant
is sent to the Shanxi and Beijing-Tianjin-
Tangshan power grids that deliver electricity
to the large eastern populations centers of
China. Shentou Second Power Plant also op-
erates the grids 500-kV booster station, one
of the largest booster stations in north China
when constructed, which dramatically in-
creased the power transmission capability of
Shanxi to Beijing and Tianjin regions. Shen-
tou Second Power Plant plays an extremely
important role in the Shanxi and North China
power grids.
Reducing Emissions, Increasing
Efficiency
One of the primary goals of Chinas 12th
Five-Year Plan, issued in 2012, is the expan-
sion of distributed energy sources, including
efficient production and use of energy (see
Chinas 12th Five-Year Plan Pushes Power
Industry in New Directions in the January
2012 issue). The municipal government of
Shuozhou has vigorously promoted improved
energy efficiency and reduced regional air
emissions, particularly during the winter
heating season. In this region many small, in-
efficient, and scattered coal-burning systems
were used to produce space heating, but they
also produced significant uncontrolled emis-
sions. Also, upgrades to the existing heating
system lagged the pace of new construction
in the city and the many independent heating
systems in the urban areas did not form an in-
tegrated network. In addition, there was little
backup heating capacity, a serious concern
for a region with very cold winters.
The municipal government of Shuozhou
decided to close these disparate small pow-
er plants and district coal-burning heating
boilers. But an alternative and reliable heat
source was required if these old power and
boiler plants were to be closed. The replace-
ment heating would be sourced from Shentou
Second Power Plants four steam units.
A cooperative agreement between Shanxi
Shuangliang Renewable Energy Industry
Group Co. (SSREIGC), Shentou Second
Power Plant, and the municipal government
of Shuozhou City was reached at the end of
2010. The agreement called for modifications
to each of Shentous four steam turbines for
extraction steam and the installation of con-
densing heat-recycling technology. Develop-
ment work on the project was conducted by
SSREIGC, specialists in waste heat recovery
into electricity systems, particularly waste
heat in the range of 20C to 250C using ab-
sorption chillers, waste heat boilers, and heat
exchangers. Recovery of waste heat from the
plant allows Shentou to meet the 12th Five-
Year Plan objectives of reducing water con-
sumption (from the cooling towers), saving
energy, and reducing emissions. The agree-
ment also required SSREIGC to update the
central heating systems of Shuozhou City.
SSREIGC soon completed its feasibility
report and preliminary design of the project
in early 2011. Construction proceeded in
two phases. The 675 million yuan (~$110.3
million) phase one started on May 15, 2011,
first began supplying central heat to six mil-
lion square meters of downtown area on Oct.
25, 2011, and continued to do so through the
Courtesy: Shentou Second Power Plant
LkLkILNCL MA11LkS. 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.
- CWLk - 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

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
What's your
of condence:
#1 Magnetic Level Indicator
#1 Magnetostrictive Level Transmitter
C
I
R
C
L
E

2
4

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
11_PWR_100113_TP_Shentou_p40-43.indd 40 9/13/13 8:38:31 PM
LkLkILNCL MA11LkS. 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.
- CWLk - 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

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
What's your
of condence:
#1 Magnetic Level Indicator
#1 Magnetostrictive Level Transmitter
C
I
R
C
L
E

2
4

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
|
October 2013 42
TOP PLANTS
heating season that ended on Apr. 15, 2012.
After the power plant modifications and
addition of the absorption chillers and other
auxiliary equipment were completed, the
new heat recovery systems on Units 1 and
2 were immediately placed into operation to
help meet the heating season thermal load.
Operation of the absorption chillers and cen-
tral heating season is reported as having gone
smoothly and met the required performance
standards. Phase two was recognized as a key
urban construction project in 2012 by the mu-
nicipal government of Shuozhou and cost an
additional 400 million yuan (~$65.3 million)
to heat another six million square meters.
The central heating project will eventu-
ally serve about 20 million square meters of
central heating area in Shuozhou City when
completed in 2020. Total investment cost of
the project is estimated at 1.41 billion yuan
(~$230 million).
Unit Upgrades
The new central heating system is based on
absorption heat pump technology to recycle
the low-grade waste heat normally rejected
by power plants to produce hot water for cen-
tral heating. Each of Shentou Second Power
Plants four units was originally equipped
with a Czechoslovakia-made 500-MW con-
densing steam turbine that was modified to
supply extraction steam, up to 550 metric
tons per hour (tph) at 0.5 MPaG (~72 psig),
to the heat recovery system as part of the
project. The main steam flow rate for each
of the four units is 1,650 tph. The extrac-
tion steam is the heat source that drives the
operation of the lithium-bromide absorption
heat pump system. The condensed extrac-
tion steam from the absorbers generator
section is returned to the units condensate
steam (Figure 1).
The waste heat originates with the cool-
ing (condensing) water system, from which
it is recovered before it leaves the plant
for the evaporative cooling towers. The
amount of water that goes to the cooling
tower remains constant, but the tempera-
ture entering the tower is reduced, which
reduces the towers heat duty, the evapo-
ration rate, and thereby the makeup water
required. Cooling water at 30C enters and
leaves the evaporator section of the absorp-
tion heat pump at 26C.
The return water from the central heat-
ing system enters the absorption system at
55C, where it is heated by energy removed
from the cooling water before it then enters a
separate final heater, where the heating water
temperature is further increased to 130C be-
fore entering the central heating system. Ex-
traction steam is the energy source to power
the absorption heat pump and the final heater.
New circulating pumps and controls ensure
the entire heated water system operates at
constant pressure. The design supply water
pressure is 1.49 MPa and the return water
pressure is 0.49 MPa.
The central heating network is a closed
system. Sub-networks are isolated from the
central heating network by means of a plate
heat exchanger located at the many second-
ary heat exchange stations. Individual us-
ers connect their homes and businesses to
these secondary networks. This approach
allows the central heating network to oper-
ate at maximum pumping efficiency even as
older existing networks and new customers
are added. (A flow diagram of the complete
absorption chiller/central heating system is
available via a link in the online version of
this article at powermag.com.)
Another qualitative efficiency measure is
to examine the energy produced in relation
to the energy added. If the extraction steam
from the plant is 1 MW thermal, then the
absorption system recovers ~0.7 MW to 0.8
MW thermal from the cooling water and the
central heating system receives ~1.7 MW to
1.8 MW thermal. Balancing the improved
central heating efficiency is reduced plant
power output because less steam travels com-
pletely through the steam turbine. During
non-heating periods, the extraction steam is
secured so the full 500 MW from each steam
turbine is available.
Major Implications
There are 15 provinces in northern China that
require winter heating, representing 40% of
Chinas population and 70% of its land area.
In general, a 300-MW coal-fired unit can use
absorption heat pump technology to produce
central heating for about 2.5 million square
meters of urban area. There are approxi-
mately 6.5 billion square meters of urban
construction area requiring winter heating
now in north China, so the potential for im-
proved energy conservation while reducing
air emissions could have a significant impact
on Chinas overall energy efficiency.
According to SSREIGC, the equipment
and technology supplier for this project,
Chinas market for absorption heat pump
technology when combined with the readily
available steam and condensing water supply
found in the typical coal-fired power plant
for urban area central heating is huge. Also,
the central system approach allows munici-
pal authorities to close smaller facilities and
homes that burn coal for space heating to re-
duce regional emissions.
Using a holistic approach to reach energy
efficiency goals on the supply side that com-
plement conservation on the demand side
while reducing regional emissionswell
qualifies the Shentou Second Power Plant as
a 2013 POWER Top Plant.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs
consulting editor.
1. Key component. The absorption heat pump extracts heat from cooling water by using
steam turbine extraction steam as its energy source. Extraction steam also heats the water
used in the central heating loop to its 130C operating temperature. One absorption heat pump
was installed on each of the Shentou Second Power Plants four 500-MW units. Courtesy:
Shanxi Shuangliang Renewable Energy Industry Group Co.
|
October 2013 44
COAL-TO-GAS CONVERSIONS
Practical Considerations for
Converting Boilers to Burn Gas
The enormous reserves of natural gas at comparatively low prices and increas-
ing regulatory pressure to reduce emissions from coal-fired generation
combine to make natural gas todays fuel of choice. What happens to exist-
ing coal-fired plants? The preferred solution is to refuel with natural gas.
Nathan Schindler and Lawrence Berry
M
any utilities have taken advantage
of relatively low-cost natural gas
to address environmental pressures
and upgrade their power generation portfo-
lio in one of three distinct waysreplace,
repower, or refuel.
A common approach has been to shutter
an existing coal-fired plant and replace it
with a new high-efficiency combined cycle
plant. Another approach is to repower an
existing coal-fired plant. A typical repower-
ing project retires the coal-fired steam gen-
erator but retains the steam turbine portion
of the plant. Combustion turbines and heat
recovery steam generators provide the re-
placement steam (see Repowering South
Mississippi Electric Power Associations J.T.
Dudley, Sr. Generation Complex in the Au-
gust 2013 issue). Repowering should cost less
than building a new combined cycle plant but
the thermal efficiency will also be less. The
third option is to refuel the existing plant
with natural gas. The advantages of this ap-
proach are very low capital cost compared to
the other two options, minimal impact on the
existing firing system, fast implementation,
and the fuel flexibility offered because the
coal-firing option can often be retained.
Refueling a boiler from burning coal or
oil to natural gas impacts the entire boiler
gas path, from the forced draft (FD) and in-
duced draft (ID) fans to combustion stoichi-
ometry and combustion air requirements. On
the steam side, the changes in combustion
product temperature, quantity, and compo-
sition affect the velocities and heat absorp-
tion within the furnace, superheater, and
economizer sections and thus steam flow and
temperature. If a boiler fuel switch is in your
future, the first step must be a comprehen-
sive feasibility study that evaluates gas- and
steam-side boiler modifications and the im-
pact of those changes on boiler emissions,
heat transfer, boiler efficiency, steam produc-
tion and superheat temperature.
Modern natural gas burners are capable of
burning natural gas cleanly and completely.
Due to its absence of sulfur, atomic nitrogen
and ash, natural gas combustion produces sig-
nificantly fewer emissions of NO
x
, CO, sulfur
compounds, and particulates than coal or oil.
Power Boiler Modifications
Power boilers, typically from 10 MW to 800
MW in capacity, usually have multiple burn-
ers arranged one of two ways: wall-fired or
tangent-fired (also called corner-fired). The
wall-fired approach features multiple burn-
ers on several levels, usually on the front and
back boiler walls. The tangent-fired arrange-
ment has burners located in each of the four
corners of the boiler, often in multiple levels.
The four burners on each level are designed
to fire in unison, creating a swirling combus-
tion zone (commonly referred to as the fire-
ball) in the center of the furnace. In order to
control superheat temperatures, the tangent-
fired configuration can tilt burners up and
down in unison, thus moving the flame up or
down within the furnace.
Wall-fired burners are typically round.
They can be fired from a single wall or can
be placed on opposite walls and can be ar-
ranged on a single level or multiple levels.
Wall-fired burners have integrated registers
or dampers to balance air to each burner and
to isolate burners that are not firing. These
mechanisms help ensure that each burner has
the design fuel-to-air ratio under a range of
operating conditions. Existing burner assem-
blies can often be modified to add natural gas
without necessitating a full burner replace-
ment, thus allowing co-firing capability with
the original fuel (coal and/or oil).
In many cases existing burners can be
modified to accept a low-NO
x
natural gas
burner manifold. This approach permits re-
use of existing burner dampers and actuators,
windbox dimensions, mounting plates, and
throat configuration, which significantly re-
duces installation cost and time. Even when
the register must be replaced, front wall pres-
sure parts are usually not required to convert
a coal or oil burner to natural gas (Figure 1).
Proper air distribution and flow to and around
the burner entry is also a key factor in any burn-
er system capable of achieving its expected per-
formance. In a typical fuel conversion project
in order to ensure the airflow to each burner is
optimized, an airflow model of the combustion
air system is usually performed.
Low-NO
x
natural gas burners rely on fuel
and air staging to reduce peak flame temper-
ature. Increasing pressure drop through the
burner can reduce burner flame length. The
FD fans on most coal boilers have sufficient
capacity for a natural gas burner, even with
a greater pressure loss, although the fan ca-
pacity must be evaluated during the feasibil-
ity investigation.
Low-NO
x
natural gas burners offer signifi-
cantly higher turndown than coal or oil burners.
Natural gas burners are capable of 10:1 turn-
down, while oil burners are limited to approxi-
mately 6:1 and coal burners are limited to 3:1.
This adds to the boilers firing flexibility and
consumes less fuel in standby modes compared
1. Switch hitter. Low-NO
x
gas burner
retrofits capable of burning coal are available if
the ability to co-fire coal is to be retained. The
burner shown in the photo is capable of burn-
ing gas or pulverized coal. Typical natural gas
pressures at the burner are 12 to 15 psig. Cour-
tesy: Combustion Components Associates
12_PWR_100113_SR_Gas_Cofiring_p44-47.indd 44 9/15/13 4:04:11 PM
Follow the maze to the end.
When it comes to a facilitys maintenance schedule there
is no end. Planned maintenance is integral in any asset
management program to ensure safe operations and to
maximize uptime. Team provides a number of services to
assist witn sonodulod maintonanoo. Wo navo tno hoxibility
and resources to provide maintenance services through-
out the world according to your schedule.
TEAM experts are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year. Call TEAM today: 1-800-662-8326
www.teamindustrialservices.com
Bolting/Torquing
Concrete Repair
Emissions Control
Exchanger
Services
Field Machining
Fitness for Service
Heat Treating
Hot Tap/Line Stop
Isolation Test Plugs
Leak Repair
Manufacturing/
Engineering
Mechanical
Integrity
NDE/NDT
Inspection
Specialty Welding
Turnkey Tank
Program
Valve Insertion
Valve Repair
TEAM Services
Start
Here
|
October 2013 46
to coal or oil. The cycling of burners in and out
as load swings can also be reduced.
Tangent-fired burners perform differently
than wall-fired burners. In wall-fired boilers,
each flame is independently controlled, but
tangential-fired burners are designed so that
each level of four burners function as a single
burner. Each corner has nozzles (buckets)
providing combustion air and fuel into the
furnace. Tangent-fired burner designs also
permit firing of coal, oil, or gas using an inte-
grated burner design (Figure 2).
Low-NO
x
gas and coal modifications are
possible by incorporating current generation
swirlers to stabilize a core flame and enhance
fuel staging
Emissions Control Methods
Refueling with natural gas will most likely
necessitate meeting emissions limits for NO
x
.
There are several technologies available on
the market today to control NO
x
formation
in natural gas fired boilers. Low-NO
x
tech-
nologies include: low-NO
x
burners, overfire
(OFA), separated overfire air (SOFA), burn-
ers out of service (BOOS), flue gas recircu-
lation (FGR), selective catalytic (SCR), and
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). Table 1
summarizes the NO
x
reduction capability and
cost of each option.
Low-NO
x
Burners. Fuel staging, air stag-
ing, balancing, and air/fuel ratio control are all
techniques that low-NO
x
burners use. Proper air
and fuel flow distribution between burners is
ProcessBarron provides smart
system & equipment choices
to help renew aging plant
infrastructure. From design
and manufacturing to field
services, we have solutions
to maximize efficiency.
REVOLUTIONIZE YOUR PLANT
TO MAXIMIZE SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
www.processbarron.com/power
(888) 663-2028
FUEL HANDLING AIR HANDLING ASH HANDLING
2. Just add gas. Modifications to the
tangent-fired burners to burn natural gas are
common and usually require minimal modifica-
tion to the existing corner buckets. The existing
coal buckets are often retained with no changes.
Courtesy: Combustion Components Associates
NOx reduction method
Approximate percentage decrease in NOx,
compared to conventional gas burners
Reduced excess air 020%
Low-NOx burners 25%
Overfire air/burners out of service 25%
Flue gas recirculation 2575%
Separated overfire air and flue gas recirculation 5080%
Selective catalytic reduction 90%
Selective noncatalytic reduction 30%
Table 1. Comparison of NO
x
reduction technologies in descending or-
der of NO
x
removal cost. Typical uncontrolled NO
x
emissions from a natural gas boiler
range from 0.12 to 0.3 lb/million Btu depending on boiler type and furnace design. The control
methods described in this article can be layered to further reduce NO
x
emissions to approxi-
mately 0.04 lb/million Btu. Source: Combustion Components Associates
October 2013
|
critical to achieving the desired NO
x
reduction.
Overfire Air. OFA is a NO
x
reduction
technique that removes a portion of the com-
bustion air from the burner wind box and in-
jects it into the furnace through OFA ports
located above the burners. This technique
provides an additional layer of air staging to
the furnace zone. By decreasing the air/fuel
ratio of the burner to run rich, thermal NO
x

production is reduced. In addition, when the
diverted air is introduced above the burners,
the combustion is completed and the remain-
ing CO is burned out. OFA has been incorpo-
rated in multi-burner units since the 1970s.
Current generation OFA systems are capable
of 25% NO
x
reduction with minimal impact
to the unit operation.
Separated Overfire Air. SOFA is similar
to OFA with the exception that the OFA stream
is separated from the burner combustion air
prior to FGR. OFA is then directed to the OFA
ports without any combustion air, and all of
the FGR is directed to the burners. Providing
OFA without FGR assists with burnout of CO
at the OFA level in the furnace, thereby de-
creasing CO and overall NO
x
. Segregating the
OFA increases the percentage of FGR through
the burner without increasing the total mass
flow of FGR. This technique maximizes the
benefits of FGR and OFA and provides com-
bined emissions reductions of approximately
75% when burning natural gas.
Burners Out of Service. An alternative
to dedicated OFA ports is a tuning technique
known as burners-out-of-service (BOOS).
BOOS takes one burner or row of burners
out of service, thereby allowing those burn-
ers to be used as OFA ports. The effect is to
run the remaining in-service burners located
lower in the furnace lean with the remaining
combustion air supplied through the BOOS
to complete combustion. BOOS reduces
boiler efficiency by increasing the excess O
2

requirement by about 1%.
Flue Gas Recirculation. FGR is the re-
circulation of flue gases into the combustion
air stream to the burner. FGR reduces thermal
NO
x
by increasing the specific heat of the
combustion mixture to reduce the flame tem-
perature. Adding FGR also lowers the concen-
tration of O
2
available in the combustion zone,
slowing combustion, and reducing the avail-
able oxygen for reaction with free nitrogen.
FGR increases mass flow through the furnace
and the boiler back pass. The increased veloc-
ity increases heat transfer to the superheater.
In some boilers, particularly those constructed
for coal only, boiler circulation and superheat-
er attemperation capacity will be even more
important at high FGR rates.
Post-Combustion Treatment. SNCR
systems can be effective to reduce NO
x
while
firing natural gas, but they have not been
shown to reduce emissions below approxi-
mately 0.05 lb/million Btu. SNCR is worth
considering if the unit has already imple-
mented or is planning to implement SNCR
for NO
x
control of coal or oil emissions.
However, it is not generally as cost-effective
as other comparable low NO
x
technologies. If
already installed, the SNCR injector location
must be re-evaluated for natural gas firing.
SCR uses urea reagent injected in the flue
gas ductwork upstream of a catalyst. Suf-
ficient temperature in the flue gas must be
available for the catalyst to convert the am-
monia and NO
x
to N
2
. When the flue gas,
including ammonia, passes through the cata-
lyst, the NO
x
and ammonia react to produce
nitrogen and water. Both urea and ammonia-
based systems are available.
Lawrence Berry (berry@cca-inc.net)
is vice president, operations, and Nathan
Schindler (nschindler@cca-inc.net) is
product manager, fuel conversions with
Combustion Components Associates, a
global provider of fuel conversion, in-
furnace, and SCR technologies for reduc-
ing NOx, particulates, unburned carbon,
and CO emissions.
FESSENHEIM - Feedwater Heater
for CNPE - France
TAVAZZANO - HRSG for Power
Plant - Italy
Porto CORsini - hrsg
for Power Plant - Italy
SIDI KRIR - Steam Surface
Condenser - Egypt
Heat Recovery
Steam Generators
Industrial Boilers
Heat Transfer
Products for
Nuclear Plants
Feedwater Heaters
Steam Surface
Condensers
Power Plant
Service
Utility Boilers
USC Boilers
Biomass Fired Boilers
Low-NOx Burners
Regenerative
Air Preheaters and
Gas-Gas Heaters
Power Plant Service:
inspections
recommendations
engineering
solutions
STF S.p.A.
Via Robecco, 20
20013 Magenta (MI) Italia
Tel: +39 02 972091
Fax: +39 02 9794977
www.stf.it
e-mail: stf@stf.it
BWE
Burmeister & Wain Energy A/S
Lundtoftegrdsvej 93A
DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby - Denmark
Tel: +45 39 45 20 00
Fax: +45 39 45 20 05
www.bwe.dk
e-mail: info@bwe.dk
BWE Energy India Pvt. Ltd
No. 43, KB Dasan Road
Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
TamilNadu, India
Tel: +91 44 24 32 8101/2
Fax: +91 44 24 32 8103
e-mail: info@bweenergy.in
STF S.p.A.
Via Robecco, 20
Tel: +39 02 972091
Fax: +39 02 9794977
www.stf.it
e-mail: stf@stf.it
BWE
Tel: +45 39 45 20 00
Fax: +45 39 45 20 05
www.bwe.dk
e-mail: info@bwe.dk
Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
TamilNadu, India
Tel: +91 44 24 32 8101/2
Fax: +91 44 24 32 8103
STF S.p.A.
Via Robecco, 20
Tel: +39 02 972091
Fax: +39 02 9794977
www.stf.it
e-mail: stf@stf.it
BWE
Tel: +45 39 45 20 00
Fax: +45 39 45 20 05
www.bwe.dk
e-mail: info@bwe.dk
Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
TamilNadu, India
Tel: +91 44 24 32 8101/2
Fax: +91 44 24 32 8103
STF S.p.A.
Via Robecco, 20
Tel: +39 02 972091
Fax: +39 02 9794977
www.stf.it
e-mail: stf@stf.it
BWE
Tel: +45 39 45 20 00
Fax: +45 39 45 20 05
www.bwe.dk
e-mail: info@bwe.dk
Teynampet
Chennai - 600 018
TamilNadu, India
Tel: +91 44 24 32 8101/2
Fax: +91 44 24 32 8103
|
October 2013 48
Utility Options for Leveraging
Natural Gas
For many utilities there is a razor-thin difference in the price of electricity gener-
ated by natural gas and by coal. Slight changes in fuel price can therefore
produce dramatic swings in production costs, creating market opportuni-
ties for utilities with both gas- and coal-fired assets and assured fuel sup-
plies. Utilities considering new gas-fired assets have several options.
Una Nowling
A
Platts report released in August 2013
predicts that retirements of coal-fired
plants will surge through 2015, when
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys
(EPAs) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
go into effect. This will be accompanied by
a commensurate increase in the amount of
natural gas used to produce electricity. In ad-
dition, Platts analysts project that if the EPA
adopts some form of cap and trade scheme
to effect reductions of CO
2
in the future, we
should expect a materially larger increase
in natural gas use for power generation.
In the meantime, coal, which accounted
for 50% of U.S. generation in 2005, will
end 2013 at about 40%, with natural gas
fired generation at an expected 27.2%, down
slightly from a peak of 30.6% in 2011 but up
from 18% in 2004. As former Exelon CEO
John Rowe famously observed, coal will re-
main King. Gas will be Queen. That may be
true for the short term, but Black & Veatch
predicts that over the next 25 years, natural
gas will dethrone coal (Figures 1 and 2).
Projected Coal Rebound in 2013
New construction of efficient combined
cycle generation continues, with the major-
ity developed in states that traditionally burn
mostly coal. On average, the U.S. coal fleet
operated at a 57% capacity factor during 2012
and will likely increase slightly in 2013.
Thomas Fanning, Southern Companys
chairman and CEO, noted in an April 2013 in-
terview that Southern ran its combined cycle
fleet at near-record 70% capacity factor during
the first quarter of 2013. Southern expects to
produce 47% of its power from gas in 2013
and 30% from coal. Five years ago, South-
ern produced 70% of its power from coal and
16% from gas. PPL Electric Utilities ran its
gas-fired units at 92% capacity factor during
the first quarter, said CEO William Spence
in May. Similarly, PSEG ran its New Jersey
and Connecticut coal-fired plants at just 2%
capacity factor during the first quarter, heav-
42.9%
18.4%
21.6%
3%
4.5%
0.6%
10.2%
1.2%
Coal Nuclear Combined cycle Combustion turbine Wind Hydro & other renewables
Solar Other
1. Changing generation mix. The market share for natural gas will increase from about
23% of electricity consumption to roughly 54% (combined cycles plus combustion turbines), while
coals share will decrease from 43% to 21% over the next 25 years. Source: Black & Veatch
9.1%
53%
20.7%
0.8%
6.6%
0.4%
8.4%
0.9%
2. Changing installed capacity mix. The amount of gas-fired capacity is expected to
significantly increase during the next 25 years. Source: Black & Veatch
2014 2038
Coal Nuclear Combined cycle Combustion turbine Wind Hydro & other renewables
Solar Other
2014
28.5%
20.9%
12.9%
6.9%
1.1%
8.8%
11.7%
9.2%
2038
16.4%
10.4%
9.2%
2.7%
12.5%
40.3%
4.2%
4.4%
13_PWR_100113_SR_Gas_B&V_p48-56.indd 48 9/15/13 5:22:12 PM
October 2013
|
ily favoring natural gas. Conversely, Ameri-
can Electric Power (AEP) president and CEO
Nick Akins said during an April 2013 report to
shareholders that the price of natural gas has
risen to levels where youll see the pendulum
swing back toward coal-fired generation. At
the time, AEP was operating its coal plants at
a 65% capacity factor and its gas-fired plants
in the mid-30% rangealmost a complete re-
versal from 2012.
Power plant emissions are also dropping.
Using 2005 as a baseline, the Environmental
Integrity Project reports that the changing fuel
mix reduced CO
2
emissions from power gen-
erating plants by 13.1% by the end of 2012.
However, as fuel prices rose over the past year,
the Energy Information Administration pro-
jected an increase of 8.7% in coal-fired gen-
eration in 2013, although CO
2
emissions are
projected to stay below pre-2005 levels.
The operating advantage will go to utili-
ties with a diversified fleet that are able to
switch between coal and gas as the market
price of fuels seesaws, particularly during
periods of flat electricity growth such as that
experienced over the past few years.
Four Practical Options
Utility owners of coal-fired power stations
that wish to balance their exposure to coal-
fired generation with additional natural
gasfired generation have several options to
consider. The four most practical options are
cofiring coal and gas in the same boiler, con-
verting the coal-fired boiler to gas-only oper-
ation, repowering the coal plant with natural
gasfired combustion turbines, or replacing
the coal plant with a combined cycle plant.
Cofiring Gas and Coal. Cofiring is the
lowest-risk option for substituting gas use for
coal. Cofiring is defined as burning two dif-
ferent fuels simultaneously to produce heat
in the steam generator, and it is typically
implemented with natural gas or fuel oil at
coal-fired power stations (Table 1).
Natural gas cofiring has many advantages
that make it attractive (see sidebar). The first
is that many power stations already use natu-
ral gas as a startup fuel, so a gas fuel supply
infrastructure to the steam generator is already
in place. Some power stations currently oper-
Temperature profile
100% Coal
0% Gas
75% Coal
25% Gas
50% Coal
50% Gas
25% Coal
75% Gas
0% Coal
100% Gas
Main steam outlet (F) 995 986 962 946 922
Reheat steam outlet (F) 999 981 985 927 897
Furnace vertical exit (F) 2,050 2,042 2,001 1,986 1,910
Economizer gas outlet (F) 730 710 680 659 642
Air heater gas outlet (F) 332 326 303 288 272
Table 1. Change in furnace and air heater temperature as a function of
the ratio of coal and gas fuel use in a typical steam plant. If natural gas sup-
ply prices fall below the delivered cost of coal, a unit can reduce its busbar generation costs by
burning more natural gas and proportionally reducing its coal burn rateor vice versa. Source:
Black & Veatch
Natural Gas Has the Advantage
Natural gas combustion in general has several advantages when
compared to coal:
Loading and duty cycles of the coal-related equipment are re-
duced, typically proportional to the overall change in natural
gas heat input.
Regulated emissions tend to decrease proportionally to the change
in natural gas heat input, as long as the gas burner design is sound
and combustion controls are able to accommodate dual-fuel use.
Slagging and fouling in the boiler can be greatly reduced with
even modest levels of natural gas cofiring, provided that the
gas burner placement does not overheat a specific region of the
steam generator while the unit is still burning coal.
As the heat input level of natural gas increases, excess air re-
quirements will decrease, which will reduce sensible heat losses
and reduce both air and flue gas fan power requirements.
Coal mill loading and duty cycles are decreased, which can be
especially helpful for coal-fired units that are currently mill-
limited or that have frequent mill maintenance outages. The
number of spare mills will increase as the natural gas fuel heat
input increases, leading to more opportunities for plant staff to
perform preventative maintenance and for operators to avoid
mill derates during unplanned outages.
Erosion and corrosion will decrease throughout the unit as the
natural gas heat input increases, most significantly within the
steam generator itself. Mill, ash-handling systems, flue gas
ductwork, and emissions equipment wear will be reduced, as
will corrosion from sulfur, chlorine, and alkali metals.
As the natural gas heat input increases, the duty cycles of
emissions equipment will decrease. With natural gas cofiring,
electrostatic precipitators fields may be de-energized, scrubber
recycle pumps or even entire scrubber absorber towers may be
turned off, and selective catalytic reduction system catalyst life
will be extended. Coal and flue gas stream additive use may be
reduced as well.
Bottom ash, fly ash, pyrites and mill rejects, scrubber sludge or
gypsum, and many other waste products typical of coal combus-
tion will be reduced.
Natural gas combustion also poses several problems when used in
a cofiring application:
Due to the high hydrogen content of natural gas (roughly 25%
by mass), latent heat losses resulting from the production of
water during the combustion process can be much higher than
for all but the wettest coals.
Differences in the flame temperature, gas mass flow, soot and
ash reflectivity, and slag levels on the boiler waterwalls can
result in heat transfer imbalances throughout the steam gen-
erator. At gas heat input levels below 50%, these heat transfer
imbalances can typically be managed via operations efforts. At
higher gas heat input levels, more costly measures are often
called for, including heat transfer surface modifications, special
coatings on furnace waterwall tubes, or pronounced use of flue
gas recirculation to stabilize furnace temperatures.
Supply restrictions limit the maximum level of natural gas used,
and seasonal restrictions may be put in place to prevent the
plant from jeopardizing the gas supply for home heating use.
|
October 2013 50
ate their gas igniters or warm-up guns when re-
covering from coal-related equipment derating.
This typically requires only a modest capital
project to increase the size and duty cycle capa-
bility of the unit. If new waterwall penetrations
are required, the capital cost and complexity of
the project can increase significantly. Often, gas
igniters and warm-up guns can be upsized in-
place to yield as much as 20% to 25% total heat
input to the steam generator.
The greatest benefit of employing natural
gas cofiring with coal is increasing the fuel
flexibility of the unit. There are many ways
in which increased fuel flexibility can benefit
a coal-fired unit, such as these:
Lower-cost coals can be purchased with
less concern for lost capacity. For exam-
ple, a unit that operates most efficiently
using only coals with moisture content
of 27% or less (a typical Southern Pow-
der River Basin coal) can likely push this
specification to include the lower-cost,
higher-moisture coals from the Northern
Powder River Basin (PRB).
More aggressive spot market purchasing
can be employed. A finicky unit that suf-
fers from a variety of exclusively coal-relat-
ed derates can sometimes find great values
on the used equipment market, knowing
that if the coal-related equipment isnt up
to the task, natural gas can supplement the
heat input and maintain the desired load.
Power stations that are unsure about the
quality of their coal stockpiles or that suf-
fer from poor or erratic blending practices
can put those fears to rest. If for some
reason too much poorer-quality coal is
stocked into the bunkers or silos, then
operators can modulate natural gas use to
make up the difference.
Unexpected outages of parallel equipment
(such as coal mills) can be hedged by having
natural gas available to make up lost load.
Coal inventory levels can be reduced. In
the event that significant unexpected coal
supply restrictions occur, natural gas use
can be maximized to reduce the coal pile
draw-down. Conversely, should natural
gas supply restrictions occur unexpected-
ly, coal use could be increased to maintain
the unit generation plan.
Some emissions control retrofits may be
reduced in scope, delayed, or avoided, de-
pending upon the coal quality, level of gas
cofiring that is intended, and the plants
regulatory environment.
Provided that the gas pipeline is of sufficient
size, few fuel-handling system modifications
are required for natural gas cofiring. Using
recent Black & Veatch studies as a guideline,
capital costs for implementing natural gas co-
firing (outside of new pipeline costs) can range
from $10,000 to $100,000 per MW.
Coal to Natural Gas Conversion. There
are advantages to converting an existing coal-
fired power station to one fueled entirely by
natural gas, although it is a higher-risk option
than operating as a dual-fuel unit. Achieving
the units maximum continuous rating (MCR)
when burning coal or natural gas typically
requires significant physical modifications
to the boiler. If the goal is to decommission
the unit for coal use frequently, the existing
burner penetrations can be used for the in-
stallation of 100% capacity natural gas burn-
ers. Heat transfer surface area modifications
are typically required and can be completed
during the same outage when the burners are
replaced. (See Natural Gas Conversions of
Existing Coal-Fired Boilers in the August
2011 issue at powermag.com.) Using re-
cent Black & Veatch feasibility studies as a
Power to Provide a World of Services
For more information, contact NAES at 425.961.4700
or email sales@ naes.com
www.naes.com
Energy People Making Energy Facilities Work - Better
Visit us at Power-Gen in booth 1921
Look to NAES when safety, compliance,
quality, reliability, schedule and efciency
make a diference.
Growing via innovative and customer-focused
services:
Operations & Maintenance
Technical Support
Major Maintenance
Construction Services
Turbine Field Services
Stafng Services
Integrated systems provide performance and fexibility
27601 Bella Vista Pkwy | Warrenville, IL 60555 | www.ftek.com | 800.666.9688
Fuel Tech designs customized systems to meet the specifc needs of our customers. Our proven I-NO
x
systems integrate Low NO
x
Burners,
Over-Fire Air and SNCR systems, along with our ASCR Advanced SCR technologies to provide synergistic NO
x
reduction of greater than
80%. Capital costs are a fraction of traditional SCR costs and installation can be implemented in phases.

We understand the challenges of regulatory uncertainty and capital constraints. With more than 20 years of experience and over 700
installations worldwide, were ready with customized solutions to meet your specifc requirements. Contact us today or visit our website
for more information.
Our technologies include:
TIFI
Targeted In-Furnace Injection Programs

Low NO
x
Burners & Upgrades
Over-Fire Air Systems
SNCR Systems- NO
x
OUT, HERT and Rich Reagent Injection (RRI)
I-NO
x
Integrated NO
x
Systems
ULTRA Systems- onsite ammonia generation for SCR
CFD and Experimental Modeling
Aftermarket Parts & Services
SCR Systems & Consulting Services
NO
X
Reduction Solutions
Minimize Capital and Extend Plant Life
Fuel Tech, Inc. TIFI
, I-NOx, ASCR and ULTRA are trademarks and registered trademarks of Fuel Tech, Inc.
C
I
R
C
L
E

3
0

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
Integrated systems provide performance and fexibility
27601 Bella Vista Pkwy | Warrenville, IL 60555 | www.ftek.com | 800.666.9688
Fuel Tech designs customized systems to meet the specifc needs of our customers. Our proven I-NO
x
systems integrate Low NO
x
Burners,
Over-Fire Air and SNCR systems, along with our ASCR Advanced SCR technologies to provide synergistic NO
x
reduction of greater than
80%. Capital costs are a fraction of traditional SCR costs and installation can be implemented in phases.

We understand the challenges of regulatory uncertainty and capital constraints. With more than 20 years of experience and over 700
installations worldwide, were ready with customized solutions to meet your specifc requirements. Contact us today or visit our website
for more information.
Our technologies include:
TIFI
Targeted In-Furnace Injection Programs

Low NO
x
Burners & Upgrades
Over-Fire Air Systems
SNCR Systems- NO
x
OUT, HERT and Rich Reagent Injection (RRI)
I-NO
x
Integrated NO
x
Systems
ULTRA Systems- onsite ammonia generation for SCR
CFD and Experimental Modeling
Aftermarket Parts & Services
SCR Systems & Consulting Services
NO
X
Reduction Solutions
Minimize Capital and Extend Plant Life
Fuel Tech, Inc. TIFI
, I-NOx, ASCR and ULTRA are trademarks and registered trademarks of Fuel Tech, Inc.
C
I
R
C
L
E

3
0

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
|
October 2013 52
guideline, capital costs for implementing a
complete coal to natural gas conversion (out-
side of new pipeline costs) can range from
$100,000 to $250,000 per MW.
A complete coal-to-gas conversion virtu-
ally ensures that sulfur and particulate-related
emissions upgrades will not be required, al-
though in a tight regulatory scheme controls
may be required for NO
x
and CO emissions.
Although CO
2
emissions will be much less
than when burning coal, CO
2
emissions will
be higher than with a modern gas-fired com-
bined cycle plant (CCP) because the steam
plant has a lower thermal efficiency.
Decommissioning of the coal-related
equipment may not be required from a lo-
gistics and plant operations point of view, al-
though it may be required by environmental
regulators as part of a revised air emissions
permit. In a worst-case scenario, the coal
yard and ash ponds may need to be environ-
mentally reclaimed. Demolition, removal,
and remediation costs vary greatly by site,
ranging from $3,000 to $30,000 per MW.
Repowering a Coal-Fired Unit. The next-
most-expensive option is to repower the unit
by reusing as much as possible of the existing
coal unit to form a new CCP. This is typically
done by refitting the existing steam turbine to
work with one or two gas turbine units in par-
allel, and reusing such major equipment as the
condenser and circulating water systems, cool-
ing tower, site buildings, transformer yard, and
so forth. (See Repowering South Mississippi
Electric Power Associations J.T. Dudley, Sr.
Generation Complex in the August 2013 is-
sue.) The steam turbine may derate 10% to
20% of its original nameplate capacity due to
the differences in steam flow between a con-
ventional boiler and a multiple-pressure heat
recovery steam generator.
Black & Veatch has found that when a
lifecycle cost evaluation is performed, the
modest cost savings of the repowering option
is quickly cancelled out by the many project
risks involved with repowering, the plant
outage costs, and the higher efficiency of the
CCP over the lifetime of the plant.
Complete Unit Replacement with a
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine. The most
extreme step in replacing coal-fired generation
with natural gas generation is tearing down or
mothballing the coal-fired unit to replace it with
a new CCP on site or elsewhere in the utilitys
service territory. (See High Bridge Combined
Cycle Project in the September 2009 issue.)
Three Case Studies: Evaluating
Natural Gas Cofiring
For each of the four options, the expected ser-
vice life of the power station is of critical im-
portance in an economic analysis. Some options
that appear economically attractive in the short
3. Service life is important. The impact of fuel price and capacity factor on the levelized busbar cost of electricity is remarkably different for
different expected plant service life. The top charts assume a service life of 30 years; bottom charts assume a 10-year service life. Charts on the left as-
sume low escalation in natural gas cost; charts on the right assume faster-rising gas prices. Source: Black & Veatch
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

b
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
c
/
k
W
h
)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Capacity factor (%)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

b
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
c
/
k
W
h
)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Capacity factor (%)
Full conversion to gas Coal/gas cofiring Emissions control retrofit Repower as combined cycle New combined cycle
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

b
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
c
/
k
W
h
)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Capacity factor (%)
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

b
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
c
/
k
W
h
)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Capacity factor (%)
|
October 2013 54
term may become unattractive in the long term.
Figure 3 illustrates a comparison in the levelized
busbar cost between several gas deployment op-
tions at a coal-fired power station, for 10-year
and 30-year service life options. The impact on
the levelized busbar cost of electricity remains a
strong function of the plants expected capacity
factor and the cost of natural gas.
Black & Veatch has performed several
case studies for power industry clients on
the advantages of increased fuel flexibility at
several existing power plants. Three interest-
ing situations were recently studied:
Unit 1 was designed to burn bituminous
coal, is currently burning 100% PRB coal,
and is currently derated.
Unit 2 was designed to burn PRB coal and
now operates without derates.
Unit 3 was designed to burn PRB coal and
now faces expensive upgrades to meet best
available control technology (BACT)-lev-
el emissions limits.
Each case represents a real-world situa-
tion in which the effect of natural gas cofiring
was examined to determine the economics of
cofiring. The Electric Power Research Insti-
tutes Vista program was used in this study,
which examined more than 2,000 perfor-
mance, 600 maintenance, 20 emissions, and
60 different economic-related factors at each
unit. In each case, the gas cofiring or conver-
sion retrofit capital cost was at an assumed
worst case value of $100,000/MW.
Unit 1: The Currently Derated Case. In
typical operation, this unit is derated as much
as 24% from its MCR load due to fuel quality
limitations. The PRB coal has much lower heat
content and a higher moisture content than the
units design fuel. As the level of gas cofiring
increases, the derates due to fuel quality de-
crease as well. All unit derates are eliminated
with 50% natural gas heat input (Figure 4).
The economic impact from natural gas co-
firing for these various gas heat input levels
was analyzed on a first-year and 20-year level-
ized annual cost basis and considered all fac-
tors that constitute the total fuel-related cost
of the unit (that is, omitting the operations and
maintenance of the turbine and water-side,
cooling towers, switchyard and generator, and
the like). In the short term, derate elimination
is the most powerful economic driver, but on
a long-term basis, an economic sweet spot
occurs when cofiring with 25% natural gas.
It must be noted, however, that the primary
driver here is the derate cost. If, for example,
the power station is not assessed any penalty
whatsoever for derate cost (but can benefit
from improvements in auxiliary energy use
and improved equipment availability), the
cost curve changes its shape (Figure 5).
Unit 2: The Non-Derated Case. The
non-derated case is similar to the prior case
when the derate due to using PRB coal was
eliminated. In general, natural gas cofiring at
this plant cannot compete with PRB coal on a
total fuel-related cost basis (Figure 6).
Unit 3: The BACT PRB Unit Case. In this
case a unit designed for PRB coal must now
install new and expensive emission control
equipment to meet tighter emissions limits.
The required controls include a wet lime-
stone flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system
at 95% removal efficiency, single scrubber
booster fan, conversion of a selective noncat-
alytic reduction (SNCR) system to a selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) system at 90% ef-
ficiency, trona sorbent injection system, and
an activated carbon injection (ACI) system.
The capital cost of the FGD is $800/kW and
the SCR is $200/kW. The trona sorbent in-
jection and ACI system are estimated to cost
$10 million. All operations and maintenance
costs (fixed and variable) were estimated by
the Vista program. All capital costs were as-
sumed to have a fixed charge rate of 15% and
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 25
D
e
r
a
t
e

(
%

o
f

M
C
R
)
% of heat input
4. Eliminate a derate. Cofiring natural
gas with PRB coal can restore a unit to full
capacity. Source: Black & Veatch
Mill derate PA fan derate Slagging derate
Feeder derate
6. Does not compete. Cofiring a unit
originally designed to burn PRB coal was not
economically justified. Source: Black & Veatch
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1st year
m
i
l
l
/
k
W
h
20-year levelized
annual cost
5. Cofiring a derated coal unit. Con-
version of a unit originally designed to burn a bi-
tuminous coal to burn PRB coal often requires
a unit derate in output. The plant economics
favor cofiring natural gas, largely due to elimi-
nating the unit derate. Source: Black & Veatch
0% Cofiring 10% Cofiring 25% Cofiring
50% Cofiring
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1st year
m
i
l
l
/
k
W
h
20-year levelized
annual cost
0% Cofiring 10% Cofiring 25% Cofiring
50% Cofiring
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0% Gas
B
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
m
i
l
l
/
k
W
h
)
25% Gas 50% Gas 75% Gas 100% Gas
7. Difficult predictions. A key parameter in this analysis is the assumed escalation rate of
the price of natural gas over 20 years. The study found that cofiring 100% natural gas is the cheap-
est alternative because it avoids many costly environmental upgrades. Source: Black & Veatch
2.95% 5% 6% 7.5% 10% 0% Coal/2.95% Gas
|
October 2013 56
a discount rate of 7%.
The busbar electricity costs were evaluated.
The analysis found that at 75% natural gas co-
firing the SCR system was no longer needed
and at 100% natural gas cofiring the installation
of the FGD and all other emissions equipment
was avoided (the existing SNCR system was
assumed to remain in place for NO
x
control).
It was determined through the course of
this analysis that the estimated future price
of natural gas was the primary variable and
economic risk factor. Given the recent history
of natural gas development and market condi-
tions, it is highly speculative to estimate natu-
ral gas prices 10 years from now, let alone 20.
Therefore, several economic sensitivity cases
were run to examine different levels of natural
gas price escalation, ranging from 2.95% (the
baseline assumption) to 10%. In addition, a
special case that assumed 0% coal price esca-
lation was compared with these cases (Figure
7). We can conclude that the 100% gas case
is actually the cheapest alternative for meet-
ing emissions requirements until the gas price
escalation exceeds 5% to 6%.
The effect of varying gas cofiring strate-
gies versus varying capital cost scenarios was
also compared to evaluate the economic risk
should the regulatory requirement be less than
assumed. Figure 8 shows that any time the
FGD system is required, 100% gas conversion
is the least-cost alternative. The study also
found that the sorbent injection plus an SNCR
option is cheaper than the 100% gas case.
Each power station occupies a unique eco-
nomic, emissions, and performance position
within a utilitys coal fleet. No one solution is
appropriate for every plant. However, many util-
ities can benefit from increased fuel flexibility
and improved unit reliability by implementing
natural gas cofiring. Natural gas cofiring allows
a utility to maintain a units capability to burn
100% coal while providing a hedge against ris-
ing coal prices and the rising cost of complying
with new air emissions regulations.
Una Nowling (nowlinguc@bv.com)
is a project manager and technology
lead for fuels at Black & Veatch. She
has worked on fuels-related issues and
analyses at more than 550 different units
over 20 years, specializing in coal, natural
gas, and biofuels. She is also an adjunct
professor of mechanical engineering at
University of Missouri-Kansas City.
8. Many upgrade options. The price of electricity changes significantly based on the
suite of environmental upgrades required and the amount of natural gas cofired with coal.
Source: Black & Veatch
FGD + SCR FGD only SCR only Sorbent injection + SNCR
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0% Gas
B
u
s
b
a
r

c
o
s
t

(
m
i
l
l
/
k
W
h
)
25% Gas 50% Gas 75% Gas 100% Gas
Southeast Asia, with an increasingly affuent population of 600
million, must kick investment in the power sector into the next
gear to meet expected demand for electricity. According to a
study from Accenture, the regions economy is projected to grow
by $735 billion by 2020. Over this period, ASEANs most domi-
nant economies, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philip-
pines, collectively referred to as tiger cubs, will need to boost
their generation capacity and improve their connectivity in order
to facilitate this economic growth.
Adrian Koh, assurance partner at Ernst & Young, comments
that despite barriers to entry, those familiar with the region are
making commitments: Southeast Asia has provided a slight
sparkle to the gloomy global economic weather of recent years.
Because of this, there are people extremely willing to invest
in the region. There is enough liquidity, especially from the
Chinese and Japanese, who have been here long enough to
understand it well Governments as well as gen-cos are look-
ing at cost transformation because people are unhappy about
rising prices. It does not help that tariffs and the cost base are
not transparent in this part of the world. There exist real regu-
latory risks for potential investors the model works for now,
but will it be changed?
Recent events suggest the model is changing, albeit slowly.
Changes in regulatory structures often take decades to fully im-
plement. For example, Singapore, the most liberalized market in
the region, is still defning the future of its retail market a dec-
ade after legislation deregulated the power sector. The Philip-
pines is currently in the messy process of liberalizing its power
market; it has shed state-owned gen-cos and is introducing full
retail contestability.
Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, continue to exert a great
amount of state control over their power sectors, as all of them
seek to diversify their generation mix and quickly add needed
generation capacity. In Malaysia, state-owned Petronas supplies
gas to a number of private power generators at a subsidized
rate. Following incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razaks victory in
May 2013s elections, cutting back on fuel subsidies is reportedly
high up on the fscal-reform minded prime ministers agenda. In
Thailand, EGAT, the Electricity Authority of Thailand, accounts for
approximately half of Thailands generation, with IPPs playing an
increasingly prominent role, especially as the country looks to di-
versify its generation mix beyond gas. In Indonesia state-owned
PLN, Perusahaan Listrik Negara, controls 90% of generation ca-
pacity in the country. The government is grappling with how to
generate and deliver electricity to an increasingly affuent archi-
pelago of 243 million people spread across 922 inhabited islands.
Presently, Indonesias electrifcation stands at approximately
70%, one of the lowest in the region.
Power in Southeast Asia:
Cubs on a Growth Spurt
With bright economic growth prospects, the region is redefning its power sector
Katya Koryakovtseva and Andrew Mason
This report was researched and
written by Global Business Reports
Solar Power Plant Lopburi, Thailand - 1.5MW
Courtesy of Yingli Solar
2
Global Business Reports // POWER ASEAN October 2013
Evolving Strategies
to Fuel Growth
As investors look towards Southeast Asia
because of its immense growth potential,
the question beckons, will investment come
quickly enough to meet needs and what will
it look like in three markets that are largely
subsidized and dominated by state-owned
gen-cos? According to a study from the Bos-
ton Consulting Group (BCG), ASEANs power
sector will need around $500 billion of invest-
ment as regional demand increases from
656 TWh in 2010 to 2,414 TWh by 2030. It
[investment] is unlikely to come fast enough;
the sheer size of investment required means
IPPs will have a larger role as state-owned
utilities do not have the all the resources,
comments Klaus Langner, partner and man-
aging director at BCGs Singapore offce.
In previous decades, Thailand, Indonesia
and Malaysia, were able to rely on ample
gas export revenues to help offset subsidies
for their domestic markets. However, as do-
mestic demand increases and their own gas
reserves decline, these countries are faced
with the decision of either con-
tinuing fossil fuel subsidiza-
tion, at great cost to the
government, or phasing
out subsidies, to the
chagrin of the aver-
age consumer. As
governments pon-
der this conundrum,
Malaysia and Indo-
nesia have both faced
widespread backlashes
when cutting back fuel
subsidies were discussed
earlier this year and generators
are turning increasingly towards coal to di-
versify away from gas and keep costs under
control. According to an analysis by BCG, by
2030 50% of Southeast Asias power genera-
tion will come from coal, compared to 30%
in 2010.
According to Dr. Bart Lucarelli of Roleva En-
ergy, Thailand needs to turn towards cheaper
and more accessible coal in order to make
up for the increasing limitations of gas re-
sources: [Thailand] is now in the unenviable
position of relying on natural gas-fred, com-
bined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)
plants, to provide 70% of its
electricity needs at a time
when gas reserves in
the Gulf of Thailand are
rapidly depleting and
Myanmar is starting
to focus on using its
energy resources
domestically.
The Philippines has
been ahead of the curve
in offoading state-owned
generation and introducing
regulatory reforms to the indus-
try. With recent strong GDP growth fgures
at hand, President Benigno Aquino, has the
opportunity to leverage this into attracting
needed infrastructure investment. Gavin Bar-
feld, director of energy consulting at Pyry,
sees policies that need to be improved upon
in the often bureaucratically ineffcient Philip-
pines: To promote further investment the
Philippines should focus on lowering the
barriers for creating new generation such as
access the long-term Power Purchase Agree-
ments (PPAs) with creditworthy off-takers
www.gbreports.com
Global Business Reports
POWER ASEAN
Dr. Sanjay C.
Kuttan, regional
manager SEA /
managing
director, DNV
Kema Clean
Technology
Centre
3
Global Business Reports // POWER ASEAN
October 2013
3
www.gbreports.com
POWER AUSTRALIA
and the approvals needed for new build. The
newly introduced Retail Competition Open
Access will have clear benefts for consum-
ers but may make it even more diffcult for
generators to secure PPAs with retailers as
their volume is more variable and they are
likely to contract for less, relying on the spot
market for the difference.
Renewables: Developing
a Nascent Market
Given the often opaque and slowly evolving
regulatory frameworks in place, it is unsur-
prising that ASEAN countries lag behind in
implementing renewable energy. Recently,
governments have set lofty targets in the
four tiger cub countries, with feed in tariffs
introduced in Malaysia, Philippines, and Thai-
land, while Singapore endeavors to build an
image as a renewable energy innovation and
manufacturing hub. Despite these efforts,
only Thailand, at 30th position, registers on
Ernst and Youngs Renewable Energy Coun-
try Attractiveness Index, which quarterly
ranks the top 40 renewable energy invest-
ment environments. Every country is al-
most at the same state of not being totally
on board with their commitment to cleaner
energy, i.e., they want to pursue these oppor-
tunities but are faced with structural issues
e.g., weak policies, archaic electricity market
structure, subsidized electricity prices, poor
grid reliability, lack of grid connection codes,
etc, observes Dr. Sanjay C. Kuttan, regional
manager SEA / managing director, DNV
Kema Clean Technology Centre.
Southeast Asia has many natural advan-
tages to developing renewables. Thailand,
Cambodia, and Laos all enjoy signifcant
hydro potential, while Indonesia has ap-
proximately 40% of the worlds geothermal
reserves. Furthermore, solar radiation in the
region is often very favorable. Despite natural
advantages, the regulatory frameworks re-
newables compete under in Southeast Asia
create a very controlled environment that, in
actuality, breeds uncertainty as incentives for
renewables must be calculated in tandem
with electricity subsidies already in place in
eight of the ten ASEAN countries. Although
markets that rely on government incentives
create positive growth, they can also lead to
market distortions. Taking the case of solar,
the setting of appropriate subsidy levels in
a timely manner is very diffcult to manage
4
Global Business Reports // POWER ASEAN October 2013
due to changing system prices, which are then followed
by subsidy cuts. This situation can result in subsidies
that are either too high or too low which then infu-
ences decision-making on the investors side. As
such, the investors decision criteria for system
selection will tend to favor satisfying short-term
objectives and sometimes jeopardizes overall
long-term goals, comments Alexander Lenz,
president of Conergy Asia and Middle East.
Industry experts agree that in many cases,
renewable projects have been too small to have
a signifcant impact and to be considered attractive
investments by the fnance sector. Financing will
remain an issue as most local fnancial institutions are
unwilling to provide fnancing for the projects. In cases where
fnancing is provided, the costs of borrowings are high as these f-
nancial institutions impose high interests to compensate for the risks
they foresee in an unfamiliar industry, says Angie Koh, business de-
velopment director of Yingli Solar.
There are some positive signs for solar, particularly in Thailand, as
falling global PV prices leave the solar industry optimistic that grid
parity is achievable in transparent markets. However, the opaque
structures currently in place, despite some incentives, are making
grid parity more diffcult to realize. Electricity subsidies prevent con-
sumers from wanting to invest in solar systems; once governments
remove them, people will come to see solar as a cheaper alternative,
says Koh.
Despite the challenges, new projects are coming
into the region. Yingli Solar, the worlds largest PV
manufacturer, has recently won a contract to
supply 10.27MW of panels to Amcorp Power
of Malaysia, which will be the largest solar
plant in the country upon completion. Thai-
land is certainly the hottest area of activity,
as its Small Producer Program (SPP) has
created an environment where coexistence
with conventional generation is possible and
the government has raised its target to have
3 GW of solar capacity installed by 2021. In July,
Canadian Solar announced it will supply 91 MW
to seven projects for Soleq Solar in Thailand, while
Conergy has secured 80 MW of orders in Thailand.
Regional Collaboration and
Integration
The ten member states of ASEAN are increasingly exploring and im-
plementing programs toward regional integration. One such program
is the creation of an ASEAN grid, which was outlined in a 2007 memo-
randum of understanding. However, there are physical and political
issues that must be overcome before such a grid becomes a reality.
Some see physically connecting the Philippines and Indonesia to a
broader grid as prohibitively expensive, especially considering these
countries run on separate grids around population centers, and infea-
sible. On top of these physical challenges, expected capacity short-
ages will disincentivize the creation of such a grid according to Klaus
Langnard of BCG: All these countries [in ASEAN] with the exception
of Singapore, are capacity short. An international grid is useful when
one country has excess capacity that another country needs, but that
is not the case in Southeast Asia. The Indochina grid, however, exists
because there is a rationale behind it: Laos and Cambodia supply hy-
dropower to Thailand. This grid could expand to Vietnam, but I do not
see countries like Indonesia and the Philippines connecting with the
mainland anytime soon.
Despite slow progress, Bambang Hermawanto, chairman of the
ASEAN Power Grid Consultative Committee, sees encouraging signs
that a grid will be pieced together: Currently, there are 16 projects
in place that make up pieces of what will eventually become an ASE-
AN grid. The frst phase of the grid is based on bilateral agreements.
There are no institutions in the region that could control the grid, so
the success of the common grid depends on bilateral agreements
between neighboring countries. We have a long way to go, but these
agreements will make up the core of the ASEAN grid.
The ASEAN grid is refective of many of the trends surrounding
Southeast Asias power industry. The borders of Southeast Asias
jigsaw puzzle, the structure that will make up the cornerstone of
the industry, is, in many cases, still being defned, at a time when
a stronger framework would yield a clearer picture of the industrys
future. Despite this challenge, investment in the region remains bull-
ish because of the incredible economic transformation the region is
undergoing. Policymakers and decision makers need to catch up or
risk hindering the full potential of this transformation.
www.gbreports.com
POWER ASEAN
Alexander
Lenz,
president
of Conergy
Asia and
Middle East
Check out the new POWER iPad app!
Go to Te App Store on
your iPad and search
POWER magazine
Get the latest power industry news,
trends, and business & regulatory info
right at your fngertips.
Enjoy our latest complete issues
everything in the print edition
and more!
For more information on
POWER magazine, visit
www.powermag.com
14_PWR_100113_Emissions_p61-67.indd 61 9/15/13 5:51:05 PM
|
October 2013 62
EMISSIONS
Turning the Heat Up on Carbon
Emissions
In June the White House issued a Climate Action Plan that increases the pressure
on power generators to reduce carbon emissions. U.S. utilities have already
announced the retirement of 60 GW of coal-fired generation by 2020 as a result
of current regulations. Unless technological innovation can beat the regulatory
clock (which seems unlikely), more early retirements are ahead.
Brandon Bell, PE
A
lthough there have been previous at-
tempts at the federal level to regulate
carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emitted from
U.S. coal-fired power plants (remember the
Waxman-Markey Bill, the American Clean
Energy and Security Act of 2009?), after a
lull in action on the greenhouse gas (GHG)
regulation front, the past year has seen accel-
erated action. Pressure to regulate GHGs in
general and CO
2
from coal-fired power plants
in particular (because they are the largest sta-
tionary source of the gas) has been building
for well over a decade, as a quick review of
the regulatory history shows. But now, in part
because of the way the administration is ap-
proaching GHG regulation, the likelihood of
unattainable limits on emissions from coal-
fired generation becoming final rules within a
mere three years has increased significantly.
We got to this point by a circuitous route.
The question now is where U.S. coal-fired
generation owners go from here.
A Brief History of CO
2
Regulation
By now, most readers are familiar with the
latest development in the history of attempts
to regulate GHGs. On June 25, 2013, a Presi-
dential Memorandum issued by the White
House gave the green light for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to further
increase the regulation of carbon emissions
from electric generating units (EGUs). This
memo was conveniently timed, as it was is-
sued exactly one year from the cutoff date
of the comment period for the Carbon Pol-
lution Standard (Standards of Performance
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Sta-
tionary Sources: Electric Generating Units)
and days before implementation of the third
step of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule) on
July 1, 2013. In addition to urging the EPA
to expedite publication of the final Carbon
Pollution Standard for new sources, the Cli-
mate Action Plan memo opened the door for
regulating carbon emissions from modified,
reconstructed, and existing EGUs.
But the stage for this action was set by pre-
vious actions and decisions. . . .
Massachusetts v. EPA
In the Presidential Memorandum the White
House outlines the actions already taken by
the EPA to regulate the emissions of carbon
pollution from the transportation sector. The
EPA has a timeline that limits GHG emissions
from new cars and light trucks through 2025
and heavy duty trucks through 2018 using the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to enforce these limita-
tions. But how exactly is the EPA able to use
the CAA, which didnt include CO
2
as a pol-
lutant, and the regulation of mobile engines to
enforce new GHG standards on EGUs?
In October 1999, several parties petitioned
the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from new
motor vehicles to reduce the effects of global
Thousands of enclosures
Hundreds of sizes
Next-day shipping
www.rittal.us
October 2013
|
Thousands of enclosures
Hundreds of sizes
Next-day shipping
www.rittal.us
EMISSIONS
warming. They argued that GHGs were de-
fined as an air pollutant under 302(g) of the
CAA and that the EPA had a mandatory duty
to regulate their emission under Section 202
of the CAA. The petitioners were looking
for the EPA to impose stricter fuel efficiency
standards on motor vehicles as the means to
reduce CO
2
emissions.
On Sept. 8, 2003, the EPA made two de-
terminations that created a conflict among
multiple parties. The first determination was
that the EPA did not have the authority un-
der the CAA to regulate CO
2
or other GHGs
because they were not defined as pollutants.
The second was that if the EPA did have the
authority under the CAA to regulate CO
2
and
GHGs, it would decline to set emission lim-
its for mobile engines. The agency argued
that increasing the fuel efficiency of motor
vehicles was a function of the Department of
Transportation, not the EPA.
As a result of this determination, a law-
suit, Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), was filed
against the EPA. The Supreme Court found
that CO
2
and other GHGs could fall within
the broad definition of an air pollutant and
that the EPA had the authority to regulate
emissions of GHGs.
Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings
The Supreme Court ruling pushed the EPA
to further examine the effect of GHGs on
public health and welfare and clearly identify
which combustion byproducts are considered
GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA. In
the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases, the EPA
determined that GHG emissions from mo-
tor vehicles did contribute to GHG pollu-
tion. The EPA also identified CO
2
, methane
(CH
4
), nitrous oxide (N
2
O), hydrofluorocar-
bons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF
6
) as six key GHGs
that threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations.
These finding alone did not constitute a
regulation of GHGsonly a determination
by the EPA that these gases were harmful
and fell under the domain of the CAA. In
anticipation of these results, the EPA issued
a new rule regulating GHG emissions from
stationary sources. On Sept. 30, 2009, the
EPA proposed the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule to regulate emissions of the six GHGs
as Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) pollutants.
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Intended as a phased approach to regulat-
ing the emission of GHGs from stationary
sources, the third step of the Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule was phased in on July 1, 2013.
The rule requires new and existing facilities
with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons
per year carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2
e) to
obtain PSD permits. In addition to the PSD
permit, these facilities must also now obtain
a Title V operating permit. Facilities already
holding a PSD permit that increase GHG
emissions by 75,000 tons per year CO
2
e must
now address the increase in emissions.
As this phased approach to regulating GHGs
progresses, permitting agencies are beginning
to increase their efforts in reviewing and issu-
ing permits addressing GHGs. By the end of
2012, permitting agencies had 139 applications
under review and had final permits issued for
50 facilities. By the middle of 2013, these same
agencies had 183 permits under review and had
issued 33 final permits (Figure 1).
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Permits under review Permits finalized
Through end of 2012 First half of 2013
1. GHG permits under review and finalized. Source: EPA
|
October 2013 64
EMISSIONS
The vast majority of workload addressing GHG emissions has
been executed by state and local permitting agencies. The current
workload for state/local agencies through the middle of 2013 was 172
permits. The bulk of the EPAs GHG workload came from Region 6
EPA, which had a workload of 67 permits, while the combined other
regions had a workload of 21 permits through the middle of 2013.
Almost half (46% to be exact) of the GHG permits being reviewed
and issued are coming from the power generation sector. The next closest
industries with permits addressing GHG emissions are oil and gas (18%),
chemicals (16%), and mining/metals (9%). An analysis of the permits
being issued show the Best Available Control Technology method, which
was being designed to streamline the review process for GHG control
technologies, has overwhelmingly chosen energy efficiency as the pre-
ferred method for GHG control. This is evident as 92% of permits issued
have required energy efficiency, while 6% require add-on controls unre-
lated to CO
2
, and 2% require add-on controls for CO
2
control.
The Carbon Pollution Standard Is Quickly Tightening
On Apr. 13, 2012, the EPA proposed the first CAA regulation that
was intended to regulate carbon pollution from new power plants. The
proposed regulation would limit emissions to 1,000 pounds CO
2
per
megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Holding CO
2
emissions to this
level would allow 95%+ of new combined cycle power plants to read-
ily overcome the hurdle but would stifle any new solid fuel power
generation. Supercritical pulverized coal and integrated gasification
combined cycle power plants, the most energy-efficient of the coal
power generation options, operate at around 1,800 pounds CO
2
/MWh,
thus creating the need for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
This quickly became a controversial move by the EPA, and the agency
has been overwhelmed by more than two million comments from industry
and the general public. Due to the quantity and content of these comments,
the EPA indicated it would issue a new proposed Carbon Pollution Stan-
dard; however, it has taken longer than expected to release this informa-
tion. To further expedite action, the president issued orders for the EPA to
propose a new regulation by Sept. 20, 2013, for public comment.
The president, in his June 25 memo, took the regulation of CO
2
one
step further and ordered the EPA to expand from limiting CO
2
emis-
sions from just new power plants to also including modified, recon-
structed, and existing power plants. The president requested that the
EPA, under Section 111 of the CAA, issue standards, regulations, or
guidelines, as appropriate, that address carbon pollution . . . and build
on State efforts to move toward a cleaner power sector. Along with
this statement came a timeline for when the EPA is to implement this
new rule. The timeline is as follows:
Issue proposed regulations no later than June 1, 2014.
Finalize carbon regulations by no later than June 1, 2015.
Require updated State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to include car-
bon dioxide regulations under Section 111(d) of the CAA by no
later than June 30, 2016.
Its one thing to require SIPs in less than three years. Its quite
another to develop workable, economic compliance strategies within
that timeframe.
Compliance Strategies: Just Demos and R&D
In the U.S., very few power generation facilities have implemented a
CCS project. The two major challenges any CCS project faces are the
limited technologies available for capturing CO
2
and limited options
for storing or utilizing the sequestered gas after capture. The majority
of power generation facilities that implemented CCS projects have
used a pre-combustion capture mechanism and then used the seques-
tered CO
2
for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
800.787.7325
e-mail: industrial@sealeze.com
www.sealeze.com
ISO 9001 Certifed
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 patented brush-based
sealing system delivers reliability and
extended functional service life.
Replace seals less often
Consisrenr ellecrive seoling, 2-5 rimes longer r|on
standard seals.
n|erenr |ig| elosriciry ollows dissiporion ol srress
under deformation; reducing drag, wear and sudden
failures.
More effective than other seal
Conlorms ro seoling surloce.
Eoc| llomenr is lexi6le, conlorming ro vorying gop
sizes and surface irregularities for a continuous seal.
T|ousonds ol llomenrs, nesrle rig|rly roger|er
creating a high integrity seal. Under pressure these
llomenrs poc| even rig|rer.
at your ngertips More
introducing the new POWER website
Easier to use. Mobile-optimized. More ways to share.
Same exceptional editorial. Extraordinary design.
Visit www.powermag.com
Follow us:
at your ngertips More
introducing the new POWER website
Easier to use. Mobile-optimized. More ways to share.
Same exceptional editorial. Extraordinary design.
Visit www.powermag.com
Follow us:
|
October 2013 66
EMISSIONS
For most operating coal-fired power plants, a pre-combustion CCS
isnt practical or feasible. (See this issues cover story on the Edward-
sport plant for one demonstration of the economic hurdles.) The vast
majority of utility coal power generation utilizes some form of pulver-
ized coal combustion, and those systems would need to be converted
to fire a non-carbon-based fuel. At issue is that coal as a fuel source
consists largely of carbon molecules. If the carbon molecules in coal
are removed prior to combustion, there is little energy remaining for
thermal power production.
This is why facilities such as NRGs W.A. Parish plant are testing
the effectiveness of large-scale post-combustion CCS. W.A. Parish
is expecting to implement a commercial-scale post-combustion CCS
project using a 250-MW slipstream for carbon capture. It is antici-
pated that 90% of the CO
2
in the slipstream will be captured, resulting
in a 1.65 million ton annual reduction in CO
2
emissions.
To achieve this large reduction in CO
2
emissions, the plant is test-
ing an amine technology designed to remove the GHG gas from the
flue gas. The amine will absorb CO
2
from the flue gas and then move
it to a stripping process to sequester the captured gas and regenerate
the amine. One caveat for the technology is that the flue gas needs to
be free from flyash, sulfur, and nitrogen to be effective.
The captured CO
2
will be compressed and used for EOR at the
nearby West Ranch Oil Field in Jackson County, Texas. The U.S. De-
partment of Energy issued its final National Environmental Policy
Act Environmental Impact Statement in February 2013 and also is-
sued a Record of Decision in May 2013 giving the project a potential
operational timeframe of the first quarter of 2015.
A second large-scale demonstration of CCS technology is the re-
powering of Amerens Meredosia Unit 4 using oxyfuel combustion.
That $1.65 billion project will convert the existing 200-MW unit to a
167-MW oxy-combustion unit (also known as FutureGen 2.0) with a
90% CO
2
capture rate. The first phase of the project, primarily con-
sisting of the projects power purchase agreement, was completed in
February 2013; the project has now entered its second phase, consist-
ing of final permitting activities and engineering and design. The sec-
ond phase is expected to continue into summer 2014 with commercial
operations expected to begin in 2017.
For domestic power generation, this will be the first major CCS
project that does not use the sequestered CO
2
for EOR. Instead, the
CO
2
will be transported and injected below ground into a geologi-
cal formation. In this region, the Mount Simon Sandstone is located
below an impermeable caprock and contains a saline aquifer. The po-
rosity and depth of the formation is expected to be an ideal setting for
long-term storage of CO
2
.
There is hope that the EPA will be flexible about the timeframe
for enforcing regulations for existing power plantsallowing new
technologies to emerge and be applied in time to meet compliance
deadlines. CO
2
removal technologies are not new processes; however,
they are new for the power generation industry.
Post-combustion CO
2
removal methods currently under devel-
opment can be broken down into three main removal categories:
solvents, sorbents, and membranes. (A few other very early-stage
approaches were covered in the August issue feature R&D Proj-
ects Target Cheaper Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage.) Solvent-
based CO
2
capture involves the chemical or physical absorption of
the GHG gas from flue gas into the liquid carrier. Using thermal
energy, CO
2
is liberated from the solvent outside of the flue gas
stream, thus regenerating the solvent and sequestering the CO
2
from
the combustion gases.
Solid particles referred to as sorbents are similar to solvent-based
post-combustion CO
2
capture systems in that they chemically or
physically adsorb CO
2
from the flue gas stream. Also similar to sol-
vents, sorbents may be regenerated by use of thermal energy, thus
reducing the amount of virgin sorbent required. Methods of contact
(between sorbent and flue gas) that are ideal for regeneration of the
sorbent include fixed, moving, and fluidized beds.
Membrane-based CO
2
capture methods consist of permeable or
semi-permeable membranes that allow for selective separation of CO
2

from the flue gas stream. Although these systems are ideal in pre-
combustion high-pressure systems, advancements are being made for
selective membranes compatible with low-partial-pressure CO
2
envi-
ronments (typical of a flue gas stream). Membrane systems offer a po-
tential operating cost savings because there is no need for regeneration,
as is typical with solvent and sorbent capture systems.
CO
2
Capture Is Only Half the Battle
Capturing CO
2
emissions from a flue gas stream constitutes half of the
CCS process; the other half involves sequestering all the captured gas.
Long-term storage presents significant challenges to existing coal-fired
power plants, as their geographical location may not be suitable for
long-term storage of CO
2
. FutureGen 2.0 and W.A. Parish are utilizing
the two most common types of storage in geological formations. Typi-
cally, the captured gas is injected in a supercritical state into the desired
geological formation and held underground by impermeable caprock or
a geochemical trapping mechanism. Other forms of geological storage
include mature gas fields and un-mineable coal seams.
Other storage mechanisms have been proposed, but they have not
been tested for their long-term viability. Mineral storage is a concept
that utilizes the process of carbonate formation (reaction of CO
2
and
metal oxides) as a mechanism for stable, long-term storage of CO
2
. In
nature this process occurs over several years and results in a signifi-
cant portion of surface limestone. A pilot plant based in Newcastle,
Australia (expected to be operational this year) is currently studying
the economics of this mineral storagebased mechanism.
There are also several pilot plants worldwide that have studied
the potential of using sequestered CO
2
for biomass generation. Se-
questered CO
2
is utilized in bioreactors that provide ideal growing
environments for algae. The algae produced is harvested and used to
either produce fuels such as biodiesel or to generate animal feed.
Limited Flexibility
It is unclear at this time what the regulation for CO
2
emissions will
look like for new and existing power plants, but it is certain that in-
creased regulations will be proposed. Although the EPA will have
flexibility with implementing carbon regulations, the fact of the mat-
ter remains that CO
2
is becoming increasingly regulated. With an
already volatile regulatory environment consisting of promulgated
regulations (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards), regulations expected
to be released shortly (316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures and
Coal Combustion Residuals), and the potential reinstatement of over-
turned regulations (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule), the potential of
new regulations further complicates the future of coal-fired power
generation.
Technologies to address the capture and storage of CO
2
are avail-
able but have yet to been proven on a large-scale basis. In addition
to being unproven, CCS projects are capital- and energy-intensive.
Natural gas remains at a low price point and, from a regulatory
standpoint, retains a favorable position as the fossil fuel of choice
for future power generation. However, over 40% of current U.S.
power is still being produced by coal-fired power plants. It is uncer-
tain what overall effect the expansion of CO
2
regulations will have
on fossil fuel power generationand grid reliabilitybut the trend
of retiring coal-fired power generation units due to existing or future
regulations is likely to continue.
Brandon Bell, PE is a project manager at Valdes Engineering
and a POWER contributing editor.
WIND / WAVE / TIDAL
www.energyocean.com
June 3-5, 2014
Atlantic City, NJ Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel
22447
22447_EOI 2014-ad-8_125x11.indd 1 9/12/13 8:48 AM
WIND / WAVE / TIDAL
www.energyocean.com
June 3-5, 2014
Atlantic City, NJ Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel
22447
22447_EOI 2014-ad-8_125x11.indd 1 9/12/13 8:48 AM
|
October 2013 68
EMISSIONS
Reducing SCR Fly Ash
Accumulation with Improved
Reactor Inlet Airflow
Poor airflow around its selective catalytic reactor (SCR) was causing heavy fly ash
accumulation and pluggage at Kansas City Power & Lights 815-MW La Cygne
Unit 1. Flow modeling and redesign of the SCR hood led to dramatically im-
proved conditions and reduced maintenance costs.
Scott Hiedeman, Reid Thomas, Dale Pfaff, and Diane Fischer
T
he Kansas City Power & Light
(KCP&L) La Cygne Generating Sta-
tion provides 1,532 MW of peak power
from its site south of Kansas City. La Cygne
Unit 1 is an 815-MW Babcock & Wilcox
cyclone boiler with overfire air and selec-
tive catalytic reduction (SCR) nitrogen ox-
ide (NO
x
) controls. Unit 1 burns a blend of
90% Powder River Basin (PRB) and 10% lo-
cal Missouri coal.
The units SCR was installed in 2007 with
a 3 + 1 catalyst layer configuration, which
consists of three initial layers of catalyst
with one spare layer for future use. In the
fall of 2012, plant staff vacuumed 2,900,000
pounds of fly ash from the SCR after a 17-
month operating cycle. This was twice the
typical amount of fly ash removed in previ-
ous outages because the unit had operated
for an extended time with a low demand load
factor. However, the catalyst pluggage of ap-
proximately 50% was typical of previous op-
erating cycles.
The SCR consists of two reactor casings
separated by a common division wall. Flue
gas enters the SCR North Side B and South
Side A of the SCR hood to flow down
through these separated casings. Fly ash
would accumulate 5 to 6 feet deep near the
SCR north to south reactor casing division
wall (Figure 1). The fly ash accumulation
caused high ash removal costs, high cata-
lyst replacement costs, high catalyst pres-
sure drop and fan power costs, and high
ammonia slip and ammonia reagent costs.
In addition, cleaning the catalyst became a
critical path activity during outages. The
fly ash accumulation also caused unit ca-
pacity derates in combination with other
draft losses.
Many minor changes were attempted
through the first five years of SCR opera-
tion. These included installation of missing
flow control baffles, corrections to the sonic
horn, covering or removal of horizontal
vane and beam surfaces, and enlarging the
honeycomb ceramic catalyst pitch. These
minor repairs were not successful, because
they were not addressing the root cause of
poor flow distribution.
Poor Flow and Many Restrictions
To keep PRB fly ash moving through the
catalyst, flue gas flow must be of uniform
velocity, vertical, and without recirculation.
In 2010, KCP&L La Cygne initiated compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow modeling
with Fuel Tech to determine the cause of fly
ash accumulation and correct flow variances
to the catalyst. The CFD analysis shown in
Figure 2 indicated problem areas, including
the following:
SCR inlet duct north-south contraction
pushed flow to the lower four SCR hood
turning vanes.
Trusses and large gusset plates in the SCR
inlet duct and hood restricted flow to the
upper four SCR hood turning vanes.
The turning vanes and perforated plate on
top of the original egg crate flow-straight-
ening grid created flow recirculation zones
that caused fly ash dropout. The turning
vanes also collected ash on horizontal
surfaces because of low flow, and these
ash piles sloughed off during forced draft
(FD) fan startups.
The egg crate structural support steel cre-
ated flow disturbances that could not be
corrected in the short distance to the first
catalyst layer.
The flue gas recirculated behind the SCR
hood turning vanes, but the fly ash did not
follow this twisting route and instead fell
out on the catalyst layers. Because of these
issues, KCP&L decided that the existing
flow-straightening devices needed to be re-
moved and replaced with a new design that
addressed the findings of the flow model.
The Redesign
Modification of the SCR hood was originally
planned for the fall of 2013. However, low
demand load factors on KCP&L and We-
star systems in 2012, and the high price of
continuing catalyst ash pluggage, led to the
decision to move the project up for a 2012
1. A big problem. Poor airflow was caus-
ing heavy fly ash accumulation in the SCR.
Here, mounds of ash have built up near the
reactor casing division wall. Courtesy: KCP&L
15_PWR_100113_Emissions_SCR_p68-71.indd 68 9/15/13 5:58:18 PM
October 2013
|
EMISSIONS
installation. A planned boiler inspection out-
age was extended to accommodate the work.
Design of the new flow distribution devices
for the SCR hood began in July 2012, with
the outage scheduled for October. With the
short time frame for design and fabrication,
the contracted services were secured for flow
modeling, structural engineering, fabrication,
and construction installation.
Black & Veatch was contracted to provide
design drawings and specifications, review
the flow modeling and proposed flow distri-
bution devices, and evaluate constructability.
The entire team participated in preliminary
flow model result review meetings to pro-
vide immediate input to flow modeling and
direction to engineering. Probable flow dis-
tribution devices were detailed by engineer-
ing to obtain construction installation bids.
Catalyst installation was planned for Layers
2-3-4 to allow Layer 1 to be a work plat-
form for the SCR hood modifications. Flow
device fabrication was performed off-site at
fabrication shops to speed production. Fab-
rication was scheduled to continue through
the start of the October outage because de-
molition would occur before new materials
would be needed.
A CFD modeling study analyzed the re-
moval of the SCR hood turning vanes and
replacement with Fuel Techs Graduated
Straightening Grid (GSG) technology. The
GSG device consists of parallel plates in-
stalled in the SCR hood on the diagonal, to
turn the flue gas and fly ash vertically into the
first catalyst layer.
GSG technology improves on traditional
SCR airflow design in several ways. Until
recently, controlling the velocity distribu-
tion and flow direction into the face of the
first catalyst layer was accomplished with
large turning vanes along with a straight-
ening grid placed immediately above the
catalyst. The turning vanes were tuned to
achieve an even velocity distribution while
the straightening grid below straightened
the flow direction.
The turning vane system requires exact
spacing and angling of turning vanes during
SCR construction to ensure required flow
distributions are met. This solution is also ex-
tremely sensitive to changes to the upstream
flow distribution, and any changes to the sys-
tem require remodeling and retuning of the
vanes to maintain the required distributions.
In contrast, the GSG combines the turn-
ing vanes and straightening grid into a single
sloped grid. The GSG has been shown to be
a robust flow corrective solution in a number
of previous installations, as it is much less
sensitive to upstream flow distributions com-
pared to traditional solutions. This means
that the catalyst and catalyst performance are
protected even when the unit is not running at
optimum design conditions, including econo-
mizer bypass operation.
The CFD model results showed that in-
stallation of the GSG corrected the large
flow recirculation zones, and flow was
vertical out of the GSG. However, the flow
statistics were not within the project teams
target of +/15% of arithmetic mean veloc-
ity. The SCR hood truss/gussets and egg
crate structural steel were creating large
flow velocity variances before the first
catalyst layer.
The CFD model was reanalyzed, consider-
ing three scenarios: removal of the two truss-
es, removal of the egg crate support steel, and
removal of both truss and egg crate. Removal
of all internal structures had the best results,
but removal of the egg crate steel had a nearly
identical result without the expense of replac-
ing the SCR hood truss system. However, the
flow statistics were still not close enough
to the recommended +/15% of mean. The
SCR inlet flue contraction and truss/gussets
were both working to push flow to the SCR
inlet corner and away from the back half of
the SCR reactor casings at the division wall.
The CFD model run was used to tune a vari-
able perforated plate across the leading edge
of the GSG blades at several positions. This
variable perforated plate prevented excess
flue gas from making the quick turn into the
front of the reactors and pushed more flow
past the truss/gusset system to the back half
of the reactors.
The final modification arrangement in-
cluded demolition of the turning vanes in the
hood of the SCR reactors and demolition of
the original egg crate flow straightener, per-
forated plate, and its support steel.
Installation
The conceptual design developed by Fuel
Tech in the flow model was then developed
2. Uneven conditions. This CFD profile of baseline velocity results in the SCR hood area
shows widely variable airflow and areas of recirculation behind the turning vanes, resulting in
ash dropout. Courtesy: Fuel Tech
3. Straight and even flow. The new design produced vertical, non-recirculating, uni-
form velocity to the catalyst. Courtesy: Fuel Tech
|
October 2013 70
EMISSIONS
into detailed design drawings for fabrica-
tion and installation. The GSG blade detail
drawing was completed in advance, based
on Fuel Techs standard design. Engineering
added the final perforated plate details and
turned these drawings over for fabrication.
Engineering also began redesign of the sup-
port for the SCR pressure load where the egg
crate support steel was removed. The egg
crate steel not only supported the old flow
straightener weight but also restrained the
pressure forces on this elevation. A buckstay
arrangement was developed to resist these
forces.
The selected arrangement was installation
of the GSG device with a perforated plate at
the turning vane location. The GSG replaced
the turning vane and egg crate functions by
turning the flow 90 degrees and aligning the
flow vertically to pass through the catalyst
layers. A perforated plate was needed on the
GSG blades leading edge to overcome the
low flow at the SCR A and B division wall.
The flow statistics did not quite reach the
desired project goal of 100% of all flow ve-
locities within +/15% of arithmetic mean.
The final model showed flow distribution
statistics with 91% of all analyzed flow ve-
locities within +/15%, which is equal to
9.5% root mean squared (rms). This was a
significant improvement compared to the
original, traditional turning vane design
where 58% of flow velocities were within
+/15% (17.5% rms). The flue gas flow di-
rection, shown with velocity vectors, was
excellent. The flow recirculation was nearly
eliminated, except at the two truss systems,
and the flow direction was vertical going
into the catalyst (Figure 3).
Fabrication of the GSG modules was
straightforward. These modules were complet-
ed and shipped to the site prior to installation
crew needs during the October outage. The late
addition of the variable perforated plate added a
complication to the fabrication schedule. Fabri-
cation time at six different shops was secured to
laser or plasma cut all the perforated plate parts.
The final GSG device with perforated plate was
installed as shown in Figure 4.
One wrinkle was that the egg crate steel
above the Layer 1 catalyst had included
1955 Chevy 150/210
Creating Value.
Carver Pump Company
2415 Park Avenue
Muscatine, IA 52761
563.263.3410
Fax: 563.262.0510
www.carverpump.com
Low NPSHa on your vacuum receiver got
you down? Fail to resume pumping as
suction levels resume? You need Carver
Pump 855 Series muscle!
Carver 855 Series are designed for use on
vacuum receivers operating with up to 26 Hg
vacuum. Flange mounted directly to the vacuum
receiver tank eliminates suction piping/NPSH
problems. Whether operating at a trickle or full flow,
specially designed impellers allow pumping to resume even
after periods of interrupted flow.
Capacities range to 600 GPM depending on discharge head
and speed of operation. Available in 6 sizes ranging from
1- 4, standard materials of construction include All Iron,
CD4MCu and Rubber Lined. The 855
Series features an overhead v-belt drive
arrangement as standard, with options for
either close coupled or frame mounted
drives. Packing is standard in the stuffing
box with mechanical seals as an option,
and dont forget to ask about our
Swing-Out design. Let us build
the muscle you need!
OVERHEAD
DRIVE
MOUNTS
DIRECTLY
TO TANK
FLANGE
Carver
Series 855
855 Series
TYPICAL
RECEIVER
TANK
V-BELT
DRIVE
ASSEMBLY
855 PM 55Chevy 042213_Layout 1 4/21/13 9:42 PM Page 1
4. Fewer obstructions. The new de-
sign is shown from above (top) with the
perforated plate, and from below (bottom).
Courtesy: KCP&L
October 2013
|
EMISSIONS
the catalyst removal cart wheel tracks. As
a result, an alternate catalyst installation
method needed to be developed. A grating
floor was installed in catalyst Layer 1. Fu-
ture Layer 1 catalyst installation will be by
pallet carts. Catalyst was installed in Layers
2-3-4 during the 2012 outage to aid the GSG
construction sequence.
Additional fly ash accumulation preven-
tion measures were taken by installing ash
guards on all horizontal surfaces inside
the SCR. Catalyst support beam teepee
ash guards were installed on the grating
floor to prevent fly ash stalagmites from
growing up from the beams. Catalyst seals
were sloped to prevent stalagmite growth,
and support beams and loading monorail
beam pockets were covered to prevent ash
buildup and ash sloughs. SCR hood truss
beam pockets were covered, beam tops
were sloped to eliminate ash buildup, and
beam bottoms were fabricated into airfoils
to avoid recirculation zones.
Much Improved
An inspection after four months of operation
showed excellent results at the SCR division
wall, which was a trouble spot originally.
Figure 5 shows much cleaner conditions af-
ter installation of the GSG (compare with the
Figure 1 shot, taken in the same area before
the redesign). These improvements are the
results of the GSG technology providing im-
proved flow in the SCR hood.
The GSG and perforated plate modifica-
tions resulted in more than $5,000,000 in
capital cost savings compared to other op-
tions, including truss removal and changing
the original inlet flue gas distribution design.
Reduced fly ash accumulation in La Cygne
Unit 1 SCR will reduce catalyst replacement
costs, reduce removal costs, reduce catalyst
pressure drop and fan power costs, reduce
ammonia slip and ammonia costs, and reduce
complexity of outages.
The next catalyst layer replacement is
not budgeted until after 2019. This will
mean that only one layer will need to be
replaced after seven years of operationa
major improvement compared to the eight
layers KCP&L had to replace over the pre-
vious five years.
Scott Hiedeman is senior AQC engineer
with KCP&L. Reid Thomas is senior pro-
cess engineer and Dale Pfaff is mountain
regional sales manager with Fuel Tech
Inc. Diane Fischer is services area leader,
AQC, Energy with Black & Veatch.
5. Clean sweep. With the new airflow
measures in place, fly ash accumulation was
dramatically reduced. Courtesy: KCP&L
UDI WHOS WHO AT ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
Enhanced PDF version now available
The 2013 UDI Whos Who Directory covers more than 4,200
U.S. and Canadian generating plants. The directory provides:
lee|l] c,500 ulert aereeaert erJ suuuc|t
ccrtect reaes, titles, erJ u|iae|] jc| urcticrs.
Besic ulert cue|etir stetistics c| ac|e t|er 1,500
ucwe| steticrs, ircluJir.
Cere|eticr ,Mw|}
/.eile|ilit] ,}
|eet |ete
Ceuecit] |ectc| ,}
|cwe| ulert Jesir c|e|ecte|istics
C|ccse w|ic| uu|c|ese cuticr t|et |est suits ]cu| reeJs.
|e|Jccu] Bcc|
Er|erceJ 0i|ectc|] |0| ,C0R0M} NEW FOR 2013
Meilir |ist ,C0R0M}, Er|erceJ 0i|ectc|] |0| 8 |e|Jccu] Bcc|
For more detailed information and a list of all available data, visit us online at UDIDATA.COM or contact the UDI Editorial team at UDI@Platts.com.
|
October 2013 72
GAS POWER
R
eciprocating gas engines find work in
multiple power generation applications,
from providing fast-start backup gen-
erating capacity for intermittent renewable re-
sources to offering scalable and increasingly ef-
ficient solutions for commercial and industrial
combined heat and power (CHP) systems.
Major global manufacturers such as GE-
Jenbacher, Cummins, and Wrtsil have fo-
cused engineering efforts in recent years on
improving their machines efficiency and
meeting environmental regulations, particu-
larly nitrogen oxide (NO
x
) emission rules.
Another factor driving interest in recip-
rocating engines for industrial CHP applica-
tions in the U.S. is the long-term prospect for
plentiful natural gas supplies and relatively
stable prices. Commercial and industrial
customers are finding in some instances that
they can generate their own electricity for
less money than if they were to buy power
from the grid, said Scott Nolen, product line
management leader, GE Gas Engines for
Power Generation. Creative uses of recip-
rocating engine technology that include not
only power generation but also thermal en-
ergy and even captured emissions are gaining
traction in some parts of the country.
For example, in August 2012, GE and Hou-
welings Tomatoes, a leading California-based
greenhouse, completed work on a CHP proj-
ect that also captures carbon dioxide (CO
2
)
from the engine exhaust for plant fertilization.
Using two GE 4.36-MW Jenbacher J624 two-
staged turbocharged natural gas engines and
a GE-designed CO
2
fertilization system, the
plant provides heat, power, and CO
2
to Hou-
welings 125-acre tomato greenhouse in Ca-
marillo, Calif. The system provides 8.7 MW
of electrical power and 10.6 MW of thermal
energy (hot water) for heating the greenhous-
es. The system offers a total thermal efficiency
of nearly 90%. When considering the avoided
energy that would be required to externally
source the CO
2
and the recovery of water from
the exhaust, GE said the overall system effi-
ciency (effectiveness) exceeds 100%.
This past July, the largest power plant
running exclusively on gas engines on the
African continentand among the first of
its kind in the Republic of South Africa
entered service. The Sasol Gas Engine Power
Plant, located south of Johannesburg, is pow-
ered by 18 Wrtsil 34SG gas-fired generat-
ing sets with a combined operating capacity
of 140 MW (see the Top Plant story on this
plant in the September issue). Electricity pro-
duced by the plant is used by Sasols nearby
chemical factory, with about half of the elec-
tricity production fed to the national grid.
One of Wrtsils largest U.S. installations
is the 202-MW Pearsall Power Plant owned by
South Texas Electric Cooperative. The plant in-
cludes 24 reciprocating engines and is used to
firm intermittent wind generation resources.
And on Long Island, N.Y., about 60 miles
east of New York City, the William Floyd
School District, with a student population
of approximately 11,000, faced steadily ris-
ing on-peak electric rates that were straining
operational budgets. The district decided to
install a CHP system from Cummins Power
Generation, which supplies on-peak electricity
as well as heating and cooling to three school
buildings. In the first three years of operation,
the CHP system saved the school district more
than $1.2 million. The CHP system consists of
two PowerCommand 1.25-MW reciprocating
engine generators with a combined capacity of
2.5 MW. The generator sets feature a QSV91G
lean-burn natural gas engine, which is a 91-
liter engine with a high exhaust temperature in
relation to the amount of electricity produced,
making it a good fit for CHP applications with
large heating or cooling loads.
It is the best performing plant Ive been
involved with, said Peter Schroeck, manager
ESB North America/Caribbean Business De-
velopment for Cummins Engines. He said the
growth potential for CHP applications has ben-
efited from prospects for stable and more pre-
dictable natural gas prices. Gas price volatility
in the past made it difficult to build a financial
model that would hold up with any certainty.
A barrier to growth for reciprocating en-
gines that still must be addressed is the lower
heat rate common with many technologies.
System efficiencies typically range from
36% to 45%, Schroeck said, with a 1 percent-
age point gain in efficiency considered tre-
mendous. Much of the current effort aimed
at improving efficiency focuses on reducing
friction in the engine and working to reduce
exhaust temperatures, both of which can help
produce more high-value product, he said.
Mature Technology
A 2011 report by the North American Elec-
tric Reliability Corp. (NERC) said that recip-
rocating enginebased generators are among
the most mature distributed generation (DG)
technologies available, accounting for about
90% of current DG installations in North
America. The generators themselves are typi-
cally synchronous machines that can provide
dynamic reactive power and voltage control.
Applications include utility power genera-
tion, peak shaving, and remote customer and
backup power. Reciprocating engines can run
on a range of fuels including diesel, natural
gas, gasoline, propane, and methane. (This ar-
ticle focuses on natural gasfueled machines.)
Reciprocating engines also are typically fast
starting, fast ramping, and have good part-load
performance. The NERC report said these
characteristics make reciprocating engines
a good reliability resource when they are re-
sponsive to system operator commands.
CHP, also sometimes known as cogenera-
tion, is one form of DG that generates both
electric power and thermal energy. Accord-
ing to the Department of Energy, at the end
of 2011 nearly 70 GW of CHP generating
capacity was installed across the U.S. and ac-
counted for almost 7% of total U.S. installed
capacity. Of that 70 GW, 25 GW was in the
industrial sector, 2 GW in the commercial
sector, and 43 GW in the electric power sec-
tor. The average capacity factor for generators
at industrial CHP plants was around 57%.
Not all of that DG capacity represented re-
ciprocating engines, by any means. Combus-
tion turbines and even coal-fired boilers are in
use. Even so, natural gas is the most common
Reciprocating Engines Continue to
Be Flexible Workhorses
With applications that range from firming intermittent resources to providing com-
bined heat and power solutions, reciprocating engine manufacturers have
made strides to improve their machines efficiency and environmental profile.
David Wagman
16_PWR_100113_Gas_Recip_p72-75.indd 72 9/15/13 6:05:40 PM
October 2013
|
GAS POWER
primary energy source used in CHP applica-
tions, followed by coal and biomass (often in
the form of waste products at paper mills).
Indeed, more than 65% of CHP capacity cur-
rently operating in the U.S. uses natural gas
as a primary fuel source. CHP generators in
the U.S. and elsewhere are more likely than
other generators to burn a variety of fuels
(such as different types of biomass and in-
dustrial byproducts).
For example, in July, the Middle Eastern
country of Lebanon rolled out its first landfill
gas-to-energy project near Beirut. The on-site
power project is powered by a GE Jenbacher
J312 landfill gas engine and potentially will
generate 637 kW. That capacity could expand
in the future if this initial application proves
successful. GE said that landfill gas typically
consists of approximately 55% methane,
which the Jenbacher engine uses for fuel.
In Germany, the entity Stadtwerke Rosen-
heim supplies water, electricity, gas, process
steam, and district heating for residential and
local industrial customers. Using combined
reciprocating engines in a CHP application of-
fered the city of Rosenheim a more flexible en-
ergy supply infrastructure. A J920 FleXtra gas
engine (Figure 1) combined with heat storage
was combined with a waste incineration plant
and four existing GE engines to create a CHP
plant that generates about 40% of the electricity
and 20% of the heat required by the city.
Gaining Traction
CHP facilities often are built at factories or at
educational or corporate campuses that have
heat or steam demands. Applications are
widespread across Europe but less so in the
U.S. However, a concentration of CHP units
may be found along the Gulf Coast, where
cogeneration plants are located near refiner-
ies and chemical plants. A number of small-
er-scale CHP installations are located near
pulp and paper mills in the South, in northern
Wisconsin, and in Maine; these burn wood
waste byproducts as fuel. CHP installations
are also common in states with a history of
utility regulation that favors the application,
such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, North
Carolina, California, and New York.
In addition, CHP was the focus of an Au-
gust 2012 Executive Order signed by President
Obama. That order set a national goal of 40
GW of new CHP capacity by 2020, a 50% in-
crease. The order said meeting that goal would
save energy users $10 billion a year, result in
$40 billion to $80 billion in new capital invest-
ment in manufacturing and other facilities, and
reduce emissions equivalent to 25 million cars.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, an
ICF company, produced a white paper for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that
mentions a widely cited reference that re-
ciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines
are one of the most common engines used for
DG. With more than 9,000 MW of installed
capacity in the U.S., the IC engine makes
up around 75% of all fossil fueldriven DG
units. Diesel and natural gas are used in these
enginesthe former is used in compression
ignition engines, the latter in spark ignition
engines. Other spark ignition fuels include
biogas, landfill gas, and propane.
IC generators are also known as genera-
tor sets or gensets. As such, they combine
an IC engine, a generator, and various ancillary
devices that form a DG unit. The technology
benefits from low relative cost, high reliabil-
ity, long operating life, short startup times, and
readily available fuel sources. The IC engine
also has high part-load efficiency, meaning it
can match or follow the electric load demand
within a 30% to 100% load range fairly cost ef-
fectively and with little decrease in efficiency.
Current generation natural gas engines offer
1. Reciprocating engines in Germany. Stadtwerke Rosenheims CHP portfolio in-
cludes three J620 gas engines (3 x 3.35 MWe), one J624 two-stage turbocharged gas engine
(4.4 MWe), and a J920 FleXtra engine (pictured), which adds another 9.5 MWe to this capacity.
Courtesy: GE Jenbacher
WellerCLAD WellerPLUS 500 DS
TM
WELLERITE
Weller HDP-1900
TM
WellerCLAD HYPOL
WellerSILICONE
TM
Weller WC-5
WELLERITE
Weller HDP-1900
TM
WellerCLAD HYPOL
WellerPLUS 500 DS
TM
WELLERITE
|
October 2013 74
GAS POWER
low first cost, fast startup, and reliable service
when properly maintained, in addition to ex-
cellent load-following characteristics and heat
recovery potential. Electric efficiencies of natu-
ral gas engines range from 30% lower heating
value (LHV) for small stoichiometric engines
(<100 kW) to more than 40% LHV for large
lean-burn engines (>3 MW). Waste heat recov-
ered from hot engine exhaust and from the en-
gine cooling systems produces either hot water
or low-pressure steam for CHP applications.
Engine Improvements
Reciprocating engine technology has im-
proved over the past several decades, driven
in large part by economic and environmental
pressures for power density improvements
(more output per unit of engine displace-
ment), increased fuel efficiency, and reduced
emissions. Computer systems have also ad-
vanced reciprocating engine design and con-
trol, accelerating advanced engine designs
and making possible more precise control
and diagnostic monitoring.
Heat in the engine jacket coolant accounts
for up to 30% of the energy input and is capable
of producing 200F to 210F hot water. Some en-
gines, such as those with high-pressure cooling
systems, can operate with water jacket temper-
atures up to 265F. Engine exhaust heat repre-
sents 30% to 50% of the available waste heat,
and exhaust temperatures of 850F to 1,200F are
typical. By recovering heat in the cooling sys-
tems and exhaust, approximately 70% to 80%
of the fuels energy can be used to produce both
power and thermal energy.
Manufacturers also have introduced gen-
erator sets that feature lean-burn technol-
ogy. The combustion is considered lean
when excess air is introduced into the engine
along with the fuel, in this case natural gas.
This produces two effects. First, the excess
air reduces the temperature of the combustion
process, which in turn reduces the amount of
NO
x
produced by nearly half, compared to
a conventional natural gas engine. Second,
since excess oxygen is available, the combus-
tion process is more efficient and more power
is produced from the same amount of fuel.
Any air/fuel reaction requires an energy
source to initiate combustion. In natural gas
engines, the spark plug performs this func-
tion. In lean-burn engines, the combustion
process is enhanced by premixing the air and
fuel upstream of the turbocharger before it
is introduced into the cylinder. This creates
a more homogenous mixture in the combus-
tion chamber and reduces the occurrence of
knocking or early detonation. To prevent
either knocking or misfiring, the combustion
process must be controlled within a narrow
operating window. Charges in air tempera-
tures and volume, together with air/fuel ratio,
are constantly monitored by microprocessor-
based engine controllers that regulate not
only the fuel flow and air/gas mixture but
also the ignition timing.
Lean-burn engines marketed by Cummins,
for example, are designed to operate at a lean
air/gas ratio of lambda = 1.7. (Traditional
stoichiometric natural gas engines have an
air/gas ratio of lambda = 1.0.) A richer mix-
ture (stoichiometric) can potentially produce
knocking and higher NO
x
emissions; a leaner
mixture than lambda 1.7 may not combust re-
liably and may cause misfiring, which raises
hydrocarbon emissions.
One benefit of lean-burn engine technology
is reduced emissions in the exhaust. For ex-
ample, Cummins lean-burn gas engine genera-
tors have NO
x
emissions as low as 0.85 grams/
brake horsepower (BHP)-hr, and produce low
amounts of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
and particulate matter. This allows the genera-
tor sets to meet air quality regulations without
after-treatment devices in the exhaust stream.
For still lower emissions, lean-burn gas engine
generator sets may be coupled with after-treat-
ment options such as selective catalytic reduc-
tion systems and oxidation catalysts. These can
result in NO
x
levels at or below 0.15 grams/
BHP-hr, capable of meeting most prime mover
power emissions regulations worldwide.
Another advantage of lean-burn technology
with full-authority electronic engine controls is
the ability to operate on gas with a wide range
of quality. A measurement called the methane
number (MN) is used to determine fuel gas
suitability as an engine fuel. Most natural gas
has an MN from 70 to 97, and pipeline quality
gas typically has an MN of about 75. Resource
recovery gas from landfills or sewage treat-
ment facilities is typically of lower quality, but
is often suitable for use in lean-burn engines.
Cummins lean-burn gas engine generators
operate on gas with an MN of 50 or greater.
Gas with an MN below 70, however, may re-
quire derating the generator output.
In addition to these advancements, work
also is under way to increase plant net ef-
ficiency, optimize cooling systems, pursue
alternator improvements, and enhance com-
bustion systems, said Thomas Hgglund,
vice president of Power Plant Technology
for Wrtsil Corp. Hgglund said Wrtsil
has developed advanced engine control sys-
tems that optimize each cylinder individually
to enhance combustion performance. Au-
tomated systems check combustion during
startup, and engine lubrication is optimized
for fast startups. The effect is to improve the
machines efficiency during ramp-up as well
as ramp-down, two critical phases when a
machine is following an intermittent renew-
able energy load. There are a lot of factors
to monitor, Hgglund said.
And GE Jenbacher has worked to improve
combustion in the cylinders, the fuel/air ratio,
and pressures, which Nolen said have risen
50% through a combination of stronger con-
necting rods, steel pistons, and spark plug
improvements. The net effect has been to in-
crease engine efficiencies from around 36% to
in excess of 45%. In 2010, GE Jenbacher also
introduced a two-stage turbocharger system
that increases power density by around 10%.
Leading Prime Mover
These improvements are in addition to previ-
ously existing features that have made recip-
rocating engines a leading prime mover for
CHP and other DG applications, according
to the Energy and Environmental Analysis
report. These features include:
Size range: Reciprocating engines are
available in sizes from 10 kW to over 10
MW and may be linked together to pro-
vide even larger generating capacities.
Thermal output: Reciprocating engines
can produce both hot water and low-pres-
sure steam.
Fast startup: In peaking or emergency
power applications, reciprocating engines
can quickly supply electricity on demand.
Black-start capability: In the event of an
electric utility outage, reciprocating en-
gines require minimal auxiliary power
requirements. Generally, only batteries
are required.
Availability: Reciprocating engines have
typically demonstrated availability in ex-
cess of 95% in stationary power genera-
tion applications.
Part-load operation: The high part-load ef-
ficiency of reciprocating engines ensures
economical operation in load-following
applications.
Reliability and life: Reciprocating engines
have proven to be reliable power genera-
tors, given proper maintenance.
Emissions: Diesel engines have relatively
high emissions levels of NO
x
and particu-
lates. However, natural gas spark ignition
engines have improved emissions profiles.
The economics of engines in on-site power
generation applications often depend on effec-
tive use of the thermal energy contained in the
exhaust gas and cooling systems. As a rule of
thumb, this generally represents 60% to 70%
of the inlet fuel energy. Most of the waste heat
is available in the engine exhaust and jacket
coolant, while smaller amounts can be recov-
ered from the lube oil cooler and the turbo-
chargers intercooler and aftercooler.
David Wagman is content director for
ELECTRIC POWER, which will be held in
New Orleans April 13, 2014.
Need an easy way to obtain more
information to make an informed decision?
Customized newsletters are now available giving
you everything you need to make the right decision.
Look for DecisionBriefs on www.powermag.com
For information, contact Matt Grant at mattg@powermag.com
PRODUCT DETAILS. SPECS. TUTORIALS.
DB DecisionBriefs |
INTRODUCING
Need an easy way to obtain more
information to make an informed decision?
Customized newsletters are now available giving
you everything you need to make the right decision.
Look for DecisionBriefs on www.powermag.com
For information, contact Matt Grant at mattg@powermag.com
PRODUCT DETAILS. SPECS. TUTORIALS.
DB DecisionBriefs |
INTRODUCING
|
October 2013 76
NUCLEAR POWER
NuScale Puts Single-Minded
Focus on Small Modular Reactor
The western U.S. could host the first NuScale small modular reactor, which traces
its roots to Oregon State University. Financial backing from Fluor Corp. could
make the design more than an academic exercise and provide a scalable, car-
bon-free electric power source by the mid-2020s.
David Wagman
T
he global nuclear industry has endured
a rough patch since March 2011, when
an earthquake and tsunami crippled
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station in Ja-
pan. Attention in the U.S. after the accident
focused on the ability of nuclear reactors to
safely shut down in the event of a loss of
power to water circulating pumps critical in
keeping the reactor core cool. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted a
number of recommendations for operators
to follow, including enhancing the capability
of operators to maintain plant safety during a
prolonged loss of electrical power.
Then in January 2012, excessive wear in
the tubes of replacement steam generators
at a unit of the San Onofre Nuclear Generat-
ing Station (SONGS) in California focused a
spotlight on materials that could lead to ac-
celerated tube corrosion.
This past July, French nuclear opera-
tor EDF said it would exit the U.S. nuclear
market, and Entergy said it would consider
all options regarding its non-utility nuclear
generating assets. Both companies cited low
U.S. wholesale electric pricesthe result of
recent historically low natural gas pricesas
among the reasons for their decision.
These concerns and market challenges
arent lost on proponents of small modular
reactors (SMRs), the genre of nuclear power
plant that aims to combine modular, factory-
built reactors with secure, reliable, and safe
operations. POWER has already profiled the
Babcock & Wilcox mPower and GE PRISM
SMRs and has written about the Holtec and
Westinghouse SMRs. Here we look at the
NuScale SMR design, backed financially
since 2011 by Fluor Corp.
Considering safety, Dr. Jose N. Reyes,
chief technology officer for NuScale, told
POWER in an interview that his companys
SMR relies on the laws of physics rather than
mechanical equipment to provide an infinite
period of cooling to the reactor core in the
event of a Fukushima-type loss of power.
It became apparent after Fukushima that
our design had fundamental differences with
large-scale nuclear reactors, particularly in
its ability to safely shut down and cool itself
without electric power, Reyes said. In partic-
ular, the design relies on gravity and natural
circulation to safely and passively cool the re-
actor. Whats more, at 45 MW, each module
contains a relatively small amount of nuclear
fuel. Reyes said this reduces considerably the
environmental risk any one module would
present in the event of a crippling accident.
Considering corrosion, NuScale has two
large-scale test facilities in Italy that are con-
ducting flow-induced vibration tests on full-
length steam generator tube bundles. The aim
is to learn if vulnerabilities exist similar to
those found at SONGS. Test results are ex-
pected at the end of the year, Reyes said.
Considering economics, the company
estimates that it can install a 12-pack of its
45-MW NuScale Power Modules (540 MW
total plant output) for less than $5,000/kW.
By comparison, the Energy Information Ad-
ministration estimated earlier this year that
advanced baseload nuclear generating capac-
ity would carry an overnight cost of $4,700/
kW (in 2011 dollars), a new scrubbed coal
facility would be $2,694/kW, and a gas-fired
combined cycle plant would run $931/kW.
Adding carbon sequestration to the coal plant
would lift its overnight cost to more than
$4,600/kW. The overnight cost for a com-
bined cycle plant would exceed $1,800/kW
with carbon sequestration.
Even so, the economics of SMR might
work for an entity that wants a scalable, zero-
emissions source of electricity, and where
transmission constraints make it difficult to
site a much larger central generating station.
That makes the western U.S. an attractive lo-
cation for one of the first SMRs. This past June,
NuScale Power announced the launch of the
Western Initiative for Nuclear (WIN)a multi-
western state collaborationto study the dem-
onstration and deployment of a multi-module
NuScale SMR. A NuScale SMR built as part of
WIN is projected to be operational by 2024.
If built, WIN would serve as the initial
commercialization project for a potential
series of projects that may be developed in
other states. The first NuScale plant will
most likely be developed, built and owned by
a consortium of regional utilities, and oper-
ated by one of those utilities. The preferred
location at this point lies within the Idaho
National Laboratory site. The laboratory has
a history of supporting nuclear power deploy-
ment, and the states governor has expressed
support for an SMR deployment.
Oregon Roots
The NuScale SMR traces its origins to 2000,
when the Department of Energy (DOE) fund-
ed research for the development of a small
nuclear power plant for use in multiple ap-
plications. Idaho National Environment &
Engineering Laboratory led the project with
support from Oregon State University (OSU).
At the same time, OSU was gaining notice
for developing passive safety systems using
natural circulation to cool nuclear plants.
OSU built and operated 1,000-MW and 600-
MW nuclear steam supply system scale mod-
els to help win NRC design certification for
those technologies.
When the DOE research project ended in
2003, OSU scientists continued to pursue de-
sign of a small-scale nuclear plant that used
natural circulation. Ultimately, the team built
a one-third-scale electrically heated version
of a plant. OSU granted NuScale Power LLC
exclusive rights to the design, plus continued
use of a test facility, through a 2007 technol-
ogy transfer agreement.
In February 2008, NuScale began the pro-
cess of seeking NRC design certification for
its technology. The company currently is in
the pre-application review phase.
In 2011, Fluor Corp. became NuScales
primary investor with the intent of leverag-
ing its engineering, fabrication, procurement,
and construction capabilities, along with its
global supply chain, to support commercial-
ization. This past August, Rolls-Royce said it
17_PWR_100113_Nuclear_NuScale_p76-79.indd 76 9/15/13 6:12:04 PM
October 2013
|
NUCLEAR POWER
would back NuScales bid to commercialize
its SMR technology globally and will help
NuScales submission to DOEs Funding
Opportunity Announcement, a federal initia-
tive aimed at bringing bring a scalable, SMR
reactor to market by 2025.
NuScale describes itself as the only U.S.-
based company established solely for the
commercialization of its SMR. Using light
water reactor (LWR) technology, the NuS-
cale power module is cooled by natural cir-
culation, is entirely self-contained, and is
installed underwater and underground (Fig-
ure 1), which the developers say maximizes
safety. The NuScale design claims to enable
the reactor to safely shut down and self-cool
indefinitely, with no operator action, no AC
or DC power, and no additional water.
NuScale has pursued what it characterizes
as an aggressive pre-application program
with the NRC, consisting of nearly 40 techni-
cal meetings and submittals covering a range
of technical and regulatory topics such as
safety analysis, nuclear fuel, test programs,
seismic analysis, and control room staffing.
Every February the NRC requires from
SMR designers a regulatory information
summary that is used for resource planning
purposes at the federal agency. In our case,
weve provided thorough input to help the
NRC plan for its review of the NuScale
design, said Michael S. McGough, chief
commercial officer. He said the company is
pleased with the level of resources the NRC
has allocated to its SMR review process.
The objectives of the pre-application pro-
cess are to inform the NRC of the unique
NuScale Power Module and power plant
design features and approach, resulting in
review criteria applicable to NuScale in the
form of an NRC-issued NuScale DSRS. Pre-
application engagement will continue through
design certification application (DCA) sub-
mittal, currently forecast for 2015.
While the DCA review process is under
way, NuScale expects an applicant to file a
combined construction and operating license
application (COLA), allowing the design and
COLA review processes to move ahead on
parallel paths. The design ultimately certi-
fied by the NRC will be incorporated in the
COLA. This supports a likely commercial
date in the early 2020s.
Design Specifications
Each NuScale power module is intended to
be a self-contained module that operates in-
dependently of the other modules in a multi-
module configuration (Figure 2). However,
all modules are managed from a single con-
trol room. The reactor itself would measure
65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It would sit
within a containment vessel, and the reactor
and containment vessel would operate inside
a water-filled pool built below grade.
The reactor is designed to operate using
the principles of natural circulation; hence,
no pumps are needed to circulate water
through the reactor. Instead, the system uses
natural forces of physicsconvection, con-
duction, and gravity. To begin the process,
primary coolant water is heated as it passes
over the core. As it heats up, buoyancy forces
cause the water to rise through a riser tube
within the interior of the vessel. The riser
tube is surrounded by steam generator tubes,
which contain cooler water called secondary
coolant. The cooler water in the steam gener-
ator tubes cools the primary coolant and the
secondary coolant is heated in the process of
this heat exchange by conduction through the
tube walls. As the primary coolant cools, it
becomes more dense, which causes it to be
drawn by gravity back to the bottom of the
reactor vessel, where the natural circulation
process begins all over again. Water in the re-
actor system (primary coolant) is physically
separate from water in the steam generator
system (secondary coolant), which prevents
cross-contamination.
The secondary coolant inside the steam
generator tubes is heated to steam and exits
the reactor vessel. The steam spins turbines,
which are attached by a single shaft to the
electrical generator. After passing through
the turbines, the steam loses its energy. It is
cooled back into liquid form in the condenser
and then pumped by the feedwater pump
back to the steam generator, where it begins
the cycle again.
Key NuScale power module specifications
include:
Thermal capacity: 160 MWt
Electrical capacity: >45 MWe in modules
that can be scaled to reach 540 MWe in size
Capacity factor: >95%
Dimensions: 82 x 15 cylindrical contain-
ment vessel module containing reactor
and steam generator
1. Reactor building. The fuel pool and control room are housed below ground level, en-
hancing safety. Courtesy: NuScale
2. Reactor module. The light water re-
actor NuScale Power Module is cooled by nat-
ural circulation and is entirely self-contained.
Courtesy: NuScale
|
October 2013 78
NUCLEAR POWER
Weight: 650 tons as shipped from fabrication shop
Transportation: Barge, truck, or train (Figure 3)
Cost: <$5,000/kW achieved through numerous advantages due to
simplicity, off-the-shelf standard items, modular design, and short-
er construction times
Fuel: Standard light water reactor fuel in 17 x 17 configuration,
each assembly 2 meters in length; 24-month refueling cycle with
fuel enriched less than 4.95%.
Multiple Layers of Safety
NuScales design incorporates multiple layers of defense to prevent the
release of contamination into the environment, including: oxide fuel
pellet and cladding, reactor vessel, containment vessel, reactor pool,
underground stainless steellined concrete pool walls and floor, biolog-
ical shield, and an HVAC filtered Seismic Category 1 reactor building.
The reactor building houses the systems and components required
for plant operation and shutdown. The reactor building is a Seismic
Category 1 reinforced concrete structure designed to withstand the
effects of aircraft impact, environmental conditions, natural phenom-
ena, postulated design basis accidents, and design basis threats. The
reactor building also provides radiation protection for plant operation
and maintenance personnel.
Portions of the reactor building are located above and below grade.
The power modules, reactor pool, and the spent fuel pool are located
at or below nominal plant grade level, while the hoisting and handling
equipment is above grade. Also below grade are the Class 1E batter-
ies for post-accident monitoring, main control room, most primary
systems, and some radioactive waste equipment.
The surface of the reactor pool water is at ground level. At a 12-mod-
ule facility, the NuScale power modules are installed in a vertical posi-
tion and arranged into two rows of six modules along the reactor pool
walls. Concrete walls separate the modules in individual reactor bays.
An extra reactor bay is located adjacent to the units either for module
maintenance or storage of a possible spare module. A central channel
is provided between the rows of modules to allow for moving of the
modules between the reactor pool and the connected refueling pool.
Pipes interfacing with the NuScale power module (for example, feed-
water piping, steam piping, the chemical and volume control system,
containment evacuation system, instrumentation, and power connections)
are located above the water level. Pipe fittings are provided in this area to
permit manual connection and disconnection during module installation,
refueling outages, and during replacement or removal of modules.
To the maximum extent practical, equipment rooms or vaults with-
in the reactor building are partitioned to provide separation between
primary and supporting systems for each power module.
Reactor Pool. The reactor pool consists of a below-grade concrete
pool with a stainless steel liner that provides stable cooling for the
power modules for an unlimited period of time following any actua-
tion of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). During normal
plant operations, heat is removed from the pool through a closed-loop
cooling system and ultimately rejected into the atmosphere through a
cooling tower or other external heat sink.
In an accident where AC power is lost, core decay heat is trans-
ferred to the reactor pool by passive safety systems. Over time, the
pool will gradually heat up and begin to boil. The amount of water
stored in the reactor pool is large enough to remove core decay heat
from all the power modules for an unlimited period of time with-
out adding water. After an extended period, the pool supply will have
been reduced and the remaining heat in each module will be less than
400 kW, which transitions to air-cooling by the natural circulatory
flow in the operating bays. In a design-basis accident scenario, the
reactor core never becomes uncovered with water, NuScale said.
Containment Vessel. The major safety functions of the contain-
ment vessel are to contain the release of radioactivity following pos-
tulated accidents, protect the reactor pressure vessel and its contents
from external hazards, and provide an interfacing medium (reactor
vessel to water, to containment vessel, to the pool) for decay heat
removal following an accident or normal reactor shutdown.
The containment vessel is submerged in the reactor pool, which pro-
vides a passive heat sink for the containment heat removal. The reactor
pool provides an additional means of fission product retention beyond
that of the fuel, fuel cladding, reactor pressure vessel, and the contain-
ment for certain events. The containment vessel is designed to with-
3. Integrated reactor module. Like all standardized modular
components, the NuScale power module is transportable by barge,
truck, or rail. Existing facilities in the U.S. are capable of manufacturing
all NuScale components, the company says. Courtesy: NuScale
For more information, call Wrights Media at 877.652.5295 or visit
our website at www.wrightsmedia.com
Logo Licensing | Reprints | Eprints | Plaques
Leverage branded content from POWER 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 more
about how we can customize your acknowledgements and recognitions to
enhance your marketing strategies.
Content Licensing for
Every Marketing Strategy
Marketing solutions t for:
Outdoor
Direct Mail
Print Advertising
Tradeshow/POP Displays
Social Media
Radio & Television

96723_Vertical.indd 1 1/28/13 8:07 AM
October 2013
|
NUCLEAR POWER
stand the environment of the reactor pool as
well as the high pressure and temperature of
any design basis accident.
Containment vessel pressure is maintained
at a vacuum under normal operating conditions,
providing for reduced moisture that could con-
tribute to component corrosion and impact the
reliability of instrumentation and other systems
within the containment vessel. The vacuum es-
sentially eliminates convection heat transfer,
removing the need for direct-contact reactor
pressure vessel insulation. The vacuum also en-
hances steam condensation rates that would oc-
cur during an accident with ECCS actuation and
limits the available oxygen, which is beneficial
for severe accident combustible gas control.
Following an actuation of the ECCS, heat
removal through the containment vessel re-
duces the containment pressure and tempera-
ture and maintains them at less than design
conditions for extended periods of time.
Steam is condensed on the inside surface of
the containment vessel, which is passively
cooled by conduction and convection of heat
to the reactor pool water.
Decay Heat Removal System. The de-
cay heat removal system (DHRS) provides
secondary side reactor cooling for non-ECCS
events when normal feedwater is not avail-
able. The system is a closed-loop, two-phase
natural circulation cooling system. Redundant
trains of decay heat removal equipment are
provided, one attached to each steam generator
loop. Each train is capable of removing 100%
of the decay heat load to cool the reactor cool-
ant system. Each train has a passive condenser
submerged in the reactor pool. The condensers
are maintained with sufficient water inventory
for stable operation.
Emergency Core Cooling System. The
ECCS consists of two independent reac-
tor vent valves and two independent reactor
recirculation valves. The ECCS provides a
means of decay heat removal in the event of a
loss of coolant accident or a loss of the main
feedwater flow in conjunction with the loss
of both trains of the DHRS.
Following a small-break loss of cooling acci-
dent or other condition resulting in an actuation
of the ECCS, heat removal through the contain-
ment vessel rapidly reduces the containment
pressure and temperature and maintains them
at acceptably low levels for extended periods of
time. Steam is condensed on the inside surface
of the containment vessel, which is passively
cooled by conduction and convection of heat to
the reactor pool water. Since the containment
vessel is evacuated to a low absolute pressure
during normal operation, only a small amount
of noncondensable gas will be present inside
the containment vessel.
Chemical and Volume Control System.
The primary functions of the chemical and
volume control system (CVCS) are to purify
reactor coolant, adjust the boron concentra-
tion in the reactor coolant, and supply spray
flow to the pressurizer. Equipment within
the CVCS also allows for chemical addition
to the reactor coolant and heats the reactor
coolant during startup. The CVCS contains
safety-related valves credited with stopping
inadvertent boron dilution and inadvertent
addition of reactor coolant inventory.
Will the Market Respond?
Whether or not a commercial market exists
for SMRs remains to be seen. But in the quest
for zero-carbon baseload power generation ca-
pacity that is also scalable and capable of be-
ing sited close to the load center, designs like
NuScales may well be a game changer.
David Wagman is content director for
the ELECTRIC POWER conference, which
will be held April 13, 2014, at the Ernest N.
Morial Convention Center in New Orleans.
FIND ALL YOUR
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
IN ONE SPOT
Visit
http:IIstcre.pcWermeg.ccmI
for a Full Store Listing
The Sourcebook
for Competitive
Powerplant
Management
Marmaduke
Surfaceblows Salty
Technical Romances
Clean Coal
Guidebook
Water Treatment
Guidebook
Water Management
Guidebook
The POWER
Handbook
Boilers, Combustion
Systems, and their
Auxiliaries
Practical Ideas for the
Design, Operation, and
Maintenance of
Plant Energy Systems
...connecting people to
lung cancer survivorship
through research, education
and support
www.LUNGevity.org
1 in 14 Americans
will be diagnosed with lung cancer
60% will be never or former smokers.
18_PWR_100113_NewProducts_p80-83.indd 80 9/15/13 6:26:56 PM
October 2013
|
NEW PRODUCTS
TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
High-Pressure Test Gauge
Crystal Engineering introduced a 15,000 psi version of its popular XP2i test
gauge. The ultra-rugged, intrinsically safe, easy-to-use test gauge joins the
recently released GaugeCalHP Pressure Comparator and nVision Reference
Recorder among the high-pressure instruments offered by Crystal Engineering.
The one-year XP2i accuracy specication is 0.1% of reading with digital
temperature compensation from 10 to 50C. Each gauge includes an ISO 17025,
NIST-traceable, calibration certicate with test data at ve temperatures. Key
features include an IP-67 rated, marine-grade enclosure (submersible up to 1
meter), a fast-pressure safety valve (PSV) mode, custom engineering units, and
the leak-free Crystal pressure tting connection. The dual display version adds
additional features, including leak rate, tare mode, and differential pressure
(when connected to a second XP2i). (www.crystalengineering.net/xp2i)
Seamless Tubing
RathGibson now manufactures C276 seamless
tubing through its Greenville Tube facility in
Arkansas. C276 seamless tubing is used in
applications that require excellent resistance to
corrosion, pitting, and stress corrosion cracking
(SCC), particularly in chemically reducing
environments, including the power generation
and pollution control industries. C276 seamless
tubing is produced at a state-of-the-art
factory that features an environmentally safe
closed cleaning system that utilizes vacuum
technology to prevent solvent release into the
atmosphere. The company says that from raw
material selection to packaging, Greenville
Tubes 10-step process is carefully monitored to
ensure the high quality of each seamless tube.
(www.E-Inst.com)
Combustion Analyzer
The new E8500 combustion analyzer from E Instruments
International is a complete portable tool for Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) compliance level emissions monitoring
and testing. The E8500 is ideal for regulatory and maintenance use
in boiler, burner, engine, turbine, furnace, and other combustion
applications. It also includes electrochemical sensors for oxygen,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen
sulde. The unit is available with a real-time PC software package
and a wireless remote printer. (www.E-Inst.com)
...connecting people to
lung cancer survivorship
through research, education
and support
www.LUNGevity.org
1 in 14 Americans
will be diagnosed with lung cancer
60% will be never or former smokers.
18_PWR_100113_NewProducts_p80-83.indd 81 9/15/13 6:27:57 PM
|
October 2013 82
NEW PRODUCTS
Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.
Abrasive Grinding Wheels
Sigma Green Premium Grinding Wheels, a line of
abrasive grinding wheels that grind fast to reduce
discoloration and warpage on stainless steel, are
now available from Rex-Cut Abrasives. The wheels
feature proprietary construction that provides rapid
stock removal and leaves a nice nish, especially
on 304 stainless steel where these 36 grit discs
produce a 100 RA nish. Featuring smooth,
chatter-free performance to help reduce operator
fatigue, these grinding wheels are available in
4-, 4.5-, 5-, and 7-inch sizes, with and without
hubs, and optional 5/8-11 throw-away adapters.
The wheels contain only 0.035% iron, with less
than 0.1% of iron, chlorine, and sulfur combined.
Designed for use with right-angle grinders, they
provide 50% faster cutting than aluminum oxide
and 20% cooler cutting, the rm claims. The
4.5-inch wheel is also offered in 46- and 60-grit
versions. (www.rexcut.com)
Rugged Process Junction
TURCK introduced its new stainless steel process
junction box. With the ability to consolidate up
to eight individual, localized analog or discrete
signals into a single device, this junction box
streamlines connectivity requirements. For greater
simplicity, the signals are then routed to a control
unit through a single home-run cable. In addition
to simplifying connectivity, TURCK stainless
steel process junction boxes provide a robust
connectivity solution in harsh environments.
The junction boxes feature FM approval for Class
1, Division 2, Groups A, B, C, and D hazardous
locations, and ingress protection of IP67
including the junction boxes receptacles as long
as the ports are covered/connected. Additionally,
TURCK stainless steel process junction boxes have
cast 316 stainless steel electropolished housing to
ensure optimal performance in areas that present
severe environmental conditions including those
with water, salt spray, gases, and other corrosive
materials. (www.turck.us)
Multichannel Thermocouple Data Logger
Onset announced the HOBO UX120 Thermocouple Logger, a
four-channel LCD data logger for measuring and recording
temperature in a broad range of monitoring applications. The
data logger offers a dramatic price/performance advantage over
competitive products by combining a full-featured, deployment-
friendly LCD display and exible support for a variety of plug-in
thermocouple probes. It also makes it easy and convenient to
record temperatures over a broad range (260C to 1820C) and
can accept up to four J, K, T, E, R, S, B, or N type probes. This
exibility enables the logger to be used in a range of monitoring
projects. In addition to accepting four thermocouple sensors,
the logger features an internal temperature sensor for logging
ambient temperatures. The logger also features a large memory
capacity capable of storing 1.9 million measurements. Once data
has been recorded with the HOBO UX120 Thermocouple Logger,
it can be easily viewed in graph form and analyzed using Onsets
HOBOware Pro software. (www.onsetcomp.com)
This guidebook exclusively features advanced power cycles
articles, including full charts, photographs, graphs and step-by-step
instructions, previously featured in POWER magazine.
Table of Contents:
Osmotic power from the ocean
Could supercables deliver both hydrogen and electricity via a supergrid?
Application determines DG system configuration
A new wave: Ocean power
Tapping seafloor volcanic vents
The race to commercialize mini-nuclear reactors
Fossil fuels + solar energy = the future of electricity generation
Consider CHP for LNG vaporization
Hydrokinetic plant piggybacks on existing hydro plant
CHP: helping to promote sustainable energy
lGCC: are we there yet?
Harnessing energy from upward heat convection
Adding desalination to solar hybrid and fossil plants
Could CAES answer wind reliability concerns?
New York City backs Tidal Power
PRlSM: A promising near-term reactor option
69 pages, delivered in a PDF downloadable format.
Advanced Power
Cycles Guidebook
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

P
o
w
e
r
C
y
c
le
s

G
u
id
e
b
o
o
k

Order your copy online at store.powermag.com
or call 888-707-5808
22736
22736 Advance Power Cycles Guidebook House Ad.indd 1 9/12/13 3:34 PM 18_PWR_100113_NewProducts_p80-83.indd 82 9/15/13 6:29:14 PM
This guidebook exclusively features advanced power cycles
articles, including full charts, photographs, graphs and step-by-step
instructions, previously featured in POWER magazine.
Table of Contents:
Osmotic power from the ocean
Could supercables deliver both hydrogen and electricity via a supergrid?
Application determines DG system configuration
A new wave: Ocean power
Tapping seafloor volcanic vents
The race to commercialize mini-nuclear reactors
Fossil fuels + solar energy = the future of electricity generation
Consider CHP for LNG vaporization
Hydrokinetic plant piggybacks on existing hydro plant
CHP: helping to promote sustainable energy
lGCC: are we there yet?
Harnessing energy from upward heat convection
Adding desalination to solar hybrid and fossil plants
Could CAES answer wind reliability concerns?
New York City backs Tidal Power
PRlSM: A promising near-term reactor option
69 pages, delivered in a PDF downloadable format.
Advanced Power
Cycles Guidebook
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

P
o
w
e
r
C
y
c
le
s

G
u
id
e
b
o
o
k

Order your copy online at store.powermag.com
or call 888-707-5808
22736
22736 Advance Power Cycles Guidebook House Ad.indd 1 9/12/13 3:34 PM 18_PWR_100113_NewProducts_p80-83.indd 83 9/15/13 6:29:45 PM
|
October 2013 84
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
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
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
READER SERVICE NUMBER 201
CONDENSER & HEAT EXCHANGER TOOLS
CLEANERS, PLUGS, BRUSHES
John R Robinson Inc.
PH # 800-726-1026
e-mail: jrrinc@earthlink.net
www.johnrrobinsoninc.com
Media Blasting Services
www.molemaster.com
Toll Free: 800.322.6653 Fax: 740.374.5908
info@molemaster.com
Regardless of the surface,
MoleMaster has a media
blasting solution for you.
From Dry Ice to Walnut Shells,
Mo|eMaster does Abras|ve
B|ast|ng safe|y and efc|ent|y.
Invenergy LLC is currently constructing the Nelson Energy
Center, a natural gas-red power generation plant, located
in Rock Falls, IL. We are gearing up for future operations
by seeking approximately two dozen full-time employees
for the facility.
Visit our websites Career Opportunities page to view complete
position descriptions for the following openings at the Nelson
Energy Center:
Plant Manager
Operations Manager
Maintenance Manager
Invenergy LLC is a developer, owner, and operator of renewable
and clean energy generation facilities in North America and
Europe. Invenergy is a highly-experienced leader in innovative
clean energy solutions.
Invenergy owns and operates more than 5,700 MW of renewable
and natural gas-fueled power generation facilities in the United
States, Canada and Europe. A clean energy generation leader,
Invenergys portfolio includes more than 2,200 MW of natural gas-
fueled electric generating projects in operation.
Its an exciting time to work in the cutting-edge clean energy
industry, and Invenergy is looking for the best and brightest to
join our team. Qualied applicants are encouraged to email their
resume to resume@invenergyllc.com.
To learn more about Invenergy,
visit us at www.invenergyllc.com.
Plant Engineer
O & M Technician
usa.siemens.com/searchjobs
Don
t follow the leader.

Join their team.

If youre in sales and want to work for a leading supplier of
control and electrical solutions, contact Siemens today!
Siemens is a leading supplier
of control and electrical
solutions to the power
industry. We are currently
looking for outside sales
professionals with the
drive and talent to apply
their skills in positioning a
broad line of high-quality
products and services.
We offer a totally integrated,
complete solutions portfolio
that will meet your customers
business drivers. And we offer
a competitive compensation
and benefits package that
will meet your needs. Join
the Siemens team. Were
making a difference through
empowered people.
Siemens_Recruitment_PM_3.375x4.875.indd 1 9/10/13 11:10 AM
19_PWR_100113_classifieds_p84-87.indd 84 9/15/13 6:34:45 PM
October 2013
|
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
Turbine Controls
Woodward, GE, MHC
Parts and Service
TurboGen (610) 631-3480
info@turbogen.net
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
PRODUCT Showcase
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
meltric.com
800.433.7642
Connector + Switch in 1 device
Maximizes Arc Flash Protection
Minimizes PPE Requirements
MOTOR
PLUGS
QUICKLY CONNECT
& DISCONNECT POWER
Safety Shutter
(on receptacle)
OFF
Button
Rated up to 200A, 60hp
|
October 2013 86 www.powermag.com POWER
|
October 2013 86
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
Layup Desiccant
Dehumidification
& Filtration Units
for long term layup
of power generation
equipment. Call us.
Tom Haarala
612-202-0765
thaarala@cdims.com
Todd Bradley
810-229-7900
tbradley@cdims.com
www.cdims.com
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
To Advertise in POWER Classieds
CONTACT: Diane Burleson
PHONE 512-337-7890 FAX 512-213-4855
dianeb@powermag.com
October 2013
|
A.J. Weller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73. . . . . . . . 38
www.ajweller.com
AMEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. . . . . . . . 25
www.amec.com/power
AREVA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. . . . . . . . 31
www.areva.com
Babcock & Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 3
www.babcock.com
Belt Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . 10
www.belttech1.com
Beumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . 9
www.beumer.com
Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. . . . . . . . 16
www.burnsmcd.com
Carver Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70. . . . . . . . 37
www.carverpump.com
Diamond Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . 7
www.diamondpower.com
Doosan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4 . . . . . 39
www.doosanheavy.com
Elgin Sweeper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. . . . . . . . 32
www.elginsweeper.com
Fuel Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51. . . . . . . . 30
www.ftek.com
GE Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 4
www.ge-energy.com
GE Power & Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. . . . . . . . 21
www.geimagination.com
Hach.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . 18
www.hach.com
Hadek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. . . . . . . . 22
www.hadek.com
Hytorc Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . 5
www.hytorc.com
Hytorc Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . 6
www.hytorc.com
KIMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56. . . . . . . . 33
www.kimae.de
Korea Midland Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2
www.komipo.co.kr
NAES Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. . . . . . . . 29
www.naes.com
NatronX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . . . 11
www.natronx.com
Nol-Tec Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. . . . . . . . 12
www.nol-tec.com
NRG Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. . . . . . . . 17
www.nrgenergy.com
Orion Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41. . . . . . . . 24
www.orioninstruments.com
Paharpur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. . . . . . . . 19
www.paharpur.com
Process Barron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46. . . . . . . . 27
www.processbarron.com/power
Rentech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2 . . . . . 1
www.rentechboilers.com
Rittal Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-63 . . . . . . 35
www.rittal-corp.com
Santee Cooper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. . . . . . . . 20
www.santeecooper.com
Schmidt + Clemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . 8
www.schmidt-clemens.com
Sealeze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64. . . . . . . . 36
www.sealeze.com
STF S.p.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47. . . . . . . . 28
www.stf.it
Structural Integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. . . . . . . . 15
www.structint.com
TEAM Industrial Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. . . . . . . . 26
www.teaminc.com
TerraSource Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37. . . . . . . . 23
www.terrasource.com
United Rentals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . . 13
www.unitedrentals.com
ADVERTISERS INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Page
Reader
Service
Number Page
Reader
Service
Number
Iechni ca| art i c| es, coa| power news, b| os, opi ni on,
and i nf ormat i on.
Easy ret ri eva| of archi ved C0AL P0wER f eat ures.
| nst ant access t o our advert i sers f or more i nf ormat i on
about t hei r product s.
Ihe abi | i t y t o comment on st ori es and share your know| ede
wi t h t he coa| burni n power p| ant communi t y.
Vi si t t he on| i ne home of C0AL P0wER-www. power ma. com
|rom the edi tors of P0wER: Ihe enews| etter devoted to
the coa| fi red power enerati on i ndustry
POWER
Subscribe today: subscribe@coalpowermag.com
|
October 2013 88
COMMENTARY
Will Washington Finally
Resolve the Nuclear
Waste Dilemma?
A
fter 30-plus years of false starts, delays, and political in-
terference, the U.S. finally has an opportunity to make
good on its obligations to store the spent fuel from our
nations nuclear reactors. A recent federal court decision and
good-faith legislation from a bipartisan group of senators have
put this issue on the front burner for the first time in a decade.
For the ratepayers of our nations nuclear-powered utilities who
have contributed billions to this program, this is good news.
Whether the federal government can make real progress and fi-
nally uphold its responsibilities remains uncertain.
Law, Legislation, and Litigation
We appreciate the Senates efforts to revitalize our nations spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) policies. Senators Ron Wyden, Lisa Murkowski,
Dianne Feinstein, and Lamar Alexander should be commended
for their hard work on this topic. In a hearing in July on their
bill, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commission-
ers (NARUC) praised these senators for their dedication. But it is
disheartening that we have reached this point particularly when
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) remains the law and
nuclear power consumers are still paying for a program the gov-
ernment says is no longer workable. Incredulously, as the court
confirmed, the government has not explained any scientific or
technical reasons for drawing such a conclusion.
The early August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit was profound for many reasons, most impor-
tantly its determination that the federal government cannot pick
which laws it wants to follow. The court confirmed the Executive
Branch must comply with the NWPA. The 1982 law set in motion
a series of steps that resulted in Yucca Mountain being designat-
ed as the nations first repository of SNF and government-owned
radioactive waste. The Department of Energy (DOE) in 2008 filed
a construction license application with the NRC to build a re-
pository in Yucca Mountain. From there, Congress provided three
years for the NRC to act.
The law requires nuclear utilities, through a fee assessed by
the DOE, to pay for the program. State commissions pass these
costs on to consumers of nuclear power because we have deter-
mined the public will benefit from a nuclear-waste repository.
These fees collected into the Nuclear Waste Fund now total ap-
proximately $27 billion.
Unfortunately, while our consumers have done their part, the
federal government has not done its. The program ground to a
halt in early 2010, when the DOE asked to withdraw its license
applicationstill before the NRCwith no explanation other
than that Yucca Mountain is no longer practical. The NRC, even
after its own staff recommended against the DOE request, waited
more than a year before hastily ordering its agencys technical
review board in September 2011 to conclude its consideration of
the license application. The review has since been suspended.
The NRCs inaction forced NARUC, South Carolina, Washington
State, and Nye County, Nev., into action. We asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals to direct the agency to do its job and decide whether Yucca
Mountain is a suitable site. It was unfortunate that we had to waste
more taxpayer dollars by asking an agency to comply with the law,
but the court directed the NRC to resume its review. This is a posi-
tive development, as the delay has cost not only time but money:
American consumers are still paying for Yucca Mountain.
Fee for (No) Service
After determiningunlawfully, as we know nowthat the pro-
gram was unworkable, the DOE nonetheless continued charg-
ing nuclear utilities and their consumers fees associated with
the program. Current law requires the DOE to report annually on
whether the fees charged are adequate to support the program.
Historically, these reports contain detailed spreadsheets and
necessary calculations. Its most recent assessments, however,
have fallen far short of this precedent.
Yet this did not prevent the DOE from asserting that all funds
being charged remain necessary. It did so in an early 2013 fil-
ing detailing its new plan for storing SNF. Although this new
proposal contains a number of good ideas, it remains a proposal.
As the courts made clear, only Congress can change the law;
consumers should not be paying for a program now that might
become law in the future.
Despite our ongoing legal proceedings, we are cautiously op-
timistic Congress will heed the lessons from the Yucca Mountain
experience. Although the NWPA charted a clear path forward, the
political realities ensured the law was not followed. The legisla-
tion offered by Sens. Wyden, Murkowski, Feinstein, and Alexan-
der provides a strong starting point for this debate. NARUC has
offered a few suggestions where the proposed legislation could
be made even stronger.
Although there is bipartisan support in the Senate, members
of the House have made clear that any solution to our SNF prob-
lems must include Yucca Mountain. Unless and until these dispa-
rate viewpoints can compromise, the NWPA will remain the law.
And thanks to the recent court decision, the NRC must resume
its review. For the nuclear utilities and their consumers who have
spent more than $30 billion over the last 30 years on this pro-
gram, this is good news.
David Boyd of Minnesota is NARUC Committee on Electric-
ity chair, and Greg White of Michigan is Subcommittee on
Nuclear Issues-Waste Disposal chair.
David Boyd Greg White
Unfortunately, while our con-
sumers have done their part,
the federal government has
not done its.
NEW opportunities.
NEW connections.
NEW ORLEANS.
NEW ideas.
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
NEW ORLEANS, LA
APRIL 13, 2014
www.electricpowerexpo.com
Want to stay on top of new opportunities? New ideas to help you
generate cleaner energy? New technology solutions to make your
facility leaner, better and more responsive to demand? Make new
connections and widen your professional circle? Be in New Orleans
this April for everything you need to keep pace with the most
important issues and at the forefront of everything new.
DONT MISS ELECTRIC POWER 2014!
Register today and save $300 with VIP code PEB14
20_PWR_100113_Commentary_p88-90.indd 88 9/15/13 7:50:34 PM
NEW opportunities.
NEW connections.
NEW ORLEANS.
NEW ideas.
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
NEW ORLEANS, LA
APRIL 13, 2014
www.electricpowerexpo.com
Want to stay on top of new opportunities? New ideas to help you
generate cleaner energy? New technology solutions to make your
facility leaner, better and more responsive to demand? Make new
connections and widen your professional circle? Be in New Orleans
this April for everything you need to keep pace with the most
important issues and at the forefront of everything new.
DONT MISS ELECTRIC POWER 2014!
Register today and save $300 with VIP code PEB14

Power - October 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Power - October 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

O

Goal Based ISB Control Systems

Goal Based ISB works to YOUR GOALS!

Goal Based ISB Control Systems

Goal Based ISB works to YOUR GOALS!

Call us today at 855.532.4984

Block Lining System

Block Lining System.

Block Lining System applied directly to its

lining has a projected service

Block Lining System

Block Lining System.

Block Lining System applied directly to its

lining has a projected service

Global is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) 2013, TerraSource

Global. All rights reserved.

Global is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) 2013, TerraSource

Global. All rights reserved.

Targeted In-Furnace Injection Programs

Targeted In-Furnace Injection Programs

Radio & Television

t follow the leader.

You might also like