Presented at EPRI\'s 6th Annual Conference on Advances in Materials for Fossil Power Plants

1. Economic Analysis of Advanced Ultra-
supercritical Pulverized Coal Power
Plants
Dr. Jeffrey N. Phillips
Senior Program Manager
John Wheeldon
Technical Executive
6th Int’l Conference on Advances in Materials for Fossil
Power Plants
August 31, 2010

2. Acknowledgements
• This analysis was paid for by EPRI’s CoalFleet for
Tomorrow® program.
• EPRI would like to thank its CoalFleet members for their
support of this project
• CoalFleet member include more than 50 organizations
including power generators, coal companies, technology
suppliers and government energy R&D units located on 6
continents
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

3. Outline
• Background for EPRI’s UltraGen concept
• Design Premises for Case Study
• Case Study Results
• Implications for Future Research
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

4. What Is the UltraGen Initiative?
• A program to advance pulverized coal technology to achieve
near-zero emissions and cost-effective CO2 capture and
storage
– Conceived by EPRI’s CoalFleet for Tomorrow program in
2007
• This objective cannot be achieved with a single project; thus,
a series of demonstration projects were proposed that
advance the technology progressively
– UltraGen I, II, and III, with a component test facility, ComTes-
1400
– Staged approach manages technical and financial risk
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4

5. UltraGen I
Stack
800 MW
Electricity
75%
Gas Flow
850 MW USC
Ultra-Clean
1110°F+ (600°C+)
Emission
Ferritic alloys
Controls
39% HHV 1 million tons of CO2
0.03 lb/MBtu
(before capture) Demonstration
Demonstration per year to
SOX , NOX Post-Comb.
PRB Coal pipeline for
25% CO
CO22 Capture
(or low-S, low-Cl 90% Hg storage or EOR
Gas Flow Unit (90%
alternate) Capture capture)
Use today’s best technology for the boiler, steam turbine and emission controls while
demonstrating CO2 Capture & Storage at large scale
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5

6. UltraGen II
(NZE)
600-MW Stack
Electricity
0–50%
650–700 MW Gas Flow
Advanced USC
Ultra-Clean
1290°F (700°C)
Nickel- base alloys Emission
Controls
42– 44% HHV
0.03 lb/MBtu Up to 3.8 million tons
(before capture) Commercial
SO X, NOX CO2 per year to
Post-Comb.
PRB Coal >90% Hg 50–100% CO2 Capture pipeline for
(or low-S, low-Cl Capture Gas Flow Unit (90% storage or EOR
alternate) capture)
Boiler & Steam Turbine similar to European AD 700 design with CO2 emissions
comparable to a Natural Gas Combined Cycle
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6

7. UltraGen III
(NZE)
600 MW Stack
Electricity
Could use oxy-
630–670 MW combustion
Advanced USC boiler or post-
1400°F (760°C) Ultra-Clean combustion
Nickel-base alloys Emission capture
Controls
45–48% HHV
0.01 lb/MBtu ~3.5 million tons
(before capture) Commercial
SOX , NOX of CO2 per year to
PRB Coal CO2 Capture pipeline for
100%
>90% Hg Unit (90%
(or low-S, low-Cl Gas Flow storage or EOR
capture)
alternate) Capture
Boiler & Steam Turbine Design Takes Full Advantage of On-going US DOE/OCDO
Advanced Materials Program
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 7

8. Purpose of the Study
• Wanted to understand the economics of the UltraGen II
concept
– Would it make sense to build a coal plant in the US
with a 700ºC steam cycle?
– Would the increased cost of the high temperature
materials be offset by the reduction in fuel use?
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 8

9. Design Basis for Study
• Analyzed the cost and performance of four new coal
power plants
– Each with progressively higher steam conditions
• All cases based on 750 MW PC
• WorleyParsons designed BOP and environmental controls,
Doosan Babcock designed the boiler, and Siemens
provided steam turbine design data
• State-of-the-art emission controls for SOx, NOx, PM and
Hg
• No CO2 capture equipment
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 9

10. Design Coal – Powder River Basin
Ultimate Analysis, %wt
• Carbon 48.18
• Hydrogen 3.31
• Nitrogen 0.70
• Chlorine 0.01
• Sulfur 0.37
• Oxygen 11.87
• Ash 5.32
• Moisture 30.24
Delivered cost = $1.71/GJ
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 10

11. Air Emission Control Systems and Targets
SOx Controls
• Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
– 30 mg/Nm3 (0.03 lb/MMBtu)
NOx Controls
• Low NOx burners with Over-Fired Air (OFA) and Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) unit
– 30 mg/Nm3 (0.03 lb/MMBtu)
Particulate Matter (PM) Controls
• Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) and Wet FGD
– PM2.5 13 mg/Nm3 (0.013 lb/MMBtu)
– PM10 10 mg/Nm3 (0.01 lb/MMBtu)
Mercury Controls
• CaBr2 injection into furnace to promote oxidation across the SCR
followed by co-capture in the wet FGD
– 90% mercury removal
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 11

12. Design Steam Conditions for Case Study
Sub-critical Supercritical Current USC Advanced-
USC
Superheat
541 ºC 582 ºC 604 ºC 680 ºC
Temperature
Superheat
179 bar 262 bar 276 bar 352 bar
Pressure
Reheat
541 ºC 582 ºC 604 ºC 700 ºC
Temperature
Reheat
35.9 bar 57.9 bar 65.5 bar 73.5 bar
pressure
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 12

13. Materials Used in Advanced-USC Boiler
Material Pressure bar Steam temp, °C
Inconel 740 363.0 to 364.0 657 to 682
Final superheater
Inconel 617 364.0 to 364.7 627 to 657
Secondary superheater
Inconel 617 366.1 to 371.3 546 to 657
TP 347H
Primary superheater T91 371.3 to 376.8 502 to 557
T12 – T23
Inconel 617 666 to 702
Final reheater 76.9 to 77.9
TP 310H 607 to 666
TP 347H 77.6 to 77.9 543 to 610
Primary reheater TP 310H 76.9 to 78.3 482 to 543
T92 78.3 to 78.6 416 to 482
Furnace walls T23 368.5 to 376.8 316 to 482
Economizer SA 210C 376.8 to 392.0 260 to 343
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 13

14. High-Energy Piping Wall Thicknesses
Main Steam
ID = 9.8 inches or
24.0 cm
Reheat
ID = 18.4 inches or
46.7 cm
617 CCA617 230 740 263
45/22 45/22 57/22 52/25 50/20 Ni/Cr ratios
102 127 102 255 171 Creep rupture
stress, psi
stress, 105 psi
Lowest-cost design uses 740 for both superheat and hot reheat lines
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 14

15. Performance Results from Case Study
Sub-critical Supercritical Current Advanced-
USC USC
Thermal efficiency, %(HHV) 36.2 38.5 39.2 less
15% 42.7
coal than
Net heat rate, Btu/kWh (HHV) 9,430 8,860 8,700
sub-critical 7,990
Coal feed rate, kg/hr 384,000 361,000 355,000 326,000
Flue gas mass flow, kg/hr 3,420,000 3,151,000 3,098,000 2,827,000
Volume at boiler outlet, actual 66,700 61,400 60,400 55,100
m3/min
15% less
NOX and SO2, kg/MWh 0.127 0.121 CO2 0.118
than 0.109
sub-critical
PM2.5, kg/MWh 0.0535 0.0508 0.0499 0.0458
CO2, kg/MWh 900 851 836 763
Advanced USC will have smaller coal handling, cooling water & emission control systems
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 15

16. Economics – US Coal Price
Quantity Sub- Super- 1100 700 760
critical critical USC A-USC A-USC
Lower fuel
Coal Cost, $/GJ 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71
costs do
Main Steam Temperature, °C 541 582 604 680 (3) not offset
732 (4)
Main Steam Pressure, bar 179 262 276 352 higher
352
capital cost
Efficiency, % HHV 35.5 38.5 39.2 42.7 44.7
LCOE, $/MWh (1) 54.3 53.3 53.7 55.3 55.3 (2)
CO2, kg/MWh from plant 900 851 836 763 729
CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Subcritical Baseline -12.5 -6.0 5.7 4.6
CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Supercritical - Baseline 20.0 21.1 14.8
Relative CO2 emissions vs Subcritical 100 94.5 92.9 84.8 81.0
(See background slides for footnote details) EPRI Report 1015699
NETL Baseline Studies showed current CCS technology has CO2 avoided costs of
~$50-70/ton – A-USC technology may achieve CO2 reductions at 1/3rd that cost
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 16

17. Economics at 2 x US Coal Price
Quantity Sub- Super- 1100 700 760
critical critical USC A-USC A-USC
Coal Cost, $/GJ 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42
Main Steam Temperature, °C 541 582 604 680 (3) 732 (4)
Main Steam Pressure, bar 179 262 276 352 352
Efficiency, % HHV 35.5 38.5 39.2 42.7 44.7
LCOE, $/MWh (1) 71.0 69.2 69.4 69.7 69.7
CO2, kg/MWh from plant 900 851 836 763 729
CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Subcritical Baseline -36.7 -25.0 -9.5 -7.6
CO2 avoided cost, $/ton vs Supercritical - Baseline 13.3 5.7 4.1
Relative CO2 emissions vs Subcritical 100 94.5 92.9 84.8 81.0
EPRI Report 1015699
Advanced USC designs are more competitive in locations with higher priced coal
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 17

18. Impact of Carbon Capture on Cost of Electricity
Higher PC Efficiency = Less Impact
150%
Pittsburgh #8 PRB
COE Relative to Non-CCS Case
140%
DOE Target of
35% Increase
130%
Increase in Levelized Cost of
Electricity due to CCS is
Significantly Decreased with
Increased Efficiency
120%
EPRI Report 1011402
110%
30 35 40 45 50
Efficiency of PC plant without CO2 capture, % (HHV)
No costs included for transportation and storage – that would magnify the
impact of improved efficiency
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 18

19. Other Points to Consider
• Capital costs were based on prices in 2007
• Raw materials for 740 alloy assumed to cost $39/kg
which was average price in 2007
– But price fluctuated between $27 and $50/kg during
2007!!!
– Nickel price is now around $22/kg
• Cost to fabricate heavy wall pipe from 740 was assumed
to be $22/kg (excludes cost of materials) – twice that of
ferritic steel pipe
– Estimate, not based on vendor quotes
• Labor to install nickel alloy pipe estimated to be 3 times
that of ferritic steel pipe
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 19

20. Summary
• Economic analysis showed that for US coal prices and
2007 construction costs the fuel savings of a 700ºC USC
would not offset the increased cost of using nickel alloy
material
– Piping fabrication & installation costs need better
quantification
• However, the increase in levelized cost of electricity was
modest (4% higher than a 582ºC SCPC) while the CO2
emission reductions were significant (10% less than
SCPC)
• The reduction in CO2 emissions from building an
advanced USC compared to a 582ºC SCPC comes at a
cost of circa $20/ton of avoided CO2 – far less than the
cost of capturing and storing CO2.
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 20

21. Background slides
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 21

22. Background for Slide 5 (COE table)
• Source: Engineering and Economic Evaluation of 1300F Series
Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plants: Phase 1. EPRI
Report 1015699, Palo Alto, CA: September 2008.
• Footnotes:
1. Mid-2007 dollars, 30-year book life, carrying charge = 0.121,
capacity factor = 85%, no CO2 emissions cost
2. LCOE assumed to be same as for 1290°F design
3. EPRI study reduced main steam temperature because of
turbine material limitations. 60 Hz operation imposes more
stress than European 50 Hz operation. DOE program expects
to identify how this limitation can be lifted to raise efficiency by
0.7% points.
4. Conditions chosen to match current US DOE/OCDO
Consortium designs with 1350°F main steam and 1400°F
reheat
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 22

23. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 23