EPRI IGCC Design and RAM Analysis For Zero Emissions

IGCC Design and RAM Analysis
for Near Zero Emissions

1008400
IGCC Design and RAM Analysis

for Near Zero Emissions
1008400
Technical Update, December 2004
EPRI Project Managers

N. Holt
G. Booras
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
EPRI
This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379;
voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
EPRI
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
Principal Investigators
N. Holt
G. Booras
This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.

The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner: IGCC Design and RAM Analysis for Near zero Emissions, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004.
1008400.
iii
iv
REPORT SUMMARY
Concern over the continued availability of natural gas at competitive prices has led many power
companies to initiate studies and projects on clean coal technologies as a strategic hedge against
over reliance on natural gas alone to provide future power needs. Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants can meet very stringent emissions targets including those for
Mercury and CO2. Several years of commercial operation have been accumulated on coal based
IGCC plants in the US and Europe and IGCC plants based on petroleum residuals are in service
worldwide. Prediction of IGCC plant availability is a fundamental necessity during the
conceptual design and feasibility study phase of any project. Annual availability not only
impacts the revenue stream in the financial proforma, it also influences the total installed cost
through the required equipment redundancy and sparing philosophy.
Background
The common measures of financial performance, such as return on investment (ROI), net present
value (NPV), and payback period, all are dependent on the project cash flow. The net cash flow
is the sum of all project revenues and expenses. For most projects, the net cash flow is negative
in the early years during construction and only turns positive when the project starts generating
revenues by producing saleable products. Therefore, the annual production rate is a key
parameter in determining the financial performance of a project. Thus, a comparative
availability analysis is required to predict the relative production rates and corresponding cash
flows that are required to develop a meaningful financial analysis for a prospective project.
Objectives
To review the operating experience and availability parameters from existing gasification
facilities, including identification of sources of data.
To describe the methodology for evaluating and reporting IGCC availability, including
definition of key availability parameters.
To discuss options for improving IGCC availability.
To summarize results of EPRI case studies using the UNIRAM computer model.
To discuss the key features and recommended configurations for new IGCC plants
Approach
Rigorous calculation of plant availability requires the development of an Availability Block Flow
Diagram (ABFD) depicting relationships between process blocks, systems, subsystems,
equipment, or components. Probabilistic algorithms and methodology can then be applied to for
overall plant availability parameters. EPRIs UNIRAM computer model can be used for this
calculation. Availability data for individual plant elements such as process blocks, systems,
subsystems, equipment, or components is required as an input to these algorithms. For IGCC
plants, typical analyses are limited to the system level based primarily on the practicality of
utilizing historical reliability and availability data from the various operating gasification plants.
From a practical standpoint, availability analysis at the system level reflects the overall average
result of the interaction of the associated plant equipment and components.
Results
A brief summary of operating experience and availability parameters from the commercial
gasification plants was prepared based on statistics reported at the Annual Gasification
Technologies Council (GTC) Gasification Conference, as well as information obtained through
various EPRI utility-specific IGCC studies. Availability reporting guidelines and analysis
methodology were described. Two key parameters are forced outage rates and scheduled outage
rates. Forced outage rates from the operating gasification plants were analyzed to determine the
major causes of downtime. Projections of forced outage rates for new IGCC plants were
developed based on incorporating lessons learned.
Methodology for development of detailed, multi-year planned maintenance schedules was
described. Careful coordination of gasification and power block maintenance outages is required
to minimize overall scheduled outage rates. Incorporation of a spare gasifier leads to a
significant reduction in scheduled outage rates, but can increase plant capital costs by 5 to 10
percent depending on the gasification technology selected. Other availability improvement
options include use of natural gas or distillate as a backup fuel, and incorporation of liquid
oxygen and liquid nitrogen storage.
The coal-to power equivalent availability for new IGCC plants is expected to be in the range of
81 to 83 percent for GE Energy and E-Gas (somewhat higher for Shell) without a spare gasifier.
This can be improved to around 91 to 93 percent with a spare gasifier.
EPRI Perspective
The database of operating gasification plants is still relatively small and using this limited
database to forecast reliability of future IGCC plants can be risky. Many operating gasification
plants only have a single gasifier and have experienced typical first-of-a-kind reliability issues.
Incorporating the lessons learned from these operating gasification plants is critical to the long
term success of IGCC power plants. EPRI plans to work with members of the Gasification Users
Association (GUA) to expand the gasification availability database. EPRI will update the results
in this report as improved component availability estimates are obtained.
Interest Categories
State-of-the-Art Power Plants, IGCC Power Plants, Technology Assessment, CO2 Capture and
Sequestration, RAM Analysis
Keywords
GCC Power Plants, Gasification, Availability, Reliability, Maintenance,
vi
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1-1
2 GTC AVAILABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES ................................2-1
GTC Definitions Measured Statistics ................................................................... 2-1
GTC Definitions Calculated Statistics .................................................................. 2-2
GTC Availability Example ....................................................................................... 2-3
3 GASIFICATION OPERATING EXPERIENCE & AVAILABILITY..........3-1

Commercial Plants Utilizing Coal and Petcoke ....................................................... 3-1
Measures of Reliability and Availability ................................................................... 3-1
Operating Experience and Availability Summary .................................................. 3-11
4 IGCC AVAILABILITY METHODOLOGY...............................................4-1

Forced Outage Rates.............................................................................................. 4-1
Scheduled Outage Planning ................................................................................... 4-3
5 IGCC AVAILABILITY OPTIONS & CASE STUDIES ............................5-1

Peak Season Availability Analysis .......................................................................... 5-1
Spare Gasifier versus Backup Fuel......................................................................... 5-5
Storage of Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Nitrogen ....................................................... 5-7
EPRI Availability Analysis Cases Studies ............................................................... 5-7
6 COMMERCIAL DESIGN OF NEW IGCC PLANTS ...............................6-1

Gasifier Sparing and High Availability Design ......................................................... 6-1
Additional Features for New IGCC Plant Designs................................................... 6-1
IGCC Design for CO2 Capture ................................................................................ 6-3
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................7-1
8 APPENDIX.............................................................................................8-1
UNIRAM CASE STUDY OUTPUT REPORTS ........................................................ 8-1
IGCC - E-Gas-Low FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/o SPARE GASIFIER) ........................... 8-2
IGCC - E-Gas-High FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/o SPARE GASIFIER)........................... 8-5
IGCC - E-Gas-Low FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/SPARE GASIFIER) .............................. 8-8
IGCC - E-Gas-High FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/SPARE GASIFIER)............................ 8-11
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 GTC Unit Operating Statistics Measured...............................................................2-1
Figure 2-2 GTC Unit Operating Statistics Calculated..............................................................2-2
Figure 3-1 How Important is Reliability? (Source: Eastman) .....................................................3-4
Figure 3-2 Historical Forced Outage Rates at Eastman ...........................................................3-4
Figure 3.3 Polk IGCC Power Station Annual Availability Statistics ............................................3-7
Figure 3.4 Texaco-Based IGCC Availability Adjustment............................................................3-8
Figure 3.5 Wabash Syngas Availability....................................................................................3-10
Figure 4-1 Simplified Availability Block Flow Diagram ...............................................................4-1
Figure 4.2 Maintenance Schedule Example (3x50% Train IGCC Plant)....................................4-4
Figure 5.1 Availability Analysis for Single Train IGCC Plant .....................................................5-2
Figure 5.2 Availability Analysis for a 2x50% Train IGCC Plant .................................................5-3
Figure 5.3 Availability Analysis for a 3x50% Train IGCC Plant .................................................5-4
Figure 5.4 Availability Improvement with a Spare Gasifier ........................................................5-7
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 SFA Pacific Gasification Database Commercial Gasification Plants .........................3-2
Table 3-2 Top Ten Eastman Shutdown Causes 1983-2000 ...................................................3-3
Table 3-3 Polk Power Station Unit 1 Capacity Factor.............................................................3-5
Table 3-4 Polk Power Station IGCC Availability Statistics .........................................................3-5
Table 3-5 Polk Power Station IGCC Unavailability Statistics .....................................................3-6
Table 3-6 Wabash Gasification Island Availability Statistics ......................................................3-9
Table 3-7 Wabash Gasification Island Unavailability Statistics..................................................3-9
Table 3-8 2001 Wabash Gasification Island Downtime Cause ..................................................3-9
Table 3-9 Summary of Availability and Unavailability Data......................................................3-11
Table 4-1 Single Train Reliability Data.......................................................................................4-2
Table 4-2 Scheduled Outages for Single Train E-Gas Gasification Unit ...................................4-4
Table 5-1 Peak Season Availability Analysis Summary............................................................5-5
Table 5-2 Sensitivity to Gasifier Forced Outage Rates ..............................................................5-7
Table 5-3 Availability Comparison Example ..............................................................................5-8
Table 5-4 Overall IGCC Availability Analysis Results ................................................................5-8
xi
xii
1
INTRODUCTION
The common measures of financial performance, such as return on investment (ROI), net present
value (NPV), and payback period, all are dependent on the project cash flow. The net cash flow
is the sum of all project revenues and expenses. Depending upon the detail of the financial
analysis, the cash flow streams usually are computed on annual or quarterly bases. For most
projects, the net cash flow is negative in the early years during construction and only turns
positive when the project starts generating revenues by producing saleable products. Therefore,
the annual production rate is a key parameter in determining the financial performance of a
project. Thus, a comparative availability analysis is required to predict the relative production
rates and corresponding cash flows that are required to develop a meaningful financial analysis
for a prospective project.
Prediction of plant availability is a fundamental necessity during the front-end engineering and
economic evaluation phase of any project. Annual availability not only influences the financial
proforma via the annual revenue stream, it also manifests itself as part of the total installed cost.
No valid feasibility study or preliminary engineering effort is undertaken without giving due
consideration to the impact on plant availability, specifically as it relates to:
Process scheme development/selection
Equipment redundancy
Process area (or system) redundancy multiple operating trains or spare trains
Equipment and component selection
Clearly the resultant decisions impart a direct effect on both the plants availability and the
projects total installed cost, the ramifications of which have impacts of comparable magnitude
(although of opposite signs) on the overall economic proforma.
Rigorous calculation of plant availability requires four basic elements:
Availability Block Flow Diagram correctly depicting relationships between process blocks,
systems, subsystems, equipment, or components, as applicable
Definition of plant states to cover the appropriate range of operating modes and scenarios
Probabilistic algorithms and methodology for calculating overall plant availability

parameters. EPRIs UNIRAM computer model can be used for this calculation.
Availability data for individual plant elements such as process blocks, systems, subsystems,
equipment, or components.
1-1
It should be noted that the level of analysis desired; process block, system, subsystem,
equipment, or component must first be established, such that the four analytical elements are
treated as consistently as possible. For IGCC plants, typical analyses are limited to the system
level based primarily on the practicality of utilizing historical reliability and availability data
from the various operating gasification plants. The value associated with using actual historical
gasification availability data at the system level is considered greater than the application of
more generic information (e.g. from the literature) at a more detailed level. Additionally, from a
practical standpoint, availability analysis at the system level reflects the overall average result of
the interaction of the associated plant equipment and components.
1-2
2
GTC AVAILABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES
The objective of the Gasification Technology Councils (GTC) guidelines is to present a
standardized way for reporting the operating statistics of gasification facilities. The statistics are
primarily time-based, however, a single flow-based indicator is also included. An example is
included.
The gasification facility is divided into two units so that the operating statistics can be reported
for each of these critical areas of the facility. The units are defined as follows:
Gasification (including ASU and Acid Gas Removal Unit )
Product Units
Power production block, and / or
Chemical production block
Specific configurations of the units with regard to back-up and multiple trains should be
indicated.
GTC Definitions Measured Statistics
Figure 2-1 shows the measured statistics, both time based and flow based.
100%
Product Not
Required
Planned
Outages
Time
Based
% of Yr.
% of Yr.
% of Yr by Cause
Unplanned
Outages
% of Yr.
On-Stream
% of Yr.
# of Unplanned
Outages
0%
Flow
Based
Yearly
Production
Total Quantity of Product

Delivered in Year
Figure 2-1
GTC Unit Operating Statistics Measured
2-1
Product Not Required represents the percentage of the year that the product from the unit was not
required, and therefore, the unit was not operated. The unit was generally available to run and
not in a planned outage or forced outage.
Planned Outages represent the percentage of the year that the unit is not operated due to outages
which were scheduled at least one month in advance. This includes yearly planned outages as
well as maintenance outages with more than one month notice.
Unplanned Outages represent the percentage of the year the unit was not operated due to forced
outages which had less than one month notice. This includes immediate outages as well as
maintenance outages with less than one month notice.
On-Stream represents the percentage of the year the unit was operating and supplying product in
a quantity useful to the downstream unit or customer.
Yearly Production is defined as the total quantity of product actually delivered from the unit in a
calendar year. For the gasification unit the production is reported on the basis of total clean
synthesis gas.
GTC Definitions Calculated Statistics
Figure 2-2 shows the statistics that are calculated from the measured statistics.
Forced Outage Rate =

Unplanned /
[On-Stream + Unplanned]
Time
Based
Flow
Based
Availability =
On-Stream +
Product Not Required * [ 1 (Forced Outage Rate / 100%)]
Annual Loading Factor =

Yearly Production /
Rated Capacity
Figure 2-2
GTC Unit Operating Statistics Calculated
Forced Outage Rate is defined as the time during which the down-stream unit or customer did
not receive product due to unplanned problems divided by the time during which they expected
product, expressed as a percentage.
2-2
Availability is defined as the sum of the time during which the unit was on-stream plus an
estimate of the time the unit could have run when product was not required, expressed as a
percentage of the year. Assumption is that unit could have operated at the same Forced Outage
Rate when product was not required.
Annual Loading Factor is defined as the yearly production of the unit divided by the rated
capacity, expressed as a percentage.
Rated Capacity is defined as the design quantity that the unit would produce at the design rate
over the calendar year when operated in an integrated manner. It is calculated by multiplying
365 times the average annual daily design rate. Note that the design production rate can change
over time as the plant is de-bottlenecked or re-rated.
GTC Availability Example
The following example illustrates the application of the GTC availability reporting guidelines for
an operating unit that is a gasification train which is designed to make 200 mmscfd of syngas
The measured unit operating statistics for this example are:
Product Not Required = 10% of year
Planned Outages = 8 % of year
Unplanned Outages = 4% of year

Breakdown of the 4% by Cause
Report # of interruptions
On-stream = 78% of year
Yearly production = 55,000 mmscf of syngas
The resulting calculated unit operating statistics are:
Forced Outage Rate = 4% / [ 78% + 4% ] = 4.9%
Availability = 78% + 10% * [1 (4.9% /100% )] = 78% + 9. 5% = 87.5%
Rated Capacity = 365 d * 200 mmscfd = 73,000 mmscf
Annual Loading Factor = 55,000 mmscf / 73,000 mmscf = 75.3%
2-3
3
GASIFICATION OPERATING EXPERIENCE &
AVAILABILITY
Commercial Plants Utilizing Coal and Petcoke
Table 3-1 lists the commercial gasification plants licensed by GE Energy (formerly
ChevronTexaco), Shell, or ConocoPhillips that utilize a solid fuel of either coke or petcoke. The
initial plant started up in 1982. The initial five plants were all used to produce chemicals. The
first plant designed to produce power started up in 1994; a total of five plants have been built that
primarily produce power.
References that included data on availability and unavailability were found for the four plants in
bold italic. By far the most comprehensive data have been reported on the Eastman Chemical
Company plant. The two plants that were part of the DOE Clean Coal Technology program, the
Tampa Electric and Wabash plants, have also reported operating statistics since their plant
startup. Only one reference giving a single number for the reliability and capacity factor was
found for the Demkolec plant.
Measures of Reliability and Availability
Eastman Chemical Company1,2 The Eastman Chemical Companys chemicals from coal
facility began operations in 1983 and was the first use of a Texaco quench gasifier to provide
feed gas for the production of acetyl chemicals.
The syngas production area contains the coal handling/slurry preparation plant, the gasification
plants, the Rectisol gas cleanup plant, the CO/H2 separation plant, and the sulfur recovery plant.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. supply oxygen from an air separation plant adjacent to the
Eastman plant. Oxygen and coal are supplied to either of two 450-cubic-foot Texaco quench
gasifiers. Raw gases produced are split into two process streams. About one-third of the raw gas
is routed to the shift reactor. Each stream is then sent to a Rectisol sulfur recovery unit.
Syngas Production Through a 1991 plant expansion and many improvement projects, the
annual plant capacity has been increased from 18 billion scf in 1991 to 26 billion scf in 2000.
This is a capacity factor of 120 percent (annual production/design production).
Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport Plant Fine Tuning to Improve Availability and Reliability of Coal Based
Gasification 1983-2001, presented at the Gasification Technologies 2001, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 7-10, 2001.
2
Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport Plant Chemicals from Coal operation 1983-2000, presented at the
Gasification Technologies 2000, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 8-11, 2000,
3-1
Table 3-1
SFA Pacific Gasification Database
Commercial Gasification Plants
GE Energy (ChevronTexaco), Shell, ConocoPhillips Licensor
Sorted by Solid Fuel Feed: Coal and Petcoke
No.
Licensor
Gasifier Plant Owner
No. of Gasifiers
Operating/
Spare
Eq. IGCC
Capacity,
MWe
Start
Year
Main
Feed
Main
Product
GE Energy
Ube Ammonia Industry

Co. Ltd.
1/0
15
1982
Petcoke
Chemicals
GE Energy
Eastman Chemical
Company
1/1
119
1983
Coal
Chemicals
GE Energy
Ube Ammonia Industry

Co. Ltd.
3/1
161
1984
Coal
Chemicals
GE Energy
Ruhrchemie
3/0
167
1985
Coal
Chemicals
GE Energy
Lu Nan Chemical Industry

Co.
2/0
39
1993
Coal
Chemicals
Shell
Demkolec (now NUON)
1/0
254
1994
Coal
Power
ConocoPhillips
Global Energy
1/1
322
1995
Coal
Power
GE Energy
Shanghai Pacific
Chemical Corp.
3/0
114
1995
Coal
Chemicals
GE Energy
Shougang Iron & Steel

Co.
1/0
112
1995
Coal
Gaseous
Fuels
10
GE Energy
Tampa Electric
Company
1/0
246
1996
Coal
Power
11
GE Energy
Texaco, El Dorado
1/0
1996
Petcoke
Power
12
GE Energy
Weihe Fertilizer Company
2/1
152
1996
Coal
Chemicals
13
Shell (PRENFLO)
Elcogas SA
1/0
321
1997
Coal
Power
14
GE Energy
Farmlands Industries, Inc.
1/0
160
2000
Petcoke
Chemicals
15
GE Energy
Motiva
2/0
284
2001
Petcoke
Power &
Steam
16
GE Energy
Huainan
2/0
105
2002
Coal
Chemicals
Gasifier On-Stream Time Outages of the gasification syngas complex result in downtime in the
chemicals production areas, and depending on the duration, can drastically affect production in
the majority of the operating divisions at Tennessee Eastman. The primary measure of reliability
is percent on-stream time. Gasifier on-stream-time, the time the gasifier is producing synthesis
gas during a month, is averaged. All outages are contained in the average except for the
scheduled bi-annual complex shutdown and any unplanned power outages. On-stream time has
consistently been above 98 percent. Since January 1999, the on-stream time has been above
99.3 percent. To achieve this high level of reliability, Eastman believes a two-gasifier design is
necessary. Each time a gasifier is taken off-line, it is turned around (i.e., made ready for the
next run) typically within 7 to 14 days. If a problem develops on the operating gasifier that does
3-2
not cause immediate shutdown, the spare gasifier is started and put online without interruption of
the gas supply to the downstream plants.
During their last two-year maintenance cycle (8/999/01) Eastman reported an on-stream factor
of 97.8 percent. The 2.2 percent downtime included 1.2 percent of planned outages, 1.0 percent
of unplanned outages, and 0.0 percent of product not required.
Gasifier Run Length Another important measure of reliability, is how long a gasifier is run
between switching gasifiers or gas flow interruptions. For the complex startup year, 1983,
gasifier run length was 4.7 days. During the late 80s to the late 90s, the average gasifier run
length was between 20 and 25 days. With new reliability efforts, the gasifier run length was
about 33 days in 1999 and in 2000. Through October 2001 the gasifier run length was 43.5 days.
The longest single gasifier run in 2001 was 91 days.
Gasifier Turn-Arounds One of the largest controllable maintenance costs is gasifier turnaround costs: the fewer turn-arounds a year, the lower the years maintenance cost. Therefore,
the time between gasifier turn-arounds is measured and called gasifier life. Gasifier life has
increased from 7.13 days in 1983 to a high of 59 days in 2000.
Top Ten Shutdown Causes Table 3-2 lists the top ten shutdown causes over the years. In past
years the feed injector or burner has been the primary cause for shutdown. However, Eastman
believes it has made a breakthrough in burner design that will extend the life of the burner
beyond that of other system components.
Table 3-2
Top Ten Eastman Shutdown Causes 1983-2000
1
Feed Injector Failure
18.5%
Slurry Feed Pump
15.2%
Planned Switch
10.7%
Low Quench H2O Flow
6.7%
Low Slurry Flow
5.7%
Low Level in Gasifier
4.7%
O2 Leak
4.0%
PSV Failure
2.5%
Dip/Draft Tube
2.0%
10
DCS PLC Failure
2.0%
Eastman, with the best operating record of all Gasification systems has provided us with the
relationships shown in Figure 3-1 for various parameters. Note that a 10 % change in reliability
is equivalent to 20% change in other parameters (except for electricity price).
Also, recall that forced outages are the inverse of reliability, and availability is the inverse of
forced plus planned outages. On this chart Eastman means Availability
3-3
Figure 3-1
How Important is Reliability? (Source: Eastman)
Eastman has set the industry gasification reliability standard with a FOR of only one percent as
shown in Figure 3-2, however this is for syngas production not for electric power generation.
They have a full size spare gasifier and can anticipate forced outages, thus keeping them to a
minimum. The spare takes care of most scheduled outages, resulting in a long term syngas
availability of about 98 percent. Note that it took 3 years to build in the lessons learned, but that
was in the 1986 time frame. Plants constructed today could expect a much faster learning curve.
If we extrapolate this performance to other plants with spare gasifier capacity we can see a much
better availability record for plants with a spare gasifier
Figure 3-2
Historical Forced Outage Rates at Eastman
3-4
Tampa Electric Company3 The Polk Power Station Unit 1 utilizes commercially available
oxygen-blown entrained-flow coal gasification technology licensed by GE Energy (formerly
ChevronTexaco). Part of TECOs cooperative agreement with DOE is a 5-year demonstration
phase.
In the Texaco arrangement, coal is ground with water to the desired concentration in rod mills.
The single gasification train is designed to utilize about 2,200 tons per day of coal (dry basis).
An air separation unit (ASU) separates ambient air into 95 percent pure oxygen for use in the
gasification system and sulfuric acid plant, and nitrogen, which is sent to the advanced
combustion turbine (CT). Air Products provided the ASU.
The acid gas removal system is a conventional MDEA system, which removes over 98 percent of
the sulfur from the syngas. This sulfur is recovered as sulfuric acid. Monsanto provided the
sulfuric acid plant. Sulfuric acid has a ready market in the phosphate industry in the central
Florida area.
The key components of the combined cycle are the advanced CT, HRSG, steam turbine (ST),
and electric generators. General Electric provided the combined cycle power block. The CT is
an advanced GE 7F machine adapted for syngas and distillate fuel firing. The initial startup of
the power plant is carried out on low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil. Transfer to syngas occurs upon
establishment of fuel production from the gasification plant. The exhaust gas from the CT passes
through the HRSG for heat recovery, and leaves the system via the HRSG stack.
Power Production Table 3-3 is an overview of the power production in the five years of
commercial operation. Year 4 was the best year to date, with a 75 percent capacity factor on
syngas.
Table 3-3
Polk Power Station Unit 1 Capacity Factor
Year
Syngas
32.3
63.8
56.8
75.2
66.2
Oil
7.0
6.4
7.9
1.9
5.7
Total
39.3
70.2
64.7
77.1
71.9
Capacity Factor
Availability Table 3-4 gives the availability statistics for the major subsystems of the unit. The
term Reserve Shutdown is equivalent to the category Product Not Required for Eastman and
Wabash. For the gasification plant, this reflects the percentage of time when the gasifier was
intentionally not operated for economic reasons, or when either the power block or the oxygen
plant was unavailable.
Table 3-4
3
POLK POWER STATION IGCC 5th Year of Commercial Operation October 2000-September 2001, presented
at Gasification Technologies 2001, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 7-10, 2001.
3-5
Polk Power Station IGCC Availability Statistics

% of Period Hours, Year 4/Year 5
On-Stream
Reserve
Shutdown
Total
Available
ASU
80.5/73.3
13.4/17.2
93.9/90.5
Gasifier
77.8/71.0
10.9/13.2
88.7/84.2
Power
Syngas
Oil
81.0/81.4
75.8/69.8
5.2/11.6
5.6/12.5
86.6/93.9
Unavailability Table 3-5 shows the unavailability broken down into planned and forced
outages. The gasifiers longer planned outage in year 5 compared to year 4 reflects the gasifer
liner replacement in year 5. The power blocks longer planned outage in year 4 compared to
year 5 reflects the hot gas path inspection in year 4.
Table 3-5
Polk Power Station IGCC Unavailability Statistics
% of Period Hours, Year 4/Year 5
Planned
Outage
Forced
Outage
Total
Unavailable
ASU
1.1/1.1
5.0/8.5
6.1/9.6
Gasifier
5.8/7.7
5.6/8.2
11.4/15.9
Power
4.8/3.1
8.7/3.0
13.5/6.1
Gasifier Run Length The longest single gasifier run in year 5 was 37 days.
Shutdown Causes Leading causes of lost gasifier production included:

Planned outage for refractory replacement and CT combustion inspection
Derime ASU
Radiant cooler outlet line plug
Main Air Compressor 4th stage impeller
Scrubber failures
Gas/water leaks
Formate salts in MDEA
The Polk IGCC was the first large USA plant built and operated by a utility. It produces
approximately 250 MW (net) using a GE Energy (ChevronTexaco) gasifier and a GE 7FA gas
turbine. Figure 3-3 again shows the early plant issue of low availability during the first few
years. The gasifier availability grew to about 75 percent, while the power block moved up to 90
3-6
percent using the backup fuel. The ability of the power block to operate independently has been
very important for these early plants
100
90
Gasifier On-Stream
Combined Cycle Available
93.5
91.3
86.8
85.9
80
76.0
75.3
70
62.5
59.9
Factor
60
50
44.4
40
33.2
30
20
Polk Power Station IGCC
10
Annual Statistics (July through June)

0
1
Operating Year
Figure 3.3
Polk IGCC Power Station Annual Availability Statistics
Figure 3-4 shows how the historical Polk IGCC availability data could be extrapolated to
estimate the availability of future commercial-scale IGCC plants. The first adjustment is for a
single train. The second adjustment is for a nominal 500 MW plant consisting of 2 operating
trains, with a spare gasifier. The final adjustment also incorporates lessons learned from the Polk
IGCC plant and results in an overall IGCC availability of just over 90 percent.
3-7
100
IGCC Percent Availabilit
95
90
85
80
75
70
Polk Historical
Data 1999-2001
Current Plant
Expected 1+0
Current Plant
Expected 2+1
New 2+1
w/Lessons
Learned
Figure 3.4
Texaco-Based IGCC Availability Adjustment
Wabash River Energy Ltd.4 The E-Gas Gasification Process, as applied at Wabash, features
an oxygen-blown, continuous-slagging, two-stage, entrained-flow gasifier that uses natural gas
for startup. Coal or coke is milled with water in a rodmill to form a slurry. The slurry is
combined with oxygen in mixer nozzles and injected into the first stage of the gasifier, which
operates at 2600F and 400 psig. A turnkey 2,060 ton/day low-pressure cryogenic distillation
facility owned and operated by Global Energy supplies 95 percent pure oxygen.
In the first stage, slurry undergoes a partial oxidation reaction at temperatures high enough to
bring the coals ash above its melting point. The fluid ash falls through a taphole at the bottom
of the first stage into a water quench, forming an inert vitreous slag. The syngas then flows to
the second stage, where additional coal slurry is injected. This coal is pyrolyzed in an
endothermic reaction with the hot syngas to enhance syngas heating value and to improve overall
efficiency.
The syngas then flows to the high-temperature heat-recovery unit (HTHRU), essentially a firetube steam generator, to produce high-pressure saturated steam. After the syngas is cooled in the
HTHRU, particulates in the syngas are removed in a hot/dry filter and recycled to the gasifier
where the carbon in the char is converted into syngas. The syngas is further cooled in a series of
heat exchangers, is water scrubbed to remove chloride, and is passed through a catalyst that
hydrolyzes carbonyl sulfide to hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is removed using MDEA4
Wabash River Energy Ltd., 2001 Project Update, Operating Experience at the Wabash River Repowering
Project, presented at the Gasification Technologies 2001, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 7-10, 2001.
3-8
based absorber/stripper columns. The sweet syngas is then moisturized, preheated, and piped
over to the power block.
Availability Table 3-6 gives the availability statistics for the major subsystems of the unit. The
term Reserve Shutdown is equivalent to the category Product Not Required for Eastman and
Wabash. For the gasification plant, this reflects the percentage of time when the gasifier was
intentionally not operated for economic reasons, or when either the power block or the oxygen
plant was unavailable.
Table 3-6
Wabash Gasification Island Availability Statistics
% of Period Hours, Year 2001
On-Stream
Product
Not
Required
Total
Available
37.0
46.0
83.0
Gasifier Island
Unavailability Table 3-7 shows the unavailability broken down into planned and forced
outages.
Table 3-7
Wabash Gasification Island Unavailability Statistics
% of Period Hours, Year 2001
Planned
Outage
Forced
Outage
Total
Unavailable
6.5
10.5
17.0
Gasifier Island
Shutdown Causes Leading causes of lost gasifier production are shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8
2001 Wabash Gasification Island Downtime Causes
Downtime Cause
% of Year
Syngas Cooler Tube Leaks
5.82
AG Cooler Tube Leaks
3.40
Slurry Mixer Replacement
0.40
Slurry Flow Interruption
0.72
False Filter Pressure Indication
0.12
Miscellaneous
0.11
Wabash uses a single train E-Gas gasifier and one GE 7FA gas turbine to repower an existing
steam turbine generator. Figure 3-5 shows the availability record for the last four years with the
correction for lessons learned on ash deposition. Note this is syngas availability, not power
availability and it is for a single train plant but it is one of the better records
3-9
Figure 3.5
Wabash Syngas Availability
Demkolec (now NUON)5 In June 1989, SEP announced plans to build a 250 MW (net) IGCC
power demonstration plant at the existing Buggenum power plant in the city of Haelen, The
Netherlands. Demkolec, a SEP subsidiary, managed the project. In 2001 ownership was
transferred to NUON. The plant relies on a single Shell gasifier that feeds about 2,000 tons/day
(dry basis) bituminous coal.
The design coal is Drayton mine coal from Australia, which contains about 1 percent sulfur and
is an internationally traded steam coal. The feed coal is pulverized and dried before it enters the
gasifier from lock hoppers and dense-phase conveying with nitrogen. The Shell gasifier is an
oxygen-blown, entrained, flow slagging system. The gasifier has a water-wall design and
operates at about 350 psig pressure. The hot raw gas leaving the gasifier is partially cooled from
about 2600F to about 1650F with recycle gas. It is then cooled by generation of about
350,000 lb/hour of saturated high-pressure and medium-pressure steam in a down flow, water
tube design syngas cooler.
After a dry dust filter and final wet scrubbing to remove fly ash, the coal gas is slightly reheated
for catalytic hydrolysis of trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide and carbonyl sulfide to ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide, respectively. The Shell Oil Sulfinol-M process removes sulfur (mostly as
H2S) from the coal gas. A Claus process then converts the H2S to byproduct liquid elemental
sulfur. A Shell Oil SCOT system processes the Claus tail gas for higher sulfur recovery
efficiency.
Overview of Shell Gasification Projects, presented at the Gasification Technologies 2001, San Francisco, CA,
Oct. 7-10, 2001.
3-10
The plant reheats the coal gas and saturates it with water vapor before burning it in a
Siemens/KWU V94.2 turbine. This turbine has a power output of 155 MW. The HRSG
generates superheated and reheated steam. It also adds the required superheat and reheat to the
steam generated by the gasifier water wall and the syngas cooler. The steam turbine power
output is 128 MW for a gross combined cycle total of 283 MW. The internal power
requirements of 30 MW reduce the net power generation to 253 MW.
Capacity and Unavailability At the 2001 Gasification Technology Conference, P.L. Zuideveld
gave an overview of Shell gasification projects. For the Demkolec plant he reported the
following capacity and reliability statistics for the previous year:
Capacity: about 60 percent.
Planned outages: 8 percent.
Unplanned outages: 7 percent.
Operating Experience and Availability Summary

Table 3-9 summarizes the data on availability and unavailability for the four plants that reported
data. Only the Eastman plant with a spare gasifier maintained in standby condition for a rapid
turnaround was able to achieve a syngas availability well in excess of 90 percent. The syngas
availability for the other three plants ranged from 82 to 85 percent. In order to reach syngas
availability goals in excess of 90 percent, a spare gasification train will be required.
Table 3-9
Summary of Availability and Unavailability Data
Plant
Number of Gasifiers
Operating/spare
Period
Capacity Factor, %
Syngas
Oil
Gasifier On-Stream Time, %
Product Not Required, %
Total Gasifier Availability, %
Gasifier Planned Outage, %
Gasifier Forced Outage, %
Longest Gasifier Run, days
Average Gasifier Run, days
Eastman
1/1
(Fast turnaround)
Maintenance cycle
(8/99-9/01)
117.4
97.8
0.0
97.8
1.2
1.0
91
44
Tampa
Wabash
1/1
(Slow turnaround)
Demkolec
Year 2001
(Year 5)
Year 2001
Year 2001
66.2
5.7
36.4
About 60%
37.0
46.0
83.0
6.5
10.5
85.0
8.0
7.0
1/0
71.0
13.2
84.2
7.7
8.2
37
3-11
1/0
4
IGCC AVAILABILITY METHODOLOGY
The methodology for calculating overall plant availability parameters is outlined in EPRI AP4216, Availability Analysis of an Integrated Gasification-Combined Cycle. This work was
performed by ARINC Research Corporation and utilized EPRIs UNIRAM computer model to
represent the relationships between the plant sections and to yield overall estimates of plant
availability. The first step in the process consists of developing Availability Block Flow
Diagrams (ABFDs) for the plant, based on the BFDs developed during the front-end process
design work. These BFDs are typically enhanced to clearly indicate redundant trains of process
blocks, and their respective capacity as a percent of total plant capacity. These ABFDs served
essentially as the road map for analysis of each plant configuration, including the impact of
series and parallel process blocks. A very simplified ABFD, consisting of four major systems, is
shown in Figure 4-1.
Gasifier
ASU
Gasifier
ASU
Gasifier
99.1%
95.0%
Gas Treat
& BOP
CC
Gas Treat
& BOP
CC
98.3%
98.0%
Subsystem Reliability Assumptions

(i.e., no scheduled outages included)
Figure 4-1
Simplified Availability Block Flow Diagram
Forced Outage Rates

After completing the ABFDs, forced outage rates must be determined for each major component
or system. Reliability is defined as one minus the forced outage rate. Figure 4-1 illustrates
reliability assumptions for each system. Sources of forced outage rates for gasification plants
include data from the operating gasification plants, such as Eastman Chemical (GE Energy),
Tampa Electric (GE Energy), Wabash River (E-Gas), and NUON, formerly Demkolec (Shell).
These reliability statistics are frequently reported at the Annual GTC Gasification Conference
(www.gasification.org). Other sources include DOE Reports such as the final report of the EGas optimization study performed by Global Energy, Nexant and Bechtel. The report is titled
4-1
Gasification Plant Performance and Cost Optimization, May 2002. It includes availability
analysis and projected improvements and can be downloaded at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/projects/systems/docs/40342R01.PDF
For most IGCC analyses, the basic element is typically a plant system. Wabash system
availability data has been reported publicly (in annual DOE reports and/or at GTC meetings)
since completing the first year of plant operation in 1996 and is used as an example in this
methodology section. The Wabash data, reported in terms of forced outage hours (by system),
has been re-formatted by calculating the mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean down
time (MDT), in accordance with EPRI UNIRAM methodology. This re-formatting allows
calculation of annual availability in terms that could be directly applied to this analysis. The
associated formulae are shown below:
Raw Data Manipulation
Availability = MTBF/(MTBF + MDT)
MTBF = (1/Lambda )*8760, hr
Lambda = # events/yr
MDT = (F.O.H.)/# events, hr
Wabash actual system availability for the period 3/1/98 2/28/99, after recalculation per the
above, is shown in Table 4-1. By combining the data for the various systems into their
associated process blocks, a series of single train reliabilities was established for each. These
train reliability values are the fundamental basis for performing the overall plant availability
calculation using the UNIRAM computer model. Table 4-1 lists these single train Reliabilities.
For the calculation of availability for future E-Gas based IGCC projects, the representative
reliability data from the Wabash process units can be used except for two areas: the air
separation unit and the gasifier. The Wabash ASU has not operated with the reliability of most
industry units (this is discussed in detail in the Wabash Final Report) and an industry standard
reliability of 99% is used in the projection for future plants.
The E-Gas gasifier reliability is projected to be 95% in future applications, slightly above the
93.5% of year 2000 operation. This reflects the continuing progress being made in gasifier
control and in extending slurry mixer longevity. The 95% value is the reliability of an operating
train.
Table 4-1
4-2
Single Train Reliability Data
Calculation method
Wabash Final Report

3/1/98 - 2/28/99
Plant (EPRI)
Calendar Year
2000
Plant
New Plant
Per Train
Per Process Unit
EPRI
Process Area
Air Separation Unit
Slurry Preparation
Gasification Train
Slag Handling
AGR / Low Temp HR
Sulfur Recovery Unit
Cooling Tower
95.92 ( 96.48 )
99.54 ( 99.59 )
81.79 ( 85.55 )
99.15 ( 99.25 )
99.77 ( 99.56 )
99.94 ( 99.94 )
100.0 ( 100.0 )
93.30
100.00
93.46
97.40
98.10
99.90
100.00
99.01
99.59
95.00
99.25
99.56
99.94
100.00
Scheduled Outage Planning

Development of a planned maintenance schedule is an essential part of the overall IGCC
availability analysis. This requires establishing the planned outage duration and frequency for
each major system. Typically, a five or ten year maintenance program must be defined in order
to account for the longer maintenance items that may only occur every 3rd or 5th year, such as
combustion turbine hot gas path inspections or major overhauls. Areas of overlapping
maintenance (i.e., masking) need to be identified. For example, the combined cycle maintenance
can be performed during the gasifier scheduled outages. The operating philosophy for spare
trains needs to be identified in order to optimize the rotating maintenance outages. Availability
of backup fuels such as natural gas or distillate may eliminate the need for a spare gasifier.
Figure 4-2 shows a simplified, 2-year example of a maintenance schedule for a nominal 500
MW IGCC plant with a spare gasifier.
4-3
Year 1
1
Year 2
3
10
11
12
10
Gasification Trains
Unit #1
Unit #2
Unit #3
ASU/Downstream Trains
Unit #1
Unit #2
GT/Combined Cycle
Unit #1
Unit #2
Plant Capacity
Key:
Unit Start-up
Three Day Outage
50% Plant Capacity
One Week Outage
100% Plant Capacity
Two Week Outage

Three Week Outage
Unit Online
Unit Available
Figure 4.2
Maintenance Schedule Example (3x50% Train IGCC Plant)
Table 4-2 shows typical scheduled outage durations for a single train E-Gas based IGCC plant.
Table 4-2
Scheduled Outages for Single Train E-Gas Gasification Unit
Process Area
Air Separation Unit

Slurry Preparation
Gasification Train
Slag Handling
AGR / Low Temp HR
Sulfur Recovery Unit
Cooling Tower
Days S.O. per year
3
5
42
2
3
3
0.5
ONSTREAM
per Process Unit
per Train
F.O. & S.O.
98.20%
98.23%
84.07%
98.71%
98.74%
99.12%
99.86%
The table reflects the scheduled outages needed annually for the gasification and air separation
unit facilities. The primary outages are two 21 day outages for the gasification area. During this
period, char filters are replaced, syngas cooler tubes are cleaned and refractory repairs are made
in the first stage of the gasifier if necessary. These two outages could be taken in the fall and
spring for a summer and winter peaking utility.
4-4
At the Wabash facility, which has two parallel gasifiers, one gasifier is used until its refractory is
expended (about every third year) and a swap is made to the other gasifier. In future E-Gas units,
a staged replacement of gasifier refractory is planned and portions of the first stage refractory
will be replaced at each of the spring and fall outages. This extends the outage time to 21 days
each (compared to a target of 16 days at Wabash), but avoids a lengthy shutdown or the need for
a spare reactor vessel in each train.
The primary value of having a spare gasifier is to allow for planned outages (refractory changeouts) without interrupting syngas availability to the power block. Having a spare gasifier is
expected to have a limited beneficial impact on reducing forced outages since many of these are
typically caused by problems with auxiliary systems (ASU, slurry feed pumps, controls) that are
outside the scope of a spare gasifier.
At the Polk IGCC plant, planned outages for refractory replacement are typically 30 days in
duration, which includes cool-down and preheat. In planning these gasifier outages, the owner
also needs to consider the maintenance requirements of the power block. While the power block
can run without the gasifier in service if a back-up fuel is available, the gasifier is of no value
without an operating gas turbine to consume the syngas. The gas turbine requires a 10 day
combustion inspection (CI) outage for every 8,000 operating hours. After 24,000 hours of
operation, a 14 day hot gas path (HGP) inspection is required and after 48,000 hours, a 30 day
major inspection (MI) is needed. The Polk IGCC operators always schedule gasifier
maintenance to coincide with maintenance on the power block.
With this outage management process, there is essentially a minimum of 10 days of "free" outage
time available to perform gasifier maintenance every year (8,000 hours). To say it another way,
planned annual gasifier maintenance has to exceed 10 days duration (during a CI year) to cause
an incremental impact on syngas availability. In the year of a major inspection, there is a 30 day
outage window, which also happens to be the time needed to replace the gasifier refractory.
By properly planning gasifier maintenance periods to coincide with power block maintenance,
the owner can dramatically reduce the impact of the gasifier downtime. This careful
maintenance planning also reduces the economic benefit of having a spare gasifier.
4-5
4-6
5
IGCC AVAILABILITY OPTIONS & CASE STUDIES
Peak Season Availability Analysis
ConocoPhillips is promoting the concept of Peak Season Syngas Availability as a strategic
alternative to installing a spare gasifier. Peak Season Syngas Availability is defined as the
gasification facility availability when the scheduled outages are not considered. Routine
maintenance outages are typically scheduled during the fall and spring. No routine maintenance
outages are planned during the winter and summer peak demand seasons. Availability is then
calculated for two separate periods. The average annual availability can then be calculated based
on the weighted average availability of the two periods.
For a single train unit, availability is thus calculated for two periods: 6 weeks per year (42 days
for the two 21 day outages) when the unit does not operate, and 46 weeks of operation with no
scheduled outages, only forced outages. The EPRI availability calculations indicate the
following:
Availability Single Train Gasification Facility
Phase State 1 ( no scheduled outage 46 weeks)
92.97%
Phase State 2 ( scheduled outage- 2 X 3 weeks)
0%
Overall Annual Syngas Availability
82.84%
This is syngas availability to the combustion turbine and does not include the availability of the
combined cycle plant itself. Assuming a 98% combined cycle availability (where the combined
cycle schedule outages are masked by those of the gasification plant), this would produce an
overall Power Availability of 81.1% as shown in Figure 5-1.
5-1
Figure 5.1
Availability Analysis for Single Train IGCC Plant
Similarly, for a two train plant (two gasifier trains lined up with two combustion turbines, but
cross connected), the availability can be calculated for two separate periods: 40 weeks when
neither unit is in scheduled outage and 12 weeks (6 in the spring and 6 in the fall) when one
gasifier or the other is having its three week planned outage. During a portion of each of these
outages (3 days each for outages on the two trains, nominally one week total) there will also be
an annual outage on the Acid Gas Removal and Sulfur Recovery Process Units. This yields the
following result:
Availability 2 x 50% Gasification Trains for 2 x 7FA GTs
93.08%
Phase State 2 ( scheduled gasifier outage

4 x 3 weeks less 2 x 1/2 week )
46.95%
Phase State 3 ( scheduled AGR/SRU outage- 2 x week) 46.48 %

82.43 %
The resulting overall annual power availability is 80.8%, assuming at 98% combined cycle
availability, as shown in Figure 5-2.
5-2
Figure 5.2
Availability Analysis for a 2x50% Train IGCC Plant
Availability improves dramatically when a third gasification train (slurry pumps through the
gasifier and syngas cooler to particulate removal) is added to provide 3 x50% gasification trains
for the 2 x 50% combustion turbine trains.
98.56 %

4 x 3 weeks less 2 x 1/2 week = 11 weeks )
92.60 %

96.36 %
In this case Figure 5-3 shows that the resulting overall annual power availability is 91.5%. Note
that only 95% availability is used for the combined cycle plant in this case, since the combined
cycle scheduled outage is not masked by the gasification facility scheduled outages, since a spare
gasification train is available for operation during the spring and fall maintenance work.
5-3
Figure 5.3
Availability Analysis for a 3x50% Train IGCC Plant
The same methodology can be utilized to calculate availability for larger plants, as in the analysis
below of two plants with three gas turbine trains. For the gasification trains aligned with the
combustion turbines, 3 x 33 % and 4 x33% are compared.
93.05 %

2 x 3 x 3 weeks less 2 x 1/2 week = 17 weeks )
62.99 %

82.06 %
In this case the overall annual power availability is estimated to be 80.5%, based on 98%
availability for the combined cycle.
97.19 %

2 x 3 x 3 weeks less 2 x 1/2 week = 17 weeks )
92.38 %

94.38 %
5-4
For the 4x33% configuration, the overall annual power availability increases to 89.7% with an
assumed combined cycle availability of 95%.
Individual plant economics will determine whether the incremental capital cost for the extra
gasification train is worthwhile to improve syngas overall availability. In the 2x50% versus
3x50% case, for example, syngas availability improves from 82.4% to 96.4 % by improving the
availability during the scheduled outages from 46% to 93%. In many regions, the spring and fall
are periods of low demand and very inexpensive electricity is available, making them ideal for
these planned outages. An utility and site-specific economic analysis should consider time of
year electrical pricing to determine the true advantage of the spare gasification trains.
Table 5-1 summarizes the peak season and overall annual power availability results for the five
cases discussed that were evaluated.
Table 5-1
Peak Season Availability Analysis Summary
Plant
Peak Season
Peak Season
Overall Annual
Overall Annual
Configuration
Syngas
Power
Syngas
Power
(# of gasifier
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
1 x 100%
93.0 %
91.1 %
82.8%
81.1 %
2 x 50%
93.1 %
91.2 %
82.4 %
80.8 %
3 x 50%
98.6 %
96.6 %
96.4%
91.5 %
3 x 33%
93.1 %
91.2 %
82.1 %
80.5 %
4 x 33%
97.2 %
95.3 %
94.4 %
89.7 %
trains)
Spare Gasifier versus Backup Fuel

There is a strong perception that IGCC plants are unreliable. This perception has developed over
time, and for a variety of reasons, but it is simply not valid when considering that the end product
of an IGCC plant is power, not syngas. At the Polk plant, syngas availability is around 80% or a
little higher. Polk's overall availability will be more like 95% this year, given the fact that the
power block can run on either syngas or distillate oil.
Many of the IGCC units being considered today are being proposed as "rate base" units for
regulated utilities. From a regulatory perspective, IGCC should have a reliability advantage over
other coal based technologies. For the majority of the time, an IGCC unit operates on syngas
with low cost feedstocks and low emissions. If syngas is unavailable, the power block can
5-5
continue to operate on backup fuel, and supply power to customers in an extremely reliable
manner.
There are advantages to increasing syngas availability to the power block, but the advantages are
based on differential fuel cost between syngas and the backup fuel, not on the basis that the
reliability of power generation will be increased.
Eastmans experience with sparing their gasifier shows that scheduled outages are significantly
reduced. In addition, many forced outages can be reduced or eliminated by anticipating
problems and switching to the spare gasifier. Costs for a spare gasifier can vary from $35
million to $80 million out of a total plant cost of nearly $800 million for a 500 MW plant. With
a spare gasifier, coal to electric power availability can move from 80+% to 92 %. A backup fuel
can increase overall electric power availability to around 94%. However, the higher cost of
natural gas or distillate may result in lower dispatch rates. Natural gas pipeline costs and
demand charges may be prohibitive since a very large volume of gas is required, but only for
short, intermittent time periods.
EPRIs UNIRAM computer model was used to assess the availability improvement that could be
realized by adding a spare gasifier. The UNIRAM model was based the four basic subsystems
on the simplified availability block flow diagram for a two-train (~500 MW) IGCC plant shown
earlier in Figure 4-1. In this example, the scheduled outage time was reduced from about 34
days to only 11 days by incorporating a spare gasifier. As a result the equivalent availability of
the IGCC power plant increased from 83.4 to 92.3%, as shown in Figure 5-4.
Ultimately, the choice of installing a spare gasifier or utilizing a backup fuel is a utility-specific
and site-specific decision.
100.0
With Spare Gasifier
No Spare Gasifier
Equivalent Availability, %
95.0
92.3
90.0
85.0
83.4
80.0
75.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Scheduled Outage, Days/Year
5-6
35
40
45
50
Figure 5.4
Availability Improvement with a Spare Gasifier
Storage of Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Nitrogen

Forced outage rates for air separation plants are typically around 1.0%. The forced outage rate at
the Wabash IGCC air separation plant has been running slightly higher at about 1.7%. Over half
of the air separation unit trips are usually corrected in less than 8 hours. Incorporating liquid
oxygen (LOX) and liquid nitrogen (LIN) storage can reduce the forced outage rate by about
0.5%. The additional capital cost for the LOX and LIN storage, and the required vaporizing
facilities, is about $2 million.
EPRI Availability Analysis Cases Studies
EPRIs UNIRAM computer model was used to assess the sensitivity of overall IGCC equivalent
availability to changes in gasifier forced outage rates. The availability block diagram for these
sensitivity cases was shown earlier in Figure 4-1. The IGCC plant is a two-train configuration,
and was evaluated with and without a spare gasifier. The subsystem reliability assumptions are
based on the use of the E-Gas gasifier with forced outage rates of 5 and 10 percent. For the cases
with a spare gasifier, the minimum scheduled outage time was assumed to be 263 hours, or a 3
percent scheduled outage rate. The results are summarized in Table 5-2. Decreasing the gasifier
FOR from 10 to 5 percent results in a 4.1 percentage point improvement in IGCC equivalent
availability for the case without a spare gasifier. However, if a spare gasifier is included, the
improvement is only about 1.0 percentage point. This again illustrates that the major benefit of
adding a spare gasifier is the reduction in scheduled outage time. The UNIRAM output reports
for the cases included in Table 5-2 are included in the Appendix to this report.
Table 5-2
Sensitivity to Gasifier Forced Outage Rates
Inputs
Case Description
Low Gasifier FOR
High Gasifier FOR
EGAS2+0
EGAS2+1
EGAS2+0
EGAS2+1
1008
263
1008
263
ASU
99.1%
99.1%
99.1%
99.1%
Gasifier
95.0%
95.0%
90.0%
90.0%
Gas Treating & BOP
98.3%
98.3%
98.3%
98.3%
Combined Cycle
98.0%
98.0%
98.0%
98.0%
UNIRAM Equivalent Availability
80.50%
92.34%
76.43%
91.38%
Planned Outage Hours

Subsystem Reliability Assumptions
5-7
Table 5-3
Availability Comparison Example
CVX
E-Gas
Shell
1008
336
masked
1344
1008
included
masked
1008
570
included
masked
570
Gasifier FO Hours/Yr
SO + FO Hours
550
1894
532
1540
570
1140
Syngas Availability %
78.4
82.4
87
76.0
79.9
84.4
232
included
included
232
0
included
84
84
0
included
84
84
275
507
266
350
285
369
Syngas Availability %
94.2
96
95.8
Coal to Power Availability %
90.4
91.2
91
W /O Spare 2 x 50%
Gasifier SO Hours / Yr
Gasifier SO Refractory Hours / yr
Downstream SO Hours /yr
Total SO Hours
Coal to Power Availability %

W ith Spare 3 x 50%
Gasifier SO Hours / yr
Gasifier SO Refractory Hours / yr
Downstream SO Hours / yr
Total SO Hours
Gasifier FO Hours/year
SO + FO Hours
An example comparing the availability for the three major gasification processes, with and
without a spare gasifier, is included in Table 5-3. This data was taken from an earlier EPRI
utility-specific study and is included here as an example of the availability methodology. The
specific data and assumptions used in the table may not be valid today. The methodology
assumes that the spare gasifier saves all of the gasifier scheduled outage time and half of the
gasifier forced outage time.
Table 5-4 summarizes the availability analysis results from another EPRI utility-specific study.
The IGCC plants with refractory-lined gasifiers, CVX and E-Gas, include a spare gasifier due to
their higher scheduled outage rates. The base case shown in the table for the Shell gasification
process does not include a spare gasifier. The cost of a spare Shell gasifier is significantly higher
than the cost of a spare gasifier for the other processes. However, the Shell process requires less
scheduled outage time since it has no refractory lining. If the Shell case had included a spare
gasifier the availability for the new plant would increase to 91.5%, while the availability for the
current plant would increase to 87.3%.
Table 5-4
Overall IGCC Availability Analysis Results
5-8
5-9
5-10
6
COMMERCIAL DESIGN OF NEW IGCC PLANTS
Gasifier Sparing and High Availability Design
The next generation of coal IGCC plants will almost certainly be multi-train plants that should
provide the economies of scale to compete with 500-1000 MW PC plants. These plants will most
likely also have a spare gasifier to ensure a plant availability on syngas > 85%. IGCC Plants
based on petroleum residuals adjacent to refineries are also likely to be multi-train with spare
gasifier capacity to ensure that the steam and hydrogen supply availability is > 95%. The
availability and cost of auxiliary fuels such as natural gas or distillate can also affect the
approach taken with regard to sparing of gasification capability.
The current IGCC plant designs are mostly for plants in the 500-800 MW size range. For
refractory lined gasifiers such as Texaco and E-Gas the replacement of refractory is needed every
2-3 years. For IGCC plants based on these technologies a spare gasifier is recommended to
achieve a target availability >90%. The Shell gasifier does not have this same refractory
replacement period and generally has a higher availability. With the high cost of the Shell
gasification island (GI) a spare gasifier would be difficult to justifiable however this does result
in a slightly lower calculated availability for the Shell IGCC design versus Texaco and E-Gas
with a spare gasification train.
The scheduled outages for the Texaco and E-Gas gasifiers are 34-42 days/year (5-6 weeks)
without a spare gasifier but only 11-12 days/year (1.5 2 weeks) with a spare. Figure 5-4
showed the effect of scheduled outages duration in days/year on equivalent availability. The
equivalent availability is typically 81-83% for Texaco and E-Gas (somewhat higher for Shell)
without a spare gasifier based on data from the operating IGCC plants when adjusted for lessons
learned and which is improved to ~91-93% with a spare gasifier.
Additional Features for New IGCC Plant Designs
Some other probable features for new IGCC plant designs are:
The ASU will probably be designed to take no more than 50% of its air supply as extraction
from the gas turbine compressor. Full integration would adversely affect availability due to
the extended star-up time, but obtaining some of the air by extraction from the gas turbine
compressor reduces the auxiliary power demand.
The ASUs will probably be of higher pressure (HP) design (14 barg or 200 psig) since
nitrogen is usually the favored diluent for gas turbine NOx control. The availability of
nitrogen at ~5 barg from the HP plant reduces the auxiliary power requirement for the
nitrogen compressor.
Most of the IGCC plants currently being designed are with the use of F type gas turbines
with firing temperatures of ~1260C (2300F). The G and H gas turbines will offer
additional improvements in plant efficiency and reduced capital cost. However, these
6-1
turbines are only now entering the market place in natural gas service and it will probably be
a few more years before they will be considered for the IGCC application.
The GE 7 FA turbines used for most of the recent studies have a gas turbine power output of
197 MW. This power output may be increased in the next few years through introduction of a
rotor with increased torque capability. To date the 7 FB has only been sold for the natural gas
application however GE may chose to adapt it and offer it for the IGCC syngas application.
If successful this would increase the output and efficiency.
The current designs generally reflect conservative estimates from GE of gas turbine
performance on syngas or hydrogen. With the increased mass flow in the IGCC application
due to the use of diluents (nitrogen and moisture) for NOx control and because of (in some
cases) higher moisture content flue gases GE believes that heat transfer to the turbine blades
will be greater. In order to maintain blade temperatures similar to those in NGCC service
(where GE offers Long Term Service Agreements (LTSAs)) they have reduced the firing
temperature. This adversely affects both gas turbine and steam turbine performance so that
the heat rates are typically ~400 Btu/kWh higher than those reported in prior year reports.
Many of the previously reported heat rate estimates were based on models that allowed firing
temperatures with syngas about the same as for natural gas (i.e. 1288C or 2350F)
IGCC heat rate estimates for the three gasification technologies with syngas heat recovery
are in the range of 8300-8700 Btu/kWh with Shell being slightly better, but this heat rate
edge does not usually translate to a bottom line COE advantage. However, the current draft
of the proposed US Energy Bill contains tax incentives for IGCC plants that can meet certain
heat rates. These would obviously favor the higher efficiency IGCC designs and may well
change the preferred technology selection. In response to this potential tax incentive Texaco
is now reconsidering its IGCC designs with radiant and convective syngas coolers.
Inclusion of a carbon bed (or other sorbent) for removal of Mercury and other trace elements
from the syngas. This would most likely be at the lower temperature of 40C or less just
before to the AGR system. A paper presented by Parsons at the 2002 Gasification
Technologies Conference estimated that the additional costs of mercury removal were capital
costs of 3-4 $/kW and an additional COE of 0.25$/MWh.
There is considerable uncertainty about future environmental regulation and the standards
that will have to be met. It is assumed that for all coal plants Mercury will have to be >90%
removed.
However, there is also some continued uncertainty as to what future NOx standards will be for
IGCC. Emissions of <25 ppmv at 15% oxygen in IGCC gas turbine stacks has been amply
demonstrated however in several US locations natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants are
required to have <2 ppmv. Additional work on gas turbine combustors for the syngas application
will probably reduce the emissions further and GE plans to achieve 9 ppmv at Motiva. TEC has
also achieved <15 ppmv by adding a saturator that adds ~7% moisture to the syngas in addition
to the nitrogen dilution already practiced. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is used in NGCC
plants however there is concern that unless the flue gas is completely sulfur free that ammonium
sulfate and bisulfate formed from ammonia slip and trace SOx will foul and corrode the HRSG
finned exchanger surfaces and cause significant outages. GE has suggested that, if SCR is used,
the SOx should be <2pppmv in the flue gas (which is typically equivalent to < 15 ppmv in the
clean syngas). This level of sulfur removal can be achieved with high-pressure gasifiers that can
use the physical AGR solvents (e.g. Selexol) or with dry coal fed gasifiers (e.g. Shell) that
produce a syngas with low CO2 content so that bulk acid gas removal can be used. It also appears
6-2
that for some gasification technologies (e.g. E-Gas if limited to31 barg (450 psig) pressure)
considerable increase in capital cost and reduction in net efficiency would occur if <2ppmv of
NOx was to become a mandatory requirement and deep sulfur removal was therefore required.
One alternative to deep sulfur removal might be to run the SCR sub-stoichiometrically so that
there is little or no ammonia slip or chance for ammonium bisulfate formation. GE is strongly
making the case that such a stringent NOx emission requirement of <2ppmv is not cost effective
in the larger scheme of things.
IGCC Design for CO2 Capture
The possibility of future CO2 removal requirement is also a major unknown. If this is evaluated
as a major concern it will affect many aspects of technology selection and IGCC design. The
removal of CO2 in an IGCC plant is accomplished by conducting (adding) the shift reaction (CO
+ H2O = CO2 + H2) on the syngas followed by CO2 removal from the syngas and its compression
for use or disposal via pipeline. Design issues relevant to a possible additional phase when CO2
removal for use or disposal and/or hydrogen production is contemplated include the following:
Combustion Turbine selection

Combustion Turbine combustor design
Degree of Integration of Air Separation Unit with Combustion Turbine
NOx emissions control
HRSG design and adaptability for integration with gasification
Gasifier type, pressure and sparing
Gasifier heat recovery (e.g.Quench versus full heat recovery)
Gas treating for sulfur and CO2 removal
Plant plot size and layout provisions for future equipment additions for the Shift and CO2
removal and compression units
Coal delivery and handling, logistics and infrastructure
Effect of pre-investment on performance
Since the shift reaction does incur some irreversible thermodynamic losses and reduction in fuel
gas heating value additional gasification and ASU capacity is needed to produce enough fuel gas
(now essentially mainly hydrogen) to fully load the gas turbine. One of the issues is therefore
how and when should this extra capacity be built? Initially or later? It also appears that higherpressure gasification results in lower additional costs for CO2 removal. However, such designs
may not be economically optimal if CO2 removal is not required. There are many such subtleties
and potential policy changes that need to be examined as the designs of the next generation of
IGCC plants are undertaken.
The phased construction of IGCC with later addition for CO2 capture has been studied under
contracts with Parsons and Jacobs Consultancy. Each of the studies evaluates the effect on a
standard IGCC design of later adding capture but also evaluates different approaches to degrees
of pre-investment on the ultimate cost, performance and COE. These results will be finalized
later this year and will enable various scenarios of projected incentive or regulatory timing for
6-3
capture to be evaluated e.g. a net present value of different pre-investment options can be
calculated under different scenario assumptions.
The IGCC studies with CO2 capture show a distinct advantage for the Texaco Quench system
with much lower added costs than for E-Gas and Shell. At current US coal costs the lower capital
Texaco Quench design often has the lowest COE with E-Gas very close. If CO2 capture was
required then Texaco quench would be preferred. However Texaco quench has a high heat rate
of 9200-9300 Btu/kWh (unless Jacobs claims are substantiated) and if the Energy Bill were
passed with the currently drafted heat rate hurdles then it would not qualify for the substantial tax
credits. Accordingly, Texaco is now putting forward designs with SGC heat recovery (R and
R+C) that should be able to meet some of the heat rate hurdles.
It is ironical that with better heat rates E-Gas and Shell stand a good chance of qualifying for the
proposed credits but are technologies that would have to incur much greater added costs for CO2
removal. It will be interesting to see what pressure Texaco proposes for the plants with SGC heat
recovery (R and R+C). The thrust of the proposed credits in the Energy Bill ignores the possible
issue of CO2 capture yet elsewhere the DOE (e.g. in its briefing for the second CCPI solicitation)
asked that any proposed IGCC projects be CO2 Capture ready designs. These are challenging
times for gasification technology selection in the face of so many uncertainties.
6-4
7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following sources have provided background material for this report;
Papers from the following EPRI and Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) sponsored annual
Conferences on Gasification Technology that are held each October in San Francisco, CA. The
papers from the 2002 through 2004 Conferences can be downloaded from the GTC website
www.gasification.org. A CD of papers from earlier Conferences can also be ordered from the
same website.
1998 Gasification Technologies Conference. October 4-7, 1998

2002 Gasification Technologies conference. October 27-30, 2002
2003 Gasification Technologies Conference October 12-15, 2003
2004 Gasification Technologies Conference October 3-6, 2004 (Washington, DC)
Papers from the 2002 5th European Gasification Conference in Noordwijk, The Netherlands and
the 6th European Gasification Conference in Brighton, UK can be obtained from the Icheme
website www.icheme.org/literature/conferences/gasi/index.htm
The US DOE website www.fetc.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification contains a variety of
information on their programs
US DOE Clean Coal Technology Topical Reports
Number 6 The Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project October
1996
Number 19 The Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project An
Update July 2000
Number 7 "The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project November 1996
Number20 "The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project An Update
September 2000.
Number 8 "The Pion Pine Power Project December 1996
7-1
Other references included:

1. Gasification Plant Performance and Cost Optimization, May 2002, (23 MB). The final
report of Task 1 of this comprehensive ($2.4 million) study performed by Global Energy,
Nexant and Bechtel under subcontract to the DOE to identify cost savings in the next generation
of integrated gasification and coproduction facilities utilizing the E-Gas Technology. Detailed
cost estimating by Bechtel.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/projects/systems/docs/40342R01.PDF
2. Availability Analysis of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
June 1997, AP-5276.
3. Gasification Technology Status September 2004, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1009769.
7-2
8
APPENDIX
UNIRAM CASE STUDY OUTPUT REPORTS
8-1
IGCC - E-Gas-Low FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/o SPARE GASIFIER)

>>> PLANNED OUTAGE HOURS
=
>>> RESERVE SHUTDOWN HOURS =
>>> SIZE
=
>>> COST
=
>>> PERIOD HOURS
=
--------------------------BASIC SUBSYSTEM INFORMATION
---------------------------
ID#
--1
2
3
4
1008.00
.00
500.00
1.00
8760.00
HRS
HRS
MW
$/MW-HR
HRS
NUMBER OF BASIC SUBSYSTEMS =
THROUGHPUT
NUMBER
GATE
NAME
CAPACITY
OF GATES NUMBER
---------- -------------- -------- -----OXYGEN PLA
50.0
0
GASIFICATI
50.0
0
GAS TREAT
50.0
0
COMBINED C
50.0
0
--------------------COMPONENT INFORMATION
--------------------- - - - - - - - - SUBSYSTEM ID#/NAME
- - - - - - - - - COMPONENT ID#/NAME
---------------------------
GATE
TYPE
----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPONENTS =
GATE
ABOVE
-----
1 OXYGEN PLA
1 oxygen plant
2 GASIFICATI
2 gasification
3 GAS TREAT
3 gas treat BOP
4 COMBINED C
4 combined cycle
MTBF (HOURS)
-----------------------
MDT (HOURS)
--------------
110.1
1.0
19.0
1.0
57.8
1.0
49.0
1.0
---------------------------NESTED SUBSYSTEM INFORMATION

NUMBER OF NESTED SUBSYSTEMS =
5
---------------------------ID# NAME
STRUCTURE
CODE
--- ---------- ------------- ----
5 Nest1- 5
PARALLEL-IDENT
6 Nest2- 6
PARALLEL-IDENT
7 Nest3- 7
PARALLEL-IDENT
8 Nest4- 8
PARALLEL-IDENT
9 Nest5- 9
SERIAL
SUBSYSTEMS DIRECTLY CONTAINED

----------------------------ID# NAME
STRUCTURE CODE QUANTITY
--- ---------- --------- ---- --------
1 OXYGEN PLA BASIC
2 GASIFICATI BASIC
3 GAS TREAT
BASIC
4 COMBINED C BASIC
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Nest1Nest2Nest3Nest4-
8-2
5
6
7
8
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
********************************************
****************** RUN 1 ******************
********************************************
BASELINE RUN
-------------------------------------------------------FAULT TREE EVALUATION
MEAN TIME
MEAN
BETWEEN
SUBSYSTEM
DOWNTIME
FAILURES
AVAILABILITY
(HOURS)
(HOURS)
-------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
OXYGEN PLA
GASIFICATI
GAS TREAT
COMBINED C
1.00
110.11
.9910
1.00
19.00
.9500
1.00
57.82
.9830
1.00
49.00
.9800
--------------------------------------STATE DEFINITIONS WITH CORRESPONDING
OUTPUT
CAPABILITIES
---------------------------------------
CURTAILSTATE
MENT
STATE
OUTPUT
SUBSYSTEM
LEVEL AVAILABILITY
CAPACITY
(PERCENTAGE) (PERCENTAGE)
-------------5 Nest1- 5
-------------0
1
2
98.208080
1.783824
.008100
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
90.250000
9.500002
.250000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.628710
3.342388
.028903
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.040000
3.919996
.040000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
82.253190
17.420020
.326794
100.00
50.00
.00
-------------6 Nest2- 6
--------------
-------------7 Nest3- 7
--------------
-------------8 Nest4- 8
--------------
-------------9 Nest5- 9
--------------
8-3
-------------------------------------------------------------PLANT OUTPUT STATE

OUTPUT
DAYS/
POWER (MW)
COSTS
STATE
PROBABILITY
CAPABILITY
YEAR
OUTPUT
($M)
-------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
82.25%
17.42%
.33%
100.00%
50.00%
.00%
265.68
56.27
1.06
500.00
250.00
.00
--------------------------------------------------I
PLANT RAM MEASURES
I
I
I
I
EQUIVALENT
I
I
FORCED
FORCED
EQUIVALENT
I
I
OUTAGE
OUTAGE AVAILABILITY AVAILABILITY
I
I
RATE
RATE
FACTOR
FACTOR
I
--------------------------------------------------I
.33%
9.04%
80.50%
88.20%
I
I
$
.350M $ 3.526M
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
UNIT-LEVEL R&M VALUES
I
------------------------------------------I
UNIT MEAN TIME
I
MEAN UNIT FULL
I
I
BETWEEN FULL
I
FORCED OUTAGE
I
I
FORCED OUTAGES
I
DURATION
I
I
(HOURS)
I
(HOURS)
I
------------------------------------------I
152.6 I
.5 I
-------------------------------------------
8-4
3.188
.338
.000
IGCC - E-Gas-High FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/o SPARE GASIFIER)

=
>>> SIZE
=
>>> COST
=
>>> PERIOD HOURS
=
---------------------------
ID#
--1
2
3
4
1008.00
.00
500.00
1.00
8760.00
HRS
HRS
MW
$/MW-HR
HRS
THROUGHPUT
NUMBER
GATE
NAME
CAPACITY
OF GATES NUMBER
---------- -------------- -------- -----OXYGEN PLA
50.0
0
GASIFICATI
50.0
0
GAS TREAT
50.0
0
COMBINED C
50.0
0
---------------------------
GATE
TYPE
----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
1 OXYGEN PLA
1 oxygen plant
2 GASIFICATI
2 gasification
3 GAS TREAT
3 gas treat BOP
4 COMBINED C
4 combined cycle
MTBF (HOURS)
-----------------------
MDT (HOURS)
--------------
110.1
1.0
9.0
1.0
57.8
1.0
49.0
1.0

5
---------------------------ID# NAME
STRUCTURE
CODE
--- ---------- ------------- ----
5 Nest1- 5
PARALLEL-IDENT
6 Nest2- 6
PARALLEL-IDENT
7 Nest3- 7
PARALLEL-IDENT
8 Nest4- 8
PARALLEL-IDENT
9 Nest5- 9
SERIAL

----------------------------ID# NAME
--- ---------- --------- ---- --------
1 OXYGEN PLA BASIC
2 GASIFICATI BASIC
3 GAS TREAT
BASIC
4 COMBINED C BASIC
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
8-5
5
6
7
8
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
********************************************
****************** RUN 1 ******************
********************************************
BASELINE RUN
MEAN TIME
MEAN
BETWEEN
SUBSYSTEM
DOWNTIME
FAILURES
AVAILABILITY
(HOURS)
(HOURS)
-------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
OXYGEN PLA
GASIFICATI
GAS TREAT
COMBINED C
1.00
110.11
.9910
1.00
9.00
.9000
1.00
57.82
.9830
1.00
49.00
.9800
OUTPUT
CAPABILITIES
---------------------------------------
CURTAILSTATE
MENT
STATE
OUTPUT
SUBSYSTEM
LEVEL AVAILABILITY
CAPACITY
-------------5 Nest1- 5
-------------0
1
2
98.208080
1.783824
.008100
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
80.999990
18.000000
1.000000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.628710
3.342388
.028903
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.040000
3.919996
.040000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
73.822800
25.100980
1.076217
100.00
50.00
.00
-------------6 Nest2- 6
--------------
-------------7 Nest3- 7
--------------
-------------8 Nest4- 8
--------------
-------------9 Nest5- 9
--------------
8-6

OUTPUT
DAYS/
POWER (MW)
COSTS
STATE
PROBABILITY
CAPABILITY
YEAR
OUTPUT
($M)
-------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
73.82%
25.10%
1.08%
100.00%
50.00%
.00%
238.45
81.08
3.48
500.00
250.00
.00
--------------------------------------------------I
PLANT RAM MEASURES
I
I
I
I
EQUIVALENT
I
I
FORCED
FORCED
EQUIVALENT
I
I
OUTAGE
I
I
RATE
RATE
FACTOR
FACTOR
I
--------------------------------------------------I
1.08%
13.63%
76.43%
87.54%
I
I
$
.528M $ 3.348M
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I
------------------------------------------I
UNIT MEAN TIME
I
MEAN UNIT FULL
I
I
BETWEEN FULL
I
FORCED OUTAGE
I
I
FORCED OUTAGES
I
DURATION
I
I
(HOURS)
I
(HOURS)
I
------------------------------------------I
46.0 I
.5 I
-------------------------------------------
8-7
2.861
.486
.000
IGCC - E-Gas-Low FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/SPARE GASIFIER)

=
>>> SIZE
=
>>> COST
=
>>> PERIOD HOURS
=
---------------------------
ID#
--1
2
3
4
263.00
.00
500.00
1.00
8760.00
HRS
HRS
MW
$/MW-HR
HRS
THROUGHPUT
NUMBER
GATE
NAME
CAPACITY
OF GATES NUMBER
---------- -------------- -------- -----OXYGEN PLA
50.0
0
GASIFICATI
50.0
0
GAS TREAT
50.0
0
COMBINED C
50.0
0
---------------------------
GATE
TYPE
----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
1 OXYGEN PLA
1 oxygen plant
2 GASIFICATI
2 gasification
3 GAS TREAT
3 gas treat BOP
4 COMBINED C
4 combined cycle
MTBF (HOURS)
-----------------------
MDT (HOURS)
--------------
110.1
1.0
19.0
1.0
57.8
1.0
49.0
1.0

5
---------------------------ID# NAME
STRUCTURE
CODE
--- ---------- ------------- ----
5 Nest1- 5
PARALLEL-IDENT
6 Nest2- 6
PARALLEL-IDENT
7 Nest3- 7
PARALLEL-IDENT
8 Nest4- 8
PARALLEL-IDENT
9 Nest5- 9
SERIAL

----------------------------ID# NAME
--- ---------- --------- ---- --------
1 OXYGEN PLA BASIC
2 GASIFICATI BASIC
3 GAS TREAT
BASIC
4 COMBINED C BASIC
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
8-8
5
6
7
8
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
********************************************
****************** RUN 1 ******************
********************************************
BASELINE RUN
MEAN TIME
MEAN
BETWEEN
SUBSYSTEM
DOWNTIME
FAILURES
AVAILABILITY
(HOURS)
(HOURS)
-------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
OXYGEN PLA
GASIFICATI
GAS TREAT
COMBINED C
1.00
110.11
.9910
1.00
19.00
.9500
1.00
57.82
.9830
1.00
49.00
.9800
OUTPUT
CAPABILITIES
---------------------------------------
CURTAILSTATE
MENT
STATE
OUTPUT
SUBSYSTEM
LEVEL AVAILABILITY
CAPACITY
-------------5 Nest1- 5
-------------0
1
2
98.208080
1.783824
.008100
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
3
85.737500
13.537500
.712500
.012500
150.00
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.628710
3.342388
.028903
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.040000
3.919996
.040000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
90.478510
9.432014
.089477
100.00
50.00
.00
-------------6 Nest2- 6
--------------
-------------7 Nest3- 7
--------------
-------------8 Nest4- 8
--------------
-------------9 Nest5- 9
--------------
8-9

OUTPUT
DAYS/
POWER (MW)
COSTS
STATE
PROBABILITY
CAPABILITY
YEAR
OUTPUT
($M)
-------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
90.48%
9.43%
.09%
100.00%
50.00%
.00%
320.33
33.39
.32
500.00
250.00
.00
--------------------------------------------------I
PLANT RAM MEASURES
I
I
I
I
EQUIVALENT
I
I
FORCED
FORCED
EQUIVALENT
I
I
OUTAGE
I
I
RATE
RATE
FACTOR
FACTOR
I
--------------------------------------------------I
.09%
4.81%
92.34%
96.91%
I
I
$
.204M $ 4.044M
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I
------------------------------------------I
UNIT MEAN TIME
I
MEAN UNIT FULL
I
I
BETWEEN FULL
I
FORCED OUTAGE
I
I
FORCED OUTAGES
I
DURATION
I
I
(HOURS)
I
(HOURS)
I
------------------------------------------I
522.0 I
.5 I
-------------------------------------------
8-10
3.844
.200
.000
IGCC - E-Gas-High FOR - 2 TRAIN (w/SPARE GASIFIER)

=
>>> SIZE
=
>>> COST
=
>>> PERIOD HOURS
=
---------------------------
ID#
--1
2
3
4
263.00
.00
500.00
1.00
8760.00
HRS
HRS
MW
$/MW-HR
HRS
THROUGHPUT
NUMBER
GATE
NAME
CAPACITY
OF GATES NUMBER
---------- -------------- -------- -----OXYGEN PLA
50.0
0
GASIFICATI
50.0
0
GAS TREAT
50.0
0
COMBINED C
50.0
0
---------------------------
GATE
TYPE
----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
GATE
ABOVE
-----
1 OXYGEN PLA
1 oxygen plant
2 GASIFICATI
2 gasification
3 GAS TREAT
3 gas treat BOP
4 COMBINED C
4 combined cycle
MTBF (HOURS)
-----------------------
MDT (HOURS)
--------------
110.1
1.0
9.0
1.0
57.8
1.0
49.0
1.0

5
---------------------------ID# NAME
STRUCTURE
CODE
--- ---------- ------------- ----
5 Nest1- 5
PARALLEL-IDENT
6 Nest2- 6
PARALLEL-IDENT
7 Nest3- 7
PARALLEL-IDENT
8 Nest4- 8
PARALLEL-IDENT
9 Nest5- 9
SERIAL

----------------------------ID# NAME
--- ---------- --------- ---- --------
1 OXYGEN PLA BASIC
2 GASIFICATI BASIC
3 GAS TREAT
BASIC
4 COMBINED C BASIC
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
8-11
5
6
7
8
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
PARLL-IDNT
********************************************
****************** RUN 1 ******************
********************************************
BASELINE RUN
MEAN TIME
MEAN
BETWEEN
SUBSYSTEM
DOWNTIME
FAILURES
AVAILABILITY
(HOURS)
(HOURS)
-------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
OXYGEN PLA
GASIFICATI
GAS TREAT
COMBINED C
1.00
110.11
.9910
1.00
9.00
.9000
1.00
57.82
.9830
1.00
49.00
.9800
OUTPUT
CAPABILITIES
---------------------------------------
CURTAILSTATE
MENT
STATE
OUTPUT
SUBSYSTEM
LEVEL AVAILABILITY
CAPACITY
-------------5 Nest1- 5
-------------0
1
2
98.208080
1.783824
.008100
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
3
72.899990
24.300000
2.700001
.100000
150.00
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.628710
3.342388
.028903
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
96.040000
3.919996
.040000
100.00
50.00
.00
0
1
2
88.587360
11.235720
.176909
100.00
50.00
.00
-------------6 Nest2- 6
--------------
-------------7 Nest3- 7
--------------
-------------8 Nest4- 8
--------------
-------------9 Nest5- 9
--------------
8-12

OUTPUT
DAYS/
POWER (MW)
COSTS
STATE
PROBABILITY
CAPABILITY
YEAR
OUTPUT
($M)
-------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
88.59%
11.24%
.18%
100.00%
50.00%
.00%
313.64
39.78
.63
500.00
250.00
.00
--------------------------------------------------I
PLANT RAM MEASURES
I
I
I
I
EQUIVALENT
I
I
FORCED
FORCED
EQUIVALENT
I
I
OUTAGE
I
I
RATE
RATE
FACTOR
FACTOR
I
--------------------------------------------------I
.18%
5.79%
91.38%
96.83%
I
I
$
.246M $ 4.002M
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I
------------------------------------------I
UNIT MEAN TIME
I
MEAN UNIT FULL
I
I
BETWEEN FULL
I
FORCED OUTAGE
I
I
FORCED OUTAGES
I
DURATION
I
I
(HOURS)
I
(HOURS)
I
------------------------------------------I
220.1 I
.4 I
-------------------------------------------
8-13
3.764
.239
.000
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the
global energy and energy services industry. U.S.
electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
Export Control Restrictions

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is
granted with the specific understanding and requirement
that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all
applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations
is being undertaken by you and your company. This
includes an obligation to ensure that any individual
receiving access hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or
permanent U.S. resident is permitted access under
applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations.
In the event you are uncertain whether you or your
company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel
to determine whether this access is lawful. Although
EPRI may make available on a case by case basis an
informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you
and your company acknowledge that this assessment is
solely for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.
2004 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI.
ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
1008400
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

EPRI IGCC Design and RAM Analysis For Zero Emissions

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EPRI IGCC Design and RAM Analysis For Zero Emissions

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IGCC Design and RAM Analysis

for Near Zero Emissions

IGCC Design and RAM Analysis

EPRI Project Managers

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.

To discuss options for improving IGCC availability.

3 GASIFICATION OPERATING EXPERIENCE & AVAILABILITY..........3-1

4 IGCC AVAILABILITY METHODOLOGY...............................................4-1

5 IGCC AVAILABILITY OPTIONS & CASE STUDIES ............................5-1

6 COMMERCIAL DESIGN OF NEW IGCC PLANTS ...............................6-1

Process scheme development/selection

Equipment and component selection

Probabilistic algorithms and methodology for calculating overall plant availability

Gasification (including ASU and Acid Gas Removal Unit )

Total Quantity of Product

Forced Outage Rate =

Annual Loading Factor =

Product Not Required = 10% of year

Planned Outages = 8 % of year

Unplanned Outages = 4% of year

On-stream = 78% of year

Yearly production = 55,000 mmscf of syngas

The resulting calculated unit operating statistics are:

Forced Outage Rate = 4% / [ 78% + 4% ] = 4.9%

Availability = 78% + 10% * [1 (4.9% /100% )] = 78% + 9. 5% = 87.5%

Rated Capacity = 365 d * 200 mmscfd = 73,000 mmscf

Annual Loading Factor = 55,000 mmscf / 73,000 mmscf = 75.3%

Gasifier Plant Owner

Ube Ammonia Industry

Ube Ammonia Industry

Lu Nan Chemical Industry

Demkolec (now NUON)

Shougang Iron & Steel

Weihe Fertilizer Company

Farmlands Industries, Inc.

Feed Injector Failure

Slurry Feed Pump

Low Quench H2O Flow

Low Slurry Flow

Low Level in Gasifier

DCS PLC Failure

Polk Power Station IGCC Availability Statistics

Shutdown Causes Leading causes of lost gasifier production included:

Polk Power Station IGCC

Annual Statistics (July through June)

IGCC Percent Availabilit

Syngas Cooler Tube Leaks

AG Cooler Tube Leaks

Slurry Mixer Replacement

Slurry Flow Interruption

False Filter Pressure Indication

Capacity: about 60 percent.

Planned outages: 8 percent.

Unplanned outages: 7 percent.

Operating Experience and Availability Summary

Subsystem Reliability Assumptions

Forced Outage Rates

Single Train Reliability Data

Wabash Final Report

Scheduled Outage Planning

50% Plant Capacity

One Week Outage