State-Of-The-Art FGD Technology by Hermann Brueggendick-Steag Encotec

Worldwide Pollution Control Association
ESKOM Scrubber Seminar April 12th 13th, 2007
Visit our website at www.wpca.info
State-of-the-art FGD Technology An Independent View of a Long-term FGD-Experience of an Operator and Owners Engineer
Dr. Hermann Brggendick STEAG encotec
e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 1
Development Emission Regulation in Germany

1964 Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control (Clean Air Act) Revised 1974 / 1984 Requirements of emissions monitoring systems 1974 1983 Emission Protection Law (BImSchG) Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) 13. BImSchV Requirements for continuously operating emission monitoring systems SO2 < 400 mg/m (i.N.)dry, SO2 Removal efficiency > 85 % 20.7. 2004 Regulation for Large Combustion and Gasturbine Plants (13. BImSchV) Reheating of flue gas downstream FGD cancelled SO2 < 300 / 200 mg/m (i.N.) dry
Emissions Limits for existing and new Plants in Germany

German National Regulations existing- /new plants old, since 1983 new, since 20.07.2004 EmissionLimits (EL) EL EL EL daily average value daily average value 1/2 h - average value No daily average value > EL No daily average value No 1/2 h average > EL value > 2 x EL plus No 1/2 h average value > 2 x EL plus 97% of 1/2 h average values 1.2 x EL
Emission Limits (EL) Dust NOx SO2 Hg
mg/m i.N. dry, 5/6% O 2 50 200 400 -
mg/m i.N. dry, 6% O 2 20 / 20 200 / 200 300 / 200 0.03 60 / 40 400 / 400 600 / 400 0.05
STEAGs Development of FGD-Technology

1968 5,000 m/h (stp) Pilot plant at STEAG power station Lnen Pilot plant at STEAG power station Lnen (Bischoff-Process) Pilot plant at STEAG power station Lnen (ACT - Process) First commercial FGD plant at STEAG power station Bergkamen Pilot plant at STEAG power plant Herne (Ammonia water process) FGD Operating experience Today ~ 9,000 MW > 2.0 million > 25 years ~ 10,000 MW > 12,000 MW > 20,000 MW Total capacity of operational FGD - system Total FGD operating hours FGD operating experience Total capacity of designed STEAG FGD - system Total capacity of internat. engineering services as Owners engineer Total capacity of FGD retrofits
1971 140,000 m/h (stp) 1974 150,000 m/h (stp) 1981 1999 750 MW 10,000 m/h (stp)
STEAG Power Stations with wet FGD-Installations

FGD Design Data
Power Stations
Bergkamen Voerde A Voerde B Herne 1/2 Herne 3 Herne 4 Luenen 10 Luenen 11 W alsum 7 W alsum 9 W est 1 W est 2 Leuna Godorf Bexbach Fenne 1 Fenne 2 W eiher 3 Iskenderun 1 Iskenderun 2
Capacity
[MW ]
Furnace SOx-Inlet Conc. System

[mg/m normal cond.]
Process / Absorbent
wet scrubber lime wet scrubber lime wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone wet scrubber lime/limestone
Byproduct (Gypsum)
[t/h]
Approx. Operation since Operat. Hours

(until 04/2007)
750 760 760 2 x 150 1 x 300 500 150 350 410 150 350 350
3 x 162 t/h 115 electricity 230 steam 103 electricity
dry ash dry ash dry ash slag tap slag tap dry ash dry ash slag tap dry ash slag tap slag tap slag tap heavy oil heavy oil dry ash dry ash dry ash dry ash dry ash dry ash
2,600 2,600 4,300 4,650 3,850 4,000 3,850 7,000 7,000 2,250 2,200 2,250 33,200
18.0 14.5 13.5 30.0 6.0 12.5 6.5 18.0 12.5 7.0 8.0 17.0 6.5 5.0 15.5 24.5
172,000 146,000 146,000 124,000 137,000 129,000 119,000 139,000 44,000 150,000 139,000 139,000 78,000 21,500 134,000 134,000 134,000 139,000 25,000 25,000
Oct. 81 Oct. 82 / 2005 Jan 87 - Jan 04 Jan 87 Sep 89 Apr 88 Oct. 88 Feb 88 Dez 96 Sep 04 Apr 88 Feb 88 Feb 88 2003
775 300 230 710 660 660
9,000 MW
2,300,000
Advantages and Disadvantages of the different FGD Systems

Dry/Semidry FGD Features Low/medium sulphur Removal efficiency 90-95% Smaller flue gas flow No liquid waste Small footprint Low capital costs Limestone FGD High sulphur Removal efficiency > 95% Larger flue gas flow Rather complex system Low cost reagent By-product flexibility High maintenance costs Quick lime Non-marketable mixture of ash, reagent, calcium sulphite and calcium sulphate
Ammonia FGD High sulphur Removal efficiency > 95% Larger flue gas flow No liquid waste High cost reagent High value by-product Low maintenance costs Ammonia Ash from ESP and marketable fertiliser ammonium sulphate
Rather high capital costs High capital costs Reagent By-product Limestone Ash from ESP and marketable gypsum
Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry / Semidry FGD
Dry Desulphurization Process
Desulphurisation with Wet FGD Limestone / Lime - Sum Reactions Desulphurisation

Limestone: Lime: CaCO3 CaO + SO2 + SO2 CaSO3 + CO2 CaSO3
Lime hydrate: Ca(OH)2 + SO2
CaSO3 + H2O
Oxidation
2 CaSO3 H2O + H2O + O2 Calcium sulfite 2 CaSO4 2 H2O
Gypsum dihydrate
Wet FGD Process Flow Sheet Limestone Process

Process water Clean gas
Absorber
Mist eliminator Waste Water hydrocyclone
Raw gas
Gypsumhydrocyclone
Air Waste water Limestone Gypsum Vacuumbelt filter
Wet FGD Process State-of-the-art Arrangements

T > 72C
Variant 1
Mist Eliminator
Absorber with Flue Gas Reheating

Stack Combined ID-Fan GGH Absorber
T ~ 50-52C
Variant 2 Discharge via Cooling Tower
Mist Eliminator
Wet FGD Process State-of-the-art Arrangements

Variant 3 Discharge via Wet Stack
Mist Eliminator
T ~ 50-52C
T ~ 50-52C
Variant 4 Combined Absorber/Stack Arrangement
Mist Eliminator
Comparison of Quicklime / Limestone

Absorbent Quick Lime 60 - 75% < 1.01 Limestone 100% 1.02 1.04
Operating and Cost Parameter Power Consumption of scrubber pumps Mol. Stoichiometric ratio Gypsum Quality Purity Whiteness Solid waste Generation from FGD effluent treatment Maintenance Cost Transport cost of absorbent
98 - 99% > 80% 60 - 70% 80 - 90% 54%
95 - 98% ~ 60% 100% 100% 100%
Coal Qualities for STEAG Power Stations
Coal Range LCV Ash Water Volatiles Sulfur Grindability Softening point MJ/kg % % % % H C 19.5 25.7 6 35 (45) 8 12 (14) 30 - 40 0.5 1.7 50 > 1200
STEAG Power Plant with dry FGD Power Plant Mindanao, Philippinen
Commissioning Installed Capacity (gross) Project volume Fuel
2006 210 MW 305 Mio US$ Hard coal
Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry FGD Power Plant Mindanao
Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry FGD Power Plant Mindanao
Fabric Filter
Comparison of 4 STEAG Power Plants with wet FGD

Plant No. 1 The 500 MW STEAG Power Plant Plant No. 2 The 660 MW STEAG Power Plant
Plant No. 3 The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit
Plant No. 4 The new 750 MW STEAG Power Plant (CCEC) Clean Competitive Electricity from Coal
Plant No. 1 The 500 MW STEAG Power Plant
The 500 MW STEAG Power Plant

Boiler Height Steam Mass Flow Power Output gross Steam Pressure Steam Temperature Calorific value Sulfur Ash V . V SO2 in SO2 out HCl HF Dust
.
104 m 420 kg/s 500 MW 254 bar 535C 19.5 MJ/kg 1.2 % 35% 1,550,000 1,400,000 3,300 200 (400) 10 1.7 30 m(i.N.)/hwet m(i.N.)/hdry mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.)
: : : : : : :
490 80 50
FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant
FGD
Flue gas Preheater
FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant / Flue Gas Line
FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant / Absorber
Plant No. 2 The 660 MW STEAG Power Plant

V . V SO2 in SO2 out HCl HF Dust
.
: : : : : : :
40 12 < 142
2,000,000 1,850,000 1,460 350 1 <0.5 10
m(i.N.)/hwet m(i.N.)/hdry mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.) mg/m (i.N.)
Boiler Height 93 m Steam Mass Flow 524 kg/s Power Output gross 660 MW Steam Pressure 185 bar Steam Temperature 541C Calorific value 25.8 MJ/kg Coal South African Coal
FGD
Boiler
ESP
FGD of the 660 MW STEAG Power Plant / Plant Overview
FGD of the 660 MW STEAG Power Plant / Absorber
Plant No. 3 The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit

Boiler Height 85 m Steam Mass Flow 600 kg/s Power Output gross 760 MW Steam Pressure 206 bar Steam Temperature 530C Calorific value 27.3 MJ/kg Coal Import (South African)
: : : : : : :
143 16.5 9.5
2,434,000 2,242,000 2,420 <200 1 <0.5 20
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit Initial situation
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit Reasons for the Refurbishment / Project Aims
Improvement of the environmental situation
New FGD retrofit Optimisation ESP

Capacity increase
(SO2: 400 (Dust: 50
200 mg/m (i.N.)dr) 20 mg/m (i.N.)dr)
(710 MW 760 MW, 2 x 50 MW, utilization of the permitted furnace thermal capacity)
Efficiency improvement Reduction of the costs of maintenance Improvement of the profitability Improvement in competition
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit New FGD without Bypass Initial situation
Boiler/ Turbine: Utilization of existing reserve capacity DeNOx: Utilization of existing reserve capacity
ESP:
Optimisation, static reinforcement
Raw gas ducts: Static reinforcement ID-Fans: Retrofit, capacity increase FGD: Stack: New scrubbers New wet stack
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit State-of-the-art FGD Plant
One absorber per unit ID-fan for total pressure rise No bypass, no dampers in the flue gas line 4 spray levels (PP), 1 with variable speed 3 stage mist eliminator Flue gas discharge via wet stack
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit New FGD

One scrubber per unit, without bypass, without dampers Existing ID fans for total pressure rise, capacity increase Diameter 17 m, height approx. 36 m Sump volume approx. 2,400 m Steel rubber lining Raw gas inlet Alloy 59 4 Spray levels, design in polypropylen (PP) Circulation pipe in GRP 3 Stage mist eliminator
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit New Wet Stack
Flue gas discharge via wet stack Total height 230 m Steel concrete shaft with 2 flue gas pipe of GRP Clean gas velocity < 18 m/s at 110% load Selective condensate discharge Avoidance of interior installed components
The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit
Emergency water injection
The STEAG 760 MW Power Plant / Flue Gas Line FGD
The STEAG 760 MW Power Plant / Absorber FGD
Plant No. 4 The new 750 MW STEAG Power Plant (CCEC) Clean Competitive Electricity from Coal
The new 750 MW STEAG Power Plant (CCEC)
Boiler
The new 750 MW STEAG Power Plant (CCEC)

State-of-the-art FGD Plant
One absorber ID fan for total pressure rise No bypass, no dampers in the flue gas line 4 spray levels (PP), 1 with variable speed 3 stage mist eliminator Flue gas discharge via cooling tower
Clean Competitive Electricity from Coal (CCEC)
Lowest Investment
standardization / modularization reduction of costs by lessons learned application of proven technology but mono components
Shortest Construction Period High Availability Low Maintenance Costs

quick repair and overhauls, long intervals spare parts on stock or on call at supplier maintenance friendly design skilled and trained team
Optimal Logistics (plant sites)

The new 750 MW STEAG Power Plant (CCEC) Air / Flue Gas Schematic Drawing
: : : : : : :
< 340 < 116 20
2,200,000 2,000,000 2,200 200 <10 <1 <20
Comparison of different FGD Plants

Benchmarking Figures Dim MW Comm. Refurbishment/ Retrofit Plant Efficiency net Boiler Efficiency net Sulfur Range Spec. Steam Flow Spec. Fuel Flow Spec. Fluegas Mass Flow Scrubber Design 1. Absorbens 2. L/G Ratio 3. Velocity gas zone 4. Pressure drop 5. Gas Temp. beh. Scrubber 6. Internal Power Consumption Equivalent hours of full load Operation l/m m/s mbar C MW h/a Quicklime 12.6 2.6 45 46 7.0 6,800 Quicklime 11.5 3.8 16.5 52 6.3 approx. 7,000 Limestone 12.4 4.0 13 54 5.0 6,600 Quicklime 11.9 <4 14 50-52 3.5 approx. 7,000 % % % kg/s/MWnet kgFuel/s / kgSteam/s kg/s/MWnet No. 1 Reheat/Stack 500 1989 38.9 93.2 < 1.55 0.93 0.141 1.22 No. 3 Wet stack 2 x 760 1982 / 85 2005 38,6 93,2 1,22 0.86 0.110 1.29 No. 2 Wet stack 2 x 660 2003 40,23 93,4 < 1,5 0.87 0.107 1.03 No. 4 Cooling tower 750 2009 45,1 94,5 0,5 - 1,5 0.81 0.114 1.04
Water resources
M ain data Power Plant Power Output gross Water resources Quicklime / Limestone Additional W ater t/h m/h l/MW h W aste water m/h l/MW h Liquid/fluegas ratio (L/G-Ratio) l/m QL 30 143 No No No QL 6,5 90 180 40 80 12.6 LS 5,9 350 265 80 61 12.4 QL 5,9 330 217 75 49 11.5 QL 4,5 150 200 40 53 11.9 DIM MW M indanao 210 Flue gas reheat No. 1 500 Wet Stack No. 2 2 x 660 Wet Stack No. 3 2 x 760 Cooling T ower No. 4 750
Selection of Desulphurization Processes

General question: Recovery of byproduct or landfill Semi dry system: Product has to be landfilled Problems with S > 2 % in coal Operating experience up to 350.000 m/h flue gas for one line Offers up to 750.000 m/h flue gas for one line For 1000 MW min 4 lines necessary Water 20 40 l / 1000 m/h Flue gas (~ 0.14 l/kWh) gypsum
Wet system:
Produced gypsum marketable High operating experience with high throughput per line Water 60 80 l / 1000 m7h Flue gas (~ 0.2 l/kWh) Waste Water 40 80 m/h (~0,06 l/kWh)
Comparison of FGD-Processes
System Dry Semi-Dry Wet Wet-system if: Semi dry-system if: Efficiency 80 - 90 % 90 - 97 % 90 - 99 % Ca/S <2 1.2 -1.5 1.05 Investment (West European basis) 65 - 78 US$/KWel (50 60 /KWel) 65 - 78 US$/KWel (50 60 /KWel) 85 - 115 US$/KWel (75 90 /KWel)
High S-content in coal Gypsum can be sold Landfill cost for product of semi dry process Cost benefit for high flue gas throughput Water resources are sufficient Lower desulphurization efficiency is asked for Product has to be landfilled Water resources are insufficient
STEAG International Reference FGD Plants as Owners Engineer
Ratcliffe Power Station Chemnitz Orhaneli Power Plant Mae Moh Power Plant Yatagan Power Plant Beijing Power Plant Banshan Power Plant Chongqing Power Plant West Burton Power Station Maritza Cottam Power Station Pego
UK Germany Turkey Thailand Turkey China China China UK Bulgaria UK Portugal
4 x 500 120 210 4 x 150 3 x 210 330 250 400 4 x 500 4 x 210 4 x 500 2 x 300
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
STEAG Power Stations Services

STEAG can provide unique services as the Owners Engineer transferring extensive long-term FDG- and SCR-operating experience to our customers: Optimal process, arrangement and equipment design Design review Material and equipment selection Material handling Maintenance assistance Measuring services SCR catalyst management Operator training in our plants
STEAG Experience with different FGD - Solution
STEAG has experience with several FGD Technologies: Lurgi Lentjes Noell / KRC Marubeni/ABB FISIA Babcock, Steinmller FLS/MHI John Brown Hitachi AE Austrian Energy RWE Solutions Alstom Ebara

State-Of-The-Art FGD Technology by Hermann Brueggendick-Steag Encotec

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

State-Of-The-Art FGD Technology by Hermann Brueggendick-Steag Encotec

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Worldwide Pollution Control Association

ESKOM Scrubber Seminar April 12th 13th, 2007

Visit our website at www.wpca.info

Dr. Hermann Brggendick STEAG encotec

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 1

Development Emission Regulation in Germany

Emissions Limits for existing and new Plants in Germany

Emission Limits (EL) Dust NOx SO2 Hg

mg/m i.N. dry, 5/6% O 2 50 200 400 -

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 3

STEAGs Development of FGD-Technology

STEAG Power Stations with wet FGD-Installations

Furnace SOx-Inlet Conc. System

Approx. Operation since Operat. Hours

775 300 230 710 660 660

Advantages and Disadvantages of the different FGD Systems

Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry / Semidry FGD

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 7

Dry Desulphurization Process

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 8

Desulphurisation with Wet FGD Limestone / Lime - Sum Reactions Desulphurisation

Lime hydrate: Ca(OH)2 + SO2

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 9

Wet FGD Process Flow Sheet Limestone Process

Air Waste water Limestone Gypsum Vacuumbelt filter

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 10

Wet FGD Process State-of-the-art Arrangements

Absorber with Flue Gas Reheating

Variant 2 Discharge via Cooling Tower

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 11

Wet FGD Process State-of-the-art Arrangements

Variant 4 Combined Absorber/Stack Arrangement

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 12

Comparison of Quicklime / Limestone

98 - 99% > 80% 60 - 70% 80 - 90% 54%

95 - 98% ~ 60% 100% 100% 100%

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 13

Coal Qualities for STEAG Power Stations

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 14

Commissioning Installed Capacity (gross) Project volume Fuel

2006 210 MW 305 Mio US$ Hard coal

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 15

Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry FGD Power Plant Mindanao

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 16

Flue Gas Desulphurization Dry FGD Power Plant Mindanao

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 17

Comparison of 4 STEAG Power Plants with wet FGD

Plant No. 3 The 760 MW STEAG Power Plant / FGD Retrofit

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 18

Plant No. 1 The 500 MW STEAG Power Plant

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 19

The 500 MW STEAG Power Plant

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 20

FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 21

FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant

Flue gas Preheater

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 22

FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant / Flue Gas Line

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 23

FGD of the 500 MW STEAG Power Plant / Absorber

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 24

Plant No. 2 The 660 MW STEAG Power Plant

e-A, Dr. Brggendick, VortragSdafrika 21.03.2007. Seite 25