| by Harry
Hutchinson, Executive Editor |
Critics will say that tomorrow's coal systems
ought to be cold. They will point to the dangers of mercury emissions,
to the hazards of handling more than 100 million short tons of coal waste
every year, to the devastation of acid rain.
Others consider how much coal lies under the ground. There's more of it
than any other fossil fuel. And forecasters for energy predict that fossil
fuelsthe hydrocarbon legacy of dinosaurs and primeval forestswill
drive the economies of the planet for the next generation or two.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that coal generates
34 percent of the world's electricity today and will still account for
more than 30 percent in 2020.
The backers of coal say that systems can beand must bedeveloped
to make coal more efficient to burn and less troublesome to the biosphere.
According to the EIA, the United States relied on coal for more than 51
percent of its electric power last year. Meanwhile, China, so populous
and such a go-getter, needs energy to support its sprouting industry and
is sitting on 12 percent of the world's coal reserves. Only the U.S. and
Russia have more.
And no country anywhere is willingly going to turn off its lights. Instead,
it will use what it has to keep them onand to keep its industries
going and to maintain order.
Tampa
Electric's Polk Power Station incorporates a gasifier to feed a combined-cycle
unit. It's one of the two IGCC plants operating in the U.S.
Clean coal has been one of the major goals of the National Energy Technology
Laboratory for some time. In the past few months, the program has been
given renewed impetus by the White House.
In response to President Bush's national energy policy, the U.S. Department
of Energy, which operates the lab, in March put out a solicitation for
clean coal proposals. It offered to go 50-50 with industrial partners
on projects that would proceed from definition through demonstration.
The solicitation said that the government would spend as much as $400
million on various projects.
Areas of interest include a reduction in carbon and other emissions, including
mercury, which is only now coming under regulatory scrutiny in the United
States. The DOE is also considering proposals under such themes as combined
heat and power, gasification, process control, and improvements in steam
turbines.
According to the solicitation, qualifying projects have to specify coal
for three-quarters of their fuel energy input. The application deadline
was the first of this month, and the acceptance list will come out in
January.
The United States is also a supporter of the International Energy Agency
and is one of the member countries that support IEA Coal Research, a program
based in London. Several European member countries also are involved,
as are Canada, Japan, and the European Council. IEA Coal Research bills
itself as "the world's foremost provider of information on efficient
coal supply and use."
The Electric Power Research Institute, a research organization partly
backed by the power industry, announced its Global Coal Initiative two
years ago. When it did so, the group predicted that research could make
integrated gasification combined-cycle and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion
competitive with natural gas on a cost-of-electricity basis sometime between
2010 and 2020.
Slow to Catch Fire
So far, there have been few takers of advanced coal systems. The DOE and
IEA Coal Research maintain Web sites that discuss clean coal technologies.
They include two high-profile methods of cleaner combustiongasification
and circulating fluidized beds. The ideas aren't new, but they have yet
to catch on in a big way.
The plan for a gasification plant feeding a combined-cycle generating
station is still in the demonstration stage in the United States. Although
the process squeezes more efficiency out of coal and scores points for
cleaner air and corporate goodwill, prospective buyers have yet to form
a line around the block.
Tom Sarkus, coal power projects division director at the National Energy
Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, pointed out that there are just two
IGCC units generating electricity commercially in the United States: Tampa
Electric operates one integrated gasification combined-cycle unit at its
Polk Power Station, 40 miles from Tampa, and Global Energy Inc. runs a
gasifier that feeds a turbine owned by Cinergy at the Wabash River plant
near Terre Haute, Ind.
Phil Amick, vice president for commercial development at Global Energy
Inc., called it "the cleanest coal-fired plant in the world."
Amick was project manager when the Wabash River plant was repowered.
JEA's
Northside plant in Jacksonville, Fla., is adding two 300-MW circulating
fluidized-bed boilers, the largest that Foster Wheeler has delivered.
The repowering project changed a pulverized coal-fired unit generating
about 90 megawatts into a more efficient 262-MW unit. It wasn't cheap.
According to the DOE, the project, which repowered one unit at the plant,
cost just over $438 million. Four other units at the plant burn pulverized
coal.
Published numbers for IGCC claim 99 percent removal of sulfur from flue
gas, and efficiencies of 40 percent. The current best for pulverized coal
boilers is about 38 percent. The older Wabash River unit replaced by the
repowering had a nominal efficiency of 33 percent.
The numbers of IGCC plants have been growing, but not rapidly. A few IGCC
plants have been set up out-
side the United States, for instance in Buggenum in the Netherlands and
in Puertollano, Spain.
Meanwhile, Global Energy, through a unit called Kentucky Pioneer Energy,
is working with the DOE on another IGCC project planned for Trapp, Ky.
Besides the combination of gas and steam turbines to generate electricity,
the plan would divert some of the gas to a molten carbonate fuel cell.
The gasifier in Kentucky will be able to handle a feed of lump fuel. The
Wabash River unit requires that fuel be prepared as a slurry.
Perhaps as a sign of its confidence in the technology, Global Energy is
already making plans to open a commercial IGCC plant on its own. In May,
a subsidiary, Lima Energy Co., got the go-ahead from the Ohio Power Siting
Board for an IGCC plant in the city of Lima. The 580-MW plant is expected
to cost $500 million. The DOE is not involved in that plant.
Cooler Burn, Less NOx
The fluidized bed hasn't been a runaway best-seller either.
Don Bonk, NETL's product manager for advanced combustion technologies,
said there are perhaps 400 fluidized beds operating worldwide. About 130
of them are in the United States, which has a fleet of approximately 1,100
coal-fired generating units.
There is a large-scale CFB project nearly complete right now, Sarkus said.
JEA, the former Jacksonville Electric Authority, is repowering its Northside
generating station with two circulating fluidized bed boilers, each rated
at nearly 300 MW.
The boilers were made by Foster Wheeler. According to Harlan Trammell,
a Foster Wheeler regional vice president whose area includes Florida,
they are the largest CFB boilers that the company has ever delivered.
The DOE is participating in Unit 2, which will undergo tests using coal,
according to Joey Duncan, JEA's project manager. Duncan said among the
benefits of CFB boilers is that they burn fuel at lower temperatures and
produce less nitrogen oxide than hotter boilers do.
"There's churning hellfire and brimstone going on," Duncan said,
but the coal burns in the 1,500s Fahrenheit. A conventional boiler will
reach temperatures of 2,000°F or higher. The biggest NOx
output with coal is at combustion temperatures above 1,600°F, Duncan
said.
The boiler's contents are 95 to 97 percent limestone and ash, and only
3 to 5 percent fuel at any time, he added. The limestone draws sulfur
from the coal. A dry scrubber and a polishing scrubber further reduce
pollutants downstream.
According to Bill Goodrich, lead mechanical engineer for the repowering
project, the boilers have "the best heat rate I've seen in a CFB."
He said circulating fluidized bed boilers are usually slightly less efficient
than pulverized coal boilers, but in this case, he expects each boiler
to be comparable to a PC unit, at 37 or 38 percent efficiency.
The boilers are in the process of coming on line. "Both units are
producing power that is out on the grid, but I wouldn't say they're in
commercial service yet," Goodrich said. Unit 2 this month will be
in its final testing stages. Unit 1, which is lagging behind Unit 2, will
be "halfway between preliminary and final," Goodrich said.
Other features of the plant are a continuous ship unloader that will unload
60,000 tons of fuel in about 52 hours, and two fuel storage domes 400
feet across and 140 high, able to hold 60,000 tons each.
Unit
1 of the Polk plant burns syngas, which can be derived from coal, pet
coke, or other fuels. The gasifier is the large tower in the background,
surrounded by white sheet metal at the top.
The capture of sulfur and reduction of NOx address a problem
that crosses borders. Less than 20 years ago, smokestack emissions from
power plants in the midwestern United States were blamed for the acid
rain that was killing off lakes and threatening ecosystems in Canada.
Much of the corrective response took the form of flue gas scrubbers and
other capture devices. According to Sarkus, that technology today is fitted
on only about a quarter of the coal-burning plants in the United States.
Even so, he added, coal is burning cleaner. Since 1970, when the Clean
Air Act really kicked in, coal plant SO2 emissions declined
by 11 million tons a year, or 35 percent. Coal use has doubled in that
time.
Sarkus suggested that many plants running without flue gas controls or
scrubbers are burning coals that contain less sulfur and other pollutants
to begin with.
Joan Masterton, director of the science assessment and integration branch
of Environment Canada in Toronto, said that industry has responded well
to the problem of emissions. "Emissions have been drastically reduced,
and that's very good, but there's still a way to go," she said.
Although emissions are down, Canadian researchers have not seen corresponding
diminishing effects. The causes will have to be researched. "It is
a more complex system than we originally thought," Masterton said.
Ashes to Grout
Emissions controlsthe capture of particulate matter and SO2
scrubbinghave developed a revenue stream for many power plants.
A report issued last May by the U.S. Geological Survey tabulates the production
and use of coal combustion byproducts from 1966 through 2000. In the first
year, the only products that show up are fly ash and bottom ash, totaling
almost 23 million metric tonnes. About an eighth of that, some 2.8 megatonnes,
found a market.
As of two years ago, the field had expanded. Boiler slag and flue gas
desulfurization products had broken into the charts a few years earlier.
The two new categories and a considerable increase in coal consumption
boosted the total of potentially recyclable byproducts to 98.2 megatonnes.
Some 28.6 megatonnes, or 30 percent of it, wound up in places as diverse
as concrete floors, bowling balls, and peanut fields.
A larger share of a bigger total is recycled, but that still leaves 70
million metric tonnes a year of slag, ash, and sulfur-laced limestone
headed for landfills. It is Bob Patton's job to help reduce the waste.
Patton is a project manager in the environmental projects division of
the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. His work focuses
on matching the leftovers of coal fires to places where they can serve
a need or, as he put it, "to turn a waste product into a useful,
money-making product."
Flue gas desulfurization creates raw materials for gypsum wallboard, for
instance. Bottom ash becomes the cinders that are spread on icy roads.
Slag will do the same job, but needs to be ground to size first. Ash and
slag may even be used to fill the caverns of old mines to stop ground
subsidence.
Global
Energy operates the gasifier that fuels a Cinergy power plant on the Wabash
River in Indiana. Global Energy is planning to build IGCC plants in Kentucky
and Ohio.
The most common use for any coal combustion by-product is in concrete
or grout, where fine fly ash replaces some of the cement. According to
Patton, western fly ashes are particularly cement-like and, on average,
can replace 15 to 20 percent of the cement in concrete.
Out of 57 million metric tonnes of fly ash produced in the United States
each year, 17.6 million tonnes are recycled. About half of that is used
in place of cement in grout, concrete, and other hard-setting materials.
The fine ash has other uses, too. Fly ash can sweeten acid soils and lighten
dense earth. Adding fly ash can also stabilize soils to support construction.
Ebonite International Inc., a manufacturer in Hopkinsville, Ky., uses
fly ash as ballast to adjust the heft of its bowling balls, which can
be as much as 40 percent fly ash by weight.
Great River Energy, based in Elk River, Minn., produces at least 450,000
tons a year of marketable ash at its Coal Creek station. Right now, the
company sells 320,000 tons and hopes that it will be selling all the ash
by the end of 2004, according to Al Christianson, project coordinator
for business services at the plant in Underwood, N.D.
The total ash output at the 1,200-MW Coal Creek plant is about 500,000
tons a year. Some ash is lost during start-ups when oil is burned to support
coal combustion, he said. The company ships the ash through terminals
in Minneapolis, Denver, and Fargo, N.D. Sales of ash represented a profit
of about $3 million last year, Christianson said.
The marketing of Great River's ash is handled by ISG Resources, a Salt
Lake City company that specializes in building materials that contain
coal combustion byproducts. John Ward, ISG's vice president of marketing,
said the company sells its ash-containing products across the country
and receives fly ash from 110 power plants.
One of the company's products, Swiftcrete, is a rapid-setting concrete
and asphalt repair material. The U.S. Army used it to repair runways in
Afghanistan.
ISG Resources also sells PeanutMaker, a high-calcium fertilizer. The company
said the product has been used on more than 60,000 acres of peanut crops.
Ward said it helps soil to retain water.
Refining Emissions
According to Sarkus at NETL, there has been a progression in emissions
controls for the past half-century. The 1950s and '60s focused on smog
and particulates. The next decade shifted to SO2. The '90s
saw a tightening of NOx emissions. Now, Sarkus said, the list
is headed by fine particulates under 3 micrometers and by mercury.
It was less than two years ago that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency recognized a "plausible link" between power plant emissions
of mercury and human health. The link arises when people eat fish that
have eaten other fish that have swallowed the stuff.
Mercury can cause people serious illness and can even kill. It is especially
hazardous to unborn children, so preg-nant women are often warned to curb
their intake of freshwater fish in certain regions.
In December 2000, the agency decided it should look into regulating mercury
emissions. The EPA right now has a deadline of December 15 this year by
which it must publish proposed rules, and then has to wrap them up in
final form exactly one year later.
Tom Feeley, product manager for environmental and water resources at NETL,
is one of the people working to develop a practical means of mercury control.
He said he doesn't have it yet.
Wet scrubbers designed to remove sulfur dioxide from coal flue gases also
can remove as much as 80 percent of the mercury, if it's oxidized. And
there's the catch. Lignite and Powder River Basin coals tend to have a
lower concentration of oxidized mercury and more elemental mercury, and
the elemental form is difficult to capture, Feeley said.
One method being tested is an injection of activated carbon into the flue
gas. The carbon absorbs the mercury, but there can be additional costs
as a result of the treatment.
We Energies, which used to be Wisconsin Electric Power Co., hosted a carbon-injection
test at its Pleasant Prairie plant. The test involved one-quarter of the
precipitator on one unit, according to Dave Michaud, the company's principal
environmental scientist.
"We did not sell any of the fly ash from that part of the precipitator
during testing," he said. As it turns out, carbon can make fly ash
unsuitable for mixing into concrete.
Carbon, especially activated carbon, inhibits the formation of small bubbles
in concrete. The bubbles, which provide space for water droplets to expand
and contract, let concrete survive freeze and thaw cycles.
Injectors
put activated carbon into the flue gas stream to remove mercury. ADA Environmental
Solutions has tested the system at various plants.
Fly ash of Powder River Basin coal has about 0.4 percent carbon content
and is equivalent by itself to lower-grade Portland 2 cement, Michaud
said. The same ash with perhaps 0.5 percent activated carbon will fail
cement-criteria tests.
One test of ash is to add drops of a surfactant, a soluble compound that
affects the surface tension of liquids, into a mixture containing fly
ash. After each drop, the mixture is shaken. The number of drops it takes
until a consistent head forms on the surface is the foam index.
Good fly ash has an index of about 15, Michaud said. The contract limit
is 25 drops. Ash with 1 percent activated carbon can have an index of
72. The usual limit for carbon is 3 percent.
ADA Environmental Solutions, a supplier of coal-cleaning technology in
Littleton, Colo., conducted the test at Pleasant Prairie and another at
a plant owned by Southern Co.
Larry Monroe, Southern's program manager for pollution control research,
said the test involved half of Unit 3 at the company's E.C. Gaston plant
in Wilsonville, Ala., between January and April last year. The unit has
a capacity of 270 MW.
Gaston has a baghouse to remove remaining particulates from flue gas after
it leaves the precipitator. The test injected activated carbon after the
precipitator and used the baghouse to catch the particles, according to
Jean Bustard, executive vice president of ADA-ES.
Tests at Gaston included a 10-day continuous run that removed about 80
percent of the mercury from the flue gas. Bustard and Monroe agreed that
more could have been removed, but carbon injection was limited by the
capacity of the baghouse.
Bustard said ADA-ES is currently testing the activated carbon system at
a plant in Massachusetts. In that setup, carbon enters the exhaust stream
after the main precipitator and in front of an electrostatic precipitator.
Technology for Diversity
There's no doubt that coal's image is tainted. Out of hundreds of proposals
for new power plants in the United States, coal projects can be numbered
in tens.
Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for power generation. Consider
one of the crown jewels of clean coal, the Polk Power Station in Florida.
While Unit 1 at Polk burns gas made from coal, Units 2 and 3 burn natural
gas.
Coal, on the other hand, is often seen as the fuel of diversity. Or one
of them, at least. There are also hydro, wind, solar, petroleum, and nuclearsome
more important than others. Biomass is another option, whether it is banana
plantation waste, chips from the lumber mill, or municipal trash, either
burned straight or gasified.
Diversity of fuels has become a given for a sustainable energy supply,
for political and economic reasons. Clean coal technologies play into
that drive for diversity not only by curbing the environmental risk of
an available resource, but also because the gasifier and the CFB can handle
fuels besides coal.
Duncan of JEA said the new CFB boilers being tested at Jacksonville can
handle coal or petroleum coke, or even as much as 22 percent biomass.
He said the company will test coal under the DOE program, but the current
plan is to run both boilers primarily on coke. Unit 1 is burning 70 percent
petroleum coke and 30 percent coal.
The Polk station is testing different fuel sources, a spokesman said,
and has tried pet coke among them.
Amick said that Global Energy has repowered the Wabash River gasifier
with pet coke with no change in plant hardware. He said the switch was
made for economic reasons.
New sources in Venezuela, which has South America's motherlode of petroleum,
have come onto the market and competition is driving down coke prices.
"We got a good deal on petroleum coke," he said.
home |
features |
news update |
marketplace |
departments |
about ME |
back issues |
ASME |
site search
© 2002 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
|