Environmental Appraisal Report€¦ · 2.0 Present Proposal 3 3.0 Project Location 4 4.0 ... 8 Pig...

Project Proponent

MEC/11/S2/Q7HQ/AR/2504/R.0. JANUARY, 2019

Environmental Appraisal Report

Amendment in Environmental Clearance accorded

for 1.0 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant within in the

existing Ferro-Alloy plant boundary for EC

conditions related to Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ)

Village Hanumanhalli, Danapur Mandai, Taluk Hospet, District Bellary

EC letter no J–11011/205/2014–IA–II(I) dated 25th

June, 2018

MECON LIMITED (A Govt. of India Enterprise)

Vivekananda Path PO. Doranda Dist – Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002 Certificate no: NABET/EIA/1619/RA 0068

Environmental Consultant

Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. Village Hanumanhalli,

Danapur Mandai, Taluk Hospet,

District Bellary, Karnataka

Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. Amendment in EC conditions for 1.0 MTPA Integrated

Steel Plant Related to Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ)

Environmental Appraisal Report Page 1

© 2019 MECON Limited. All rights reserved

CONTENTS

S.N. Particulars Page No.

1.0 Introduction 2

2.0 Present Proposal 3

3.0 Project Location 4

4.0 Present Plant Configuration –EC Accorded 5

4.1 Coke Oven Complex : As Envisaged for the Project at EC Stage 6

4.2 Modified Wet Quenching : As Envisaged for the Project at EC Stage 7

4.3 Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB) : As Envisaged for the Project

at EC Stage

8

4.4 Project Cost 8

5.0 Technological Considerations in view of MoEFCC EC Condition 9

5.1 Background 9

5.2 Literature Review 9

5.2.1 Coke Quenching : Technology Selection World Over 10

5.2.2 Operational Problems in Coke dry Quenching 12

5.3 Options Explored for Utilisation of Steam Generated from CDQ 17

5.3.1 Alternative 1 : Use of Steam in 32MW WHRB Network 17

5.3.2 Alternative 2 : Utilisation of the steam in Plant Network 17

5.3.3 Power Generation from Coke Dry Cooling Plant 17

5.4 Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ) 18

5.4.1 Design Calculation for Coke Oven Battery with CDQ 18

5.4.2 Turbine Capacity – Requirement of CDQ 19

5.4.3 Power Generation from CDQ System 19

5.5

Justification for Amendment in EC Condition : Technological /

Operational Constraints

20

5.5.1 CDQ Power Generation – Operational Requirements 20

5.5.2 Coke Oven Battery – Operational Constraints 21

5.5.3 Turbine and CDQ Power Generation – Operational

Constraints

27

5.5.4 System Stability 27

5.6 Power Generation Equipment Availability for SMIORE CDQ

Installation

28

6.0 Conclusion 28





1.0 INTRODUCTION

M/s The Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Limited is currently operating a Ferro Alloy

plant (3 Submerged Arc Furnaces with total capacity 55 MVA, 32 MW Coal based

CPP and other units) at Hanumanhalli village, Danapur Mandal, Hospet Taluk,

Bellary District of Karnataka State.

MoEFCC vide letter F. No. J-11011/205/2014-IA-II(I) dated 25th June, 2018 accorded

Environmental Clearance (EC) for expansion of its existing Ferro Alloys Plant by

installation of 1.0 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant comprising of Sinter Plant, Blast

Furnace, Steel Melt Shop, Coke Oven Plant & WHRB, Rebar Mill and Oxygen Plant.

Copy of the Environmental Clearance letter enclosed as Annexure I.

As per the general EC Condition under the clause “Energy Conservation”, MoEFCC

directed that the PP shall provide CDQ for coke quenching. The CDQ system shall

be installed along with power generation facility from waste heat recovery from hot

coke.

However, in the EIA/EMP report and during the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC),

MoEFCC presentation for appraisal of EC, held on 5th-7th February, 2018 at

MoEFCC, it was all the time maintained that the coke oven battery will be stamped

charged vertical non-recovery Coke oven battery (0.4 MTPA) with modified wet

quenching facility.

On the receipt of the EC for the project, M/s SMIORE during detailed engineering of

the project explored all the possibilities for the installation of the CDQ, but for techno-

economic reasons CDQ for a small non-recovery coke oven battery of 0.4 MTPA is

not feasible. The system is prone to technical problems related to the turbine

imbalance and hence very low and irregular power generation with turbine failure

possibilities.

Therefore, the present Environmental Appraisal report has been prepared for

requesting MoEFCC for re-considerations of the conditions of EC with respect to

quenching of the coke and to allow M/s SMIORE for installation of Modified wet

quenching as envisaged at the EIA and detail engineering stage.





2.0 PRESENT PROPOSAL


Environmental Clearance (EC) for expansion by installation of 1.0 MTPA Integrated

Steel Plant and associated units within the premises of existing Ferro Alloy plant.

In the present proposal, M/s SMIORE submits to MoEFCC for re-considerations of

the following two conditions of EC, as mentioned in table below and shown in Fig.

2.1.

Condition No. Accorded Environmental

Clearance Condition

Request for

Reconsideration

Sl No 6.

(Energy

Conservation)

(b) The PP shall provide CDQ

(Coke Dry Quenching) for coke

quenching for both recovery and

non-recovery type coke oven.

To retain the modified coke

wet quenching method as

envisaged at the EIA stage Sl No 7. Dry Quenching (CDQ) system shall

be installed along with power

generation facility from waste

recovery from hot coke.

Figure 2.1: EC Amendment Requested for Quenching Process

NON-RECOVERY COKE

OVEN BATTERY STAMP

CHARGE

Waste Heat

Recovery

Boiler

(WHRB)

Coke Quenching

Method : Modified

Wet Quenching –

As Envisaged at

EC Stage

AMENDMENT REQUESTED

32 MW Power

0.4 MTPA Coke





3.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The existing operating Ferro Alloy plant is located at Hanumanhalli Village, Danapur

Mandal, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District of Karnataka State. The plant is 7.1 km west of

the nearest town Hospet. National Highway (NH-13) runs on the western side of the

project site. Hospet – Kottur broad gauge railway line of South Western Railway

passes close to the east side boundary of the existing Ferro Alloy Plant.

The project location falls under the Survey of India (SoI) topo-sheet no. 57A/8 under

the latitude 15°11'01.97"N to 15°12'10.98"N and longitude 76°22'39.45"E to 76°

23'32.53"E with site elevation 517 m AMSL. The location of the plant site in SoI topo-

sheet is shown in the Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Location on SoI Topo-sheet





4.0 PRESENT PLANT CONFIGURATION – EC ACCORDED


environmental clearance for expansion of its existing Ferro Alloys Plant to 1.0 MTPA

Integrated Steel Plant comprising of Sinter Plant, Blast Furnace, Steel Melt Shop,

Coke Oven Plant & WHRB, Rebar Mill and Oxygen Plant. Copy of the Environmental

Clearance letter enclosed as Annexure I.

The existing units, expansion units and final configuration of the plant along with

capacities of different units for which EC has been accorded by MoEFCC is shown in

Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Existing Units, Expansion Units And Final Configuration of the Project

Sl.

No

Units

Existing

Configuration

Configuration as per Environmental

Clearance 25th June 2018

Planned Expansion Total Capacity After

Expansion

1 Submerged Arc

furnaces

SAF – 1x15 MVA

& 2x20 MVA

-

-

FeSi- 0.0144 MTPA or

Ferro Alloy – 0.03 MTPA

FeMn- 0.066 MTPA or

SiMn- 0.048 MTPA 2 Sinter Plant

( bag house dust

recycling)

0.012 MTPA

-

-

0.012 MTPA

3 Manganes

e Ore

beneficiati

on plant

0.016 MTPA -

-

0.016 MTPA

4 Coal based Power

plant

32 MW -

-

32 MW

5 Non-recovery coke

oven

-

-

1 x 0.4 MTPA 0.4 MTPA

6 WHRB and power

plant

-

-

32 MW 32MW

7 Blast Furnace -

-


8 Pig casting machine -

-


9 Sinter plant -

-

2x 0.53 MTPA 1.056 MTPA

10 EOF -

-

2 x 50 T 1.057 MTPA

11 LRF -

-

2 x 50 T 1.057 MTPA

12 V AD -

-

2 x 50 T 1.057 MTPA

13 CCM -

-

2 x 0.5 MTPA 1.036 MTPA

14 Rolling mill -

-


15 Oxygen plant

-

-

1 x 23100 TPA +

1 x 66000 TPA

1 x 23100 TPA +

1 x 66000 TPA





4.1 Coke Oven Complex : As Envisaged for the Project at EC Stage

The Coke Oven Complex will consist of non-recovery (heat recovery) type of 2 Nos.

of 2 x 28 chamber coke oven batteries, 1 coal tower in-between the two batteries

along with a power plant (130 tph steam generation) for recovering the heat

contained in flue gases generated during coking process.

The capacity of the Coke oven complex will be 400,000 tonnes/annum of gross BF

coke. For production of 400,000 TPA Gross coke (dry), the requirement of gross coal

(including moisture content & handling losses) is estimated at 540,000 TPA.

The flow diagram of the coke oven complex is given in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Process Flow Diagram of 0.4 MTPA Non- Recovery Coke Oven Plant





4.2 Modified Wet Quenching : As Envisaged for the Project at EC Stage

Coke quenching system consists of Coke quenching pump house, quenching tower,

coke dust trap device, Coke fines sedimentation pit, clean water tank and coke fines

dewatering system. The coke fines removed from the pond is used in the sinter plant.

The coke is mainly quenched by the water entering at the bottom of the coke box of

the quenching car as well as water spray from the top of the quench tower as shown

in the Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Modified Wet Quenching System

The Coke quenching tower is made of a reinforced concrete structure to

accommodate the second set of emission control facilities and vapor spray system.

The two stages of baffle plates fastened on supporting structures of wood are

separating the dust from the quenching vapor. The baffle plates are arranged louver-

like in a roof type pattern. The baffles of the lower stage are made of stainless steel

and the baffles of the upper stage are of fiber material. Stainless steel piping and

nozzles are used to spray the water on the rising vapour. By this system, the rising

vapour are cooled and dust particles are washed down. The water for spraying of the

vapour is collected in the clean water tank and re-circulated. Dust particles which are

not washed down by spraying, are removed by the baffle plates installed above.

Further, the arrangement of the louvers is designed to ensure an equal distribution of

the vapour over the full section of the quench tower stack. By this system, the

required stipulation of dust in the steam emitting from quench tower is achieved.





No waste water is envisaged to be generated, as the water retained in close circuit

through settling tank and make up water will be added regularly.

4.3 Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB): As Envisaged for the Project at EC Stage

One 32 MW Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB), to recover heat generated during

coke production will be installed for heat recovery from coke oven flue gas for the 0.4

MTPA Non-recovery Coke Oven Complex. The total potential of steam generation

from Coke Oven flue gas is envisaged to be 130 TPH. Turbo Generator of 32 MW will

be utilized to use the steam for power generation.

4.4 Project Cost

The overall project cost of the 1.0 MTPA Integrated Steel plant is Rs.2300 Crore, as

envisaged at EC stage.

The above mentioned project cost includes the cost of coke oven complex with

modified wet quenching system as given in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Envisaged Cost of Coke Oven Complex and Modified Wet Quenching

System

S.No. Particulars/ Units Cost (Crore)

1. Coke Oven Battery 238

2. Wet Quenching System 4

Total 242





5.0 TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN VIEW OF MoEFCC EC CONDITIONS

5.1 Background

As per the accorded MoEFCC EC, under General Conditions vide clause 6.b “Energy

Conservation” and clause 7, directed that the project proponent shall provide Coke

Dry Quenching (CDQ) system for heat recovery from hot coke along with power

generation facility.

On the receipt of the EC for the project, to comply with the general conditions of

installation of CDQ facility for waste heat recovery from hot coke, the feasibility of

installation of the CDQ facility in the envisaged project were explored.

During detailed engineering of the project in view of general conditions specified by

MoEFCC, all the possibilities were explored for the installation of the CDQ. However,

for techno-economic reasons CDQ for a small non-recovery coke oven battery of 0.4

MTPA is prone to technical problems related to the turbine imbalance and hence very

low and irregular power generation with turbine failure possibilities. In addition,

implementation of CDQ in the facility is not attractive with respect to financial

considerations. The techno-economic feasibility of installation of CDQ in non-

recovery coke oven with 0.4 MTPA coke production is detailed in subsequent

sections.

5.2 Literature Review

Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ) is a system where the red hot coke brought out of coke

ovens is cooled with cold inert gas in the CDQ shaft. The cold inert gas exchanges

heat with the red hot coke to cool the red coke. The heated inert gas is utilized in

Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB) to generate steam or electric power. The steam

generated in the boiler is used as general-purpose steam, or converted into electric

power through a turbine generator, depending on the energy circumstances in the

steel works. The steam generated from the CDQ boiler could be used in following

manner

i. Merged into steam network of the steel plant operations or

ii. Used for power generation.

The sensible heat of hot coke contains ~35–40% of the total amount of heat

consumed in the coking process. During quenching of coke with water, the sensible

heat is lost to the atmosphere as steam. While in Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ) the

sensible heat is recovered to about 80% of the coke sensible heat as steam (Guo and

Fu, 2010)1. The steam can, in turn, be used for power generation or used elsewhere

in the steel works.





However, the energy benefits of CDQ compared to advanced / modified wet

quenching systems are not so clear (Carpenter A. 2012)2. Advanced wet quenching

cools the coke from top and bottom, which leads to much more rapid cooling. This

does not result in energy recovery, but it does produce a high quality coke that can

generate energy savings in the Blast Furnace (Gielen and Taylor, 2009)3.

Coke Stabilization Quenching (CSQ) is a new modified wet quenching technology

wherein the hot coke is brought into contact with water from both top and bottom.

The special feature of this technology is the simultaneous application of spray and

sump quenching. High quenching rate and low reaction time is the essence of the

process. Dust emissions are 6-12g/t of coke. It enables a rapid reduction of coke

temperature, shorter reaction time, less formation of water gas and hydrogen

sulphide as well as high mechanical impact and stabilisation of quenched coke,

uniform grain distribution and better quality coke. Coke moisture after the CSQ is

approximately 2%. This process produces higher quality coke, which can result in

energy savings in Blast Furnace. In CSQ process the Particulate Matter emissions is

as low as for a CDQ system. Cost for investment and operation is much lower than

CDQ4,5.

Here it is to be noted the modified wet quenching system as envisaged at EC

stage of the proposed project, works on the same principle as described for above

for CSQ.

5.2.1 Coke Quenching : Technology Selection World Over

Up to 2010 Worldwide, over 60 coking plants employ CDQ including Japan, China,

South Korea, Russia, The European Union and South America (European IPPC

Bureau, 20116; IEA, 20077, Zeng and others, 20098). However, it is not applied in the

1 Guo Z C, Fu Z X (2010) Current situation of energy consumption and measures taken for energy

saving in the iron and steel industry in China. Energy (Oxford); 35(11); 4356-4360 (Nov 2010) 2 Carpenter A. (2012). CO2 abatement in Iron and Steel Industry. CCC/193 ISBN 978-92-9029-513-

6. IEA Clean Coal Centre. Available at : https://www.usea.org/publication/co2-abatement-iron-and-steel-industry-ccc193.

3 Gielen D, Taylor P (2009) Indicators for industrial energy efficiency in India. Energy (Oxford); 34; 962-969 (2009).

4 Advanced wet quenching for iron and steel sector.

http://www.climatetechwiki.org/technology/advanced-wet-quenching. Seen on 22.12.2018.

5 Coke Stabilization Quenching. http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-stabilization-quenching.

Seen on 22.12.2018.

6 European IPPC Bureau (2011) Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for iron and steel production. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). Draft version (24 June 2011) issued for the opinion of the IED Article 13 Forum. Available from: http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/ Seville, Spain, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technologies Studies, c/ Inca Garcilaso, 612 pp (Jun 2011).

7 IEA (2007) Tracking industrial energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. Paris, France, International

Energy Agency, 324 pp (2007)

http://www.climatetechwiki.org/technology/advanced-wet-quenching

http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-stabilization-quenching

http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/





USA or Canada or Australia. Economics may be one reason for the low rate of CDQ

use in North America and elsewhere. The overall economics of operating a CDQ

system are heavily dependent on the value of the heat/power produced with respect

to the capital investment and operation costs. The technology selection for coke

quenching depends on the site conditions, market conditions and other factors

(European IPPC Bureau, 2011)6.

New CDQ plant costs have been estimated to be 110 US$/t coke ($ year 2008) (EPA,

20109). It is only where investment and operational costs are balanced by high

electricity prices and around 10% rates of return are applied, that CDQ makes

economic sense (IEA, 2007)7.

One promising opportunity for the iron and steel industry in emerging economies to

obtain the necessary capital and technology to improve energy efficiency, and

thereby reduce CO2 emissions, is through the Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM) set out in the Kyoto Protocol. This allowed funding for the project through

transfer of CO2 emission certificates (CER- Certified Emission Reduction) to the

foreign investors. Utilising the CDM opportunity about 23 CDQ WHRB projects were

registered as CDM projects in China and India (Table 5.1 as taken from

http://cdm.unfccc.int website). From the referred Table 5.1, it can be seen that the

CDQ systems have been incorporated in case of Recovery type coke oven plants

only. All the projects listed in Table 5.1, where a CDQ is installed / proposed to be

installed are non-recovery coke oven.

However, taking the present project for CDM finance is not feasible as the first

commitment period of Kyoto Protocol ended 2012 and the second commitment

period was up to 2020 but the same has not come in to force10. Thus obtaining CDM

funding for the CDQ system as mandated by MoEFCC under general conditions is

not feasible.

8 Zeng S, Lan Y, Huang J (2009) Mitigation paths for Chinese iron and steel industry to tackle global

climate change. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control; 3(6); 675-682 (Dec 2009).

9 EPA (2010) Available and emerging technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the iron and steel industry. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 74 pp (Oct 2010).

10 The first commitment period of Kyoto protocol ended 2012, the second commitment period was agreed (Doha Agreement) to be extended up to 2020. However, to come into force the acceptance of 144 countries is required, while up to November 2018 only 122 countries have accepted the agreement. Yearly negotiations were held under the UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on measures to be taken after the second commitment period ends in 2020. This resulted in the 2015 adoption of the Paris Agreement, which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/





5.2.2 Operational Problems in Coke dry Quenching

CDQ is an energy conservation measure and the technology is in practice;

nevertheless there are many operational problems viz., desired flow rates of

circulating gases in coke quenching. Non-uniform distribution of the fluxes of

circulating gas and coke in the cross sections of the quenching chamber impairs heat

transfer between the coke and the gases (Danilin 2015)11.

Other operational problems are related to uneven charging of incandescent coke

through the quenching tower. Mechanical problems and/or other troubles that

introduce major time-variable thermal conditions may prohibit efficient high pressure

steam generation (Littlepage et. al. 1975)12. Steam Generation is directly depending

on hot charged in to CDQ chamber and cold coke discharged from the CDQ. Sun et.

Al. (2015)13 studied the real time CDQ process operation control problems and

indicated that, supplementary air-flow regulation problem and unstable coke

discharge from the coke oven due to unstable supply of incandescent coke are the

main hindrance in maintaining the outlet temperature of the hot circulation gas at the

desired level.

The operational problems as reported in literature can be summarised as follows:

a. Desired flow rate of circulating gasses in cooling chamber.

b. Supplementary air flow regulation problems.

c. Non-uniform distribution of the fluxes of circulating gas and coke in the cross

sections of the quenching chamber.

d. Unstable charging of incandescent coke through the quenching tower vis-a-vis

maintaining the outlet temperature of the hot circulation gas at the desired

level.

e. Inadequate discharge of cold coke from quenching chamber.

From Table 5.1, it can be seen that the CDQ system implemented world over are in

cases where number of coke ovens are more than one and the coke batteries are

with much higher coke production capacity as compared to that envisaged for the

present project. The operational problems as indicated above are likely to be more

pronounced wherein the coke production is only 0.4MTPA. Furthermore, it can be

seen from Table 5.1, that the coke ovens where CDQ has been implemented are

by-product recovery coke ovens where the coking time is less as compared to non-

recovery coke oven; in the present case, where the coking time is > 36 hours.

11 Danilin, E. A. (2015). Innovations in the Dry Quenching of Coke. Coke and Chemistry, 2015, Vol. 58,

No. 12, pp. 465–475.

12 Linsky B, J. Littlepage , A. Johannes , R. Nekooi & P. Lincoln. (1975). Dry Coke Quenching, Air Pollution and Energy: A Status Report. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. 25 (9): 918-924. DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1975.10468112.).

13 Sun, K., C. T. Tseng, D. S. H. Wong, S. S. Shieh, S. S. Jang, J. L. Kang, W. D. Hsieh (2015). Model predictive control for improving waste heat recovery in coke dry quenching processes. Energy 80 : 275-283.





Table 5.1: CDM Registered Coke Dry Quenching Projects (Till Date)

SN.

Project Name & Location

CDM Registration Date

Coke Oven Type

No of Coke Ovens Batteries

CDQ Coke Processing Capacity

WHRB Operating Flow

STG Design Capacity / Power Generation

1. Ma Steel), Yushan District, Maanshan City, PRC.

04-Dec-08

Recovery Coke Oven

4 (1 x 4) 2x125t/h 65t/h 2X15MW / 30MW (PLF=97%)

2. Panzhihua Panmei Combined Coking Co., Ltd Panzhihua City, PRC

10-Aug-12

Recovery Coke Oven

1X2 (1.1MTPA)

1x127.4t/h (Max. Coke Processing Capacity 140t/h)

76.2t/h 1x3 MW back pressure steam turbine. Low pressure steam sold / / 3MW (Power Factor 0.8)

3. “WISCO” Steel, Hubei Province , PRC

14-Nov-12

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 (3.3 MTPA)

3x140t/h 1x71t/h + 2x69t/h

2x25MW / 50MW (PLF=85.62%)

4. Shandong Shiheng Special Steel Shiheng Town, PRC

10-Oct-11

Recovery Coke Oven

1x2 (0.96MTPA)

1x140t/h 1x75t/h 1x15MW / / 15MW (PLF = 93.15%)

5. Liuzhou Iron & Steel Co. Liuzhou City, Autonomous Region, PRC

25-Jul-12

Recovery Coke Oven

1x3 1x160t/h + 2x110t/h

1x92t/h + 2x63.25t/h

1x50MW / 50MW (PLF= 0.72)

6. AISG Steel Co., Yingkou District; PRC

13-Feb-09

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 2x160t/h 2x86t/h 2X15MW / 30MW (PLF=0.68)

7. AISG Steel Co. Tiexi Distrrict, Anshan City; PRC

05-Feb-09

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 1x140t/h + 1x125t/h

1x73t/h + 1x65t/h

2x12MW / 24 (PLF= 92.0%)

8. BISCO Steel Co. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

15-Jan-09

Recovery Coke Oven

1x2 (117.3t/h)

1x125t/h 1x70t/h 1x15MW

9. Wugang Iron & Steel Co. Qingshan District, Wuhan City, PRC

20-Apr-09

Recovery Coke Oven

1x2 1x140t/h 1x83.7t/h

1x6MW (Back Pressure Turbine) / 6MW (PLF= 70.41%)

10. Guangxi Liuzhou Iron & Steel , Liuzhou City, PRC

11-Jan-11

Recovery Coke Oven

1x2 1x150t/h 1x79tlh

1x25MW

11. Bayi Steel (Bao Steel Group) ; Urumqi city, Auonomous Region of China

30-Nov-09

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 2x140t/h 2x71t/h

2x12MW (Extraction Condensing Steam Turbine)

12. Hualing Liangang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. ; Hunan Province; PRC

29-Aug-08

Recovery Coke Oven

150t/h 1x20MW (extraction Condensing Steam Turbine)

13. Ma Steel (new plant) ; 11- Recovery 1x2 2x140t/h 2x70t/ 2x18MW





SN.



Coke Oven Type



WHRB Operating Flow


Anhui Province; PRC May-09 Coke Oven; Coking time 25.2h

h

14. Anyang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Henan Province; PRC

19-Apr-10

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 2x75t/h +140t/h

40t/h + 72t/h

30.5MW (1x9.6+1x20.9) (Condensing Turbine + 1 extraction turbine)

15. Baotou Iron & Steel; Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; PRC

08-Nov-07

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 2x125t/h 2x70t/h

2X15MW

16. Qian'an Zhonghua Coal Chemical Co., Ltd. (QZCC); Hebei Province; China.

06-Apr-07

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4

17. Chongqing Zhongueneng Sanfeng Energy Co. Ltd. Yanjia Industrial Park, Chongqing City, PRC. Utilising hot coke of Chongqing Iron & Steel (Group) Co. Ltd.

28-Dec-12

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 (2.4 MTPA)

2x150t/h 2x86.3t/h

2x25MW

18. Yunnan Kunsteel Coking Co., Ltd. Kunming City, Yunnan Province; PRC

28-Dec-11

Recovery Coke Oven

1x4 (1.3MTPA)

2x165t/h (71.76 (Max. 75)+ 79.72 (Max.90)

1x40t/h + 1x45t/h)

2x6MW (steam extraction turbine)

19. JSW Steel Limited; Bellary Karnataka; India

- Recovery Coke Oven

2 (Coke 3.42MTPA) (Coke Capacity 1.5MTPA+1.92MTPA)

76MW / 76MW (PLF=0.85)

20. Qianlishan Coal Coking Co., Ltd. of Inner Mongolia, Wuhai City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), PRC

28-Feb-14

Recovery Coke Oven

2 (Coke 0.96MTPA)

1x125t/h 65t/h 15MW (Condensing Turbine) / 15MW

21. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited; Vizag, India

13-Aug-14

Recovery Coke

1 (Coke Production

4x52t/h (four

4x 25 TPH,

13MW





SN.



Coke Oven Type



WHRB Operating Flow


Oven 0.84 MTPA)

chambers)

40 ATA, 4400C

22. Shandong Shiheng Steel”; Feicheng City, PRC

10-Oct-11

Recovery Coke Oven

1x2 1x140t/h 1x75t/h 15MW

23. Laiwu Iron & Steel Group Corp. Laiwu City; PRC (Laiwu Iron & Steel Company Limited was merged with Jinan Iron & Steel Company Limited (“JIGANG”) and changed to Shandong Iron and Steel Company Limited (“Shandong Limited”)

03-Dec-08

Recovery Coke Oven

1x8 (126t/h+137t/h+137t/h+70.78t/h)

4x140t/h

2x25MW; 50MW (Design 60MW, PLF=0.83)





of various non-recovery coke oven batteries operating in India is collected, as shown

in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Details of various non-recovery coke oven batteries operating in India

Sl.No Company Name Place Capacity in Million

ton

No. of Batteries

No. of Ovens

Quenching Type

1 Bhatia Coke Chennai 0.20 4 157 Wet Horizontal

2 Sathavana Ispat Bellary 0.40 6 90 Wet Horizontal

3 Visa Suncoke Jajpur 0.40 8 88 Wet Horizontal

4 Electrosteel Bokaro 0.50 4 140 Wet Vertical

5 Bhushan Steel & Power

Jhasruguda 0.50 8 96 Wet Horizontal

6 Hoogly Met coke Haldia 1.60 4 352 Wet Horizontal

7 Bengal energy Khragpur 0.60 4 160 Wet Horizontal

8 Jindal saw ltd Mundra 0.40 4 197 Wet Horizontal

9 Gujarat NRE Coke ltd

Dharwad 0.59 32 320 Wet Horizontal

10 Gujarat NRE Coke ltd

Bhachau 0.30 14 260 Wet Horizontal

11 Jai Balaji Durgapur 0.36 4 88 Wet Horizontal

12 Tata Metaliks Kharagpur 0.20 - - Wet Horizontal

13 Usha Martin Ltd Jamshedpur 0.40 2 96 Wet Horizontal

14 JSPL Raigarh 0.80 8 176 Wet Horizontal

15 JSW Steel Ltd Salem 0.50 3 120 Wet Horizontal

16 JSW Steel Ltd Bellary 1.20 - - Wet Horizontal

17 Sesa Goa Goa 0.6 - - Wet Horizontal

18 Jaiswal Nicco Raipur 0.2 - - Wet Horizontal

19 Lanco Industries Khalaghasi 0.20 4 162 Wet Horizontal

20 Gerdau Steel Tadipatri 0.2 2 44 Wet Horizontal

21 Haldia coke & Power

West Bengal

0.12 - -

Wet Horizontal

22 Basudha Udyog Chennai 0.12 - - Wet Horizontal

23 BLA Industries Mithapur 0.18 - - Wet Horizontal

24 Maha Shakti Coke Gujarat 0.85 - - Wet Horizontal

25 Austral coke & projects ltd

Gujarat 0.24 - -

Wet Horizontal

Source: M/s The Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Limited





5.3 Options Explored for Utilisation of Steam Generated from CDQ

The steam generated from CDQ WHRB may be utilised in plant steam network for

usage by different end-users in the steel plant or for power generation. Both the

possibilities were explored.

5.3.1 Alternative 1 : Use of Steam in 32 MW WHRB Network

The possibilities of use of CDQ steam for feeding up of 32 MW WHRB was studied. It

was found that the envisaged 32 MW WHRB units for generating steam from flue gas

from Coke Oven will generate steam at 88 kg/cm2, 5150C which is rated steam input

parameter for the 32MW turbine.

The steam parameters from CDQ boiler is of different thermodynamic parameter (66

kg/cm2, 5000C) which does not meet input steam parameters requirements of the

32MW turbine (88 kg/cm2, 5150C) and hence cannot be mixed. CDQ Boiler is difficult

to design to meet the steam parameter of captive power plant for design constraint

i.e. from material selection point of view and thermodynamic stability. Therefore,

possibility of feeding the 32MW WHRB from the CDQ boiler is not technically

feasible.

5.3.2 Alternative 2 : Utilisation of the steam in Plant Network

The steam out from CDQ WHRB boiler will be at 66kg/cm2, 5000C, while the plant

network steam is at much lower pressure (10 - 12 kg/cm2) thus the CDQ boiler steam

cannot be connected to the plant network steam directly, for use by different end-

users. It is also not recommended to use expensive super saturated steam (high

pressure and temperature) for low pressure (up to 12 kg/cm2) and temperature

applications by end users in the steel works. Therefore, possibility of utilisation of the

steam in the plant network is also not feasible.

5.3.3 Alternative 3 : Power Generation from Coke Dry Cooling Plant

The third alternative can be utilisation of the CDQ steam (coke heat) in Coke Dry

Cooling Plant, the only option left is for going in for power generation. Hence, all

possibilities for installation of CDQ along with boiler and turbine for recovery of the

coke heat has been studied, explained in the sections below.





5.4 Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ)

For cooling of hot coke produced from Non-Recovery Coke Oven Battery of capacity

of 0.4 MTPA, the Coke Dry Cooling Plant will consist of One chamber - Boiler module

of 52-56 ton per hour coke cooling capacity along with power generation from Super-

Heated steam from Waste Heat Boiler and standby Wet Quenching System. The

Standby Wet Quenching System shall be for smooth operation of coke oven battery

during any break down and annual maintenance of Coke Dry Cooling Plant.

The capital cost of CDQ system as per the offers received to M/s SMIORE from

international parties is Rs. 225 Crores.

5.4.1 Design Calculation for Coke Oven Battery with CDQ

For Non-Recovery Coke Oven Battery of capacity of 0.4 MTPA, following design

calculations has been envisaged in column 3 of Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Details of Working Regime of Coke Oven with CDQ

Description Unit SMIORE

Coke Oven Capacity MTPA 0.4

Total Nos. of Ovens Nos. 112

Coking time hours 36

Nos. of pushing per hour Nos. 2.7

Nos. of Oven Pushed per day Nos. 65

Weight of coal charge into one oven tons 25

Coke produced from one Oven tons 18

Coke Production / pushed per hour tons 48

Hot coke charged in CDCP per hour tons 48

Temperature of coke charged in the chamber °C 1050

Temperature of coke after cooling °C < 200

Temp. of inert gas at entry of cooling chamber °C < 180

Temp. of circulating gas before waste heat boiler °C 750 – 800

Circulating gas flow rate Nm3/hr 81,000x1

Thermal efficiency % 80 – 85

Pressure of steam generated ata 66

Temperature of steam generated °C 500

Generation of steam/ boiler t/h 25

Capacity of cooling chamber t/h 52 – 56

Time of coke cooling in chamber h 2 – 2.5





5.4.2 Turbine Capacity – Requirement of CDQ

As per the design configuration of the 0.4 MTPA Non-recovery coke oven battery of

M/s SMIORE, the envisaged steam generation is of the following thermodynamic

parameters

Steam Quantity: 25 TPH

Steam pressure: 66 ata

Steam temperature: 500 Deg C.

Depending on the calculated steam parameters, the envisaged turbine is a steam

turbine. These steam turbines exhaust directly to condensers that maintain vacuum

conditions at the discharge of the steam turbine. An array of tubes with cooling water

condenses the steam into water in the condenser

Turbine will be condensing type. These turbines receive steam from a

boiler and exhaust it to a condenser. Condensate will be sent back to

dearator by Condensate extraction pump.

Turbine exhaust pressure considered as 0.1 ata.

Single casing steam turbine.

Turbine will be axial type.

Considering above if steam will be made available continuously from CDCP boiler

then approximately 6 MW can be generated.

5.4.3 Power Generation from CDQ System

Considering that the steam will be made available continuously from CDQ boiler then

approximately 6 MW power can be generated, then the net power generation from

the above considered CDQ system is calculated to be 5.4 MW as shown in Table 5.4

and Figure 5.1 below.

Table 5.4: Net Power Generation from CDQ

S.No. Description Unit SMIORE

1 Capacity of coke oven plant MTPA 0.40

2 Coke generated per hour TPH 54

3 Steam generated per hour ( 500kg per ton ) TPH 25

4 Possible power generation

4.1 SP Steam Consumption Per Mw T 4

4.2 Power generation per hour MWH 6

4.3 Auxiliary power consumption per hour MWH 0.6

4.4 Net power generation MWH 5.4





Figure 5.1: Power Generation from CDQ system

5.5 Justification for Amendment in EC Condition : Technological / Operational

Constraints

In the envisaged project of M/s SIMORE, the coke oven plant is of small capacity i.e.

0.4 MTPA non-recovery coke oven, it was found that there is high possibilities for

inconsistency in steam output from CDQ boiler due to the various factors hereunder:

Smaller Capacity of Coke oven

Longer cycle time (36hrs)

Variation in coking time

Lower coke output per pushing

5.5.1 CDQ Power Generation – Operational Requirements

For ideal operation of CDQ unit and for ensuring consistency in the steam quality and

operating parameters, the loading on the CDQ should be uniform for all the 24 Hrs.

But in actual practice, adherence to such ideal case is not feasible, as the operating

coke oven plant depends on coking time which is determined by quality of coal used

from time-to-time. This variation in coking time will result in reduction of pushing per

hour and less input of hot coke in CDQ system. To maintain consistency in loading

the CDQ, the output from coke oven battery in terms of number of pushing operations

per day, plays a major role. More the number of pushing per day, the uniformity in

loading of CDQ will be better, as the production duration will be more. However, if

the number of pushing per day is less as in case of lower capacity plant, then there

will be more non uniformity in the output from the battery into the CDQ. This is

further enhanced by electrical/ mechanical maintenance issues of coke oven

equipments.

Turbine 6MW

Steam: 25 Tons / Hr Pressure: 66 ata

Temp: 500°C

5.4 MW

Auxiliary Power Required 0.6 MW





When the capacity of the coke oven plant is high, i.e. above 0.5 MTPA, the required

number of pushing operation per day will be 85 to 100. In such cases, the pushing

operation rate in a coke oven battery will be around 4 pushing per hour. In the

modern design coke oven machines, with single spot multi operation oven machines,

there will considerable reduction in the machine cycle time and the machines are

capable of pushing 5 ovens per hour consistently and can even touch 6 ovens per

hour.

5.5.2 Coke Oven Battery – Operational Constraints

Design calculations are for the ideal working of the Coke oven battery and the CDQ

system at its maximum efficiency. However, during operation phase many

parameters/aspects play a key role in production.

Some of the Operational Constraints envisaged for irregular supply of hot coke from

the small sized (0.4 MTPA) non-recovery coke oven battery are:

Due to the varying coal properties, the coking time may vary from 36 hrs - 42 hrs

in the non-recovery coke oven battery, due to which the pushing may come to 2

per hour in place of 3 per hour. That means hot coke will be available for

quenching after a time interval of half an hour, which may lead to the non-

continuous supply of steam to the turbine.

During coke oven repair and maintenance, 3 adjacent ovens on either side of the

oven under repair needs to be kept out of production, which in turns decreases

the no. of available operational coke oven, which in-turn will decrease the

pushing per hour resulting in the decreased availability of hot coke for quenching

vis-a-vis non-continuous supply of steam to the turbine.

Coke oven batteries have an average operating life of twenty-five to forty years,

depending upon operating conditions and battery maintenance. However, the

efficiency comes down to 90% in early years only. This decrease in the capacity

will in turn reduce the number of pushing per hour resulting in the non-continuous

supply of steam to the turbine.

For comparison, a tabulation has also been shown in Table 5.5, between coke oven

working regime of a small 0.4 MTPA non-recovery coke oven battery (envisaged for

SIMORE) and of a successfully stable operating large recovery-type coke oven

battery system (presently at JSW) for different operating parameters.





Table 5.5: Details of Working Regime of Coke Oven with CDQ

Description Unit Coke Production

Capacity

SMIORE JSW

1 2 3 4

Coke Oven Capacity MTPA 0.4 3.4

Total Nos. of Ovens Nos. 112 512

Coking time hours 36 24

Nos. of pushing per hour Nos. 2.7 21

Nos. of Oven Pushed per day Nos. 65 512

Weight of coal charge into one oven tons 25 25

Coke produced from one Oven tons 18 18

Coke Production / pushed per hour tons 48 380

Hot coke charged in CDCP per hour tons 48 380

Temperature of coke charged in the chamber °C 1050 1050

Temperature of coke after cooling °C < 200 < 200

Temp. of inert gas at entry of cooling chamber °C < 180 < 180

Temp. of circulating gas before waste heat

boiler

°C 750 – 800 870-950

Circulating gas flow rate Nm3/hr 81,000x1 1,80,000 x 4

Thermal efficiency % 80 – 85 80 – 85

Pressure of steam generated ata 66 80

Temperature of steam generated °C 500 510

Generation of steam/ boiler t/h 25 65 x 2

75 x 2

Capacity of cooling chamber t/h 52 – 56 90 – 95

Time of coke cooling in chamber h 2 – 2.5 2 – 2.5

SP Steam Consumption Per Mw t 4 4

Power generation per hour MW 6 70

Auxiliary power consumption per hour MW 0.6 7

Net power generation MW 5.4 63

Further, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 shows the CDQ configuration for both small 0.4

MTPA non-recovery coke oven battery (envisaged for M/s SIMORE) and of a

successfully stable operating large 3.4MTPA recovery-type coke oven battery

complex (presently at M/s JSW).

On comparison of Figure 5.2 and 5.3, it can be seen that the number of coke ovens

batteries attached through CDQ boiler to turbo-generator for 0.4 MTPA (non-recovery

type) coke oven and 3.4 MTPA (recovery type) coke oven, respectively. It can be

seen (Figure 5.3) that for the large size coke oven the steam availability to the turbo





generator is supplied through four CDQ boilers which are inter connected through a

common header to provide steam at a consistent parameter to a single turbine. In

this case any variation in the input hot coke to one of the CDQ, will be compensated

with steam available from the remaining three CDQ system to ensure consistency in

steam parameter to the turbine for power generation.

Whereas in case of 0.4 MTPA coke oven (Figure 5.2) the steam is supplied with only

one CDQ boiler attached to the turbine. Any variation in input hot coke to CDQ

system will result in deviation in steam parameter from CDQ boiler resulting in

inconsistent power output.

Figure 5.2 : 0.4 MTPA Non-Recovery Coke Oven Battery of M/s SMIORE

1 28 Ovens

2 28 Ovens

3 28 Ovens

4 28 Ovens

65 Ovens/day 45 Tons/ hr

55T CDQ Boiler

Steam: 25 Tons / hr Pressure: 66ata

Temp: 500°C





Figure 5.3: CDQ configuration for 3.4 MTPA Recovery Coke Oven complex at JSW Steel Ltd





Figure 5.4 shows the comparison of number of pushing per hour available for 0.4

MTPA non-recovery coke oven vis-a-vis number of pushing available for 3.4 MTPA

Recovery coke oven. The number of pushing per hour available to CDQ boiler

determines heat availability for rated steam output to generate power from the Turbo

Generator (TG). From the Figure 5.4 it can be seen that, in case of small size (0.4

MTPA) non-recovery coke, with higher coking time, the pushing available to CDQ are

at an average of 2.7 per hour while that for large size (3.4MTPA) recovery coke oven,

with lower coking time, the pushing available to CDQ are 21 per hour. This shall

result uniform and consistent steam generation.

The available coke pushing for 0.4MTPA non-recovery coke oven will not be able to

supply hot coke consistently to CDQ and thereby steam to TG for stable operation

and power generation. However, at the same time 3.4MTPA recovery type coke oven

will be able to supply hot coke for stable operation of CDQ system for power

generation.





Figure 5.4: Comparison Between SIMORE Project and 3.42 MTPA Coke





5.5.3 Turbine and CDQ Power Generation – Operational Constraints

As per the design norms, the turbine is designed to operate at the highest level of

steam input based on heat available from maximum hot coke input to the CDQ

system.

Design calculation for the turbine and power generation is carried out with

assumption of continuous and steady steam supply. However, as discussed above,

due to operational constraints of coke oven battery the designed continuous steam

quantity and parameter may vary due to decreased coke pushing and availability of

hot coke in CDQ system at higher time intervals. This variation in quantity and design

parameter of steam could lead to damage of turbine on following grounds:

Due to inconstancy in steam output the parameters of the stream input to the

turbine may drop below the turn-down ration, which could result in tripping of

the turbine. Frequent trappings of the turbine will result in inefficiency and will

effect life of the turbine.

Due to drop in steam parameters such as pressure and temperature to the

input of the turbine, can result in condensation steam in the last stages of

turbine and cause erosion of blade resulting in unbalance of turbine roater.

For consistent steam parameter, the coke output from the coke oven should be

consistent and interval of hot coke availability in the CDQ system should also be

consistent. Any variation in flow of hot coke in CDQ due to operational reasons could

result in inconstancy in steam output ant its parameter.

5.5.4 System Stability

The efficiency and efficacy of the stable CDQ system i.e. steam and power

generation is determined by uninterrupted consistent heat flux into CDQ system,

which is dependent on the following factors:

Quantity of coke per pushing which is charged into the CDQ system

Time interval and frequency at which hot coke is charged into the CDQ

system

Consistency in the periodicity of hot coke charged into the CDQ system

In a large capacity recovery-type coke oven, quantity of coke per pushing is higher,

number of pushing per hour is higher and the time interval between two pushing is

more consistent due to coking process being assisted by energy supplied through

burning of coke-oven gas. This makes the operation of even single CDQ of higher

capacity system more consistent which enables near constant heat flux to the boiler

and therefore consistent steam to the turbine for power generation.





In a smaller capacity non-recovery coke oven, quantity of coke per pushing is lower,

cycle time for coking process is longer and time interval as well as frequency of hot

coke charged into the CDQ system is inconsistent. This results in variation of heat

flux from the CDQ system to the boiler, which makes the steam output from the boiler

more inconsistent.

Moreover, to maintain the stability in a larger coke oven complex, parallel coke oven

batteries are connected to the single CDQ boiler with common header or multiple

CDQ boiler feeding to the single TG set, as shown in Figure 5.3. However, in case of

SIMORE, as shown in Figure 5.2, due to smaller capacity (1x 0.4 MTPA) of coke

oven complex, connected to single CDQ boiler and a single turbine makes its

efficiency limited to the efficiency of the single unit , which may at times may under

perform and will disturb the TG system. Since, the CDQ, boiler and turbine are

connected in series, so efficiency of the system will be product of each unit, at times

efficiency may drop.

5.6 Power Generation Equipment Availability for SMIORE CDQ Installation

In response to SMIORE’s enquiry, the boiler supplier communicated his inability to

bid/ design and supply a CDQ waste heat boiler due to its low capacity. The copy of

his response is enclosed in Annexure II.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The assessment of technical constraints of 0.4 MTPA coke oven coke dry quenching

over the wet dry quenching shows that installation of Coke Dry Cooling Plant is not-

feasible due to operating constraints.

The coke oven plant of M/s SMIORE is of small capacity i.e. 0.4 MTPA non-recovery

coke oven, it was found that there is highly sensitive to various factors as under,

which results in inconsistency in steam output from CDQ boiler.

Smaller Capacity of Coke oven

Longer cycle time (36hrs)

Variation in coking time

Lower coke output per pushing

Moreover, if production of the battery gets reduced due to maintenance issues, which

will enhance the effect on pressure and temperature of steam, resulting in the

inconsistent functioning of the power plant.

The envisaged investment required by M/s SIMORE for installation of CDQ and its

associated power generation system comes to be about Rs. 225 Crores, with power





plant installed capacity of 6 MW, which comes to be Rs. 37.5 Crores/MW cost and

the payback period of 36 years as worked out in Annexure III.

Therefore after studying the possibility for the installation of the CDQ system with 0.4

MTPA non-recovery coke oven battery, it has been envisaged that on the technical

grounds CDQ for a small non-recovery coke coven battery of 0.4 MTPA is prone to

technical problems related to the turbine, which will result in irregular power

generation with high risk of turbine failure possibilities. Thus we request MoEFCC for

re-consideration of the EC conditions stipulated regarding the installation of CDQ in

coke oven battery under EC condition 6(b) and 7.

ANNEXURE I

ANNEXURE II

Page 1 of 1

CDQ VIABILITY CALCULATIONS

Capital Cost of CDQ 225 Rs. in crore

Equity 75 Rs. in crore

Loan 150 Rs. in crore

Interest rate on Loan 11% p.a.

Loan tenure 2 years moratorium + 7 years repayment

CDQ Life 15 Years

Power Generation 4.2 MW

Total Power Units Production 35280000 Units

Price of Power 2.5 Rs. / Unit

Total revenue from Power Sale 8.82 Rs. in crore

Operational Costs 0

Profitability Projections

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Revenues 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82

EBIDTA 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82

Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Depreciation 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

PBT -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18 -6.18

Cash Profit 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82

Cummulative Cash Profit 8.82 17.64 26.46 35.28 44.1 52.92 61.74 70.56 79.38 88.2 97.02

Residual investment to be recovered 127.98

Annual cash Profit 8.82

No. of years for recovery 15

Payback Period (Years) 26

Although, the Payback period comes out as 36 years, the loan that is required to set up the CDQ cannot be repaid from profitability of CDQ (power generation)

THE SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORES LIMITED

ANNEXURE III

Page 1 of 1

Environmental Appraisal Report€¦ · 2.0 Present Proposal 3 3.0 Project Location 4 4.0 ... 8 Pig...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Appraisal Report€¦ · 2.0 Present Proposal 3 3.0 Project Location 4 4.0 ... 8 Pig...