z A R r B ASEA BROWN BOVERI

September 23, 1994

Document Control Center U. S. Department of Energy Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

Pittsburgh, PA. 1 15236-9040

Subject: DOE Contract No. DE-AC22-91 PC911’60 Delinquent Report (s) Submittal

P. 0. BOX 10940, MS912-118

Dear Sirs:

In accordance with Dona Sheehan’s letter of August 24, 1994 and contractual requirements, We are submitting the following report(s):

Tech. Prog. Rep0.G (due date 7/30/94)

We regret the delay in issuing the above report(s).

- I n .-- c i b 3: ? 7 Q

If you have any questions, please call me at (203) 285-2027, Arnie Chester at (203) 285-381 9 or Dick Borio at (203) 285-2229.

Sincerely,

Ramesh L. Patel Principal Engineer

cc: D. Borio, ABB A. Chester, ABB CE Contract 33691

ABB Power Plant Laboratories

1000 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor. Connecticut 06095-0500

Telephone (203) 688-191 1 Fax (203) 285-9512 Teiex 99297 COMBEN WSOR

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

I

t

DlSTR I BUT1 0 N

DOE HEACC PROJECT

C-E Contract 33691 DE-AC-22-9 1 PC91160

Department of Energy: Mr. D.F. Gyorke

Ms. M.A. Lundgren Chicago Operations Office, Office of Patent Council

Corn bustion Engineering: Mr. R. Borio Mr. C. Bozzuto 9033-2408 Mr. A. Chester Mr. M. Hargrove 9018-2408 Mr. R. Hickey 1016-2301 Mr. C. Horlitz 81 13-2405 Mr. P. Jennings 1017-GPO5 Mr. R.J. Kunkei 8155-2206 Mr. R. LaFlesh 1016-2301 Mr. V. Maggi 1809-GPO6 Mr. J. Marion Mr. D. O'Neill 1037-GPO4 Mr. R. Patel Mr. J. Pisano 81 12-2406 Mr. M. Rini 9018-2408 Mr. W. Siddall 6298-2426 Mr. J. Sutton 1016-GPO4

Pennsylvania State University Dr. A.W. Scaroni Mr. B.G. Miller

Mr. J.L. Morrison Mr. R. Poe

University of Massachusetts Dr. J.G. McGowan

File: Contract 33691

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF A HIGH EFFICIENCY ADVANCED COAL COMBUSTOR

PHASE 111 INDUSTRIAL BOILER RETROFIT

DOE CONTRACT NO. DE-AC 22-91 PC91160

C-E CONTRACT NO. 33691

Contract Period of Performance: 9/30/91 to 12/31/94

Quarterly Technical Progress Report No. 11

Period Covered by Report: April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994

Prepared by:

Mr. Ramesh L. Patel - Project Leader, ABBE-E Mr. Richard Borio - Program Manager, ABBE-E

Principal Investigators

Prof. A.W. Scaroni, Penn State Mr. B.G. Miller, Penn State

Prof. J.G. McGowan, University of Massachusetts

ABB/Combustion Engineering Power Plant Laboratories 1000 Prospect Hill Road

Windsor, Connecticut 06095

September 23, 1994

PETC Project Manager: Mr. Douglas F. Gyorke

Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 10940 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236

CLEARED BY PATENT COUNSEL

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufactured, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 .O introduction 2.0 Task 1 Design, Fabricate and Integrate Components

1 2 2

3.0 Task 2 Preliminary System Tests at ABB Combustion Engineering 2 2 4.0 Task 3 Proof of Concept Tests at Penn State

4.1 Summary of Monthly Avtivities April May & June

4.2 Boiler System Oprability 4.3 Next Quarter's Plan

5.0 Task 4 Economic Evaluation and Commercialization Plan 6.0 Task 5 Site Demonstration 7.0 Task 6 Decommission Facility 8.0 Task 7 Project Management

Executive Summary

The objective of this project is to retrofit the previously developed High Efficiency Advanced Coal Combustor (HEACC) to a standard gadoil designed industrial boiler to assess the technical and economic viability of displacing premium fuels with microfine coal. This report documents the technical aspects of this project during the tenth quarter (April '94 through June '94) of the program.

The four hundred hours "Proof-of-Concept System Test'' under Task 3 was completed during this quarter. The primary objectives were to obtain steady state operation consistently on coal only and increase carbon conversion efficiency from -95% to the project goal of 98%. This was to be obtained without increasing NOx emission above the project goal level of 0.6 Ibs/MBtu (-425 ppm). The testing was also designed to show that consistent, reliable operation could be achieved as another prerequisite to the demonstration. The data were gathered and analyzed for both economic and technical analysis prior to committing to the long term demonstration. The Economic Evaluation was completed and work started on commercialization plan.

During this reporting period, activities included sample analysis, data reduction and interpretation from all the testing during March and April. Following preliminary conclusions are drawn based on results evaluated:

Coal handling / preparation system can be designed to meet technical requirements for retrofitting microfine coal combustion Boiler thermal performance met requirement NOx Emission can meet target of 0.6 Ib/MBtu Combustion Efficiencies of 95% could be met on a daily average basis, somewhat below target of 98% Economic playback very sensitive to fuel differential cost, unit size, and annual operating hours Continuous long term demonstration needed to quantify ash effect and how to best handle

Due to the on going efforts on data reduction/evaluation, limited datdresults are presented in this quarterly report. The data will be completely analyzed in the coming months and will be reported in the future in either a quarterly technical progress report or in the Task 3.0 report. Work is also in progress to evaluate carbon loss in a HEACC boiler using CE's in-house Lower Furnace Program Slice Kinetic Model. Results will be discussed during the project review meeting with DOUPETC.

1

-

1.0 lntroduc tion

The objective of this project is to retr fit the Dreviouslv d veloped High Efficiency Advanced Coal Combustor (HEACC) to a standaid gadoil designed industrial boiler to assess the technical and economic viability of displacing premium fuels with microfine coal. A complete microfine pulverized coal milling and firing system will be retrofitted to an existing 15,000 Ib/hr package boiler located in the East Campus Steam Plant of the Pennsylvania State University.

Following a brief burner confirmation test at ABB/CE's Power Plant Laboratories, the complete retrofit milling and firing system at Penn State will be run for a total of 400 hours on microfine coal to obtain performance and economic data for comparison against a base fuel (naturai gas) case. Pending acceptable technical and economic results, a 1000 hour test will then be run under normal user demands to evaluate the system's capability to perform acceptably under field conditions. It is expected that the successful outcome of this program wiil help facilitate the acceptance of clean coal technology by American industry. The technical approach chosen for this program, namely direct firing of dry microfine pulverized, low ash coal is the fastest track technology available to displace significant quantities of oil and natural gas in industrial equipment.

2.0 Task 1 Oesian. Fabricate and lntearate Components

Complete

3.0 Task 2 Preliminarv Svstem Tests at ABB Combustion Encrineering

Complete

4.0 Task 3 Proof-of-ConceDt-Tests at Penn State

During this reporting period, the primary focus was to complete long-term 400 hrs "Proof-of-Concept-Tests" with maintaining a steady state operation on coal only, while maximizing the carbon conversion efficiency from the best to date of - 96% to the project goal of 98% and at the same time maintaining the NOx below the target goal of 0.6 Lbs/MBtu (425 ppm NOx @I 3% 02). The other goal was to complete processing and analyzing all the test resultddata to draw conclusions and recommendations for the 1000 hrs demo phase. Work is in progress to complete Task 4.0 "Evaluate Economics and Commercialization Plan" to be discuss during project review meeting with DOUPETC. Based on acceptable technical and economic results DOE/PETC will be able to decide about running 1000 hrs test phase of this program. Details on the progress/results during this reporting period are summarized below.

4.1 Summary of Monthly Activities

Anril

t h e mill using two coals, conduct a series of tests varying the firing rate and level of excess air, and determine the effect of modifying the furnace configuration on boiler

During April, the objectives were to test two burner configurations, characterize

2

--

. performance and coal combustion efficiency. Task 3 of the program, the proof-of- concept, was concluded in April. A total of approximately 563 hours of coal testing was performed with 160 hours of coal only operation and over 400 hours with co-firing coal and gas. Following is a day-by-day synopsis of the boiler operation for April, which was conducted on two shifts per day, is:

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

April 1 -- The first of two shipments of Kentucky coal were received. A new coal curve was generated. There was minimal operational time firing 100% coal; most of the operation was cofiring natural gas and coal. April 4 -- The boiler was operated for -10.5 hours firing 100% coal using the RO-II gun without the football. The objective of this test was to compare these results to those firing Brookville Seam coal under the same conditions. Coal combustion efficiency .ranged from 93-96%. April 5 -- The football was installed. The flame was longer and the boiler was slightly unstable. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 93-96%. April 6 -- The Y-Jet gun with the high swirler was installed. The flame was not anchored at the burner tip and would change in appearance without making any mechanical changes. There were problems maintaining a strong U.V. signal. April 7 -- Testing continued using the Y-Jet gun. The results were similar-to those on April 6. The high swirler was replaced with the medium swirler without any. improvement. April 8 -- The RO-ll gun with the maximum swirler was installed. The mill speed was increased from 1,940 to 2,080 rpm by replacing sheaves to determine the effect of mill speed on coal particle size distribution and hence, coal combustion efficiency. The second shipment of Kentucky coal was received. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 9596%. April 11 -- The mill was characterized at the high mill speed. A nine-point test matrix was set up using the coal feed rates and mill air flow rates of 9, 14, and 18 Ib/s and 320, 360, and 400 acfm, respectively. Natural gas support was used during the mill characterization tests. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 9597%. April 12 -- The boiler was operated for a short time at the high mill speed. Operation was limited by high mill amperage which approached 120 amps (upper limit) when firing at approximately 11 .O million Btu/h. The sheaves were changed at the end of the day to return the mill speed to 1,940 rpm. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 93-96%. April 13 -- The mill was characterized at the low mill speed using the same test matrix as on April 1 1. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 93-97%. April 14 -- The boiler was operated at a high firing rate (17 million Btu/h). There was a significant quantity of deposition observed and it was necessary to soot blow the convective pass frequently. The coal curve was redone because the CO concentration was not stable during this test. Coal corn bustion efficiency ranged from 9445%. April 15 -- A test firing the boiler at a low load, 11 million Btu/h, was started; however, the test was postponed to clean the boiler because the furnace contained much ash. April 18 -- The test firing the boiler at 11 million Btu/h was conducted. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 92-93%.

3

e

e

0

April 19 -- A test firing t h e boiler at a low oxygen concentration (2%) was conducted. The last of the Kentucky coal was consumed and a shipment of Brookville Seam coal was received. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 92-93%. April 20 -- The mill was characterized using the Brookville Seam coal at a low mill speed in order to compare the performance of the two coals under identical mill operating conditions. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from

April 21 -- A baseline test was conducted firing Brookville Seam coal prior to modifying the furnace configuration. Coai combustion efficiency ranged from 90-94%. April 22 - A wall, two feet in length, was installed to alter the gas flow from t h e boiler to the entrance to the convective pass (boiler outlet). The wall, which was perpendicular to the flame, started at the convective pass entrance and ended near the center line of the furnace (The boiler is -6' in width) . April 25 -- A test was conducted firing the Brookville Seam coal to compare the performance to results prior to installing the wall. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 90-93%. April 26 -- A test was conducted firing the Brookville Seam coal. A shipment of Brookville Seam coal was received. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 91 -95Ph. April 27 -- A low firing rate, -12 million Btuh , test was conducted. The sheaves in the mill were changed to increase the mill speed. This was done at the end of the day. Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 94-96%. April 28 -- The boiler was operated only for a short period of time at the high mill speed because it requires a long time to stabilize the boilerburner at the high mill speed. Consequently, the sheaves were changed and the mill speed lowered. Coal com bustion efficiency ranged from 94-96%. April 29 -- A test was conducted firing the boiler at low oxygen concentration (2%). Coal combustion efficiency ranged from 94-96%.

92-95%.

Mav & June

During May and June, activities included sample analysis, data reduction and interpretation from all the testing during March and April. Key results and finding are being summarized to generate the following:

The combustion and boiler performance of both the Brookville seam and Kentucky coals at various operating conditions such as: burner configuration, excess air, firing rate. The particle size as a function of coal type, mill speed, coal feed rate and primary air flow rate The effect of ash deposition on boiler performance The effect of the exit wall on combustion and boiler performance.

A Topical Report on Task 3.0 report will be prepared during the next quarter to document all the results under this Task. A meeting with Penn State was set-up for July 10, 1994 to further discuss results/findings and discussion of the requirements for

4

proceeding with the 1000 hours demo phase. Work is in progress to evaluate carbon loss in a HEACC boiler using CE's in-house Lower Furnace Program Slice Kinetic Model. Results will be discussed during project review meeting with DOWPETC.

4.2 Boiler System Operability

During this reporting period we (CE and Penn State) are still in the process of evaluating the results in the detail to identify problems encountered during the proof- of-concept testing as far as overall boiler system operability standpoint and possible remedies for the those if the final tasks of 1000 hrs demonstration should be conducted. We will discuss this with Penn State during July 10, 1994 meeting and subsequently prepare a presentation for DOE Contractors Meeting in July and also for the project review meeting with DOE/PETC.

Due to the on going efforts on data reduction/evaluation, very limited datdresults are presented in this quarterly report. The data will be completely analyzed in the coming months and reported in the future in either a quarterly technical progress report or in the Task 3.0 report.

4.4 Next Quarter's Plan -

e

e

e

e

e

The objectives-for the next quarter will be to:

Complete data reduction and interpretation from the Penn State 400 hrs testing and start preparing Task 3 report.

Complete Task 4 "Economic Evaluation and Commercialization Plan.

Present a technical paper "Development and Testing of a High Efficiency Advanced Coal Combustor: Industrial Boiler Retrofit" at Tenth Annual Coal Preparation, Utilization, and Environmental Control Contractor's Conference in Pittsburgh during July 18-21, 1994.

Meet DOEPETC to review/discuss the results of Task 3 (Proof-of-Concept System Tests) and Task 4-(Evaluate Economics and Commercialization Plan).

If the resultslfindings are supportive and DOWPETC approve the Task 5-(1000 Hours Demo Phase), then complete the planning preparation for this Task and start testing.

5.0 Task 4 Economic Evaluation and Commercialization Plan

Completed economic evaluation and working on commercialization plan. A report documenting the economic evaluation is attached.

6.0 Task 5 Site Demonstration

No work was scheduled or performed this month

5

7.0 Task 6 Decommission Site

No work was scheduled or performed this month

8.0 Task 7 Proiect Manauement

During this reporting period, completed a technical paper entitled "Development and Testing of a High Efficiency Advanced Coal Combustor: Industrial Boiler Retrofit". This paper will be presented at the 10th Annual Coal Preparation, Utilization and Environmental Control Contractor's Conference in Pittsburgh, during July 18-21, 1994 Other work in this reporting period included the preparation of requires technical, schedule and financial monthly and quarterly reports.

6

High Efficiency Advanced Coal Combustor (HEACC)

Task 4. I Economic Evaluation

REACC ECONOMJC EVALUATION

A simplified economic evaluation of coal firing in an existing small industrial boiler is provided in this report. Also shown, in addition to the Base Case evaluation, are various economic sensitivity studies which provide insight into the economics for other unit sizes, fuel price scenarios, capacity factors and other variables. The boiler used in the Base Case evaluation is a 15,000 Ibm/hr natural gas fired industrial boiler Iocated at the Pennsylvania State University.

The primary objective of this analysis is to determine how the coal option compares with natural gas firing on an annual basis. With coal firhg the capital costs for the retrofit modifications as well as some additional operating and maintenance costs must be justified by the savings in fuel costs. The evaluation presented here defmes the incremental costs and savings on an annual basis as a resuIt of the use of coal as a substitute for natural gas f d g . The f r s t year incremental operation and maintenance cost savings and the total retrofit capital requirement are used to determine a simplifed payback period.

Capital Costs: Cost data were compiled for Direct Investment Expenditures, Boiler Retrofit Costs, and Fuel Preparation Facility Costs which includes site rnodfications and installation. Direct Investment Expenditures include materials, fabrication, assembly, and shipment. The Direct Investment Expenditures are shown in the following table.

In addition, the Boiler Retrofit Cost category is the cost required to modify the boiler to fre micronized coal. This cost includes the boiler balanced draft conversion, ductwork modifications,

1

-- . air preheater installation, baghouse installation and flyash hopper installation. These costs were

determined using engineering estimates and actual costs incurred by Pennsylvania State . University during the retrofit. These costs are shown in the following table.

Fuel Preparation Facility Costs reported in the next table are actual costs incurred by Pennsylvania State University to construct, install and provide site modifications to the existing facility. This facility will also be used to prepare Coal Water Slurry Fuel, therefore, percentages of the total building costs were used for this analysis. The fraction of the total cost that is used in this analysis is indicated in the following table. Also included in this table are the Direct Investment Costs shown previously in the first table (shown here as Process Equipment).

Fuel Preparation Facility Costs (1992 $) (Includes Direct Investment Costs as Process Equipment)

It em I Fractionof Total ] cost

Total Fuel Preparation Facility Cost 1,045,390.86 1 The total cost for the retrofit of the facility to coal firing capability is calculated as the sum of

2

.-

the Fuel Preparation Facility Cost and the Boiler Retrofit Costs ( Total Retrofit Cost = . $1,461,935 ).

Operating and Maintenance Costs and Payback Period: This section describes the approach for developing operating and maintenance cost estimates for coal f ~ g as compared to natural gas f ~ g . The descriptions in this section refer to the attached HEACC ECONOMIC COMPARISON Table. This comparison defrnes the annual incremental costs and savings as a result of the use of coal as a substitute for natural gas. The primary calculated outputs from this study are the annual net savings and the simplified payback period. The annual net savings is simply the annual fuel cost savings due to coal f a g minus any additional annual costs associated with the firing of coal (such as ash disposal costs, additional electrical auxiliary usage, and additional operation and maintenance requirements). The simplified payback period is calculated as the required total cost for the retrofit divided by the annual net savings with coal fllring.

The only savings incurred with coal frring is a result of the lower cost of coal as compared to natural gas @er unit of heat input-to the boiler). There are also seved additional costs due to coal fLzing which reduce the annual net savings. The annual ash disposal cost is calculated based on 10.00 $/Ton of ash. The incremental annual electrical cost with coal f d g is based on-the additional electrical usage for auxiliary equipment (fans, coal mill, crusher, conveyor) and a cost of electricity of 0.0424 $&whr. The additional annual operating and maintenance cost with coal firing is made up of two components. First, the annual maintenance cost for the additional equipment added during the retrofit is calculated as 4 percent of the total retrofit cost. The second component is the additional operating labor required. For this analysis it was assumed that an additional half a man per shift would be required for three shifts per day. The annual labor rate was assumed to be 30,000 $/yr. Startup costs for this retrofit were based on an additional one man per shift for a period of three weeks.

Results: The economic comparison table shows the input data used for this economic analysis as well as various calculated outputs. The Base Case is shown in Column 1. This case represents the retrofitted unit at Pennsylvania State University with coal costs estimated assuming a commercial preparation plant. For this case there is actually a slight increase in the total annual costs for coal firing as cornpared to natural gas firing. Therefore, the annual net savings is negative and the payback period is not applicable. It should be emphasized that no derating has been used in this analysis. Other units with different design parameters or utilization of difYerent fuels may require a derating. A large derating can cause signifrcant increases in the simplified payback period.

There are several uncertainties involved in a study such as this. One of these is the difference in cost between the natural gas and the coal fuel (differential fuel cost). The cost for producing these coal fuels in the quantities required for large scale commercial usage are not well established. Also the fluctuations in the prices of these fuels make it difficult to set fuel prices

3

which would be universally appropriate. For these msons a range of differential fuel costs were used as a sensitivity variable for this study. CoIumns 2, 3, and 4 of the same table show the analysis for this unit with variations in the differential fuel cost from 1 .OO to 2.00 ($/Mh.i-Btu).

Other sensitivity studies were also done to understand the effect on simplifed payback period of unit size, annual operating t h e , and carbon heat loss. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the results of these sensitivity studies. It can be observed that variations in a h o n heat loss (which showed significant variation during the testing) shows no significant effect on payback period for the range studied (ie; 2 to 6 percent). The other sensitivity variables studied were shown to have signifkant effects on payback period. Changes in the annual operating time from 4000 to 8000 Hrs/yr showed significant effects on payback period. Typically industrial boilers have very high capacity factors. The Base Case for this study used 7000 Hrs/yr (equivalent to an 80 percent capacity factor). Increasing unit size is shown to quickly improve the economics. Unit sizes of 75,000 and 150,000 Ibm/hr were used in addition to the 15,000 lbm/hr Base Case unit. Detailed retrofit cost estimates were not developed for these larger units. These costs were estimated using the Base Case total retrofit capital cost and a 0.8 power factor applied to the unit steam flow capacity ratio.

Although this analysis was done relative to natural gas as the base fuel, the results can also be generally applied to oil firing as well. By knowing the differential fuel cost the payback period can be approximated from the attached curves. Although boiler efficiency with oil f ~ g is typically about 5 percent better than with natural gas, the effect on payback period is relatively insigmfkant as was shown by the results of the carbon heat loss sensitivity study.

4

H E A C C E C O N O M I C C O M P A R I S O N ( COAL -VS- NATURAL GAS FIRING )

INPUT DATA BASE CASE

coal cost Natural Gas Cost

3.00 3.62

2.62 3.62

2.12 3.62

1.62 3.62

Steam Flow Feedwater Enthalpy Entering Steam Enthalpy Leavhg

15.oco 183.61

1.20.13

15,000 183.61

1.200.13

1 5.000 183.61

1,20313

15,oco 183.61

1,200.13

Boiler Efficiency with Naturd Gas Boiler Efficiency with Coal

83.29 €3.64

83.29 83.64

83.29 83.64

83.29 83.64

Ash Disposal Cost Coal Higher Heating Value Ash Quantity in Coal Carbon Heat Loss with Coal

10.00 13,613 3.4s 3. Ea

10.00 13,613 3.45 3.88

10.00 13,613

3.45 3.88

10.00 13,613 3.45 3.88

Annual Operating Time

Incremental Aux. Electrical Usage with Coal Firing Specific Cost of Electricity

7 , W 7.000 7,000 7,000

70.W 0.0424

70.60 0.W24

70.60 0.0424

70.60 0.0424

Additional O M Personel Required Per Shift for Coal Firing Annual Labor Rate For Above --

0.5 30,000

0.5 3o,m

Retrofit Capital Cost Startup Costs

1,461,935.m 1,461.935.00 5,192.31 5,192.31

1,461,935.00 1,461,935.00 5,192.31 5,192.31

CALCULATED OUTPUTS

Differentid Fuel Cost Specific Capital Cost

Heat to Steammater

2.00 97.46

0.62 97.46

1.00 97.46

1.50 97.46

15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25

Fuel Heat Input with Naturd Gas

Annual Natural Gas Cost

18.31 128.148

463,896.33

18.31 128,148

463.896.33

18.31 128,148

463,896.33

18.31 128.148

463.896.33

Fuel Heat Input with Coal

Annud Coal Cost

Annual Fuel Cost Savings

Ash Disposal Rate

18.23 127,612

270.53725

18.23 127,612

206,73129

18.23 127.612

382.835.72

18.23 127,612

334,34320

129,553.13 193,359.08 257,16504 81,060.60

96.39 337.37

3,373.73

96.39 337.37

3.373.73

96.39 337.37

3,373.73

96.39 337.37

3,373.73 Annual Ash Disposal Cost

Incremental Annual O&M Cost For Coal Firing Incremental Annual Electricity Cost with Coal Firing

103,477.40 103,477.40 103,477.40 103,477.40

20,954.08 20,954.08 20,954.08 20.954.08

Annual Net Savings (51.936.91) (3.444.39) 60,361.57 124,167.52

Simplified Payback Period (Years) N.A. N.A. 24.3 11.8

-.

H E A C C E C O N O M I C C O M P A R I S O N

I f f PUT DATA

coal cost Naturd Gas Cost

Steam Flow Feedwater Enthalpy Entering Steam Enthalpy Leaving

(units)

($NM - Btu) [SNM - Btu)

(Ibmhr) (BtuAbm) (BtuAbm)

Boiler Efficiency with Naturd Gas (%) Boiler Efficiency with Coal I%) Ash Disposal Cost Coal Higher Heating Value Ash Quantty in Coal Carbon Heat Loss with Coal

Annual Operating Time (Hrs/yr)

with Coal Firing (kw) Specific Cost of Electricity

Incremental Aux. Electrical Usage

($M r)

Additional O M Personef Required Per Shift for Coal Firing Annual Labor Rate For Above ..

Retrofit Capital Cost startup costs

CALCULATED OUTPUTS

Differentia Fuel Cost Specific Capital Cost

Heat to SteamMater

Fuel Heat Input with Naturd Gas

Annual Natural Gas Cost

Fuel Heat Input with Coal

Annual coal cost

Annual Fuel Cost Savings

Ash Cisposal Rate

Annual Ash Disposal Cost

Incremental Annual O W Cost For Cod Firing Incremental Annual Electricity Cost with Coal Firing

Annual Net Savings

Simplified Payback Period

( $ M A - RU) ($llbm-Steamhr)

(MM - Bhrhr)

(Years)

( COAL -VS- NATUWL GAS FIRING )

3.00 3.62

2.62 3.62

2.12 3.62

7 5 . m 183.61

1 ,200. 13

75.000 183.61

1,200.13

7 5 . m 183.61

1,200.13

83.29 83.64

83.29 83.64

83.29 83.64

10.00 13,613

3.45 3.88

10.00 13,613

3.45 3.88

10.00 13,613

3.45 3.88

7.000 7.000 7.000

1.62 3.,62

75.000 183.61

1,203.13

83.29 83.64

10.d0 13.613

3.45 3.88

7. coo

353.00 0.0424

353.00 0.0424

5.297.m.79 5.297.m.79 5.192.31 5,192.31

0.62 70.64

76.24

91.53 640.741

2,319.481.64

91.15 638.m

1,914,178.62

405,303.02

481.96 1,686.86

16.868.64

256,916.1 5

104,770.40

21.555.52

246.0

1 .Go 70.64

76.24

91.53 WO.741

2,319,481.64

91.15 =,m

1,671,716.00

647,765.65

481.96 1,686.86

16,868.64

256,916.1 5

104,770.40

264.018.14

20.1

353.00 0.0424

353.00 0.0424

0.5 0.5 ' 30,m ~ . 0 0 0

5.297.503.79 5,297,933.79 5,1S2.31 5,1s2.31

1 .so 70.64

76.24

91.53 640,74 1

2,319,481.M

91.15 =,m

1 ,%2,&6.23

966,795.42

481.96 1.686.86

16.868.64

2.00 70.64

76.24

91.53 640.74 1

2.31 9.49 1 .a

91.15 =,m

1,033,656.46

1,285.QS.19

481 .96 1,686.86

160868.64

256.916.15 256.91 6.15

104,770.40 104,770.40

583.047.91 902,077.69

9.1 5.9

-.

T

H E A C C E C 0 N 0 MI C C 0 M P A R I S 0 N (COAL -VS- NATUFML GAS FIRING)

. INPUT DATA

coal cost Natura Gas Cost

Steam Flow Feedwater Enthalpy Entemg Steam Enthalpy Leaving

Boiler Efficiency with Naturd Gas Boiler Efficiency with Coal

Ash Disposal Cost Coal Higher Heating Value Ash Quantity in Coal C a r b n Heat Loss with Coal

Annual Operating Time

Incremental Aux. Electrical Usage with Coal firing Specific Cost of Electricity

Additional O m Personet Required Per Shift for Coal Firing Annual Labor Rate For Above .-

Retrofit Capital Cost Startup Costs

CALCUIATED OUTPUTS

Cifferentid Fuel Cost specific Capital cost

Heat to SteamlWater

Fuel Heat Input with Naturd Gas

Annual Naturai Gas Cost

Fuel Heat Input with Coal

Annual Coal Cost

Annual Fuel Cost Savings

Ash Disposal Rate

Annual Ash Cisposal Cost

(Units)

($NM - Btu) ($Abm - Steamhr)

Incremental Annual O M Cost

Incremental Annual Electricity For Coal Firing ( W r ) Cost with Coal Firing ( W r )

Annual Net Savings

Simplified Payback Period ('fears)

3.00 3.62

150.000 183.61

1.203.13

83.29 83.64

10.00 13.613

3.45 3.88

7.000

706.00 0.0424

2.62 3.62

2.12 3.62

150.Mx3 183.61

1.200.13

15o.oco 183.61

1,200.13

83.29 83.64

83.29 83.64

10.00 13,613

3.45 3.88

10.00 13.613

3.45 3.88

7,000 7,000

7m.00 0.0424

706.00 0.0424

1.62 3.62

150,oOO 183.61

1 .xO. 13

83.29 83.M

10.00 13.613

3.45 3.88

7 . w

706.00 0.0424

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 30.000 30.ooo 30,ooo 30.ooo

9,224.186.25 9,224.186.25 9.224.186.25 9,224,186.25 5,192.31 5.192.31 5.192.31 5.192.31

0.62 61.49

152.48

183.07 1,281,482

4,638.S.28

182.30 1,276.1 19

3,828,357.25

81 0, W.04

963.92 3,373.73

33,73728

413,967.45

209.540.80

148,168.20

62.3

1 .m 61.49

1.50 61.49

2.00 61.49

152.98 152.48 752.48

183.07 1.28 1.482

4,638.B.28

183.07 1,281,482

4 , w . s m a

183.07 1,281,482

4,638.9X3.28

182.30 1,276,119

3,343,431.S

182.30 1,276,119

2,705,372.45

182.30 1,276,119

2,067,312.31

1,295,531.29

963.92 3.373.73

33.73728

1,933.580.83

963.92 3.373.73

33,73728

2.571.650.37

963.92 3,373.73

33,73728

413.967.45

209,540.80

633.093.4 5

14.6

413,967.45 413,967.45

2Q9540.80 209,540.80

1,271,152.99 1,909,212.53

7.3 4.8

.

/ ll

dl I I I I J , u) 0 u) 0 LD 0 0

c3 cv cu T- T

L -c: \

n 0 0 0

E -

u)- l-

*

L

3 E n 0 0 0

h

$.

-

In-

L -c \

n 0 0 0

10

E -

0- T-

./

0 0 0 0 0 0 a Ul * m N r

h

3

3 c.

n 0 CC w a

-

a W

a, 0 L a, a v

VI 0 -I

* v) 0 0

Y- Y- .- n

0 0 c.i

0 9 i

4-

0 0 i

0