HARNESS THE POWER

OF ADVANCED HRSG TECHNOLOGY

The industry leader in Heat Recovery Steam Generators for gas

turbines up to 30 MW, RENTECH offers a full range of HRSG systems
to meet your toughest project requirements. We custom engineer our
crossow two-drum and waterwall designs to perform superbly in the
most demanding applications and operating conditions. We master every
detail to deliver elemental power for clients worldwide.
HARNESS THE POWER WITH RENTECH.

HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS

WASTE HEAT BOILERS
FIRED PACKAGED WATERTUBE BOILERS
SPECIALTY BOILERS

WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM

RenBoi_PEdec_1512 1

10/29/15 3:01 PM

HEAT RATES

HOW TO IMPROVE THEM

POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE

WHERE DOES YOUR PLANT RANK?

CHP

THE NEW GENERATION OPTION

119
YEARS

Ash
Management
Solutions

December 2015 www.power-eng.com

1512pe_C1 1

12/4/15 3:15 PM

Three years. Zero oil changes.

Guaranteed.*
The next time your rotary-screw air compressors need an oil change,
switch to groundbreaking, synthetic Mobil SHC Rarus Series oils.
These lubricants have demonstrated the capability to last up to 24,000
hours in a compressor field trial and are backed by a three-year warranty.
Make the change to Mobil SHC Rarus Series compressor oilsyour nextgeneration solution. Learn more at mobilindustrial.com

*To learn more about the product warranty, contact your local ExxonMobil representative or distributor. Result relates solely to fluid performance in one rotary screw compressor. Performance will vary based on operating conditions and application.
Copyright 2015 Exxon Mobil Corporation. All rights reserved. All trademarks used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries unless otherwise noted.

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#1

1512pe_C2 2

12/4/15 3:15 PM

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICAN

POWER GENERATION GROUP Richard Baker
(918) 831-9187 richardb@pennwell.com

Power Engineering is the flagship

media sponsor for

NATIONAL BRAND MANAGER Rick Huntzicker

(770) 578-2688 rickh@pennwell.com
CHIEF EDITOR Russell Ray
(918) 832-9368 russellr@pennwell.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Sharryn Dotson
(918) 832-9339 sharrynd@pennwell.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Tim Miser
(918) 831-9492 tmiser@pennwell.com
ONLINE EDITOR Jessica Remer
(918) 832-9269 jremer@pennwell.com

FEATURES 119
VOLUME

a Fast,
10 Developing
Preliminary Process

CONTRIBUTING EDITORBrad Buecker

(913) 928-7311 beakertoo@aol.com
CONTRIBUTING EDITORBrian Schimmoller
(704) 595-2076 bschimmoller@gmail.com
CONTRIBUTING EDITORRobynn Andracsek
(816)-822-3596 randracsek@burnsmcd.com
CONTRIBUTING EDITORWayne Barber
(540) 252-2137 wayneb@pennwell.com
CONTRIBUTING EDITORBarry Cassell
(804) 815-9186 barryc@pennwell.com

Design for Wet FGD

CCR Systems

Fast and high-level front-end engineering design (FEED)

can be useful in determining process requirements for
evaluating methods of CCR handling. Read about how
a relatively simple FEED can provide a basic starting
point for your project.

GRAPHIC DESIGNER Deanna Priddy Taylor

(918) 832-9378 deannat@pennwell.com
MARKETING MANAGER Rachel Campbell
(918) 831-9576 rachelc@pennwell.com
CIRCULATION MANAGER Linda Thomas
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER I Jesse Fyler
PRODUCTION MANAGER Katie Noftsger
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERSPennWell Corp.
1421 South Sheridan Road Tulsa, OK 74112
P.O. Box 1260, Tulsa, OK 74101
Telephone: (918) 835-3161 Fax: (918) 831-9834
E-mail: pe@pennwell.com
World Wide Web: http://www.power-eng.com
For assistance with marketing strategy or ad creation,
please contact PennWell Marketing Solutions
VICE PRESIDENT Paul Andrews
(240) 595-2352 pandrews@pennwell.com

18

2014 Operating Performance:

Coals Utilization Increases a Little,
Natural Gas Use Climbs More in 2014

Natural gas prices climbed in 2014, resulting in a slight increase in

the utilization of the nations coal-fired power plants. Find out about
other trends in 2014s power generation operating performance.

CHAIRMAN Robert F. Biolchini

VICE CHAIRMAN Frank T. Lauinger
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Mark C. Wilmoth
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY Jayne A. Gilsinger
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Brian Conway
SUBSCRIBER SERVICE
P.O. Box 3264, Northbrook, IL 60065
Phone: (847) 763-9540
E-mail: poe@halldata.com
REPRINT SALES Rhonda Brown
Tel: 866.879.9144 ext 194 Fax: 219.561.2023
rhondab@fosterprinting.com
POWER ENGINEERING (ISSN 0032-5961) USPS 440-980, POWER ENGINEERING is
published 12 times a year, monthly by PennWell Corporation, 1421 S. Sheridan, Tulsa,
OK 74112. Periodicals postage paid at Tulsa, OK 74112 and at additional mailing offices. SUBSCRIPTION PRICES: U.S.A. and possessions $111 per year; Canada and Mexico,
$124 per year; international airmail, $300 per year. Single copies: U.S., $18, Outside U.S.
$29. Back Issues of POWER ENGINEERING may be purchased at a cost of $18 each in the
United States and $29 elsewhere. POSTMASTER: Send address corrections to POWER
ENGINEERING, P.O. Box 3271, Northbrook, IL 60065-3271. POWER ENGINEERING is a
registered trademark. PennWell Corporation 2015. All rights reserved. Reproduction
in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Permission, however, is granted for
employees of corporations licensed under the Annual Authorization Service offered by
the Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923,
or by calling CCCs Customer Relations Department at 978-750-8400 prior to copying.
We make portions of our subscriber list available to carefully screened companies that
offer products and services that may be important for your work. If you do not want to
receive those offers and/or information via direct mail, please let us know by contacting
us at List Services POWER ENGINEERING, 1421 South Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74112.

No.12, December 2015

28

CHP: The New Generation Option

Combined heat and power (CHP) is finally catching up in the world

of power generation. Power Engineering examines how current
CHP technologies can reduce emissions cost effectively.

32

Effective SO3 Control Reduces Fuel Costs and CO2 Emissions

The Clean Power Plan requires existing power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Learn how effective SO3 controls can cut CO2
emissions while reducing fuel costs.

38

Lower-Cost Alternative De-NOx

Solutions for Coal-Fired Power Plants

Considering the age of many coal-fired power plants, traditional SCR systems can prove too
expensive. Read about how lower-cost, alternative De-NOx solutions help operators reach
regulatory compliance more cost effectively.

DEPARTMENTS
2
4

Opinion
Clearing the Air

6
8

Gas Generation
Energy Matters

9
48

Nuclear Reactions
Ad Index

Printed in the USA. GST No. 126813153. Publications Mail Agreement no. 40612608.

Member
American Business Press
BPA International
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. GST NO. 126813153
Publications Mail Agreement No. 40052420

Power Engineering
1512pe_1 1

POWER ENGINEERING ONLINE :

Newsletter:

Stay current on industry news,

events, features and more.

Newscast:

www.power-eng.com

A concise, weekly update of all

the top power generation news

Industry News:
Global updates
throughout the day

12/4/15 3:14 PM

OPINION

Making Sense
of BIG Data
BY RUSSELL RAY, CHIEF EDITOR

elcome to the age of big

data. The power sector has
been slow to take advantage
of the explosion of new data spawned by
more sensors and new software, but the
industry is beginning to get in cadence
with the march toward quantification.
A typical gas-fired power plant
is equipped with more than
10,000 sensors. They measure and
communicate movement, vibration,
temperature, humidity and chemical
changes in the air and water. But only
a fraction of that data is analyzed and
quantified for the day-to-day operation
and maintenance of a power plant.
The opportunities to exploit that data
and make sense of the information to
trim costs, increase sales and boost
efficiency are growing at breakneck
speed thanks to new analytical
software solutions and services.
Opportunity is knocking for power
generators in desperate pursuit of
increased efficiency amid flat or
declining demand for electricity.
Perhaps
the
most
notable
opportunity is GE Powers Predix, a
software platform that enables power
producers to create a virtual power
plant that runs in the cloud. The
technology, unveiled in September,
allows power producers to create a
digital twin of an existing power plant.
The Digital Power Plant offers power
plant managers a real-time simulation
of conditions inside the actual power
plant, allowing operators to make
quick adjustments and fixes to keep the
plant running as efficiently as possible.
It can be used to manage any asset in a
power plant, GE said.
2

1512pe_2 2

For a typical gas-fired plant, a digital resiliency issues and sustainability

twin can save up to $50 million over concerns are just a few drivers behind
the remaining life of the plant, GE said. the industrys need to transform,
For a new gas plant, the savings could and digitization is the single biggest
be as much as $230 million. For a new enabler of that change, said Steve
wind farm, up to $100 million in sav- Bolze, CEO of GE Power.
ings could be realized. The benefits
But GEs software solution is one of
include lower fuel costs, lower emis- many examples of asset management
sions, increased
tools being deperformance and
veloped by the
reduced downpower sector to
time.
improve efficienThe
digicy and perfortal twin can
mance. A major
-Michael
Pacilio,
Exelon
be used to run
digital transforsimulations
to
mation of cenGeneration
determine
the
tralized
power
optimum operating conditions and be- is underway. The Digital Power Plant
come better at predicting and prevent- and technologies like it will ultimately
ing a failure.
become a working tool for every power
GEs software solution is being plant manager in the world.
applied to the gas-fired units of New
Flexibility is perhaps the greatest
Jerseys Public Service Enterprise challenge facing power producers
Group, while Exelon is using it to boost struggling to integrate growing supthe efficiency of its nuclear, gas and plies of intermittent wind and solar
wind power assets.
power into the grid. The Digital Power
More power producers are expected Plant and technologies like it will help
to sign up for GEs eye-opening the industry meet that challenge.
innovation.
That is why POWER-GEN InterOur industry is on the precipice national is developing a new conferof a digital revolution, said Michael ence track entitled The Digital PowPacilio, executive vice president and er Plant, which will center on issues
chief operating officer of Exelon surrounding advanced analytics, senGeneration.
sors, motion and control innovations,
For merchant generators, every bit software solutions, and the Internet of
of efficiency and productivity matters Things.
to our bottom line, said Rich Lopriore,
Were
recruiting
committee
president of PSEG Fossil. Having the members for this very important
best power generation technology -- track now. To nominate someone,
both physical and digital -- is critical to contact me at russellr@pennwell.com.
our competitiveness.
Follow me on Twitter @RussellRay1.
Increased use of renewables,

Our industry is on
the precipice of a
digital revolution.

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Fluid-sealing experts
at your service.
With VSP Technologies, you get more than
quality uid-sealing products. You get a
team of engineers and technicians wholl
stop at nothing to make you a hero. Our
customers have reported over $100 million
in documented cost savings - thanks to less
downtime, process improvements and
24/7 expert support and service.
Were doing big things for
the power-gen industry.
Visit vsppower-generation.com
to get your FREE white papers!

Engineering Service and Support Product Design and Development

1-800-334-6013

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#2

1512pe_3 3

12/4/15 3:14 PM

CLEARING THE AIR

New Tricks to Keep

Our Coal Fleet Fresh
BY ROBERT NICOLO, DIRECTOR OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMS, MITSUBISHI HITACHI POWER SYSTEMS

lot of hot air has been generated about President Obamas

Clean Power Plan. One thing
is for sure, no matter who says what
and what you want to believe, there
are some basic facts that not too many
politicians want you to know. CO2 is a
byproduct of life. CO2 is what our vegetation thrives upon. Its food for your
vegetation here on planet earth. We cant
live without it. It is the reason our earth
is covered with green vegetation which
supplies us with food. Yes it is also categorized as a greenhouse gas, a gas that
can be attributed to restricting heat from
escaping the earths atmosphere. We can
debate its effects or its share on the slice
of other natural and human contributions, but not in this column.
There has been a tremendous amount
of research and development into what to
do with the extra CO2 we believe is filling
up the atmosphere. From making aggregate compounds or plastics to enhanced
oil recovery, but so far nothing seem to
be the perfect solution to the scales necessary. We know that to capture the CO2
from coal fired power plants is absolutely feasible, but it may not deliver the best
economic and efficient solution because
of the large amount of energy it takes to
get that accomplished.
So where are we now? Government
funding that once was available to spur
the development of more efficient CO2
capture technologies has disappeared,
yet, we are on the path of issuing a requirement to control CO2 from our existing coal fleet. We already have in place the
recently issued Section 111 b. rule which
just about eliminates any chance of building a new coal plant in this country.
We have now seen a variety of
4

1512pe_4 4

forecasts that indicates our existing

coal fired fleet is dwindling. The remaining coal units are going to be
forced to operate at higher capacity factors, but with less modern equipment
that is just plain getting old. Older
coal plants will require upgrades that
some fear will trigger New Source Reviews (NSR) to further complicates the
issues.
So a utility must address many factors before a plausible solution can
become clearer. From discussions with
many utility executives, their future asset modeling has become so complex,
that any chance of going forward with
an approach becomes more and more
delayed. Influences such as fuel prices,
regulations, NSR triggers, un-finalized
CO2 regulation, etc. are choking the
decisions.
Are AQCS additions required to
meet the current regulations?
Will natural gas prices remain low
and consistent if we go to a heavy
gas driven generation fleet?
Will that old coal boiler live up to
the demands of higher availability, and capacity factors needed for
the future?
The easier way out for many seems to
be converting to natural gas as the primary energy source. Yes gas produces less
CO2 than coal, but its not CO free. The
average emissions rates in the U.S. for gasfired generation are approximately 1135
lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, according
to EPA. Additionally, getting the gas to
the generators takes tremendous effort as
well. We do not have the infrastructure in
place to supply the generation needed to
the many units geographically. This takes
more energy and generates more CO2

period. Nothing is free.

So, some key facts to ponder:
Our aging coal fleet has endured tremendous stress over the past several
years. The fleet has adapted but suffered
loss of remaining life, and increased demands. The move to burning lower cost
has caused boiler heat rate reductions.
We now have improved technologies that
relieve many of these issues including
measurement technologies that accurately adjust air to fuel mixtures, lowering
NOx emissions and boiler fouling. Newer improved boiler cleaning technologies
such as water cannons can deliver cleaner
furnaces improving boiler performance
and efficiencies using thermocouples that
monitor wall temperatures.
Technological advancements like pressure part arrangements, wider spaced
tubes, advanced material selections have
allowed higher temperature operation
while improving efficiencies and delivering longer life. New materials are now
available that were not yet developed
when our coal fleet came on line. Super
304H, HR3C are examples of materials
that allow longer life. Tube internal shot
blasting techniques for stainless steel
tubes have been improved that result in
the elimination of internal scaling that
had caused flow restrictions and tube
failures. New burner technologies have
been developed that aggressively lower
NOx emissions. New tube leak detection
technologies help pin-point tube leaks
resulting in dramatically reduced outrage
periods. And of course advanced air quality control systems are readily available to
meet super low sulfur, NOx, mercury and
particulate emissions that rival the gas
fired technologies.
Keep all your options open.
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Users agree: you cant stop a

Magnetrol liquid level switch.
Our customers know why MAGNETROL is the No. 1 brand
of mechanical buoyancy instrumentation. Our level switches
work hard, and keep on working, for decades of safe,
accurate, repeatable, reliable level detection.
magnetroltough.magnetrol.com
Congratulations to the winner of the
JUST CANT STOP A MAGNETROL contest! For
48 years, our liquid level switch has prevented high
water levels at this power generation plant
in the southeast United States.

magnetrol.com 1-630-969-4000 info@magnetrol.com

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#3

1512pe_5 5

2015 Magnetrol International, Incorporated

12/4/15 3:14 PM

GAS GENERATION

Coal to Natural
Gas Conversions
Drivers and Lessons
BY RAJ GAIKWAD, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, SARGENT & LUNDY,
AND MARC LEMMONS, BOILER SPECIALIST, SARGENT & LUNDY

n increasingly stringent and uncertain regulatory environment,

combined with falling natural
gas prices, has made converting existing coal-fired steam-generating boilers
to natural gas firing more and more attractive. Based on recent gas conversion
announcements, existing coal units generating a total of approximately 9,000
MW will be converted for natural gas firing. The major drivers of this trend have
been Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS) regulations, New Source Review
(NSR) settlements, natural gas availability and pricing, and the uniqueness of
each project to deliver electricity at the required capacity to make it economically feasible to convert existing coal-fired
units to natural gas-firing capability.
Sargent& Lundy has been involved in
the implementations of approximately
3,600 MW of coal-to-natural-gas boiler
conversions of various sizes and configurations, burning all types of coal.
Low prices and abundant availability
have driven a significant increase in demand for natural gas. During 2015, the
use of natural gas in U.S. electricity generation has surpassed that of coal over
several months. However, the domestic
distribution system for natural gas has a
finite capacity and already lags current
demand in some areas of the country. Although efforts to increase pipeline capacity are complex and contentious because
of political, environmental, safety, and
other concerns, a number of projects are
under way. In a coal-to-natural-gas conversion, it is advantageous that the utility
boiler be located close to an existing natural gas supply line with adequate surplus
capacity, rather than located many miles
6

1512pe_6 6

from a pipeline that is at or near capacity.

Coal-to-natural-gas conversion projects can be subject to a number of environmental regulations and permitting
requirements. The NSR Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements represent the primary regulations which dictate air pollution control
technologies required for a new natural
gas-fired boiler. Typically, natural gas
conversion projects do not trigger New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
applicability because maximum hourly emissions of NOX, SO2, CO, CO2, and
PM are lower with natural gas firing than
with coal firing. However, annual emissions of these pollutants may increase as
a result of increased capacity factor due
to the conversion project triggering NSRPSD review.
Firing natural gas changes the heat
absorption characteristics in the boiler
and convection pass. Achieving designed
steam temperatures and full boiler output
can be difficult for a boiler originally designed to burn coal. There are numerous
critical engineering and design considerations that must be taken into account to
achieve operating flexibility along with
the steam temperature and low emission
goals. These include:
Gas Supply Modifications to the
gas supply and vent piping, installation of pressure-reducing valve station, freeze protection, hazardous
area reclassification and upgrades,
and HAZOP study
Boiler Modifications to the radiation and/or convective surface to
help achieve original steam temperatures (depending on the original design of the boiler), new burners and

Marc Lemmons

Raj Gaikwad

igniters, windbox modifications

Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)
FGR to control NOX and steam
temperatures by recycling a portion
of the flue gas from the economizer
outlet back into the primary combustion zone in the windbox
Flue Gas System Evaluation of
forced-draft/induced-draft fan suitability to determine the need for
modifications to these and other
control functions
Other Considerations Balanceof-plant impacts including access
galleries, foundations for gas pipeline, instrument air system, grounding systems, demolition of coal and
ash equipment, switchgear modification, and plant heating system
By carefully addressing these considerations, recently completed conversion
projects have achieved full capability
without taking any derating. The NOX
and CO emissions were lower with gasfired operation than with coal-fired operation, and the overall CO2 reduction
was approximately 40 percent.
The recently finalized Clean Power
Plan (CPP) requires reduction of CO2
from coal-fired units. Even though gas
conversion is not listed as a Best System
of Emission Reduction (BSER), EPA has
listed gas conversion or co-firing among
the non-BSER technologies acceptable
for CO2 reduction. Utilities are currently
evaluating their options to comply with
the CPP and with other potential regulatory activity that may require additions
of FGD or SCR technologies. Converting
these boilers from firing coal to firing natural gas can be considered a viable strategy to comply with these regulations.
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#4

1512pe_7 7

12/4/15 3:14 PM

ENERGY MATTERS

No Ones Smug
About Smog
BY MARIAN MASSOTH, P.E., FORMER AIR PERMITTING CHIEF,
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

n Oct. 1, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

set the new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ground level ozone at a level of 70 parts
per billion (ppb). Divergent reactions
were quickly heard.
EPA tightens ozone standard, sets off
fight with business groups was the heading in one article and Blistering criticism
was received from health and environmental groups that 70 ppb wont protect
the public was in a different publication.
This was not unexpected. During the
comment period for the new regulation,
even though most of the 430,000 comments received during the public comment period were part of mass mailings,
unique responses were sent in by over
250 industry organizations, four national/regional organizations air agencies, 47
state environmental or health agencies,
more than 50 federal, state/local elected
officials and 13 national environmental /
public health organizations.
The new ozone standard is at the high
end of the proposed level of 65 to 70 ppb
and, according to maps provided by EPA,
many states appear to be meeting the
standards. Although EPA projects most
states will achieve compliance when activities are completed due to requirements
from other environmental regulations
(e.g., Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Tier
3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
Program and the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standard), work will still be needed in
California and some states which have
ongoing ozone compliance issues.
Other changes include a modification
to the air quality index for ozone and an
increase in the length of the ozone monitoring season for some states. Currently,
8

1512pe_8 8

32 states and the District of Columbia

are required to monitor ozone during
the designated ozone monitoring season. Effective Jan. 1, 2017, the ozone
monitoring season will be extended by
one month in 22 states and D.C., and
longer in 10 other states.
The final rule takes effect on Dec. 28,
2015. This new regulation, although final, does leave questions on how future
construction activities will be impacted.
What do facilities planning new projects
need to consider? What additional work
must be done by EPA and air agencies?
How will the inevitable litigation impact
the regulation?
In some cases, facilities which have
already submitted air pollution control
permit applications for projects may be
able construct and operate their facility
in compliance with the previous ozone
standard of 75 ppb. With this new ozone
regulation, EPA finalized a grandfathering provision for some pending Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permit applications. The grandfathering
provision will apply to PSD permit applications if either the permitting agency
has formally determined the application
to be complete as of Oct. 1, 2015, or the
public notice for a draft permit or preliminary determination has been published prior to the date the revised
ozone standards become effective. A
facility which has submitted a PSD
permit application prior to issuance of
the 2015 standards should check with
their permitting agency to determine
what ozone standard they must meet.
EPA must designate attainment and
nonattainment areas in late 2017 and it is
not known exactly which 3 year average it
will use for the final designations, possibly,

the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. EPA has

said it will issue new guidance to facilitate
the designations process in early 2016.
State recommendations on area designations are due October, 2016.After the final designations have been made by EPA,
air agencies must develop plans to meet
the ozone standards. Deadlines to meet
ozone attainment will range between the
years of 2020 to 2037.
In anticipation of new requirements to
meet the ozone standard, power plants
are advised to review their air permits and
take a look at their NOx and VOC emissions, especially if a permit renewal is in
their near future.Anyone in the market to
develop new facilities or increase operating capacity of existing facilities should be
prepared for more complexity in obtaining a permit. Regulators in states with
nonattainment areas must develop emission inventories and implement a preconstruction permitting program designed to
provide additional air quality safeguards
for those areas.
States with nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or higher must develop state implementation plans showing
how the areas will meet the standards and
also adopt reasonably available control
technology standards for certain types of
sources in the nonattainment area.
Legal action is sure to follow and could
be from entities at either end of the spectrum.Less than 30 days after the regulation became final, a coal producer had
already filed suit, saying the new ozone
standard will cause coal-fired power
plants to close prematurely, leading to
massive job losses and higher electricity
rates. Although the ozone regulation is
final, ongoing activities will need to be
followed as the story is not over.
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

NUCLEAR REACTIONS

A Lesson Not Learned

BY SHARRYN DOTSON, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan, where

the accents are an interesting mix
of Midwestern and Canadian. We also
have our own phrases that others may
deem strange, yet seem perfectly normal to us (Waddup doe immediately
comes to mind. Its a common greeting.)
I have spent time living in Pennsylvania
and Louisiana, and have now called
Oklahoma home for the past eight
years. During my time living in the
South, I have picked up even more interesting vernacular. Whenever my two
small children ignore my warnings of
caution and are subsequently -- though
not seriously -- injured, the first thing
that comes out of my mouth is Thatll
learn ya!
Along those same lines, it doesnt
seem like the U.S. electricity markets
are listening to the nuclear industrys
warnings when it comes to compensating merchant power plants, and the
electricity grids and residents are the
ones getting bruised. On Oct. 13, Entergy announced that it would close the
Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Massachusetts by June 2019 due to poor market conditions, reduced revenues and
increased operational costs. Entergy
said the Pilgrim plant is losing money
fast with no foreseeable fix to the issue.
The Nuclear Energy Institute sounded alarms in 2013 and 2014 and say the
closing of Pilgrim is a sign that some
are not paying attention. When Wisconsins Kewaunee nuclear plant was
retired prematurely in 2013, we warned
that market reforms are needed to ensure that the nation maintains a diversified portfolio of electricity options.
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_9 9

We continued to sound those warnings because it is facing similar conditions.

when Entergy prematurely retired the Exelon is evaluating whether to operate
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a year six nuclear stations in Illinois, New Jerago, said Marvin Fertel, president and sey and Pennsylvania due to unfavorCEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. able market conditions and not getting
Todays announcement is more proof priced into the PJM Interconnections
that the reforms urgently needed in capacity market auction for 2018-2019.
competitive electric markets are too That totals more than 7,000 MW of
slow in coming. Degenerating capacity
sign flaws in whole- We warned that
that could potentialsale markets such as
ly shut down because
market reforms
New England continthe plants are not
ue to result in artifi- are needed to
being properly comcially low electricity ensure that the
pensated for benefits
and capacity prices.
nation maintains a like zero emissions,
Sadly, history conaround-the-clock gendiversified portfolio eration and the ability
tinues to repeat itself.
Another plant clos- of options.
to reliably suppleing means more jobs - Marvin Fertel, NEI
ment the increasing
lost, a need to fire up
number of renewables
gas and coal plants that then leads to coming online. Nuclear executives have
increased emissions; and a strained lo- said they only want nuclear power to be
cal economy because tax payments and treated equal to renewables and natural
spending decreases. In Carlton, Wis- gas. Nuclear power plants are inherentconsin, where Kewaunee was sited, the ly expensive to build and operate, but
tax payments from the plant continue they pay for themselves over the long
to decrease by 20 percent since it closed run. The U.S. says it wants to cut emisin 2013 until it zeroes out in 2019. The sions and generate clean power, yet we
number of jobs dropped from 632 em- are pricing out some of the cleanest enployees at the time it closed to 140 who ergy that we own.
remain on hand for decommissioning
One must only look at Germany and
activities. Once the plant is complete- Japan to see what can happen when nuly shut down, those jobs will go away clear plants shut down. Emissions have
or be absorbed elsewhere. Pilgrim cur- increased, towns where the plants are
rently has 633 employees and will also sited have lost a chunk of their tax base,
decrease workers as the plant undergoes and plant operators must spend money
decommissioning.
on replacement power.
Unfortunately, it does not look like
Maybe this will be the necessary wake
we will learn our lesson soon enough. up call so we can stop the tide of nuclear
Entergy said it will decide by the end of plants closing. It may be too late to heed
October on whether to continue oper- the warnings before even more pain is
ating the FitzPatrick plant in New York inflicted.
9

12/4/15 3:14 PM

COAL ASH

Developing a Fast,
Preliminary Process
Design for Wet FGD
CCR Systems

BY BEHRANG PAKZADEH, RAYMOND ZBACNIK AND DALE TIMMONS

high level and fast front

end engineering design
(FEED) can be useful in
determining the general process requirements
and economics for evaluating methods
of handling coal combustion residuals
10

1512pe_10 10

(CCR) for coal fired power plants.

A common method for treating CCR
in Europe is with dense slurry systems
that mix water with the waste products
of coal fired power plants, including:
fly ash, bottom ash, economizer ash,
gypsum slurry and wastewater in a

mixing vessel; a pump train series of

pumps - transports the resultant slurry to a landfill site up to 6 miles away
for disposal. In 24 hours to 72 hours,
the mixture solidifies. The slurry will
substantially cure in 30 days, and fully cure in 90 days, depending on ash
properties. From a process engineering point of view, at first sight, the design appears to be rather simple, and
many of the calculations can be performed with spreadsheets; however,
the mixer and transport pipe sizing is
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

An ash impoundment made entirely

of dense slurry that has cured into a
single monolith. The firmness and stability of the impoundment facilitated
the placement of a solar array on top
of the closed impoundment. Photo
courtesy: NAES

rather complex in practice and requires

some experience and testing.
A detailed design should be done by
a system supplier (or equipment manufacturer).
The Circumix Dense Slurry System, which is a solution to processing
CCRs as described in this article, is a
patented process developed by GEA
EGI Contracting Engineering Co. Ltd.
of Budapest, Hungary. In 2013, GEA
EGI executed an agreement with NAES
Corporation appointing it as the exclusive North American representative for
the Circumix technology.

REVIEW OF FEDERAL,
STATE AND LOCAL
REGULATIONS
Federal Regulation: CCR Final
Rule
On April 17, 2015 the EPA published
the final rule to regulate the disposal
of coal combustion residuals (CCR)
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_11 11

(Vol. 80, No. 74, 40 CFR parts 257 and

261). This final rule was effective on
October 19, 2015. Its provisions are
designed to prevent spills, reduce dust
and protect groundwater at CCR disposal facilities. The Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) will prohibit
the discharge of fly ash transport water
and bottom ash transport water. The
EPA planned on issuing the final ELG
in September 2015. The EPA issued the
final ELG rule on Sept. 30, 2015 under
40 CFR Part 423.
A brief summary of the CCR schedule requirements are as follows:
1. Inactive impoundment closure
April 17,2018
2. Groundwater Report, Wetlands,
Seismic Assessments
October 17,2018
3. Groundwater Monitoring System
& Program
October 17,2017
4. Impoundment structural integrity, liner, run-on-off controls
October 17,2016
5. Dust Plan
October 19,2015
6. Failure to meet standards or to
perform assessments triggers impoundment closure requirements

The CCR rule is

self-implementing
and applies
only to surface
impoundments as
defined in the rule.
The EPA has no
authority to enforce
the CCR rule.
The CCR rule is self-implementing
and applies only to surface impoundments as defined in the rule. Landfills
are regulated separately under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act

Authors
Behrang Pakzadeh, Ph.D., P.E. is a
senior process engineer with Kiewit
Engineering & Design Co. Raymond
Eric Zbacnik is an independent consultant. Dale Timmons, R.G., is a program manager at NAES Corporation.

(RCRA) Subtitle D (Solid Waste). The

EPA has no authority to enforce the
CCR rule. Instead, facilities that fail to
come into compliance risk citizen lawsuits so the rule is considered self-implementing.
States can act as citizens and have
the authority to regulate impoundments. Also, states can impose more
restrictive rules if they determine such
rules are required. There are mechanisms in the rule that allow alternative
engineering solutions that are consistent with intent of the rule. In the end,
it is the states that will issue permits
for construction and operation of CCR
surface impoundments.

COLLECTING PLANT DATA

The more plant information that can
be obtained, the fewer the assumptions and the greater the accuracy in
equipment sizing and costing. Of major importance are the fuel (for cross
checking ash data), operating loads,
limestone, boiler data (for flow rates),
FGD data (for chemical composition of
gypsum), CCR properties and quantities, equipment data and most important: ash handling flow diagram and
layout drawings. Some of the major
documents are listed in Table 1.

ESTABLISH DESIGN BASIS,

BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM/
PROCESS SKETCH
Using general engineering design
data and plant data, the basic wet
flue gas desulfurization calculations
proceed with the maximum boiler
load (heat input with the fuel), and
coal analysis (HHV), to calculate the
amount of sulfur dioxide. Limestone
reacts with SO2 to first generate calcium sulfite, which in most scrubbers is
force-air oxidized to calcium sulfate.
11

12/4/15 3:14 PM

COAL ASH
The final prooduct is calcium sulfate
dydroxide (gypsum). Using plant data
for SO2 removal required, provides the
amount of calcium sulfite (hemihydrate) and calcium sulfate (dihydrate).
The plant data stoichiometry (amount
of limestone used), provides the excess
calcium carbonate and limestone in
the waste. The suspended solids of the

gypsum slurry leaving the absorber,

after primary dewatering, are assumed
to be about 45 percent by weight. This
gypsum slurry is mixed with dry fly
ash from an ash silo (collected from an
electrostatic precipitator and / or fabric
filter). The final mixture of 50 percent
solids and 50 percent water is a typical
value. A recent test with PRB coal ash

Plant layout drawings, plot plan / elevation drawings

of Wet FGD ash / gypsum areas, landfill area

and some other US coal ashes revealed

that solids content can be as high as 60
percent. The actual value of percent solids depends on the rheology of the mixture, which should be tested before the
final design. Slurry mixing is accomplished in vendor proprietary equipment, and then pumped to landfill.
Mass balances are prepared for different ranges of coal composition, different loads (100 percent, 75 percent,
50 percent, minimum percent boiler
MCR), and ranges of coal and limestone compositions.

Basic engineering data for plant, operating manuals, field checked

piping & instrument diagrams / piping plans, process flow diagrams
(chiefly of the ash and FGD by-product handling systems), heat
and material balances.

WATER ANALYSIS,
SLURRY COMPOSITION &
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Process data for loads: maximum, rated and minimum load point data

How does the load of the plant vary and plant load variation v. time?

Objective of the project is to safely dispose FGD by products and FGD

waste water or disposing fly ash, and any other requirements, such as
covering an impoundment.

Flyash silo capacity available data and the drawing of the fly ash silo(s);
if it possible to locate the mixers under the silos (preferred)

Amount of buffer capacity (this impacts the real

need for backup redundancies)

Combine the ash disposal and the FGD by-product disposal (without
forced oxidation, no gypsum is formed)?

Does the plant sell some of its fly ash, e.g.to the cement industry?

10

What is the market for gypsum or other FGD byproducts?

11

Analysis of samples for the makeup water, waste water, economizer ash,
bottom ash, and fly ash? Particle size analysis of the dry materials are
also recommended.

12

What is the boiler heat input with the fuel for Units 4 and 5,
at 110% 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% loads.

13

Will there be future blends of different coals?

14

Are boiler data sheets available? Original and latest?

15

What is the split of fly ash / bottom ash?

16

What are the operating efficiencies of the boiler,

FGD and ash handling systems?

17

Is there an up to date single line diagram, and electrical load / motor list?

18

Identify the type of CCRs being considered: bottom ash?

Economizer ash? Air preheater ash?

19

Distance to the ash disposal site and elevation difference

between the plant and the ash disposal site.

Data Collection for PlantSome Major Documents Required TABLE 1

To provide a more detailed analysis of

the mixer design, it is helpful to have water quality data, plant slurry composition
data, and particle size distribution data.
Information from a hydrocyclone supplier (or settling tank, or thickener) is useful
to determine the range of split between
components entering dewatering and
leaving as gypsum waste.

WET FGD, HEAT AND

MATERIAL BALANCES,
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
As shown in Figure 2, details to the
process design may be added as available. The basic process is to feed limestone to a silo and ball mill and produce a limestone slurry for feed to the
absorber. Recirculating absorber slurry
contacts the flue gas containing sulfur
dioxide in a counter current process.
The gypsum slurry product is processed in hydrocyclone. Hydrocyclone
bottoms are combined with a chloride purge stream, and sent to a mixer,
where the slurry stream is mixed with
flyash, and is then pumped to landfill.

PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT
SIZING, EQUIPMENT
LAYOUT
The size of the mixer unit is set by
the volumetric flow rate of the slurry.

Source:
12

1512pe_12 12

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#5

1512pe_13 13

12/4/15 3:14 PM

COAL ASH

Vendors often publish sizes and dimensions for different volumetric flow
rates. The dimensions are used in preparing general arrangement drawings.
Typically, to ensure availability, as well
as process flexibility, two 100 percent
capacity mixer systems, or three 50 percent capacity mixers are recommended.
For discharge piping, two 100 percent
discharge pipes are also required. Other configurations are possible, depending on Client requirements or special
load constraints. For example, when
the load changes in a wide range and
the slurry rheology does not allow for
wide control range, two different sizes
of discharge piping and/or smaller mixers can be installed to ensure proper
operational flexibility. Designs must
include provisions for purging pipe and
ensuring that the gypsum/flyash mixture will not solidify in the pipe for any
operating conditions, including black
plant / power failures.

Installation of two of four fly

ash/gypsum slurry mixers.
Photo courtesy: NAES

OBTAINING A QUOTE,
PRELIMINARY P&ID, AND
VENDORS
Equipment suppliers normally have
their own quotation data sheets that
will list the type of process data needed
to size and cost their equipment. It is
important to state the major objective
of the system, for example: landfilling
all gypsum, flyash, and wastewater;
landfilling some gypsum and some
flyash (selling some flyash). Also,
important is understanding how the
power plant unit (or units) is operated.
Flyash, gypsum slurry, and waste are
mixed simultaneously in the mixer.
It should be noted that there are certain limitations as to the relative quantities of the individual CCRs within the
mixer, such as:
Some flyash is always required,
because this is the reactive component that enables stabilization.
A minimum amount of fine particles are required (fly ash, gypsum,
14

1512pe_14 14

less than 160 microns) to provide

the proper viscosity and suspension of larger particles.
The relative ratios of flyash, bottom ash, and gypsum are not chosen arbitrarily.

PRELIMINARY OPEX AND

CAPEX, OPTIMIZATIONS,
CASE STUDIES
The capital expenditure (CAPEX) of
core technology for a 90 gpm (450 MW
power plant burning PRB coal) mixer
system (excluding piping to landfill)
is approximately $1.5 million (U.S.
2015), and includes 2 x 100 percent
mixers (one operating, one standby),
pumps, instruments & control system, valves, VFD drives. Installed cost
is about 1.3 to 1.5 times the capital
cost, or about $2.1 million (this is for
maximum use of modularization. For

larger mixers, which must be installed

in buildings, and / or bottom ash must
be dewatered, the capital cost multiplier would be about 2 to obtain installed
cost. An average would be 1.8). For
different capacities use a 0.5 exponent
on ratios of volumetric rate; e.g., total
installed cost (turn-key) at 352 gpm is
$1.5M1.8(352/90)^0.5 = $5.4M. Size
discharge piping for standard carbon
steel pipe for a maximum flow rate of
10 ft/sec; assume 81 lb/ft 3 slurry density. A typical slurry pump train max
discharge pressure is 435 psig. For a
pressure drop in the pipe, use schedule
80 pipe with a relative roughness factor for old pipe. A 100 percent spare
discharge pipe is recommended. For
cold climates, smaller insulated pipe is
recommended. Typical piping costs of
$600-$800/ton are used. Schedule 80
uninsulated pipe that is nominal 3 in
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

diameter has a weight of about 5.3 tons/mile.

For operating expenditure (OPEX), unless more accurate
information exists, use the following assumptions (information from defaults for IECM model prepared by Carnegie Mellon for NETL, 2015): 85 percent capacity factor,
constant dollars, 7 percent discount rate, 12 percent fixed
charge factor, 30 year book life, 34 percent federal tax rate,
4 percent state tax rate, 2 percent property tax rate, as-delivered coal $50/ton, internal electricity rate $37/Mwh,
limestone $23/ton, water $1.2/kgal, operating labor $35/h,
waste disposal $9.4/ton, $1594/ton for rebar, and $650/cy.

PROCESS WARRANTIES
AND GUARANTEES
Process guarantees would be on a case-by-case basis and
are for equipment availability, performance of waste product (purity and fugitive emission), power, and noise levels.
Standard wording will include a discussion of the basis of
guarantees: operating the unit according to standard operating procedures, etc.

PERFORMING FIELD TESTS,

COLLECTING SAMPLES
For a typical PRB coal fired power plant with a wet FGD
and a pond, there may not be enough fly ash to form a
50 percent suspended solids waste mixture with blowdown
directly from the absorber; therefore, some degree of dewatering may be required, normally with hydrocyclones.
The precise sizing
Testing various
and controllability of
the CCR handling promixtures of
cess are dependent on
ash, gypsum,
the slurry rheology.
wastewater and
Testing various mixtures of ash, gypsum,
other residuals is
wastewater and other
typically required
plant residuals is typito match a dense cally required in order
slurry mixer design to match dense slurry
to a specific plant. mixer design to a specific application. Testing is typically conducted in two stages. The first stage involves small (<50 lb.) batches of mixtures that are sent for
laboratory analysis. These mixtures will include fly ash,
gypsum, bottom ash, economizer ash, and wastewater in
proportions that achieve the owners goals and objectives
and that can be reasonably expected to be produced at the
plant.
These materials are mixed and allowed to cure after
which rudimentary tests including those for penetration
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_15 15

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#6

SCR Catalyst
Management Services
Regularly scheduled
Catalyst Performance
Evaluations
and
Monitoring SCR
System Operations
are key indicators
to the overall health of
the SCR.
Contact us today to
discuss our full range
of SCR catalyst
management services
and how we can ensure
that you experience
a low ownership
cost with the SCR system.

d.
e
r
e
eliv

D
.
y
t
ili
b
a
li
Re

CORMETECH, Inc.
5000 International Dr.
Durham, North Carolina 27712 USA
919-620-3000

www.cormetech.com
sales@cormetech.com
12/4/15 3:14 PM

COAL ASH

resistance, hydraulic conductivity, and

hydration. Preliminary tests reveal
which mixtures are likely to produce

products with superior physical and

environmental performance.
The second testing stage utilizes a

Process Sketch of Major CCR Process Equipment

pilot plant. Typically, the pilot plant is

sized to process 1.5 tons/hour of slurry
using a scalable process.
As with the initial testing, samples are
collected but are analyzed more comprehensively. Typical analytical work
includes leach performance, compressional strength, hydraulic conductivity
and electron microprobe analysis.
These
analyses
facilitate
an
understanding of the long term
environmental performance that can
be expected from the cured product in
field conditions.
The pilot testing also generates data
that facilitates both engineering and
economic scale-up for full size system
installation.

Fly ash

Makeup water

Premixer head

FGE gypsum
slurry (optional)
Thickened BA
slurry

CONCLUSION

Circumix
mixer tank

As can be seen, initial preliminary

front end engineering design, is relatively simple for a first pass. The described preliminary design provides a
basic starting point for the project; provides a rough TIC, Capex and Opex;
and indicates areas for further investigation and consideration. More detailed analysis and testing are required
for the next stage of design and engineering.

Dense slurry
discharge

Head recirculation pump

Tank recirculation pump

Process Flow Diagram of Wet FGD System, Reagent Preparation

Absorber, Dewatering Areas
Service Water
Limestone

CHIMNEY

10

Flue Gas

A
Hydroclone
Cluster

Limestone
Day Silo

Absorber

Air

3
11

Make-up Water

C
5
Oxidation Air
Blowers
Ball Mill

Gas Cooling
Pumps

Absorber
Bleed Pump

Primary
Hydroclone
Cluster

Chloride
Purge
Secondary
Hydroclone
Cluster

FLYASH
6

Mixer
Mill
Product
Tank

Mill
Product
Tank

Limestone
Slurry Storage
Tank

Limestone
Slurry Storage
Tank

7
8

16

1512pe_16 16

FILTERED WATER

Waste Slurry
to Landfill

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Relative Size of Mixer Equipment from a Supplier

Circumix standard mretsor

Mixer 12.5 t/h

Mixer 25 t/h

Mixer 45 t/h

Mixer 90 t/h

Mixer 170 t/h

WEBCAST
ON DEMAND

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#7

STANDARDS BASED ASSET HEALTH MANAGEMENT

ENABLES DECISION MAKING

This webinar will discuss how Doble Engineerings dobleARMS, through its
use of OSIsoft technology via the PI System and AF-SDK, provides a method for
standards based integration that leverages information from disparate enterprise
datasets, online monitoring, and protective relaying that eases the burden of integration
while providing actionable near real-time information about its assets.

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#7

1512pe_17 17

12/4/15 3:14 PM

INDUSTRY REPORT

2014 Operating Performance

Coals Utilization
Increases a
Little, Natural
Gas Use Climbs
More in 2014
BY TERESA HANSEN, EDITOR
IN CHIEF, ELECTRIC LIGHT &
POWER MAGAZINE

Editors Note: The Power Plant Operating Performance Report is published annually in Electric Light &
Power Magazine, one of Power Engineerings sister publications.
atural gas prices
climbed in 2014,
resulting in a slight
increase in the utilization of the nations
coal-fired power plants. Higher fuel
prices, however, didnt keep natural gasfired combined-cycle plants from generating more electricity in 2014 than they
did in 2013: 914,772 GWh vs. 872,514
GWh, according to a new report.
In spite of coal-fired powers uncertain future, it remains the largest contributor to the U.S. generation mix,
providing 1,573,163 GWh of electricity in 2014. Coal-fired powers share of
the generation mix likely will decline
considerably when the Mercury and
Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and Clean

Top 20 Coal Generators (2014)

Rank Owner/Operator

Plant

1
2
3
4
5

Southern Co.
Southern Co.
Duke Energy Corp.
Salt River Project
FirstEnergy

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

AEP
Southern Co.
AEP
NRG Energy Inc.
DTE Energy Co.
Ameren Corp.
TVA
PacifiCorp

Scherer
Miller
Gibson
Navajo
Bruce
Mansfield
Rockport
Bowen
Gen J M Gavin
W A Parish
Monroe
Labadie
Cumberland
Jim Bridger

State Capacity
MW
GA
3,423
AL
2,675
IN
3,157
AZ
2,250
PA
2,510

Generation
GWh
18,895
18,478
17,747
17,297
17,143

Capacity
Factor
63.0%
78.9%
64.2%
87.8%
78.0%

Fuel Consumption
mmBtu
200,490,028
189,070,958
185,566,428
177,519,891
174,444,522

Heat Rate
mmBtu/MWh
10.61
10.23
10.46
10.26
10.18

2013
Rank
2
1
4
6
3

IN
GA
OH
TX
MI
MO
TN
WY

2,600
3,232
2,598
2,499
3,135
2,465
2,522
2,111

16,717
15,975
15,868
15,754
15,295
15,184
14,501
14,016

73.4%
56.4%
69.7%
72.0%
55.7%
70.3%
65.6%
75.8%

163,877,633
156,909,446
158,264,729
164,881,887
154,033,216
157,014,600
144,792,046
144,153,274

9.80
9.82
9.97
10.47
10.07
10.34
9.99
10.29

Colstrip
Martin Lake
John E Amos
Belews Creek
Paradise
Sherburne Cty
Oak Grove

MT
TX
WV
NC
KY
MN
TX

2,094
2,455
2,900
2,270
2,309
2,243
1,665

13,730
13,601
13,545
13,432
13,335
13,324
12,911

74.8%
63.2%
53.3%
67.5%
65.9%
67.8%
88.5%

147,596,199
152,606,743
133,538,518
122,201,325
137,213,857
138,772,637
129,793,730

10.75
11.22
9.86
9.10
10.29
10.42
10.05

19
10
13

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

51,113
301,696

306,747 68.5%
1,573,163 59.5%

9
11
7
5
14
12

(Berkshire Hathaway Energy)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Puget Sound Energy

Luminant
AEP
Duke Energy Corp.
TVA
Xcel Energy
Luminant

Top 20 Generating
EIA Reporting

3,132,741,667 10.21
16,432,959,991 10.45

Source:
18

1512pe_18 18

12/4/15 3:14 PM

The Homer City Generating Station, an

1,884-MW coal-fired plant 45 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GE Energy
Financial Services owns the plant, and NRG
Energy Services operates and maintains it.

Power Plan take effect in the coming

years, but for now coal still provides
more electricity than any other fuel,
said Tom Hewson, principal at Energy
Ventures Analysis.
Since 2002, Electric Light & Power
magazine, Power Engineerings sister
publication, has published this
power plant operating performance
report based on data and analysis
provide by Energy Ventures Analysis,
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_19 19

an Arlington,Virginia-based market
analysis firm that specializes in energy
and the environment. Electric Light
& Power began sharing it with Power
Engineering in 2013.
Energy Ventures Analysis obtains the
data for this report from Form EIA 923
Power Plant Report and EPAs Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
(CEMS) The tables tell the story, but a
few observations follow.

Additional tables for coal-fired power

plant SO2 and NOX and gas-fired combined-cycle NOX emissions are provided
in the online version of this article. You
can find it under the Current Issues
feature found on Electric Light & Powers
home page at www.elp.com.

COAL POWER PLANT

PERFORMANCE
As always, large plants dominated
19

12/4/15 3:14 PM

INDUSTRY REPORT
Top 20 Coal Capacity Factors (2014)

Rank Owner/Operator
1
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co.

Plant
Frackville

State
PA

Capacity MW
43

Generation GWh
361

Capacity Factor
97.0%

Fuel Consumption mmBtu Heat Rate mmBtu/MWh

5,824,243
16.13

2013 Rank

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Wygen III
TES Filer City Station
Morgantown
AES Hawaii
Sunnyside Cogen
Coleto Creek
Dry Fork Station
St. Nicholas Cogen
Wygen I
Coal Creek
John B Rich Memorial Power Station
Oak Grove
Rawhide
Wyodak
Navajo
Colver
Colstrip Energy LP
R D Green
Bonanza

WY
MI
WV
HI
UT
TX
WY
PA
WY
ND
PA
TX
CO
WY
AZ
PA
MT
KY
UT

100
60
50
180
51
635
405
86
90
1,140
80
1,665
280
340
2,250
110
41
454
458

832
498
414
1,482
420
5,173
3,277
684
705
8,881
622
12,911
2,167
2,623
17,297
845
309
3,463
3,480

95.0%
94.7%
94.4%
94.0%
93.9%
93.0%
92.4%
90.7%
89.5%
88.9%
88.7%
88.5%
88.4%
88.1%
87.8%
87.7%
87.2%
87.1%
86.7%

9,546,712
6,494,433
3,621,708
15,091,761
5,292,497
50,533,865
34,213,186
9,471,665
8,392,883
93,488,161
4,438,032
129,793,730
21,889,027
31,108,985
177,519,891
9,472,755
4,348,481
38,588,819
36,073,214

11.47
13.47
8.76
10.83
12.61
9.77
10.44
13.85
11.90
10.53
7.14
10.05
10.10
11.86
10.26
11.20
14.05
11.14
10.37

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

8,517
0
301,696

66,444
0
1,573,163

89.1%
0.0%
59.5

695,204,047
16,432,959,991

10.46
0.00
10.45

Black Hills
CMS Energy
Ares Owners Holdings
AES
Exelon Corp.
GDF Suez
Basin Electric Power Co-op
Schuylkill Energy Resources
Black Hills Energy
Great River Energy
Gilberton Power Co.
Luminant
Platte River
PacifiCorp
Salt River Project
Exelon
Colstrip Energy LP
Big Rivers Electric Corp.
Deseret Power Electric Co-op

Top 20 Capacity Factors

EIA Reporting

17
11

12

1
20

14

Source:

Top 20 Coal Heat Rates (2014)*

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
AEP
First Reserve Corp.
Duke Energy Corp.
LS Power Group
Duke Energy Corp.
WE Energies
Great Plains Energy
Duke Energy Corp.
TVA
SCANA Corp.
American Municipal Power
AEP
Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power
NRG Energy Inc.
CPS Energy
Xcel Energy Inc.
Duke Energy Corp.
AEP
SCANA Corp.
Dominion

*Excludes co-generating facilities

Plant
John W Turk Jr.
Longview
Belews Creek
Sandy Creek
Cliffside
Elm Road
Iatan 2
Marshall
Bull Run
Cope
Prairie State
Big Sandy
Intermountain
Keystone
J K Spruce
Valmont
W H Zimmer
Mountaineer
Williams
Virginia City
Top 20 Heat Rates
EIA Reporting

State
AR
WV
NC
TX
NC
WI
MO
NC
TN
SC
IL
KY
UT
PA
TX
CO
OH
WV
SC
VA

Capacity MW
609
700
2,270
939
1,400
1,268
881
2,078
872
415
1,628
1,060
1,800
1,700
1,340
184
1,344
1,299
610
620

Generation GWh
4,423
3,755
13,432
6,480
6,054
6,821
4,575
9,408
3,202
2,973
9,665
4,708
12,370
11,524
9,279
1,048
7,284
8,241
3,702
3,535

Capacity Factor
82.9%
61.2%
67.5%
78.8%
49.4%
61.4%
59.3%
51.7%
41.9%
81.8%
67.8%
50.7%
78.4%
77.4%
79.0%
65.0%
61.9%
72.4%
69.3%
65.1%

Fuel Consumption mmBtu

39,971,829
33,988,569
122,201,325
59,697,522
55,785,841
63,032,307
42,472,928
87,842,963
30,180,280
28,110,004
91,544,900
44,791,704
118,428,714
111,071,502
89,522,615
10,181,814
70,841,607
80,244,866
36,132,649
34,520,437

Heat Rate mmBtu/MWh

9.038
9.051
9.098
9.213
9.215
9.241
9.283
9.337
9.426
9.454
9.472
9.513
9.574
9.638
9.648
9.716
9.726
9.737
9.759
9.765

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

23,017
292,364

132,479
1,533,371

65.7%
59.9%

1,250,564,374
15,970,827,714

9.44
10.42

2013 Rank
1
2
5
4
6
11
3
9
7

12
10
17
15
14
16

Source:

20

1512pe_20 20

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Top 20 Nuclear Generators (2014)

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
Pinnacle West Capital Group
TVA
Duke Energy Corp.
NRG Energy Inc.
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Corp.
TVA
PPL
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Duke Energy Corp.
Luminant
Southern Co.
AEP
Duke Energy Corp.
Pacific Gas & Electric Corp.
PSEG
Dominion
Dominion

Plant
Palo Verde
Browns Ferry
Oconee
South Texas
Braidwood
Byron
Limerick
Sequoyah
Susquehanna
Peach Bottom
LaSalle County
Catawba
Comanche Peak
Vogtle
Donald C. Cook
McGuire
Diablo Canyon
Salem
North Anna
Millstone

State
AZ
AL
SC
TX
IL
IL
PA
TN
PA
PA
IL
SC
TX
GA
MI
NC
CA
NJ
VA
CT

Top 20 Generating
EIA Reporting

Capacity MW
3,937
3,401
2,618
2,560
2,423
2,384
2,386
2,333
2,620
2,296
2,313
2,354
2,460
2,302
2,191
2,343
2,240
2,332
1,891
2,112

Generation GWh
32,321
26,738
21,193
20,652
20,264
19,252
19,077
18,892
18,781
18,771
18,755
18,712
18,636
18,060
17,631
17,586
16,986
16,282
15,889
15,841

Capacity Factor
93.7%
89.7%
92.4%
92.1%
95.5%
92.2%
91.3%
92.5%
81.8%
93.3%
92.6%
90.8%
86.5%
89.6%
91.9%
85.7%
86.6%
79.7%
95.9%
85.6%

Total

Total

Average

49,495
101,121

390,319
797,067

90.0%
90.0%

2013 Rank
1
2
3
17
5
6
7
15
11
13
14
9
4
10
19
12
16
8
18

top 20 list in years to come. Hewson

and Graeter expect owners to retire
several plants in this list rather than
spend the money to retrofit them to
meet coming environmental regulation requirements, such as the Clean
Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plans dominating
compliance strategy is displacing coal
generation with natural gas and renewable generation, said Graeter.
The 2014 list of all EIA reporting
coal plants includes smaller units and
co-generators, which were not included last year because the data wasnt yet
available.
The average capacity factor for the
top 20 in 2014 was a little lower than
that of 2013, 89.1 percent vs. 90.4 percent, respectively. There was little difference in the threshold to make the
list86.7 percent in 2014 vs. 86.9 percent in 2013.
The No. 1 capacity factor rating was

Source:

this top 20 list in 2014. Big plants and

plants that operate as baseload units
make this list, said Philip Graeter, an
analyst at Energy Ventures Analysis.
Fifteen units that were in the top 20
list in 2013 remained in 2014, while only
five new names were added to the list.
The five that dropped out during
2014 barely missed the cut, said
Graeter. They didnt drop far.
The total reporting U.S. coal generation fleet experienced more than 5 GW
of capacity retirements, said Hewson.
The amount of electricity generated
by the entire fleet, however, increased
more than 24,000 GWh from 2013.
Higher natural gas prices (in 2014)
compared to 2013 resulted in slightly
higher coal generation and utilization
rates, said Graeter.
The plants in this top 20 list have
the controls necessary to meet the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS),
which required compliance beginning
in April 2015. Some of these plants,
however, likely wont remain in this
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_21 21

FIRE YOUR WAY

TO TOP PERFORMANCE
AND EFFICIENCY
Surface Condenser
Tube Cleaner

 




 



 



 



  

 

  

Quick Shot
QS-300

CALL 888-364-7749
www.goodway.com
For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#8

12/4/15 3:14 PM

INDUSTRY REPORT
slightly higher in 2014 than the previous year: 97.0 percent vs. 95.9 percent.
The return of the small generators
to the group of reporting plants is responsible for this slight capacity factor
increase, said Graeter.
Like last year, AEPs John W. Turk Jr.
plant landed in the No. 1 spot on the
heat rate list, but with a slightly higher
(less efficient) heat rate: 9.038 mmBtu/
MWh in 2014 vs. 8.858 mmBtu/MWh
in 2013. First Reserve Corp.s Longview
plant kept its spot at No. 2 with only a
slightly higher heat rate than the Turk
plant.
The Turk plant is the only ultra-supercritical unit in the U.S., said Hewson. It and Longview, which is a highly efficient supercritical plant, will stay
in their top spots for a long time because we arent building anymore coal
plants. It is likely that neither of these
plants will be displaced (from this list)
in my lifetime.
In addition to Turk and Longview,

Top 20 Nuclear Capacity Factors (2014)

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
PSEG
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Entergy Corp.
Dominion
Exelon Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Entergy Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Dominion
Southern Co.
Exelon Corp.
Entergy Corp.
Energy Northwest
Duke Energy Corp.
Exelon Corp.
Southern Co.
Pinnacle West Capital Group
Exelon Corp.
Entergy Corp.

Plant
Hope Creek
Three Mile Island
Fort Calhoun
Indian Point 3
Surry
Dresden
Quad Cities
Pilgrim
Clinton
North Anna
Joseph M Farley
Braidwood
River Bend
Columbia
Shearon Harris
Calvert Cliffs
Edwin I Hatch
Palo Verde
Peach Bottom
Vermont Yankee

State
NJ
PA
NE
NY
VA
IL
IL
MA
IL
VA
AL
IL
LA
WA
NC
MD
GA
AZ
PA
VT

Top 20 Generating
EIA Reporting

Capacity MW Generation GWh

1,161
10,374
829
7,328
479
4,185
1,046
8,978
1,690
14,332
1,787
15,129
1,819
15,387
683
5,769
1,078
9,072
1,891
15,889
1,734
14,505
2,423
20,264
976
8,155
1,141
9,497
973
8,049
1,734
14,343
1,759
14,510
3,937
32,321
2,296
18,771
619
5,061

Capacity Factor
102.0%
100.9%
99.8%
98.0%
96.8%
96.7%
96.6%
96.4%
96.1%
95.9%
95.5%
95.5%
95.4%
95.0%
94.4%
94.4%
94.2%
93.7%
93.3%
93.3%

Total

Total

Average

30,055
101,121

251,917
797,067

95.7%
90.0%

2013 Rank

20
3
7

16

18

Source:

Top 20 Gas Combined Cycle Generators (2014)

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
NextEra Energy
Southern Co.
Duke Enegy Corp.
Southern
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy
Duke Enegy Corp.
Southern Co.
Southern Co.
Southern Co.
Duke Enegy Corp.
Dominion
NextEra Energy
Duke Enegy Corp.
Tampa Electric Co.
North American Energy Services
PSEG
Multi-Owned

Plant
West County
Jack McDonough
Hines
Franklin
Martin
Sanford
Fort Myers
Forney
Hanging Rock
Barry
McIntosh
Victor J Daniel Jr
Richmond
Fairless
Cape Canaveral
Bartow
Bayside
La Paloma
Bergen
Union
Top 20 Generating
EIA Reporting

State
FL
GA
FL
AL
FL
FL
FL
TX
OH
AL
GA
MS
NC
PA
FL
FL
FL
CA
NJ
AR

Capacity MW
4,019
2,739
2,199
1,866
2,176
2,077
1,490
1,880
1,296
1,064
1,302
1,086
1,227
1,276
1,355
1,185
1,839
1,028
1,187
2,144

Generation GWh
19,765
16,922
11,409
10,168
9,818
9,206
8,620
8,584
7,952
7,745
7,328
7,279
7,037
6,996
6,845
6,800
6,796
6,558
6,318
6,249

Capacity Factor
56.1%
70.5%
59.2%
62.2%
51.5%
50.6%
66.0%
52.1%
70.0%
83.1%
64.3%
76.5%
65.5%
62.6%
57.7%
65.5%
42.2%
72.9%
60.8%
33.3%

Fuel Consumption mmBtu

138,077,752
118,386,032
82,440,950
72,413,768
70,659,383
69,046,890
62,935,102
65,450,728
63,899,475
55,023,933
51,699,922
51,491,370
48,872,805
51,158,464
45,754,353
53,080,558
50,807,427
47,152,193
50,148,895
46,401,807

Heat Rate mmBtu/MWh

6.986
6.996
7.226
7.122
7.197
7.500
7.301
7.625
8.036
7.104
7.055
7.074
6.945
7.313
6.684
7.806
7.476
7.190
7.937
7.426

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

34,434
238,116

178,395
914,722

59.1%
43.9%

1,294,901,806
6,970,857,919

7.26
7.62

2013 Rank
1
2
3
5
4
6
15
8
16
10
9
12
7
11
14
13
18

Source:

22

1512pe_22 22

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Top 20 Gas Combined Cycle Capacity Factors (2014)

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
Scacramento Municipal Utility District
OLS Energy
Talen Energy
Graphic Packaging
Talen Energy
Southern Co.
Chevron
GE
Quantum Energy
Foster Wheeler
Atlantic Power
New York Power Authority
Atlantic Power
First Reserve
Southern Co.
Occidental Petroleum
Ares Owners Holding
Elk Hills Power LLC
FirstEnergy Corp.
ArcLight

Plant
Cosumnes
Chino
PPL Ironwood
Santa Clara Mill
Lower Mount Bethel
Olin Cogen
Nevada Cogen
Cardinal Cogeneration
Black Mountain
Martinez
MCRD Energy Facility
Richard M Flynn
North Island
Crockett Cogen
Barry
Saguaro Power Company
Rupert Cogen
Elk Hills Power
Allegheny Energy
Michigan Power
Top 20 Capacity Factor
EIA Reporting

State
CA
CA
PA
CA
PA
AL
NV
CA
NV
CA
CA
NY
CA
CA
AL
NV
ID
CA
PA
MI

Capacity MW
498
29
660
27
538
107
95
52
95
104
24
165
42
247
1,064
105
10
549
550
143

Generation GWh
3,980
229
5,208
212
4,202
831
727
394
723
775
182
1,208
305
1,802
7,745
759
75
3,924
3,930
1,012

Capacity Factor
91.2%
90.3%
90.1%
89.5%
89.3%
88.7%
87.5%
87.4%
87.1%
85.4%
85.0%
83.8%
83.3%
83.2%
83.1%
82.5%
82.0%
81.6%
81.6%
80.8%

Fuel Consumption mmBtu

26,984,983
1,634,336
36,978,710
1,205,309
30,165,244
5,690,519
5,318,426
4,138,562
4,797,771
6,518,069
1,430,660
9,613,107
2,070,068
15,432,692
55,023,933
7,244,134
486,704
29,015,158
28,544,440
9,691,091

Heat Rate mmBtu/MWh

6.780
7.124
7.100
5.695
7.178
6.844
7.318
10.496
6.632
8.413
7.872
7.959
6.791
8.563
7.104
9.548
6.514
7.394
7.264
9.575

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

5,103
238,116

38,224
914,722

85.5%
43.9%

281,983,916
6,970,857,919

7.38
7.62

2013 Rank
4

1
3
14

5
13
12

Source:

14 other plants in this top 20 list

are supercritical units, with the top
12 spots being occupied by only
supercritical units. Beginning with
the No. 13 spot, the highly efficient
subcritical Intermountain plant makes
the list. Subcritical plants J.K. Spruce
and Valmont also made the top 20 list.
Virginia City, which came in at No. 20,
is the only fluidized-bed combustion
plant in the top 20.

The Clean Power

Plans dominating
compliance strategy
is displacing
coal generation
with natural gas
and renewable
generation.
Like the Coal Generation list, 15
plants in this list also were in it in 2013.
The main change coming to this
list will be plant retirements. AEPs Big
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_23 23

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#9

12/4/15 3:14 PM

INDUSTRY REPORT

*Excludes co-generating facilities

Top 20 Gas Combined Cycle Heat Rates (2014)*

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
NiSource
NextEra Energy
NextEra Energy
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Dominion
Ares Owners Holding
CPS Energy
AEP
Duke Energy Corp.
Idaho Power
GE
Avista
Calpine
NextEra Energy
Sempra Energy
Southern Co.
Northern California Power Agency
Duke Energy Corp.
NRG Energy Inc.
Exelon Corp.

Plant
Sugar Creek
Cape Canaveral
Riviera Beach
Cosumnes
Warren County
Berkshire Power
Rio Nogales
Dresden
Richmond
Langley Gulch
Inland Empire
Coyote Springs II
Russell City
West County
Palomar
Jack McDonough
Lodi
L V Sutton
Hunterstown
Hillabee
Top 20 Heatrates
EIA Reporting

State
IN
FL
FL
CA
VA
MA
TX
OH
NC
ID
CA
OR
CA
FL
CA
GA
CA
NC
PA
AL

Capacity MW
563
1,355
1,295
498
1,329
246
831
625
1,227
331
742
305
648
4,019
570
2,739
277
717
810
798

Generation GWh
2,421
6,845
4,827
3,980
379
1,055
3,022
3,934
7,037
1,049
2,332
1,494
2,247
19,765
2,599
16,922
1,316
3,866
3,835
5,028

Capacity Factor
49.1%
57.7%
42.5%
91.2%
3.3%
48.9%
41.5%
71.8%
65.5%
36.2%
35.9%
55.9%
39.6%
56.1%
52.0%
70.5%
54.2%
61.6%
54.0%
72.0%

Fuel Consumption mmBtu

16,053,724
45,754,353
32,605,932
26,984,983
2,575,506
7,174,919
20,585,260
27,091,344
48,872,805
7,289,717
16,251,411
10,414,207
15,669,391
138,077,752
18,167,141
118,386,032
9,209,913
27,056,507
26,845,531
35,205,741

Heat Rate mmBtu/MWh

6.631
6.684
6.755
6.780
6.797
6.801
6.811
6.887
6.945
6.948
6.968
6.971
6.973
6.986
6.991
6.996
6.997
6.998
7.001
7.002

Total

Total

Average

Total

Average

19,925
199,310

93,954
773,049

53.8%
44.3%

650,272,168
5,714,994,976

6.92
7.39

2013 Rank
3
2

8
9
6

15
4
19
11
7
5

Source:

Sandy Units 1 and 2 retired this year

(2015), so we wont see them in this list
when we compile the 2015 data, said
Hewson.
It is important to note that unlike the
generator and capacity factor lists, this
list excludes small plants and co-generation units.
Because co-generation plants use
some of steam to run their manufacturing process and the rest for electricity
generation, they tend to skew the heat
rate numbers, therefore, they werent
included in this list, said Graeter.
The qualifying coal heat rate was a
little lower in 2014 than 2013: 9.765
mmBtu/MWh vs. 9.814 mmBtu/MWh,
respectively. The reason, Graeter said, is
because overall coal unit heat rates are
less efficient as unit utilization drops.

NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT PERFORMANCE
For many years, this top 20 list has
24

1512pe_24 24

seen little change and this year is no

different. Nineteen of the plants in
the 2014 nuclear generation top 20 list
also appeared in the 2013 top 20 list.
Dominions North Anna plant was the
only newcomer in 2014, replacing Exelon Corp.s Nine Mile Point plant.
The units in this list are highly utilized because of their low fuel and variable costs, said Graeter. They are at
the top of the dispatch list.
With several nuclear power plant retirements on the horizon, changes in
the nuclear lists are coming.
Nuclear isnt as set as we thought it
was, said Hewson. Low gas (price) is
undercutting some plants. Single reactor merchant plants are at risk.
The retirement of Entergys Vermont
Yankee in 2014 and the announced retirements of its Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts scheduled by mid-2019 and
its Fitzpatrick plant in New York likely to occur in 2017, are proof of some

nuclear plants vulnerability, he said.

As some of the merchant plants leave
the fleet, new nuclear plants are being
added and those plants have some advantage, Hewson said.
The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is allowing the new
nuclear plants currently under construction to be eligible for emission
reduction credits under the Clean Power Plan if the states in which they are
located adopt a rate plan rather than a
market-based plan (mechanism), he
said. This is an advantage for new nuclear operating in regulated states.
Nuclear capacity factors showed
continued high utilization rates,
Graeter said. As always, there was a lot
of turnover in this list due to refueling
schedules.
The threshold capacity factor for 2014
was about the same as that for 2013: 93.3
percent vs. 93.4 percent, respectively.
The average capacity factor of the top 20
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

* Excludes non-reporting and non-electric sector facilities

Top 20 Coal Generators Ranked by SO2

Emission Rate (2014)*

five plants in this list in 2014 also were

the top five in 2013.
A lot of the big combined-cycle
Rank Owner/Operator
Plant
State SO2 Mass tons Heat Input mmBtu SO2 Rate lb/mmBtu 2012 Rank
plants are operating in regulated
1
Dynegy
Coffeen
IL
32
58,511,416
0.0011
2
markets, said Graeter. Many were
2
WE Energies
South Oak Creek WI
59
43,691,355
0.0027
3
built by regulated utilities to run as
3
Great Plains Energy
Iatan 2
MO 70
42,472,928
0.0033
1
baseload units, so many of the plants
4
Dominion
Virginia City
VA
145
34,520,437
0.0084
6
on this top 20 list are heavily utilized
5
Southern Co.
James H. Miller Jr AL
851
189,070,958
0.0090
5
and impacted little by gas price.
6
Great Plains Energy
Iatan
MO 223
46,887,049
0.0095
7
Therefore, you see the same plants year
7
WE Energies
Elm Road
WI
397
63,032,307
0.0126
10
after year.
8
Lower Colorado River Authority
Fayette
TX
771
99,437,925
0.0155
8
On the other hand, gas prices
9
Dynegy
Duck Creek
IL
254
23,731,741
0.0214
9
impact
merchant plant operations
10 CPS Energy
J K Spruce
TX
1,146
89,522,615
0.0256
17
more
than
anything else, so youll find
11 Salt River Project
Coronado
AZ
819
57,104,098
0.0287
12
few merchant plants on this top 20
12 PSEG
Hudson 2
NJ
189
12,885,455
0.0293
11
list, he said.
13 Westar Energy
Jeffrey
KS
1,890
128,128,470
0.0295
14
As the table shows, a few plants
14 Newmont Mining
TS Power Plant
NV
242
14,356,803
0.0337
18
on the list do operate in deregulated
15 WE Energies
Pleasant Prairie
WI
1,245
70,764,687
0.0352
13
16 TVA
Bull Run
TN
543
30,180,280
0.0360
markets. They are: NextEra Energys
17 Santee Cooper
Winyah
SC
1,056
49,702,473
0.0425
Forney plant, Dominions Fairless
18 PSEG
Mercer
NJ
130
5,796,730
0.0450
19
plant,
North
American
Energy
19 Duke Energy Corp.
Cliffside
NC
1,261
55,785,841
0.0452
16
Services La Paloma plant and PSEGs
20 Black Hills Corp.
Wygen II
WY 198
8,367,480
0.0474
20
Bergen plant.
Total
Total
Average
Many smaller generators that did not
Top 20
11,522
1,123,951,046
0.02050
report in 2013 did so in 2014, resulting
EPA Reporting
3,034,023
16,432,357,522 0.36927
in fewer gigawatt-hours generated by
the top 20 plants in the capacity factor
Source:
plants, however, was almost 1 percent in 2014 after decreasing in 2013, as list.
lower in 2014 than 2013.
did the capacity rating for all reporting
The addition of these smaller plants
In addition, the top 20 plants gener- plants. In 2014, all
also caused a lot of
ated almost 14,000 GWh less electrici- reporting U.S. gasNuclear capacity turnover in the list
ty in 2014 than they did in 2013.
fired combined-cyfrom 2013 to 2014,
On the other hand, the entire nuclear cle plants had a total factors showed
said Graeter. Only
fleet (all reporting plants) obtained an capacity of 238,116 continued high
four plants in the
average capacity factor in 2014 that was MW and generated utilization rates.
2013 list returned to
2 percent higher than that of 201390 914,722 GWh of electhe list in 2014.
As always, there
percent vs. 88 percentresulting in tricity. In 2013, those
The average capacnearly 8,000 GWh more electricity figures were 230,819 was a lot of
ity factor of the top
generated in 2014.
MW and 872,514 turnover in this list
20 plants in 2014
Capacity factor was down, but GWh.
increased more than
due to refueling
generation was up, Hewson said.
Although gas pricthree and a half perThis is due in part to some unit es were higher in schedules.
centage points from
uprates, he said. Uprates are cheaper 2014 and coal-fired - Philip Graeter
the 2013 average:
than new build.
utilization was up,
85.5 percent vs. 82.4
the U.S. gas-fired combined-cycle fleet percent. In addition, the threshold to
GAS-FIRED COMBINEDincreased its generation.
make the top 20 increased from 77.2
CYCLE POWER PLANT
Only three plants fell out of this top percent in 2013 to 80.8 percent in 2014.
PERFORMANCE
20 list. Like the coal and nuclear top 20
As in years past, many of the units in
Gas-fired combined-cycle genera- generation lists, the same large units this top 20 list are cogeneration units
tion for all reporting plants increased dominate this list each year. The top that sell steam and are heavily utilized

www.power-eng.com

1512pe_25 25

25

12/4/15 3:14 PM

INDUSTRY REPORT

26

1512pe_26 26

* Excludes non-reporting and non-electric sector facilities

Top 20 Coal Generators Ranked by NOX Emission Rate (2014)*

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
NRG Energy Inc.
Basin Electric Power Co-op
AEP
Black Hills Corp.
LS Power
Schuylkill Energy Resource
Dominion
Newmont Mining
Cleco
Great Plains Energy
NRG Energy Inc.
Seminole
RI-CORP Development
WE Energies
American Municipal Power Inc.
Dynegy
Hoosier Energy
TVA
Black Hills Corp.
Luminant

Plant
Morgantown
Dry Fork Station
John W Turk Jr.
Wygen III
Sandy Creek
St. Nicholas Cogen
Chesterfield
TS Power Plant
Brame Energy Center
Iatan 2
W A Parish
Seminole
John B Rich Memorial Power Station
Elm Road
Prairie State
Kincaid
Merom
Kingston
Wygen II
Sandow
Top 20
EPA Reporting

State
MD
WY
AR
WY
TX
PA
VA
NV
LA
MO
TX
FL
PA
WI
IL
IL
IN
TN
WY
TX

NOX Mass tons

1,157
648
779
190
1,400
223
1,553
343
987
1,083
4,411
2,283
126
1,809
2,691
2,023
2,025
1,703
258
1,501

Heat Input mmBtu

61,237,749
34,213,186
39,971,829
9,546,712
59,697,522
9,471,665
65,512,091
14,356,803
40,803,993
42,472,928
164,881,887
80,688,259
4,438,032
63,032,307
91,544,900
67,095,477
66,285,478
55,642,065
8,367,480
48,354,426

NOX Rate lb/mmBtu

0.0378
0.0379
0.0390
0.0399
0.0469
0.0471
0.0474
0.0478
0.0484
0.0510
0.0535
0.0566
0.0566
0.0574
0.0588
0.0603
0.0611
0.0612
0.0617
0.0621

Total

Total

Average

27,195
1,493,019

1,027,614,787
16,803,284,681

0.05293
0.17771

10
2012 Rank
2
4
5
6
7
9
8
17
12
10
15
11
18
14

Source:

Top 20 Gas Combined Cycle Ranked by NOX Emission Rate (2014)* 11

* Excludes non-reporting and non-electric sector facilities

because they are needed to

meet industrial needs.
Prior to 2013, the top 20
heat rate list saw a lot of
turnover from year to year.
That trend changed in 2013,
when 15 plants returned
from the previous year.
More turnover was seen
in the 2014 top 20 list, but
nevertheless, more than half
the plants on the list (11)
were repeats from 2013.
NV Energys Harry Allen
plant, which was No. 1 on
the list in 2013, fell out of
the top 20 and NiSources
Sugar Creek plant came in at
No. 1 in 2014.
This is the first time the
plant has made the list since
it began operation in 2008.
NextEra Energys Cape Canaveral plant, which was
new in 2013, climbed from
No. 3 to No. 2 in 2014, its
first year of full operation.
Dominions Warren County
plant, which began operation late in 2014, also made
the list, coming in at No. 5.
The average heat rate of
the top 20, as well as the
threshold heat rate to break
into the top 20, was about
the same in 2014 as it was
in 2013. The No. 1 heat rate,
however, was better in 2014
than 2013: 6.631 mmBtu/
MWh vs. 6.798 mmBtu/
MWh.
These top 20 plants
operate extremely efficiently
and each year, they seem to
get a little better.
My hats off to these
guys, said Hewson. New
technology allows the gasfired combined-cycle fleet
to achieve better and better
heat rates..

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Owner/Operator
Occidental Petroleum
City of Redding
Pacific Gas and Electric
NRG Energy Inc.
Black Hills Corp.
Calpine
Orlando Utilities Commission
Atlantic Power
PSEG
Scramento Municipal Utility District
NRG
GE
Sempra Energy
Northern California Power Agency
Florida Municipal Power Agency
Calpine
Burbank Water & Power
Southern California Edison
North American Energy Services
NV Power

Plant
Elk Hills
Redding
Colusa
El Segundo
BHCI Facility
Los Esteros
Stanton
North Island
Linden
Cosumnes
Sunrise
Inland Empire
Palomar
Lodi
Treasure Coast
Otay Mesa
Magnolia
Mountainview
La Paloma
Harry Allen
Top 20
EPA Reporting

State NOX Mass tons

CA
41
CA
4
CA
37
CA
29
CO
20
CA
4
FL
25
CA
5
NJ
101
CA
67
CA
51
CA
42
CA
49
CA
25
FL
36
CA
71
CA
33
CA
127
CA
139
NV
68

Heat Input mmBtu NOX Rate lb/mmBtu

29,015,158
0.0028
2,236,616
0.0034
17,804,917
0.0041
13,835,331
0.0042
9,106,869
0.0044
2,041,350
0.0044
11,210,429
0.0045
2,070,068
0.0047
41,079,529
0.0049
26,984,983
0.0050
20,210,104
0.0050
16,251,411
0.0052
18,167,141
0.0054
9,209,913
0.0054
13,190,607
0.0054
26,288,359
0.0054
12,174,142
0.0055
46,054,246
0.0055
47,152,193
0.0059
22,297,871
0.0061

Total

Total

Average

973
63,491

386,381,236
6,966,950,975

0.00504
0.01823

2013 Rank
1
9
14

3
4
5
6
18
2
8
11
13
15
12
10
20
19

Source:

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#10

1512pe_27 27

12/4/15 3:14 PM

DISTRIBUTED POWER

CHP: The New

Generation Option

BY JESSICA REMER, ONLINE EDITOR

ombined heat and

power (CHP) is finally catching on in the
world of power generation, and it only took
little more than a century to do so.
CHP, or cogeneration, is as old as
when steam was first used for power
28

1512pe_28 28

production, said Robert Giglio, vice

president of strategy with Amec Foster
Wheelers Global Power Group. But
only in recent years has it become a
trend among power producers.
CHP systems capture waste heat produced during power generation and
use that energy for thermal needs, like

heating or cooling. This highly-efficient approach to generation has always

made sense for the industrial sector, but
new advances have made CHP more
attractive for smaller applications, like
office buildings and hospitals.
When you burn a fuel to generate
heat, that heat has a certain value to it,
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

North Dakotas Spiritwood Station generates electricity for

homes and businesses. The steam byproduct is then used
by a nearby malt and biorefinery. Photo courtesy: Great
River Energy

and you can then make steam with that

heat, said Giglio. That steam can be
made into more than a couple things.
In recent years, the energy industry
has seen significant increases in CHP
capacity. According to the Combined
Heat and Power Association, since 1980
about 50,000 MW of CHP capacity were
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_29 29

developed in the U.S.

Thanks to an executive order by President Obama, as of 2012 another 40,000
MW of new CHP capacity targeted for
deployment by 2020.
Its really interesting that a technology as old as combined heat and
power has seen such a regeneration of

interest, said Doug Friedel, Black & Veatch Energy Intensive Industries Group
director of projects.
Experts cite a number of drivers behind the growth. Among them, the
benefit of reliability.
All of the storms that have happened
on the east coast have caused a real interest in, How can I make my power
supply more reliable? How can I make
my operation more resilient? Whats a
better way to provide backup power?
said Friedel. And we know that combined heat and power is a more cost-effective way of providing that power
resiliency, so theres a lot of interest in
combined heat and power for that.
Friedel says Superstorm Sandy saw
grid-independent CHP plants continue
powering universities, hospitals and industrial complexes while the rest of the
coast went dark.
Depending on where sites are in the
country, there is a lot of talk about reliability, said Anne Hampson, ICF International senior manager. More recently, especially after Hurricane Sandy,
industrial sites find it more appealing
to have a distributed generation system
that can continue operating.
Perhaps even more attractive to power producers is the ability to operate at
near twice the efficiency of conventional power plants with fewer emissions.
There are a lot more environmental
regulations coming out recently really driving people to look at how they
can be more efficient, said Hampson.
CHP makes a lot of sense.
Separate heat and power operations
in which power is purchased from the
grid and thermal energy is generated
with a boiler are capable of achieving
only about 35-percent efficiency. But a
CHP system that generates its own power, recovers the waste heat and uses it
29

12/4/15 3:14 PM

DISTRIBUTED POWER

Spiritwood Station, which uses lignite as a fuel source,

is capable of reaching up to 65-percent efficiency by
harnessing the energy in steam. Photo courtesy: Great
River Energy

in a beneficial way, either at or near the

facility, can achieve around 75-percent
efficiency.
If you think about it, if (CHP) is
twice as efficient, it also puts half of the
carbon into the atmosphere, half of the
pollutants into the atmosphere, thats
beneficial for everybody, said Friedel.
In October, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys Clean Power Plan
was published in the Federal Register.
It calls for a 32-percent reduction in
carbon dioxide emissions from 2005
levels by 2030.
Now that were talking about environmental issues, more and more related to energy, (CHP) is the natural next
step to minimize the environmental
footprint for the power industry, said
Giglio.
One of the nations newest CHP projects, fully operational since November
2014, is Jamestown, North Dakotas
Spiritwood Station, which generates
electricity for homes and businesses.
The steam byproduct is then used by the
nearby Cargill Malt and Dakota Spirit
AgEnergy biorefinery.
Spiritwood, owned by the cooperative Great River Energy (GRE), is
capable of reaching up to 65-percent
efficiency by taking advantage of the
energy in steam.
Spiritwoods fuel source is lignite,
which is dried and refined at GREs Coal
Creek Station near Underwood, North
Dakota. The resulting product DryFine lignite boasts a higher BTU value per pound, permitting the use of less
fuel during generation. Additionally,
refining lignite removes higher density
products that contain more sulfur and
mercury, further reducing emissions.
Spiritwood uses a type of coal as its
fuel source but CHP systems boast fuel
30

1512pe_30 30

diversity, using oil, biomass, wood and

landfill gases. According to ICF International, about 70 percent of CHP in the
U.S. is fueled by natural gas.
Hampson, who has studied CHP
trends for more than a decade, says shes
seen CHP fall in and out of favor over
the years, and while CHPs growth has
been dependent on the broader energy
market gas prices have played a huge
role.
(CHP) tends to react to a lot of the
drivers and things like when we saw the
recession around 2008, said Hampson.
It corresponded with the time when we
saw the high, volatile natural gas prices.
It was a little bit harder to have on-site
energy and things like CHP because
people were worried about really volatile and really high prices on gas.
The price of gas now, however, is
forecasted to remain below $5 through
2025, according to Black & Veatch. That
in addition to end users becoming more
focused on distributed generation altogether accounts for at least part of the
new CHP trend, says Hampson.
ICF International maintains a database of all existing CHP systems across
the U.S. and also tracks announcements
and sites under development.

While about 80 percent of todays

installed CHP capacity is at industrial sites, Hampson says utilities, which
historically have not been fans of CHP,
are showing more interest in becoming
involved in new CHP projects.
They look at it as one of their customers saying they dont need them
anymore, said Hampson. Nobody
wants to lose a customer, but were
seeing a lot of utilities now thinking
instead of having an industrial site in
their territory doing CHP on their own,
if the utility can partner with them and
be involved in that installation, how do
they get value out of it?
William Gallagher, GRE portfolio
project manager, says the partnerships
between Spiritwood Station and its two
steam clients are probably the most
unique aspect of this particular CHP
project.
Gallagher says the idea for Spiritwood arose in the early 2000s when
GREs electrical load was growing by
about 5 percent a year and the cooperative was looking for opportunities to
develop new power stations. GRE was
approached by the North Dakota governors office about an idea to locate one
of the new power stations near a large
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

malting facility near Jamestown.

At the time, Gallagher says, near-record high natural gas prices led the
local barley malting facility to pursue
less expensive heating options, and at
the same time a local developer was
looking to construct an ethanol plant
in the area. GRE already had ethanol
experience from a previous partnership with Headwaters Inc. when the
cooperative helped build Blue Flint
Ethanol adjacent to GREs Coal Creek
Station to take advantage of low cost
steam.
Thus, the concept of constructing
a new combined heat and power facility to generate grid electricity and extract process steam for the industrial
customers was put into motion, said
Gallagher.
Ultimately, the original ethanol developer left the partnership. Without
another steam customer, GRE established its own partner by replicating
the project with Blue Flint Ethanol, developing 550 acres of land adjacent to
Spiritwood Station to create an industrial energy park where Dakota Spirit
AgEnergy biorefinery now operates.
Being a cooperative, Great River
Energys customers are also our owners, said Gallagher. And our owners
understand the long-term benefits of
such an investment, especially in this
era of lowering carbon intensities.
Friedel says it makes perfect sense
for a utility, which is in the business of
generating power, to step in and assist
with such an operation.
We find that its a very beneficial
area for utilities to get involved in because manufacturers or large central
operations like a hospital complex, a
university, an industrial campus that
wants to be in the business of doing
what they do best, manufacturing
something, maintaining their service
to their clientele, they dont really want
to be in the business of generating
power, said Friedel. Its not their core
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_31 31

business and they dont want to invest

in that. But they want to find a cost-effective way of doing it.
Despite recent increases in CHP capacity across the U.S., the approach is
still not catching on the way experts
would hope.
Giglio says CHP is common in places
like northern Europe where about 90
percent of the regions power plants are
CHP and one system may supply thermal energy to an entire community.
This country doesnt seem to adopt
a communal way of thinking, said Giglio. When they build something, its
whats right for me, not necessarily my
neighbor.
Hampson believes more education
could change the way CHP is viewed
in the U.S., but she says policy and the
regulatory framework are also lacking.
We see a lot of other countries in
Europe and Japan and other first world
countries where CHP is a lot more
prevalent, and its because theyve been
structured to include it and utilities
find value in it, said Hampson. In
the U.S., if a utility cant find value in it
why would they do it?
Giglio agrees the lack of regulatory
action regarding CHP is partially to
blame for its slow growth in the U.S.,
but he also believes the presidents executive order is extremely unrealistic
as a country.
(CHP) works best in colder climates, thats why a Spiritwood project
happens, said Giglio. It makes more
sense. Anything south of Virginia, the
winters get softer and warmer, and they
dont really have a big heating load.
They tend not to use the heat after you
make the power, they throw it away.
Giglio says the countrys warmer locations could take advantage of CHP
through district cooling plants, reversing the temperature of the steam,
taking the heat from these plants and
cooling homes by putting a chiller absorption cycle between the power plant

and the communal water systems. Its

a common practice in highly-populated areas like Asia.
District energy needs to be further developed, promoted and campaigned, said Giglio. Its doable, its
been proven.
Thanks to new advances, CHP is becoming more cost-effective and realistic for smaller-scale applications.
Historically, tackling a CHP project
has been fairly complex, requiring custom engineering, specifically for industrial sites, hospitals and other large
facilities. But the emergence of more
packaged or modular CHP systems allows for easier installation.
Because gas is cheap now, people
can put in small generators and turn
exhaust into hot water, said Giglio.
These plug and play systems, as
Hampson calls them, are just one of
the differences in todays CHP systems
compared to those of yesteryear.
The basic efficiencies today are a
far cry from what power producers
worked with more than a century ago,
the equipment now operates hours on
end before shutting down for maintenance and fewer on-site operators are
required to maintain operations.
CHP is a very cost-effective technology today, said Hampson. A lot of
times when we talk about renewables
and other things, people are talking
about stuff that can happen in future
years. This is cost-effective today. The
technology is there today. Its highly-efficient and its a big thing that can
reduce emissions right now. I think
it gets overlooked when people start
planning ways to meet targets in 2030
or later years, theyre waiting for technology improvements. We do have a
really viable, good option right now.
I think if it was something thought of
and incorporated into master planning
for cities and buildings and growing
our industrial base, it would do us a lot
of good.
31

12/4/15 3:14 PM

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

Authors
Sterling Gray is Business Development
Manager of Process Technologies at
AECOM.
Kevin OBoyle is Director of Research &
Development of Ljungstrm Division at
Arvos, Inc.

Effective SO3
Control Reduces
Fuel Costs and
CO2 Emissions

BY STERLING GRAY AND KEVIN J. OBOYLE

he Clean Power Plan recently issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires existing power
plants to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions by roughly 32 percent from
2005 levels by the year 2030. The EPA
has outlined three basic building
blocks to achieve these reductions.
These include:
Improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel-fired plants
Shifting to lower-emitting power
sources such as natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
Installing more zero/low-emitting
power sources such as renewables
and nuclear
The EPA has assumed that the efficiency of existing coal plants can be
improved by an average of 2 to 4 percent from baseline levels. One way to
accomplish this is to increase the recovery of energy from the combustion
gases using the air preheater (APH)
equipment installed on all coal power plants. However, to avoid fouling
and corrosion of the equipment by SO3
present in the flue gas, it is often necessary to operate the APH at elevated
gas exit temperatures, thereby reducing
heat recovery and increasing both operating costs and CO2 emissions.
32

1512pe_32 32

There is a way to overcome this limitation and improve plant efficiency

and heat rate by 1 to 3 percent. With
effective removal of SO3 prior to the
APH, its design and operation can be
upgraded to maximize heat recovery,
thus lowering plant operating costs
and CO2 emissions.
This technology has been demonstrated at a Midwestern power plant
burning high-sulfur coal. The plant
has successfully reduced the APH gas
exit temperatures by roughly 70F by
upgrading the APH and reducing inlet air preheat, thereby improving the
plant heat rate or efficiency by nearly 2 percent. Other benefits realized
include reduced mercury emissions
and improved particulate collection
efficiency.
While these efficiency
improvements are representative for
high-sulfur coal plants, they cannot
necessarily be applied to all coal plants,
particularly plants burning western
low-sulfur coals that already operate at
low APH gas exit temperatures.

AIR PREHEATER
EFFICIENCY
DEMONSTRATION
Impact of SO3 on APH Operation
and Efficiency
When sulfur-containing fuels are
combusted, the sulfur is oxidized to

SO2 in the boiler, with a small fraction

further oxidized to SO3. If the plant
is equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to convert
NOx to harmless nitrogen, additional
SO3 is created when the SO2 containing
flue gas passes through the SCR catalyst. For typical plants burning medium to high sulfur coals, SO3 levels in
the flue gas can range from 20 to 80
parts per million by volume (ppmv).

A 1 percent
improvement in
plant heat rate can
reduce annual plant
fuel costs by nearly
$1 million, and lower
CO2 emissions by
more than 40,000
tons per year.
When the flue gas is cooled across
the APH, the SO3 can combine with
moisture in the flue gas causing sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to condense. The sulfuric acid dew point (i.e., temperature
at which the acid will condense as a liquid) is a function of both flue gas moisture and temperature. The sulfuric acid
dew point for most coal plants typically ranges from 280 to 320F depending
on the SO3 and moisture levels. For
example, a typical plant burning high
sulfur coal and operating an SCR will
have a flue gas SO3 concentration of
about 50 ppmv, and a corresponding
sulfuric acid dew point of about 310F.
However, if the SO3 concentration is
reduced to 1 to 5 ppmv, the acid dew
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

Impact of APH Exit Temperature of Fuel Operating

www.power-eng.com

1512pe_33 33

Annual CO2 Reduction (TPY)

APH dP Gas-Side (In WC, Load >500 MW)

Unit Load (MW), APH Gas Out Temp. (F)

Annual Fuel Savings ($M/Yr)

1
point is lowered to 240 to
Costs and CO2 Emissions
265F, respectively.
To avoid fouling and cor500 MW, 80% Cap Factor; $2.50/MMBtu Fuel
rosion of the APH, as well
125,000
3.0
as corrosion of downstream
Fuel
Savings
equipment, the APH is typCO2 Reduction
ically operated to maintain
2.5
$2.6
100,000
an elevated exit flue gas
temperature of 30 to 40F
above the acid dew point.
2.0
As a result, the amount of
75,000
heat or energy that can be
$1.8
recovered from the flue gas
1.5
is limited by SO3 levels in
50,000
the flue gas, thus affecting
1.0
the efficiency of the power
plant. A change in the exit
$0.9
gas temperature of roughly
25,000
0.5
35F equates to a 1 percent
change in plant heat rate
and, thus, overall plant ef0
0
ficiency. Figure 1 shows
350
315
280
245
the impact of the APH opAPH Outlet Gas Temperature (F)
erating temperature on fuel
operating costs as well as
Source: AECOM
CO2 emissions for a typical 500-MW plant with a
2
Plant Operating Data Following APH Upgrade
typical fuel cost of $2.50/
MMBtu. As shown, a 1 per700
3.5
cent improvement in plant
heat rate can reduce annual
600
3.0
plant fuel costs by nearly
$1 million, and lower CO2
500
2.5
emissions by more than
40,000 tons per year.
400
2.0
Pilot-Scale Evaluation
300
1.5
of High-Efficiency APH
The LJUNGSTRM Di200
1.0
vision of ARVOS Group
has been conducting fun100
0.5
damental research for
nearly a decade to devel0
0.0
op and demonstrate ad5/1/14
6/20/14
8/9/14
9/28/14
11/17/14
1/6/15
vanced
high-efficiency
Unit Load
APH Gas Out T
APH dP Gas-Side
Ljungstrm air preheater
Source: AECOM
technology that can operate for a minimum of one
year between scheduled maintenance. parameter affecting APH fouling is Extensive pilot-scale testing has shown
Research conducted at both the bench the ratio of condensed sulfuric acid that when the APH inlet flue gas SO3
and pilot scale has shown that a key to fly ash in the bulk flue gas stream. level is reduced to 5 ppm or less for
33

12/4/15 3:14 PM

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

34

1512pe_34 34

APH Operating Temperature Trends

Air Preheater RGOT Demo
APH Cold End Temperatures vs. Operating Time

1st Period

2nd Period
Offline (No APH Wash)

APH Gas Outlet Temp. (F)

310

450

RGOT Operation
1/29/15 to 4/22/15

290
270
250
230

400

3rd Period

350
300
250
200

210

150

190

100

170

50

Ambient Temp., ACET & APH Air Inlet Temp. (F)

Baseline
@ 285 F

Offline (No APH Wash)

330

150
1/19/15

2/2/15

APH Gas Outlet Temp.

2/16/15

3/2/15

APH TGO Set Point

3/16/15
PA Inlet Temp

3/30/15

4/13/15

SA Inlet Temp

Tambient

4/27/15
ACET

Source: ARVOS, Inc.

APH Pressure Drop and Gas Flow Trends

Air Preheater Gas Side Pressure Drop vs Operating Time
Full Data Set for All Operating Loads
4500
Baseline
@ 285 F

APH pressure drop follows flue gas flow

rate with no indication of significant or
persistent fouling.

RGOT Operation
1/29/15 to 4/22/15

4.0

3500

2.0
1.0
0.0

Offline (No APH Wash)

Offline (No APH Wash)

3.0

3000
2500

2000
1500

-1.0
1st Period

2nd Period

3rd Period
1000

-2.0
1/19/15

4000
Flue Gas Mass Flow (ton/hr)

5.0

APH Gas Side Pressure Drop (inwg)

typical coal, the APH can be

operated at gas exit temperatures as low as 220F indefinitely without evidence of
fouling or corrosion. This
positive result has also provided additional flexibility
in the design of heat transfer
surfaces, allowing the APH
design to be optimized for
maximum heat recovery and
reliability.
Full-Scale Upgrade of
APH at Existing Power
Plant
Based
on
successful
demonstration at the pilot
scale, LJUNGSTRM and
AECOM evaluated several
candidate power plants for
full-scale demonstration of
the advanced high-efficiency APH design. A Midwestern power plant was selected
based on the following characteristics:
Fires high-sulfur Illinois
Basin (ILB) bituminous
coal
Operates SCR for NOx
control resulting in elevated SO3 levels (70+
ppm)
Operates an existing
SBS Injection system
for SO3 mitigation
Consistently achieves
SO3 levels below 5 ppm
at the APH inlet
Operates
existing
ABS-Tolerant APH design with spare depth in
rotor
Uses Breen ABS sensor
to continuously monitor condensibles at
APH inlet
The plant is equipped with
a tri-sector APH and two sets
of steam coils that are used

2/2/15

2/16/15

APH Gas Side Pressure Drop

3/2/15

3/16/15

3/30/15

4/13/15

4/27/15

Calculated Flue Gas Mass Flow from CO2 & Boiler O2

Source: ARVOS, Inc.

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:14 PM

to pre-heat the incoming combustion air. One set is located prior to the Primary Air and Secondary Air fans, while a
second set is located between the Secondary Air fan and the
APH itself. These steam coils are used to control the APH
gas exit temperature even as the ambient air temperature
and furnace exit temperatures vary as a function of boiler
load.
The host plant installed and began operating the SBS Injection system for SO3 control in June 2012. After a year
of successful operation with no APH fouling or pressure
drop increase, the utility elected to upgrade their existing
APH to improve thermal efficiency, thereby improving
plant heat rate and reducing fuel operating costs. The upgrade was completed in May 2014 by replacing the shallow
12-inch-deep, hot-end
Steam coils are
basket with a more efficient and deeper 27.5used to control
inch basket design. As
the APH gas exit
a result, the total heat
temperature even transfer surface depth,
including the cold-end
as the ambient
element, was increased
air temperature
to 63.5 inches.
and furnace exit
Figure 2 shows the
plant operating data
temperature vary
during the eight-month
as a function of
period following the
boiler load.
APH upgrade.
As
shown, the boiler operated at full load most of the time but
typically cycled to minimum load on a daily basis. Prior to the installation of SO3 controls at the plant, the APH
was typically operated at an elevated gas exit temperature of
330F or higher to avoid fouling and corrosion. However,
with operation of the SBS Injection system and upgrade of
the APH, the plant was able to operate at a typical gas outlet temperature of only 285F. The figure also shows that
during the eight months of operation from June 2014 to Jan
2015, the APH gas-side pressure drop remained stable with
no increase or evidence of any fouling.
Long-Term APH Efficiency Demonstration
Based on successful operation in 2014, the host utility
agreed to conduct a long-term demonstration of operation
at even lower APH gas exit temperatures. By conducting
the demonstration during the colder winter months, the
air inlet temperature to the APH could be maintained at a
lower temperature, allowing the APH gas exit temperature
to be further reduced. The approach to the demonstration
involved step-wise reductions in the combustion air temperature to achieve a controlled reduction in the APH gas
outlet temperature. Figure 3 shows the APH gas outlet
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_35 35

1.866.643.1010 ClearSpan.com/ADPWRE

WE MANUFACTURE t WE INSTALL
WE SAVE YOU MONEY

ENERGY-EFFICIENT, COST-EFFECTIVE BUILDINGS

Fabric Structures

Hybrid Buildings

Foundation Solutions

0% FINANCING FOR 84 MONTHS OR GET A BIG CASH DISCOUNT

*

GET

RESTRICTIONS APPLY

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#11

CLEAN SOLUTIONS FOR THE POWER INDUSTRY

Power generation has many unique monitoring

requirements, from combustion optimization, air
pollution control and continuous emissions
monitoring. The more complex the process, the
greater the demand on the solutions. SICK offers
rugged technologies that are perfectly tailored for
each measurement environment, with superior
equipment availability and easy operation. We
think thats intelligent. www.sickusa.com.

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#12

35

12/4/15 3:14 PM

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

Impact of Flue Gas Temperature on

Mercury Levels in flue Gas

Hg0 at ESP Outlet (ug/dNm3)

the beneficial impact on

fly ash resistivity, as well
as the specific collecting
area (SCA) of the ESP.
6.0
Summary
1.5 SBS Molar Ratio
Removal of SO3 from
1.8 SBS Molar Ratio
2.5 SBS Molar Ratio
flue
gases can provide
5.0
opportunities to significantly improve the ther4.0
mal performance of the
Ljungstrm air preheater,
improving the reliability
3.0
and energy efficiency of
coal-fired power plants.
2.0
With SO3 reduced to 5
ppm at the inlet to the
APH, pilot-scale testing
1.0
has successfully demonSCR Outlet Hg0 ~ 4-6 ug/dNm3
strated long-term operation at exit gas tempera0.0
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
tures as low as 220F,
APH Exit Gas Temp. (F)
providing for up to 3 percent improvement in overSource: EPRI, Chang (2013), AECOM
all plant energy efficiency.
temperature during the demonstration of increasing, and in fact appears to de- A long-term full-scale demonstration
period from late January to mid-April crease slightly over time.
was then conducted at a 500-MW Mid2015. In early February, the gas outFollowing the long-term demonstra- western power plant. The plant uses
let temperature was reduced to 255F. tion, the APH was inspected during the SBS Injection process to reduce
However, due to unrelated boiler is- a planned outage in May 2015. The APH inlet SO3 levels from 70 ppm to
sues, fluctuating load, and warming inspection confirmed that there were less than 5 ppm.
ambient temperatures, the APH gas no deposits present within the basThrough an upgrade of the APH in
outlet temperature varied from 255 to kets, and no signs of corrosion of early 2014, the plant lowered the exit
285F during the later periods of the the heat-transfer elements or baskets gas temperature from 330 down to
demonstration. In addition, two boil- themselves.
285F and operated for eight months
er outages, unrelated to the APH operIn addition to improved plant ef- without any fouling or increase in APH
ation, occurred during the long-term ficiency and reduced CO2 emissions, pressure drop. The plant then further
demonstration. It should be noted that removing SO3 and lowering APH tem- reduced the APH exit temperature and
the APH was not washed or cleaned peratures can provide many other plant operated successfully for over three
during either unit outage.
operational co-benefits. Testing per- months at exit temperatures as low as
To provide an early indication of formed by the Electric Power Research 255F, realizing an improvement in
any fouling or pluggage within the Institute (EPRI) at the demonstration plant efficiency of roughly 2 percent,
APH baskets, the APH pressure drop plant, showed that mercury emissions and an equivalent reduction in CO2
was also closely monitored during were reduced by over 75 percent simply emissions. In addition, the plant also
the long-term demonstration. Figure by lowering the APH exit gas tempera- realized a reduction in mercury emis4 compares the APH gas-side pressure ture from 340 to 270F, as illustrated sions. Based on the success of the
drop to the calculated gas flow during in Figure 5. In general, the particulate long-term demonstration, the utility is
the entire demonstration period. As removal performance of an electro- actively evaluating an even more effishown, the pressure drop correlated static precipitator (ESP) also improves cient APH upgrade for a second unit at
well with gas flow and showed no signs with lower flue gas temperatures due to the power plant.
36

1512pe_36 36

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:15 PM

Call for Abstracts

august 23-25, 2016

greater columbus convention center
Columbus, Ohio, USA

Dont miss this opportunity to present

your ideas with industry colleagues!
POWER-GEN Natural Gas is currently accepting abstracts that provide a unique opportunity to hear
first-hand from leading energy professionals with environmental, technical, social and regulatory
perspectives. SUBMIT YOUR ABSTRACT FOR CONSIDERATION BY JANUARY 8, 2016 and take
advantage of the opportunity to share your insights and experiences with industry colleagues.
Listed below are a few suggested topics, or propose your own industry-related topic.

TOPICS OF INTEREST
OIL & GAS

Growth in Gas Markets

Contracts and Regulation
Logistical Developments
Evolution of AppalachianGas Supply
Political Issues

POWER

Large Frame Gas Turbines

Operations and Maintenance
Siting and Construction
Small Gas Turbines and Gas Engines

submit your abstracts by JANuary 8, 2016

FOR DETAILS ON SUBMITTALS, PLEASE VISIT WWW.POWER-GENNATURALGAS.COM.

PRESENTED BY:

OWNED & PRODUCED BY:

p o w e r - g e n n a t u r a l g a s . c o m
For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#13

1512pe_37 37

12/4/15 3:15 PM

Authors
Bin Xu is Principle Process Engineer for
Doosan Power Systems America.
David Wilson is Operations Manager for
Doosan Power Systems America.
Rob Broglio is Sr. Sales Manager for Doosan Power Systems America.

EMISSIONS CONTROL

Lower-Cost
Alternative De-NOx
Solutions for CoalFired Power Plants

BY BIN XU, DAVID WILSON, AND ROB BROGLIO

raditionally, large coalfired generating units

have complied with NOx
emissions standards by
retrofitting a selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) system. Using
such a system, a NOx emission reduction
of 90 percent or better can typically be
obtained. In view of the current regulatory and legislative challenges faced by
coal-fired power generation, in addition
to the age and limited remaining operating life of many coal-fired assets, the
capital and operating costs of retrofitting
an SCR system to a unit may not be economically viable.
This situation has resulted in demand
for other more cost-effective NOx compliance measures including fuel selection,
low-NOx burners (LNB), over-fire air
(OFA) systems, combustion optimization
systems, selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) technology, and in-duct or advanced SNCR technology. While individually these measures cannot deliver the
NOx reduction levels of a traditional fullflow SCR systems, in combination with
one another they can deliver significant
reductions in NOx emissions at a fraction
of the installed cost of an SCR.

BACKGROUND
NOx is produced by three mechanisms
during the coal combustion process:
Fuel NOx results from the oxidization
38

1512pe_38 38

1
Schematic Application Diagram of an
of nitrogen compounds in the fuel.
SNCR Scheme in Combination with
NOx formed in
Other Combustion De-NOx Controls
this way is difficult
to minimize. The
SNCR Ammonia
level of fuel NOx
Injection
is directly related
to the amount of
Nitrogen in the
fuel.
Thermal
NOx
Over-Fire Air
results from the
thermal dissociReburning
ation of nitrogen
and oxygen molLow-NOx Burner
ecules in combustion air. Thermal
NOx formation
can be effectively
reduced by keepSource: Doosan Power Systems America
ing the temperature of combustion as low as possi- achieve NOx reduction by controlling
fuel combustion environmental condible.
Prompt NOx results from chemical tions like flame temperature, fuel:oxygen
reactions between nitrogen and car- ratio, and fuel residence time to suppress
bon radicals generated during com- NOx production in the combustion stage.
Low-NOx Burners: LNB use interbustion. For coal-based combustion,
prompt NOx production is generally nal air staging to control the mixture of
fuel and air. This achieves reduced peak
considered to be minimal.
flame temperatures and results in less
NOx formation. In a low-NOx burner,
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Available NOx removal technologies the initial fuel combustion occurs in a
generally fall into two categories: com- fuel-rich, oxygen-deficient zone in which
NOx is formed, followed by a reducing
bustion and post-combustion.
Combustion control methods can atmosphere where hydrocarbons react
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:15 PM

Advanced SNCR Chemical Injection Model Visualization

Temperature (F)
2190

2120

2050

1975

1900

1830

Y
X
Temperature window and chemical injection model visualization

Z
Chemical droplet trajectories tuned to
change in temperature window

Source: Doosan Power Systems America

with NOx to turn it into Nitrogen gas.

The combustion is completed in an oxygen-lean environment to minimize additional NOx formation.
A low-NOx burner retrofit can achieve
NOx reduction on the order of 40 to 70
percent, at an installation cost of $5 to $10
per kilowatt (kW).
Over-Fire Air: Furnace OFA technology
separates combustion air into two separate streams. A primary flow of between
70 to 90 percent of the total combustion
air is routed to the burners, and a secondary flow of 10 to 30 percent of the
total combustion air is injected above the
burner elevation. This allows two-stage
combustion to take place.
In the first stage, the air flow to the
burner is mixed with the fuel at the
burner, producing an oxygen-deficient,
fuel-rich zone in which the formation of
fuel NOx is minimized, and the fuel is
partially combusted.
In the second stage, the balance of the
combustion air is injected through the
OFA nozzles into the furnace, where the
combustion is completed.
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_39 39

Optionally, boosted over-fire air

(BOFA) can be used, where a fan is used
to inject the OFA into the unit at a higher
velocity. This promotes improved mixing
of the OFA and the furnace gases.
OFA technology alone can achieve
NOx reduction on the order of 20 to 45
percent, at an installation cost of $4 to $7
per kW.
Fuel Reburning: Fuel reburning is a
form of fuel-staged combustion usually combined with LNB and OFA. This
method separates the combustion into
three-stages: the primary combustion
zone, the reburn zone, and the burnout
zone.
In the primary zone, coal is fired
through conventional burners or LNB in
low excess-air conditions to reduce initial
NOx formation. A secondary fuel is injected into the upper section of the furnace to create a secondary sub-stoichiometric reburn zone without combustion
air. Natural gas is widely used for this
purpose, although coal and oil are being
demonstrated.
In 2001, an evaluation by the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) of fuel

gas reburning combined with LNB on a
wall-fired boiler reported that 70 percent
NOx reduction could be achieved, with
estimated installed capital cost of around
$26 per kW for a hypothetical 300-MW
cyclone boiler fired with 3 percent sulfur
coal.
Fuel Biasing: Fuel biasing diverts fuel
from the upper-level burners to the lower
ones to create a fuel-rich lower zone and a
fuel-lean upper zone in operation, resulting in a reduction in NOx emissions of up
to 30 percent.
Flue Gas Recirculation: Flue gas recirculation (FGR) recirculates 20 to 30
percent of the boiler flue gas from either
the airheater inlet (hot FGR) or the ID
fan outlet (cold FGR) into the furnace
or burner. The resulting dilution in the
flame reduces flame temperature and
availability of oxygen, thereby reducing thermal NOx formation. The
FGR technique is used mainly in lowNOx gas burners in gas-fired plants.
In coal-fired plants, the FGR can inhibit the combustion efficiency to an
39

12/4/15 3:15 PM

EMISSIONS CONTROL
3

SNCR NOx Reduction Rate at Various Loads (670-MW Unit Firing Biomass)
40

0.30
NH3

35

37%

0.25

Controlled NOx

28%

37%
30

0.20
30%
0.15 37%

29%

34%
35%

30%

29%

39%
39%

31%

31%

37%

20

37% 50%

21%

15

52%

0.10

25

NH3 Slip (ppm)

NOx Concentration (lb/mmbtu @ 6% O2 dry)

Baseline NOx

10
0.05
5
0.00

100%
Load

90%
Load

85%
Load

70%
Load

50%
Load

Test Cases
Source: Doosan Power Systems America

unacceptable degree, though FGR injected elsewhere and used as a reheat

steam temperature control measure
can offer an additional NOx reduction
benefit.
FGR technology alone may achieve
NOx reduction on the order of 20 percent,
at an installation cost of $3 to $5 per kW.
Combustion Optimization: Combustion optimization ties combustion
control methods together to produce a
consistent, controllable furnace combustion process. Often OFA systems and
LNB are installed and initially tuned to
provide the best NOx performance at a
given load on a particular fuel. But when
a variable changes (unit operating profile,
fuel source, weather), the units NOx performance decreases. When this happens,
there is no permanently installed analysis
instrumentation like that used in the initial setup of the OFA system and burners.
Because of this, the plant operations and
maintenance staff cannot retest and further optimize the equipment in a timely
or efficient manner. To assist in the maintenance of NOx performance combustion
40

1512pe_40 40

optimization systems, which utilize

online gas temperature monitoring and
analysis systems that are integrated into
the boiler control systems can help to
maximize NOx control performance in
response to changing conditions.
POST-COMBUSTION CONTROL
METHODS
Post-combustion control methods can
reduce NOx emissions by neutralizing the
NOx into nitrogen gas via chemical reactions either with or without the use of a
catalyst.
Selective Catalytic Reduction: SCR
is a method of converting NOx into nitrogen and water via chemical reactions that
utilize ammonia or urea, with the aid of a
catalyst. Typically, the ammonia or urea
is injected into the flue gas stream after
the economizer and before the air heater. After the reagents are mixed with flue
gas in a static mixing device, the flue gas
is passed evenly through the catalyst. Excessive carryover of ash from the furnace
can cause the catalyst to plug. Carryover
of catalyst-poisoning elements such as
potassium can also lead to reduction in

efficiency of the catalyst. The SCR process

is also temperature-dependent, which
causes a loss of reaction efficiency at both
low and high temperatures.
An SCR system may achieve a NOx reduction on the order of 85 to 90 percent,
at a cost of about $100 to $200 per kW.
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction:
SNCR is a method used to reduce NOx
by injecting either ammonia or urea into
the boiler furnace at locations where the
flue gas is between 1,600 and 2,100F. As
its name suggests, an SNCR system does
not require a catalyst. However, effective
SNCR is dependent upon sufficient reaction time within the flue gas temperature
window and adequate mixing of the reagent with the flue gas.
It is critical to design an SNCR system
to operate within this temperature window. If the temperature is too high, the
ammonia will decompose to produce
additional NOx. If the temperature is too
low, the reaction will not occur, resulting
in wasted ammonia. So-called ammonia
slip will react with sulfur from the fuel to
form ammonium sulfate and ammonium
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:15 PM

0.45

Baseline NOx

0.40

UK
Bituminous

0.35
0.30
0.25

34%

Controlled NOx

NH3

40

UK
Bituminous

39%

35
UK
Bituminous

37%

Columbia
La Loma

Illinois
Illinois Basin
Basin (Gallatia) (Gallatia)

33%

34%

41%

30
25
20

0.20
15
0.15
10

0.10

0.05
0.00

Source: Doosan Power Systems America

4
Test Cases

NH3 Slip (ppm)

NOx Concentration (lb/mmbtu @ 6% O2 Dry)

Advanced SNCR De-NOx Performance at Full (100%)

Load on a 670-MW Unit Firing Various Coals

Installing an SNCR system on a utility

boiler typically costs $10 to $20 per kW.
NOX REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES:
CAPABILITY VS. COST
The cost effectiveness of individual
NOx reduction methods vary depending
on boiler size, fuel type, and design and
operation conditions. The table below
compares the technical capabilities and
economics of available de-NOx solutions
for coal-fired power plants.
Combustion control methods generally have the lowest installed cost, but
do not provide the NOx reduction levels
achievable with more traditional fullscale SCR systems. However, when one
or more combustion control methods
are combined with a relatively inexpensive SNCR system, it is possible to
achieve NOx reduction rates similar to
that of an SCR system, and at a fraction
of the cost.
Some measures are already in place, but
the cost-benefit ratio of existing technologies can be further improved. While this
approach may not be valid in all cases,
clearly a significantly lower-cost solution

bisulfate, which has a tendency to con- expensive catalyst, and can be installed
dense on the cooler surfaces of the air within a regular plant outage schedule.
heater and can cause significant
Comparison of NOx Reduction Capabilities
loss of efficiency, in addition to mechanical damage.
vs. Specific Cost for Available Technologies
Historically, the need to conNominal NOx Reduction Rate
trol reagent injection to meet the
low
high
constraints of temperature, mixing, and reaction time has limited Baseline
0%
SNCR effectiveness and application LNB
30%
50%
in utility-scale, coal-fired boilers
OFA
20%
45%
where gas temperatures are relativeReburn
15%
30%
ly high and temperature profiles are
10%
20%
dynamic. However, recent develop- FGR
ments in acoustic- and laser-based SNCR
25%
50%
furnace gas temperature measure- LNB+OFA
44%
73%
ment systems have allowed accuLNB+FGR
37%
60%
rate real-time mapping of furnace
LNB+SNCR
48%
75%
temperature profiles, which can
50%
78%
be integrated into the SNCR con- LNB+OFA+FGR
52%
81%
trol scheme, allowing reliable NOx LNB+OFA+Reburn
reductions ranging from 30 to 50 LNB+OFA+SNCR
58%
86%
percent.
LNB+OFA+FGR+SNCR
62%
89%
SNCR has significant economic
LNB+OFA+Reburn+SNCR
64%
90%
advantages over SCR. It is a simSCR
80%
90%
pler system, does not require an

Estimated Installed Cost ($/kw)

low

high
0

10

10

10

10

20

10

20

15

15

30

13

25

15

30

20

40

23

45

25

50

100

200

CONTINUED ON PAGE 47
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_41 41

41

12/4/15 3:15 PM

Boiler Rental

ShowcaSe advertiSing contact Jenna hall: 918-832-9249, Jennah@pennwell.com

| SUPPLIERS SHOWCASE

Automatic Filters

Why Should You

Filter Your Water?


        
         
       
      
 
     
     
   
   
 
 
      

    
      

 
        

 

The Best Engineered Water

Filteration Solution Always
Costs Less
$%&$' '
''
'
' ''' 
'$$%$'''$$'''''%&
  !''''" #  !

Career Opportunities

RENT SALE LEASE

Rental and Stock Boilers

Generators
Chillers
Deaerators
Boiler Parts
Boiler Services
Combustion Controls
Solid Fuel Applications

1,750
Employees,
29 Offices
Challenging/rewarding positions
career opportunities and temporary
assignments. Entry to senior-level.
Employee owned. Team focused.
Excellent benets.
Seeking technical professionals from
all engineering disciplines to join our
expanding team of employee owners.
Visit www.enercon.com to search
and apply for career opportunities.

 





 

EO/AA Employer

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#306

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#307

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#308

Coal Dust Solution

Control Systems

Control Valves

Coal Dust? No Problem.

Safety.

Dust Tight Lock Nut

Keeps Explosive Coal Dust

Out of Electric Junctions
The Only Dust & Liquid Tight Split
Seal for Conduit Boxes

I am

  


    

Meets OSHA Requirements without

Full Disassembly or Replacement
of Electric Boxes & Raceways

IN
CONTROL
With CIRCOR Energy
Control Valves

Meets NFPA 70 Article 502

Requirements
IP66 Rated for Complete Dust
and Water Jet Protection

nd out more at

vsptechnologies.com

Gas purity, overheat monitoring

& control systems for
hydrogen-cooled generators.
Patent No. US 8,916,777 B2

UTILITY SYSTEMS
Engineering Service and Support
Product Design and Development

1-800-334-6013
http://powereng.hotims.com RS#309
42

1512pe_42 42

TM

Environment One Corporation

Tel 518.346.6161 | www.eone.com/solutions
A PCC Company

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#310

www.circorenergy.com

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#311
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:13 PM

Demolition/Decommissioning

Precise Product
Sized for Maximum Yield

Brandenburg

a brand of TerraSource Global

Emission Control

Brandenburg is the premier demolition and

environmental remediation contractor for
power plant decommissioning and retrotting. Brandenburg services utility companies
throughout the U.S. by performing demolition and repurposing projects ranging from
selective removal of obsolete equipment
to complete closure of power plant facilities.

POWER PLANT
Demolition, Environmental Remediation,
Decommissioning, Retrofitting

Righ
Ri
ghtt Si
Size
ze. Ma
Maxi
ximu
mum
m Yi
Yiel
eld.
d.
Minimum Fines. Every Time.

+1 (618) 233-7208 info@terrasource.com

Handling a World of Materials

www.TerraSource.com/PE
TerraSource Global is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc.
(NYSE: HI) 2015 TerraSource Global. All rights reserved.

(800) 932-2869 | www.brandenburg.com

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#312

High Voltage Equipment

Contact Rosemary Dunn

ardunadv@gmail.com
713.521.7450

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#314

HRSG Solutions

Silo and Bin Cleaning Sevices

Silo and Bin

Cleaning Services
and Equipment

Call or Email for a quick quote

and fast track delivery of

ShowcaSe advertiSing contact Jenna hall: 918-832-9249, Jennah@pennwell.com

SOLVAir Solutions was formed

to help customers address the
problems of SOX, HCl and other
stack emissions, as well as help
with the changing EPA regulations.
SOLVAir Solutions is the market
leader in providing sodium
sorbents for use in DSI systems.
Access our brochure on our
Library page at www.solvair.us

SUPPLIERS SHOWCASE |

Crushers

HIGH VOLTAGE
EQUIPMENT
& SERVICE

24/7/365

Call 800-322-6653
or visit
www.molemaster.com

660.596.7727
hvsales@proenergyservices.com

proenergyservices.com
http://powereng.hotims.com RS#315
www.power-eng.com

1512pe_43 43

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#316

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#317
43

12/4/15 3:13 PM

ShowcaSe advertiSing contact Jenna hall: 918-832-9249, Jennah@pennwell.com

| SUPPLIERS SHOWCASE

Silos, Chimneys, & Steel Stacks

Simple Sampling Automation

Turbine Rehab

Its the small stuff.

The stuff that saves you time
and resources.
Running a plant
efficiently requires
using resources
wisely. And that
doesnt happen
when staff is
manually resetting sample flow
every time the plant cycles.
The NEW Sentry AutoVREL flow
controller automatically controls
sample flow with the push of a button.

The AutoVREL helps improve

efficiency, cost-effectively. And
thats no small thing.

Learn more at sentry-equip.

com/products/AutoVREL.

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#318

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#319

Turbine Services

Valves

Engineering
STG Maintenance
& Repairs
Parts
Manufacturing
Open/ Clean/
Inspect/ Close
24/7 - 365

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#320

First-class Services
for Your Rotating
Equipment




Improved performance
Lower maintenance cost

REACH YOUR
AUDIENCE
ADVERTISE your career opportunities,
equipment, services, and training
programs in Power Engineerings
Classifed Section.

GET RESULTS
Put your message in front of North
Americas most qualifed circulation with
Power Engineerings classifeds.

www.sulzer.com
sulzertshouston@sulzer.com
Phone +1 713 567 2700

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#321
44

1512pe_44 44

http://powereng.hotims.com RS#322

CALL NOW FOR DETAILS:

JENNA HALL
Phone: 918.832.9249
Email: jennah@pennwell.com
www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:13 PM

CLASSIFIEDS |

1 Develpmt Eng.
Westminster, CO.
Support devlpmt of wind
turbine tower designs incl.
design.
Rqd: BA in Mech.
Eng. or relatd degr. + 3 yr exp.
or MA in Mech. Eng. +1 yr. exp.;
Send CV R. Takata, Keystone
Towers Systems Inc., 10855
Dover St., #700, Westminster,
CO 80021. EOE.

CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS

THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.

Easy to install, saves time and money.

ADJUSTABLE PLUGS - all rubber with brass insert.
Expand it, install it, reverse action for tight fit.
PUSH PULL PLUGS - are all rubber, simply push it in.
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190
Fax: (203) 881-0178
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com

Just Plugging Along

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 451

For Classified

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 453

Advertising
Rates & Information
Contact

Classified advertising ContaCt Jenna Hall: 918-832-9249, JennaH@pennwell.Com

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 450

Jenna Hall
Phone:
918-832-9249
Jennah@pennwell.com

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 452

1512pe_45 45

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 454

12/4/15 3:15 PM

| CLASSIFIEDS
Classified advertising ContaCt Jenna Hall: 918-832-9249, JennaH@pennwell.Com

FOR SALE/RENT

ELIMINATE

24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE
BOILERS

Valve Cavitation

20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.

DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS

50 - 25,000 KW

x

GEARS & TURBINES

Get a thorough mix with:

Pugmill Systems, Inc.

P.O. Box 60
Columbia, TN 38402 USA
Ph: 931-388-0626 Fax: 931-380-0319

www.pugmillsystems.com

25 - 4000 HP

LARGEST INVENTORIES OF:

Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators
Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Valves Tubes Controls Compressors
Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators

847-541-5600

FAX: 847-541-1279

visit www.wabashpower.com

wabash

x
x

Eliminate valve cavitation by

placing one or more diffusers
downstream of the valve.
Noise and pipe vibration will
also be eliminated or reduced.
Valves first costs and maintenance burden
will also be
reduced.

POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.

444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 455

Quality and Service Since 1908

Ring Granulators, Reversible Hammermills,

Double Roll Crushers, Frozen Coal Crackers
for crushing coal, limstone and slag.
1319 Macklind Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110
Ph: (314) 781-6100 / Fax: (314) 781-9209
www.ampulverizer.com / E-Mail: sales@ampulverizer.com

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 456

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 458

HEAT EXCHANGER TUBE PLUGS

SS 304,316,317, Alloy20, Monel, ChromeMoly, Titanium,
Brass, Steel, Duplex IN STOCK, MADE IN USA
JOHN R. ROBINSON INC.
Phone #1-800-726-1026
www.johnrrobinsoninc.com
sales@johnrrobinsoninc.com

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 459

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 460

For Classified Advertising Rates & Information

RENTAL EQUIPMENT
ESI Boi ler R en ta ls , L LC

Contact Jenna Hall

Phone - 918-832-9249, Jennah@pennwell.com

24/7 On-Call Service

1-800-990-0374

www.rentalboilers.com

- Rental Boilers - Economizers - Deaerator Systems - Water Softener Systems -

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 461

GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.

Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems

George H. Bodman
Pres / Technical Advisor


 


   


 
 
  
 

P.O. Box 5758

Kingwood, TX 77325-5758
email: blrclgdr@aol.com

Office (281) 359-4006

1-800-286-6069
Fax (281) 359-4225

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 462

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 457

1512pe_46 46

12/4/15 3:15 PM

CLASSIFIEDS |

EMISSIONS CONTROL
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 41

Lower-Cost Alternative De-NOx Solutions for Coal-Fired Power Plants

for NOx compliance may be available
for the right application.
REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE
An advanced SNCR de-NOx process
was recently demonstrated in two similar large coal-fired units. Both units
were designed for firing a wide variety
of coals using LNB with boosted OFA,
but one unit had been modified to
fire 100 percent wood pellet biomass.
These two units provided ideal platforms for assessing the performance
of the SNCR system with alternate fuel
blends and varied combustion/BOFA
conditions.
The advanced SNCR process utilized
state-of-the-art chemical injection
control integrated with a laser-based
or acoustic pyrometer system to provide real-time temperature mapping
over the furnace cross-section above
the burner zone, but below the SNCR
chemical injection points. The utilized
laser-based sensor array and acoustic
pyrometer systems both provided rapid
response to transients in furnace conditions, and injection of the SNCR urea
reagent was targeted on a zonal basis
to areas where the flue gas temperature
was within the optimum range. As a

1512pe_47 47

result, the maximum NOx reduction

could be achieved with minimal ammonia slip.
The performance of the advanced
SNCR system on the biomass-fired
unit showed a general NOx reduction rate of 30 to 40 percent, with less
than 5 ppm average ammonia slip at
the economizer outlet, in loads ranging from full-size down to 50 percent
MCR. Approximately 50 percent NOx
reduction was achieved in two test runs
that demonstrated the potential of the
performance optimization system.
On the primarily coal-fired unit,
the advanced SNCR performance test
results indicate that a 30 to 40 percent
reduction in NOx could be achieved
with less than 5 ppm average ammonia slip. The unit fires a wide variety
of coals from the United States and
elsewhere. On some of the tests a 30 to
35 percent reduction in NOx emissions
was achieved while firing US coal with
less than 2 ppm ammonia slip.
SUMMARY
Recent developments in acousticand laser-based furnace gas temperature measurement systems allow accurate real-time mapping of furnace

temperature profiles to be integrated

into SNCR control schemes, allowing
NOx reductions ranging from 30 to 50
percent to be reliably achieved.
When applied in conjunction with
other combustion control NOx reduction measures like fuel selection, LNB,
OFA, and combustion optimization,
levels of NOx reduction rivaling the
performance of SCR systems can be
achieved which have significant economic advantages over traditional SCR
schemes, especially for plants that have
some other combustion control NOx
reduction measures already installed.
Experience shows that the combination of LNB with other primary measures can achieve up to 74 percent NOx
reduction, but it is important to understand the potential for changes in boiler performance when implementing a
number of changes together.
Although a stand-alone SNCR system is unlikely to provide regulatory
compliance, SCR levels of performance
can be achieved at a lower capital cost
if the SNCR system is applied in conjunction with other combustion controls like fuel selection, LNB, OFA, and
combustion optimization.

Classified advertising ContaCt Jenna Hall: 918-832-9249, JennaH@pennwell.Com

# 460

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 463

12/4/15 3:15 PM

INDEX
RS# COMPANY

PG#

Areva
DIGITAL EDITION-BELLY BAND
www.us.areva.com/cisweb

11 Clearspan Fabric
Structures

35

PG#

SALES OFFICE

17

1421 S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112

Phone: 918-835-3161, Fax: 918-831-9834
e-mail: pe@pennwell.com

www.power-eng.com/webcasts

14 POWER-GEN
International

27

13 POWER-GEN
Natural Gas

www.apollovalves.com

Cormetech Inc
Detroit Stoker Company

15

23

Goodway
Technologies Corp
Magnetrol International

2
5

Mitsubishi Hitachi
13
Power Systems Americas
Mobil Industrial
Lubricants
www.mobilindustrial.com

VSP Technologies

www.vsppower-generation.com

www.mhpowersystems.com

35

www.sickusa.com

21

www.magnetrol.com

www.rentechboilers.com

12 SICK Inc

www.goodway.com

Reliable Turbine Services 7

Rentech Boiler Systems
DIGITAL EDITION-COVER

C4

www.ethosenergygroup.com

37

www.reliableturbine.com

www.detroitstoker.com

15 EthosEnergy

C3

www.power-gennaturalgas.com

www.cormetech.com

PennWell Corporation

www.power-gen.com

www.ClearSpan.com

10 Conbraco Industries Inc

RS# COMPANY

C2

Advertisers and advertising agencies assume liability for all contents

(including text representation and illustrations) of advertisements printed, and also assume responsibility for any claims arising therefrom
made against the publisher. It is the
advertisers or agencys responsibility to obtain appropriate releases on
any items or individuals pictured in
the advertisement.

Sr. Vice President North

American Power Group Richard Baker
Reprints Foster Printing Servive
4295 Ohio Street, Michigan City, IN 46360
Phone: 866-879-9144
e-mail: pennwellreprint@fosterprinting.com
National Marketing Consultant Rick Huntzicker
Palladian Professional Park
3225 Shallowford Rd., Suite 800
Marietta, GA 30062
Phone: 770-578-2688, Fax: 770-578-2690
e-mail: rickh@pennwell.com
AL, AR, DC, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MO,
MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV
Regional Brand Manager Veronica Foster
1421 S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112
Phone: 918-832-9256; Fax: 918.831.9834
e-mail: veronicaf@pennwell.com
AK, AZ,CA,CO,HI,IA,MN,MT,ND,NE,NM,NV,
OK,OR,SD,UT,WA,WI,WY,AB,BC,SK, Manitoba,
Northwest Territory, Yukon Territory
International Sales Mgr Tom Marler
The Water Tower
Gunpowder Mills
Powdermill Lane
Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9 1BN
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1992 656 608, Fax: +44 1992 656 700
email: tomm@pennwell.com
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden
International Sales Mgr Roy Morris
The Water Tower
Gunpowder Mills
Powdermill Lane
Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9 1BN
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1992 656 613, Fax: +44 1992 656 700
email: rmorris@pennwell.com
UK, Austria, Africa, Holland, India, Italy, Ireland,
Israel, Russia, Australia & New Zealand, Singapore,
Scotland, Switzerland, Turkey, Greece, UAE/SAUDI
and Iran
Classifieds/Literature Showcase
Account Executive Jenna Hall
1421 S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112
Phone: 918-832-9249, Fax: 918-831-9834
email: jennah@pennwell.com

48

1512pe_48 48

www.power-eng.com

12/4/15 3:15 PM

SAVE
THE
DATE
13 -15,
DECEMBER

P OJ
PR
O EC
ECTS
TSS

POW
POWER
O R

ON-SITE
ON
N SITE

EDUCATION
A

P R
POWE

MAINTENANCE
TURR B I NE
TU
N TECH NOOLOGY

EMISSION CONTROL

GENERR ATION
GENE
O

MATS

COMPLIANCE
CO
OMPLIANCE

ST E A M

FLEXIIBLE
FLEX

STOR
ST
ORAG
AGEE

CO M B IN E D CYC LE G AS TU RB I N E TECH NOLOGY

COONFFER
EREN
ENNCEE

TUR B I NE

POWE
PO
WERR

ON-S-SITE
TE

POWE
OWER PLANT
ANT

EDU
D CATIO
TIONN

G AS

ON-SSSITI E POWE
ON-SIT
WR
E FFLUENTT LIMITATIOON GUIDEL
UIID INNES

ENN E R G Y

E UCCATIO
EDU
T N

OPTIMI
P MIZATION
Z

ANDD SSTORAG
TORAG
OR E

MA GEMENTT
MANAG

EM SIONS
EMISS
I ONS

OONN-SSITTE PO
P WE
WERR

COAL ASH MAN

A AGEMEN
G M T AND
N STORAG
S RA E

M TS
MATS
C M LIAN
COMP
I CE

PW
POWER
GENERA
RATIONN

POWE
WR

G S TU
GAS
T RBI
R INE O&M
O&

POW R PLAN
POWE
PLANT

G AS CLEANA
W PLAN
ON SITE
ONON-SI
TE POWER

FLEXXIBIBLE
FL
L GE
GENE
N RATITION
ON

AND GAAS ENGI

NG NES
N
DIESEL
I L AN

COAL
O L ASH
ASH

MAATS

GAS TURBINE O&M FLFLEXEXEXIIBLE

PLAN

P O L ICY
CY

PPOWWERR PLANT
LANT
OPTIMI
OPT
M ZAT
ZATION
ION

POWE
PO
WERR

ON-S-SITITEE PO
ON
P WE
WERR

COMB
COMB
MBININNED
C CL
CY
C E GAAS

FLEEXIBBLE

PL A N

POOWE
WERR

PL A N

COMPLIAN
COMP
LIANCE
CE

GENERR ATION
GENE

ENERGY
ST O R A G E

FLEXIBLE GENERATION

GENERAT
GENERAT
ERRA ION
ION

CYYCCLLE

E IONS
EMISS
ION

F XII BLE
FLEX
LE

GAS TTURBIN
RBINEE O&M

DIESEL

EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES

O&M

TU INE
TURB
NE UPGR
P RADES
DE

CLEA
CL
EAAN

STORR AG
ST
AGEE

EMIS
M SION
SIONSS

PROCESS

P WE
PO
WERR

E SS NS
EMISSIO

ON-SSITE

GAS
A

M ATS
COMP
CO
MPLILIAN
ANCE
CE
CLEA
EN

GAS AND ST
STEAM
AM

CLEANN POWE
CLEA
POWER
O N -S ITE
ON-S
T POW
POWERR
POWE
T A NNING
I
DDIES
IESEL TRAI

P WER
POW
ER PLA
PLANN

ENN ER
ERGYY

P O W ERR
POW

G NERAATION
GENE
TION

FLEXIBBLEE
FLEX

E I SSI
EMI
SS ONS
ON

POWER
O ER

POWER
ER
ON-S-SITITEE POW
ON

PL A N

POWER

CLEAN

AND GA
G S ENGI
E G NES
E
DDIES
E EL AN

POWE
OWERR

PON-SI
L ATTEE N
ONN SITE

P WEER
PO

CLEA
CL
EANN
EA

POWER
POW
ER

ON-S
N SITE
T

POWE
PO
WERR

ON SIT
ONSITE

POW E R
POWER

ON-S
ON
-SITITEE PO
POWE
WER
O&MM
CCLEA
L EANN

STRATEGIES
STRAT
EGIES
GIE
O S TE PO
ON-SI
P WWERR

POWER
OW R

O&M
&M

GAS TURBINE
TURBIN O&M

COMPLIANCE
COMPLI
ANCEE ST O R A G E

POWER

PO LI CY

DIESEL ANDD GAS ENGINES

ENGINES

D ESEL
DIE
SSEL
EL

GAS TURBINE O&M GENERATION

COONF
NFER
EREN
ER
ENCE
EN
CE

M ATS

CONFERENCE

ON-SITE
ITE POWE
POWERR POLICY
EDUCCATIO
EDU
TIONN CLEA
CLEANN POWER
POWER PLAN CYCL
C E ON-S
E
STORA
S GE
CLE
L AN
O&MM ENERGY
FLEXIBLE
L GEN
GENER
E ATIO
ER
TIONN O&
POWERR
MATS
MA
TS ENERR GY POWE
COMPLIANCE
M

FLEXIBL
BLEE GE
GENE
NERRATITION
NE
ON

O M
O&M

E FFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES

COMPLIAN
COMP
LIANCE
LIAN
CE

TRA I NING
TRAINING
NG

PO LI CY

GPROCESS
AS

POWER

MATS COMPLIANCE

ON-SIT
ONN SIT
SITEE POWE
POWE
OWERR
ENERGY
ENER
ENE
GY STOR
STORAGE
AGE
POWER
POW
ERSTEADIDIETURBIN
ESEL
GAS AND
AND STEAM
TURBINE P O L I CY

O&MM

CLEAN

O&M

CLEAN
E

GAS
A AN
ANDD STEA
STEA
T M TUR
TURBIN
BINEE
BIN

POWER PLA
POW
PL NT
OPT MIZAT
OPTIMI
A ION

GAS TURBINE O&M

LIMITATION
GU I DE
DELLI N ES

OO&M
&

GEENE
N RATION
ON

TURR B I N
TU

POWERR PLANT
POW
PLA
O IMI AT ON
OPTIMIZATI

ON-S
N-SITEE

O PT I M I Z AT I O N

P O W E R PL A N T

PLANN
CLE N POWE
CLEA
POW R PLA

POWERR
GENERAT
GE
R TION
O

FLEEX IBB LE

PROC
ROCEESS

CLEAN WATER ACT ELGIUFMIFDEDELITITATLUATATILIENENIONESTCLCLEAEANN POPOWEWERR PLPLANAN

3COO1MPMPLI6LILIAN(ANANCE
BCE) COMPLIANCE
PGEONENERWRATEIORN
MATS
T RAIN
RAI INGG

EMISS
M SIONS
IONSS

ON SIT
ONSI E

POWE
OW R

TECHN O LOG IES

MAINTENANCE

POWE
PO
WERR

PROCEESS

PROC
ROCEESS

ENGINE
NG ESS

COAL ASH

POWER

POWER MAATTS
COMPLIANCE
COMPL
NCE

P O L I CY

EDU
DUUCAT
C IION
ONN

FLEXI
FLEXI
L X BLE GGENERA
ENERAATION
T N

ON-SITE

PL A N

POWE
PO
WERR
WE

E F FLU E N T

GENER
EN RATION
A ION G AS TU
T RBINE
TURB
INE
N

TURBINE UPGRADES

TE HNO
TEC
HNOLOG
OGYY

PROJ
PR
O EC
ECTS
TS

O&M
O&M
&M

PL A N

POWER PROCESS

FLEXIBLE GENERATION

POWER PLANT

L I M ITATI O N
GU I D E L I N E S

GAS TURBINE O&M

EMISSISION
EMI
O CON
C NTRO
CO
TR L SSTRA
TRO
TR TEG
TRA
TEGIES
IES
E

EDUC
ED
UCAT
ATIOIONN

POWER
CLEANN
CLEA
POWERR
POWE
GENER
NERAATION

CLEAN

ON-SITE
T POWE
POWER GAS
G TURB
TURBINE
INE
NE O&MM ENER
ENERGY
GY STOR
STORAGE
AGE
G ON-S
POWERR GENE
POWE
GENERATI
RATION
RATI
O PLAN GAS
ON
GASS TURBIN
TURBINEE O&M COO MBINED
NED CYCLE G AS TURB
TUR
U B I NE TECH NO
NOLLOGY
MAATS C OMM PL IANC
IANCEE

OPTIMIZATION

PL A N

CONF
CO
NFFER
EREN
ENCE
EN
CE

POWER
POW
ER

MATS
MA
TS

STRATEG I ES

EDUCAATIONN
EDUC

POWE PLANT
POWER
NT
O TI IZATI
OPTIM
IZATTION

O
O&M

CLEE AN

CONTTROL
CON

STRAATEGIES
GAS TURBINE O&M

G AS TURBINE
U
O&
O&M

COO M B I NED
NE CYC LE G AS TUR
TURBB I NEE T ECH NO
NOLLOGYY

E FFLUENT

POWER OPTIMIZATION

ENERGY

O N - S I T E POWER PLANT

POWE
PO
OWER GENE
GE ERATI
RA ONN
RATI

PRODUCTS
UCTS
CLEA
CL
EANN PROD
EA

CONTTROL ED
CON
EDUC
UCAT
UC
A IOO N
AT

TRR AII NI
TRAI
NING
NGG
FLEX
FL
EXIBIBBLE
EX
LE GEN
ENER
ERAT
ER
A IOON
AT

POWERR
POWE

TUR B I NE

ON-SITE

GENERRATION
GENE

EMISS
ISSIION

GASS TU
GA
TURB
RBBINNE O&&M

MATS
MATS
COMPLIAN
M
CE

TRAA INI
I N NG

FLEXII BLE
FLEX

PR O C ESS
ES

ON-SITEE POWER
ON-SIT

GENEERATIO
GEN
TIONN

POWER

G AS T U R B I N E

CLEAN
CLE
AN

COMMB I NE
CO
NEDD PLANN
CYC LE G AS

POWER
POW
E PLAANTT
ER

LIMITATION
GUIDEELINIES
GUID

CONFER
CON
FERENC
EN E

NOLLOGY
FLEX
FL
EXII BLE TECH NO
EX

TRAA I NING

Owned & produced by:

POOWE
WERR

E F F LU E N T

O TIMI
OPT
OPTIMI
IM ZAT
Z TION
IO
ION

FLEXI B LE

MATSS COM
COMPLI
PLIANC
PLI
ANCEE
ANC
AGEM
EM ENT
CLEAN
EA M AANAG
POWER
OW R PLAN

TECH NNOOLOGY

G ASS TTUR
UURRBIBINE
NE P L A N

TRAINI
TRA
NING EM
EMISISISSISIS ON
OS

TURR B I NE
TU
N

CONFERENCE GENERATION
POWERR CONF
POWE
C EREN
ERENCEE
ERENCE

CLEAN

TU BIN
TUR
BINEE UPGR
UPGR
PGRADE
ADESS
ADE
ONON-SIT
N SIT
SITEE

POWE
WERR PL
PLAN
AN

P ER
POW

CLEAN
CLE
AN DIDIEESEL

COM
O B I NED
N
CYC LE GA
G AS

P OCCES
PR
ESSS

POWER

ON-SITE
ITE
POWER ON-S
POWE

TRAAININ NG
N

ED CATION
EDUCA

ON-S-S- ITITEE
ON

ON-SISITTE GAS
ON

POWE
WERR
WE
GENE
GE
NERRATITION
ON PO

EDUC
ED
UCAATIION
O CLELEANA

EDU
DUCCATION
DU

TRA NING
TRAI
N NG

PR O C ES
ES

316((B)) CO
COMPL
MPLIAN
IANCE

GAS AAND
NDD SSTE
TEAM
TE
AMM

ENERGY STORAGE

P O L I CY

POWER
ERR E N E R G Y
316(B) COMPLIANCE DIESEL AND GAS ENGINES POW
P
L
A
N
CLL EA
EANN ON
CONFEREN
ERENCE
CE GAS
A TURB
TURBINE
INE S T O R A G E
ISSIOON CONF
PLAN F L E X I B L E
ON-S-SITITEE PO
POWE
WERR EMISS

POWE
PO
WERR GE
GENE
NERA
RATITION
ON

COAL ASH MAN

COA
M AGEM
G ENT AND
A STORAGE
G
E FFLUENT
E L I M ITAT
I A ION GUID
U ELIN
LI ES

POWERR
POW
PL A N EDU
E CAT
CATION
ION

T ECH N OLOGY ON-SIT

POWEER
PL A N CLE
CLEAN
AN WAT
WATER
ER ACT ON-SITEE POWE
POW
O ER

EDUCAATION
EDUC

POWE
PO
WERR PLLAN
WE
ANTT

-S-SITITEE
T U R B I N E CLECLEANAN ONON-S
POWE
PO
WERR
WE

CLEAN
CLE
AN

MATS
MA
TSC
COMPL
M IANCE

TRAAINI
INING
NG

OPTI M IZIZAATI ONN

D SEL
DIES
E
EL

PROCEE SS
PR

COMB I NED
CYC LE G AS

PROC
PR
OCES
ESSS

CLEAN WATER AC
ACT 313166 B COM
COMPPLIANCE
NC

E UC
ED
U ATIOI N

GENERRATION

TURBIN
TUR
BINE U PGRA
GRADD ES

T ECHH NO
NOLLOGY

PROJ
OJEC
OJ
ECTS
EC
TS
FLEXII BLE CLEAN POWER PLAN PR
FLE
PO LI CY
CLEAN O&M
POWER
O PLLAN

GAS AANND STE

TEAM
A

PROC
O ESS

TURB I NE

POWER GENERATI
GENERATION
O
ON

EDUC
ED
UCAATITION
UC
ON
DIESSEL AND GAS ENG
ENGI NES C L E A N W A T E R A C T
MATS
A

COMB I NED
CYC LE G AS

C OMMPLI N
COMPLIANCE

R ES O U R C ES

TECHNO
HN LOGIGIEES
MAINTE
NTENAN
NTE
NANCE
NAN
CE
()
TECH NO
NOLLOGY MAI

ONN SIT
ONS TEE

R ES O U R C ES

EDUCCATIO
EDU
TIONN

GENERATION

M ATS

CYC LE G AS

MATS

FLEXIBLE GENE
G ERRATION
I

POWER
O GENER
GENERATION
ATION
T

3 (B) COM
316
COMPLIA
PLIANCE
PLIA
N
NCE

POW
OWER
ERR

TURBIN
TUR
BINE UPGRA
GRADEES

E FFLUEN
UENTT
L IMM ITA
ITATIO
T ON
GGUI DEL
D LINN ES

CLEAN
CLE
AN WAT
WATER
ERR ACT

GASS AN
GA
ANDD ST
S EA
EAMM TU
TURBBINNE UPPGR
G AD
ADES
ES

DIESEL

POLICYY

POWE
OWE
W R PLAN
P NT

GENERATI
GENE
RATION
ON TECHNO
H LOGIGIEES MAIN
MAINTENA
TENA
NANCE
N
NCE

TECHNO
TEC
HNOLOG
LOGYY

ON-SITE

POWER GENERATI
E
ON

GASS TURBINE
TURBINE

PRO
ROCCESS

TRAINING
TRA
TRAI
N NG
NING

COMBINED
COMB
INED CYC
CYCLE
LE GAS
GAS TURBI
TURBINE
URBIINE TECHN
TECHN
ECHNOLOG
O Y
OLOG

PO LICY

EMISSSISION
EM
ONSS
ED CAT ON
D IES
IE SELL EDUCATION

P R
POWE

ST O R A G E
MAININTE
MA
TENA
NANC
NCEE

GAS ANND STE

TEAM
AM

ROCEESS
TECHNOO LOG
LOGYCOMPLIANC
Y PROC
POWER GENER
NERAATION TEC
COMPLIANCEE

ON-SITE
ON-SI
TE

E N E R G Y CFLFLEX
OEXEXINIBFLEERENCE

GENE
GE
NERRATITION
NE
ON
MATS
TS COM
OMPL
PLIAIANC
NCE STORAGEE E FFLUE
UENT
NT LIMITITAT
ATIOIONN GU
GUIDIDEL
ELININEES TECHN
MAIN
MA
INTE
TENA
NANC
NCEE MA
HNOOLOGIGIEES

M ATS

CLEAN
CLE
AN WATER ACT 313166(B) COM
COMPPLIA
LIANCE
NCE

O&MM
O&

EFFLUENT LIMITATION
LIMITATION GUIDELINES
GUIDELINES
EL

TURBIN
R E UPGRAD
GRADEES

POW
O ERR

TRAININNG

EDUCATION
C

COMPLIAN
COMP
LIANCE
LIAN
CE

GAS AN
AND STEAM

EDUCAT
EDU
CATION
CAT
OON PLA
PLANN

DIESEL ENGINESMATMAM S COMO PLIL ANCCE

CO TRO
CON
TROL

PO LICYY

STE
T AM
A TU
TURB
RBBIN
IE

GAS TUR
U BIB NE

EEFFFFLUENT
UENT LIM
IMITATION
ITATION
O GUIDELINES
E INI ES

EMISISISSISISION
EM
ONSS
ON

POWER GENE
NERRATION

TECHN
CH OLOGY

COALL ASH
COA
ASH
S MAN
ANAGE
AGE
AGEMEN
G MEN
MENTT AND
N STO
STORAG
RAGEE
RAG

TECHN
HNOOLOGIGIEES
MAIN
MA
INN TE
TENA
NANC
NA
NCEE
NC

G AS

ST E IES
STRATEG

E CATIOIONN
ED
EDUCAT

POO WE
WERR GE
G NE
N RA
RATITIT ON

PL A N

POWER

316((B) COMP
316
COMPLIANC
LIANC
LIANCE
I E

3161 EDUC
UCATIO
T N

GAS TU
TURB
RBINININEE
RB

PROJECTS

POWE
PO
WERR

EMISSIONSS COAL ASH MANAGEM

EMISSION
GE ENT AND STORAGE FFLEXIBLE
XIB GENERR A TIONN

CLEANN WATER
CLEA
WATER
ER ACT

EDUCAAATION
EDUC
TTION
IOON
O

C AL
COAL

FLEXI BLE GENE

GENERRATION

CONF
CO
NFER
EREN
ENCE
CE
EMM ISSION
ISSIONS

TECHNOLOGY
TECHN
OLOGY

EMISSIOPOP NWEWERR
G
A
S
A
N
D
S
T
E
A
M
T
U
RBINE
EMI
EMISSI
M SSI
SSION
O
ON
FLEXI BLE
TUR B I NE
COMM B I NE
CO
NEDD
O&MM CLE
O&
PLAN
CLEAN
AN POW
POWER
ER PL

COAL ASH MANAGE

MANAGEMENT
MENT

CLEAN
LE
POW PLAN
POWER

COMPLIA
O L ANCE
NE
NCE

GENERRATION
GENE

TREDUDUCAT
TRAI
AINI
NIONGDIED SELEL ANND GGASASS
CATION

GAS AND STEAM TURBINE UPGRADES

LIMITA
IT TIO
T N
GUIDE
GUI
D LININEES
DE

AIN
RESO U R CES GENERATION

POWER ENGGINES
D I ESEL A N D G AS EN

AND STORAGE ECLECLEAN

AN
FFLUEN
UENTT

R ES O U R C ES

ON-SSITE

POLICY

MANAGEMENT

DIESELL
DIESE

L I M ITATI O N TECHNOLOGIES MAINTENANCE

GUHNOLI DLOEGIGIESLSI NCONCEONFERSFERFERENCENCENCEONON-E -RESISITE
EMISISISSISISION
EM
ONSS
ON
TE PPOW
OWER
OW
ER P O L I CY
STEAMM TUR
TURBIN
BINEE UPGR
UPGRADE
ADESS
ESOO URR CES EN
TECCHNO
ENEERG
RGYY GAS ANANDD STEA

TURBIN
BINEE UPGR
BIN
UPGR
PGRADE
ADESS
ADE
MANAGEME
MANA
GEMENT
NT AND
AND STORA
STORAGE
GE TUR

G AS TURBIN
TURBINE

CONF
CO
NFER
EREN
ENCE
CE

COAL ASH

POWER

STORA GTUTURBERBRBININEE CLEAN

MATS
MA
TS
COMPLIANCEE
COMPLI

TRAI
RAINING
NING
IN DIES
DIESEL
EL AAND
ND G AS
A

GAS TURB
URBINE
INE O&M

TRAINING
I
ING
PL A N TRAIN

P O L I CY

GAS
A

OPTI M IZIZAATI ON

LEXI B LE
GAS TURBINE O&M FGEGENE
NERRATITION
ON
COALL AASH
SSH MANAGEMEN
AGEMENTT AND STORAG
T E

E FFLUENT

CLEA
CL
EANN
EA

EDUCAATION
ON
CLEANN CON
O&M CLEA
CONTRO
TROLL PTTURBOBLI NEI CYEEDUC
POWERR
POWE
TECHNOLOGY
OGYY GAS TU
URB
R ININEE O&M
STRATEGI
STRA
TEGIES
ES TTECHNOL
D IESEL AN
AN D GA
GAS EENGIN ES PL A N TRAI
POWERR PLAN
PLANTT OPTI
OPTIMIZA
MIZATION
MIZA
TION POWE
TRAINING
NING POWE
POWERR

EDUCATIO
EDUC
ATION
AT

POWERR
POWE

EDUC
ED
UCAT
ATIOIONN ENGN INES
INE
NS

T NING
TRAI
NG

POWE
PO
WERR PL
PLAN
ANTT

MA
MATS

G AS

TECHNOLOGY
TECHN
OLOGY

GENERATION
TI COAL ASH
ASH MMANAGEMENNT AND STORAGE
STORAGGE
GENERRATION GENERA
GENE
PROJ
OJEC
ECTS
TS TE
TECH
CHNO
CH
NOLO
NO
L GY
LO
STORRAGE PR
STO

EFFLUE
FF UENTT LIMITA
TATIO
T N GGUID
UI ELI
E INES
NES

EM ISISSSI O NS

CLEANN CLEA
CLEANN

CO PLIANCE
COMPLIANCE

GAS TURBIN
TURBIN
RBINEE O&M

MANAGEME
MANA
G NT
GEME

WWW.POWER-GEN.COM

POWE
WERR
WE
TURBINE UPGRADES 316(B) COMPLIANCE PO
D
I
E
S
EL
A
N
D
G
GA
A
S
E
EN
N
G
I
N
E
S
P
L
AN
T
E
C
HNO
HN
O
L
O
GIE
GI
E
S
P
O
L
I
CY
DIEFLEFLEX
SEXILBLE MA
AM
URBIBINE
NE OO&M
&M GAS AND STETEAM
MAIN
INTE
TENA
NANC
NCEE G AS TTUR
CONFEREN
O
CEE

STRATEG I ES

EDUUCAT
A ION
IN
OAAL AS
ASH MMAANAG
NNAGGEMEENT

CONTR OL

2016

G A S A N D S T E A M CLEAN WATER ACT

MAATS COMPL
OMMPLLIAIANC
NCCE

P O W E R PL A N T

O P T I M I Z AT I O N

EM ISSI O N

ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER

NORTH / SOUTH HALLS | ORLANDO, FLORIDA, USA

Presented by:

Supported by:

Co-located with:

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#14

1512pe_C3 3

12/4/15 3:15 PM

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#15

1512pe_C4 4

12/4/15 3:15 PM