1 / 34

PROSPECTS FOR LIME IN FUTURE FGD MARKETS Prepared For: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION William DePriest S

Sargent

meara
Download Presentation

PROSPECTS FOR LIME IN FUTURE FGD MARKETS Prepared For: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION William DePriest S

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. PROSPECTS FOR LIME IN FUTURE FGD MARKETS Prepared For: NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION William DePriest Sargent & LundyLLC May 22, 2003

    2. Sargent & Lundy Experience with FGD 8 Wet FGD Units Since 1990 4,600 MWs of Capacity All High Sulfur Coals All Limestone Based 8 Dry FGD Units in Progress 2,300 MWs of Capacity All Low Sulfur Coal All Lime Based My Personal Experience with Lime Wet (Pleasants, East Bend, Zimmer) Dry (Laramie River, Craig, Springerville)

    3. S&Ls Assignment from NLA Perform an FGD Technology Selection Process Technology Issues Fuel Issues Lime vs. Limestone Capital Requirement O&M Requirements Life Cycle Analysis Provide Some Direction for NLA Members Improve position of Lime based Technology in FGD Market Market Focus

    4. Basis of Study Technologies: Wet FGD Technologies Limestone w/Forced Oxidation (LSFO) Magnesium Enhanced Lime w/Forced Oxidation (MEL) Dry FGD Technologies (Lime Based) Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) Circulating Fluid Bed Absorber (CFB)

    5. Basis of Study Fuels: Sulfur Level CaO in Ash % lb/MBtu % Eastern High S Bituminous 3.0 4.72 3-5% Eastern Low S Bituminous 1.3 2.00 3-5% Western Low S 0.6 1.44 22-26% sub-bituminous

    6. Technology Absorber/ %SO2 Byproduct/ Reactor Reduction Waste High S Bit. Coal LSFO 1 x 100% 98 Gypsum MEL 1 x 100% 98 Gypsum Low S Bit. Coal LSFO 1 x 100% 98 Gypsum MEL 1 x 100% 98 Gypsum SDA 2 x 50% 94 Landfill Low S Sub-Bit. SDA 2 x 50% 93 Gypsum Plant Design: Plant Rating 500 Mwe

    7. Basis of Study ECONOMIC PARAMETERS Base Value

    8. Basis of Study Consumable Costs: Base Value

    9. Capital Cost Development

    10. Capital Cost Development (Cont.)

    11. Capital Cost Comparison LSFO vs. MEL on High S Bit. Coal MEL ~11% Lower (or $9.8 million) LSFO vs. MEL on Low S Bit. Coal MEL ~9% Lower (or $6.7 million) MEL ~30% higher than SDA without baghouse on low S coal MEL ~10% lower than SDA with baghouse on low S coal SDA ~5% higher for Western low S coal than Eastern low S coal

    12. O&M Cost Development

    13. O&M Cost Development (Cont.)

    14. O&M Cost Comparison: Fixed O&M Cost

    15. O&M Cost Comparison: Variable O&M Cost

    16. O&M Cost Comparison LSFO vs. MEL on High S Bit. Coal MEL ~9% Higher (or $ 0.98 million/year) LSFO vs. MEL on low S Bit. coal MEL ~3.3% Higher (or $0.26 million/year) SDA with baghouse is equivalent to MEL on low S coal MEL ~10% higher than SDA with a baghouse on low S coal SDA ~25% lower for Western low S coal than Eastern low S coal

    17. Life Cycle Cost High S Appalachian Coal Base Case (80% CF, retrofit, $15/ton limestone, $50/ton lime, $30/Mw-hr power) LSFO MEL M$/year M$/year Capital 13.26 11.77 O&M 10.78 11.76 Total 24.05 23.57 cents/kWh 0.69 0.67

    18. Life Cycle Cost Low S Appalachian Coal Base Case (80% CF, retrofit, $15/ton limestone, $50-60/ton lime, $30/Mw-hr power) M$/year LSFO MEL SDA Capital 11.74 10.75 11.93 O&M 7.93 8.19 10.25 Total 19.68 18.93 22.18 cents/kWh 0.56 0.54 0.63

    19. Life Cycle Comparisons Reagent Cost Sensitivity High Sulfur vs Low Sulfur 1990 vs Current Greenfield vs Retrofit Application Auxiliary Power Value New Capacity vs Retrofit High Sulfur vs Low Sulfur

    20. Life Cycle Comparisons (contd) Capital Cost Absolute Differential Plant Capacity Factor

    21. Life Cycle Cost Reagent Cost Sensitivity

    22. Life Cycle Cost Reagent Cost Sensitivity (Low S)

    23. Life Cycle Cost Reagent Cost Sensitivity (Low S)

    24. Life Cycle Cost Reagent Cost Sensitivity (Low S)

    25. Life Cycle Cost New vs. Retrofit

    26. Life Cycle Cost

    27. Life Cycle Cost

    28. Life Cycle Cost

    29. Life Cycle Cost

    30. Life Cycle Cost

    31. Life Cycle Cost

    32. Life Cycle Cost

    33. Life Cycle Cost

    34. CONCLUSIONS Limes position as a candidate FGD reagent improves as the sulfur content of the fuel decreases. Because of a generally higher capital cost for retrofit applications versus new unit applications, Limes position will be marginally better in retrofit applications of FGD technology. Because the cost of auxiliary power on new units is generally higher than on existing units, the relative competitive position of lime will look better when the MEL process is applied on new units. This phenomenon becomes less important as the fuel sulfur content is reduced. The absolute value of the capital cost is not nearly as important as the differential cost between LSFO and MEL technologies.

More Related