FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS FOR POWER GENERATION AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS

Report No. COAL R188 DTI/Pub URN 00/743

by AJ Minchener, PJI Cross, TN Smith and MJ Fisher CRE Group Limited

The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the Department of Trade and Industrys Cleaner Coal Technology Programme, and under the supervision of ETSU. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of CRE Group Limited and do not necessarily reflect those of ETSU or the Department of Trade and Industry.

Crown Copyright 2000 First published 2000

FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS FOR POWER GENERATION AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS by AJ Minchener, PJI Cross, TN Smith and MJ Fisher CRE Group Limited

SUMMARY During the past three decades, fluidised bed combustion (FBC) in its various forms has been used to burn all types of coals, coal wastes and a wide variety of other fuels, either singly or co-fired with coal. FBC boilers are currently available commercially in the capacity range 1MWth to 250MWe and continue to be adopted for a variety of commercial and industrial applications, as well as by independent power producers. There are two main derivatives of FBC, namely bubbling fluidised bed combustion (BFBC) and circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC). There are also several hybrid systems and there are also pressurised versions of both BFBC and CFBC. The status of these different systems varies, with some now fully commercial and some still under development. The principal aims of the work reported here are to assess the current global state of development and application of fluidised bed combustion systems, including bubbling, circulating and pressurised systems, to discuss the likely development of these, and to identify areas of research, development and demonstration (R,D&D) that would be of significant benefit to the UK. The scope of the review includes all types of fluidised bed combustion system for power generation and other industrial applications, critical equipment, components and materials, fuel aspects, instrumentation and control systems, residue disposal and residue utilisation. BFBC was originally considered as a potential technology for coal-fired power generation. However while there have been some large (up to 180MWe) demonstration units in the USA and Japan the technology has been eclipsed by CFBC. Rather it has established a niche at the small-medium industrial scale with the very great majority of units in the range 3-100MWth and a few in the range 150-280MWth. Although many units presently operate on coal, other fuel types are becoming of increasing importance. Many of these are waste-derived and/or problem feedstock that would either be sent to landfill or be otherwise disposed of. Even when burning such fuels, overall energy efficiency and environmental performance can be good with a variety of techniques available to be used to minimise environmental impact. There are numerous organisations who continue to manufacture and supply BFBC, including Kvaerner who are the market leader for the larger scale units. However, future technology development is likely to be limited to ensuring fuel flexibility on existing designs for the increasing use of biomass and/or waste as feedstock with or instead of coal. There are no major industrially focused international R&D projects underway. There is however, a potential UK niche in waste to energy schemes which is referred to below.

In contrast to BFBC, CFBC technology has become increasingly established for a variety of applications including steam raising, cogeneration and power generation. CFBC is recognised as a versatile technology capable of burning a wide range of coals and other feedstock; the list of fuels utilised successfully continues to grow. Different plant configurations are now available from major vendors. The leaders are Foster-Wheeler/Ahlstrom and Lurgi Lentjes Babcock, with the maximum unit size at present 250MWe. On a worldwide basis, the market opportunities appear good, with a potential market up to 2020 of some 150GW capacity being estimated. This represents some 20% of the likely global capacity increase for coal-fired power generation over that time period. The market proposals are localised with the major opportunities being seen as China (125GW), although there are concerns regarding a true market being available to international suppliers, North America (17GW) and India (6GW). In terms of development requirements and opportunities, there are strong driving forces to improve competitiveness of the technology. The need is to improve overall cycle efficiency, minimise environmental impact while enhancing fuel flexibility, reduce capital costs and to ensure effective scale up in order to compete over the full product range with pf units. There is a major US DoE programme to support US vendors in achieving these aims, while in Europe there is a nationally focussed R&D programme in France, various other national based R&D programmes, plus opportunities for EU industry to gain some development support from the European Commission. Pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) offers the prospect of a coal/multi fuel-fired combined cycle process of higher efficiency than CFBC and, ultimately, of pf (under comparable steam cycle conditions). There is also scope for its use in a topping combined cycle advanced configuration to achieve still higher cycle efficiencies. To date the majority (seven of the eight) of PFBC plants operating as commercial prototypes have been based on ABB Carbon bubbling bed technology. Most have been based on their use of the smaller P200 module. However, the start of commercial operation of a plant using the scaled-up P800 module is imminent. Good environmental performance has been achieved with the present tranche of PFBC plants. Efforts are continuing to improve environmental impact further, reduce plant capital and operating costs, and increase flexibility through initiatives that include a broadened range of fuels. The R&D is driven by ABB Carbon, working with other institutes and universities where appropriate. Overall, the uptake of bubbling bed PFBC technology is progressing slowly although there are a number of proposals under consideration. PFBC technology is effectively excluded from some regions and market areas as a result of its perceived higher costs and complexity compared to competing systems. It is believed that the success of the scaled-up unit in Japan is critical to the success of the technology, as the major potential market is seen to be Japan (3GW) over the time period to 2020. The technology may well have a narrow window of opportunity and runs the risk of being overtaken by other combined cycle systems such as IGCC in the future.

ii

Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (PCFBC) is the alternative technology variant and remains at an earlier stage of development. Several major suppliers are actively developing their versions of the technology including Foster Wheeler and Lurgi Lentjes Babcock. PCFBC is being championed by the US DoE through several demonstration plants including a topping cycle concept. These should be completed before 2020 but market opportunities at the commercial scale cannot be predicted at this time. The prospects for UK industry in exploiting the potential market for fluidised bed combustion systems have been considered. Although much of the pioneering R&D work on pressurised fluidised bed combustion and on bubbling fluidised bed combustion was undertaken in the UK, this early leading position of technical excellence was not converted into a commercially successful business sector, for a variety of reasons. Amongst the most significant of these was the policy, while the UK electricity sector was in public ownership, of adding coal-fired capacity in the form of large (2000MW) plant based on the proven technology of pulverised fuel combustion, a policy which persisted during the key development years of FBC and which must now with hindsight be recognised for stifling the commercial exploitation of FBC for utility application in the UK. Consequently, the prospects for UK industry to exploit the potential worldwide market for FBC would appear to be severely restricted, for a variety of reasons: the UK does not have a strong home market for the technology with only a small number of FBC installations and no major national programme of technology development as a consequence, very few UK organisations have the capability to provide FBC technology international competitors are now well established in the technology marketplace as can be seen from examination of the reference lists presented elsewhere in the report.

This view appears to be shared by the UK FORESIGHT Clean Coal Power Generation Technology Task Force that reported on R, D and D priorities for cleaner coal technology in October 1998. They stated that AFBC and PFBC are not current UK strengths. That said, there would appear to be a small niche in the home market in establishing BFBC systems for non-coal applications but the export potential is likely to be limited. In terms of R&D and D, the UK drivers appear to be increased fuel flexibility and increased utilisation of residues. Although there are a limited number of UK vendors, a significant level of expertise and experience remains vested in UK institutes and associated universities. Such organisations can tackle the R&D issues in support of the UK vendors. Although not strictly R, D & D, promoting technology transfer and consulting are activities that are able to make use of the expertise that remains in the UK organisations. The key focus area would appear to lie in advising clients of the merits of different technology options from a position of impartiality.

iii

iv

CONTENTS Page No. 1. 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8. 9. INTRODUCTION FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Introduction Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion (BFBC) Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (CFBC) Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (PCFBC) Capital and Operating Costs for FBC Systems CURRENT STATUS AND ASSESSMENT OF FBC SYSTEMS Introduction Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION TRENDS Introduction Regional Trends in Development and Application R, D and D Activities at National and International Level FUTURE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion MARKET POTENTIAL Introduction Assessment of Commercial Aspects Prospects for UK plc UK ACTIVITIES AND PROSPECTS Introduction UK Capabilities UK Input to R, D & D Activities Areas for Further R, D & D Activities in the UK Other Prospects CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 2 2 2 9 14 20 21 25 25 25 33 41 45 45 45 50 55 55 56 63 65 65 65 73 74 74 74 76 77 78 78 81 81

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY TABLES FIGURES

APPENDIX A Major suppliers of FBC plant and equipment APPENDIX B UK design and manufacturing capabilities contacts and further company details APPENDIX C Individuals and organisations that contributed to Section 5, future technology development APPENDIX D Recent CFBC technological developments APPENDIX E Lists of major CFBC and PFBC plant

vi

FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS FOR POWER GENERATION AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS

1.

INTRODUCTION During the past three decades, fluidised bed combustion (FBC) in its various forms has been used to burn all types of coals, coal wastes and a wide variety of other fuels, either singly or co-fired with coal. FBC boilers are currently available commercially in the capacity range 1MWth to 250MWe and continue to be adopted for a variety of commercial and industrial applications, as well as by independent power producers. There are two main derivatives of FBC, namely bubbling fluidised bed combustion (BFBC) and circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC). There are also several hybrid systems and there are also pressurised versions of both BFBC and CFBC. The status of these different systems varies, with some now fully commercial and some still under development. CRE Group Ltd undertook a review of fluidised bed combustion systems for power generation and other industrial applications on behalf of the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) the results of which are presented in this Report. The principal aims of the review were to assess the current global state of development and application of fluidised bed combustion systems, including bubbling, circulating and pressurised systems, to discuss the likely development of these, and to identify areas of research, development and demonstration (R,D&D) that would be of significant benefit to the UK. The scope of the review included all types of fluidised bed combustion system for power generation and other industrial applications, critical equipment, components and materials, fuel aspects, instrumentation and control systems, residue disposal and residue utilisation. The specific objectives were as follows: to assess objectively the current state of development and application of fluidised bed combustion systems world-wide, including key associated equipment and components. to assess critically the capabilities and limitations of currently available fluidised bed combustors/systems, and to provide information on their developers, manufacturers, suppliers and major users. to identify and discuss likely developments on the 5 year, 10 year and 20 year time scales, including expected incremental and/or step change developments necessary to bring these about. to review critically R, D&D activities and future potential of UK organisations involved in this area, in the context of the expected technology developments, prospective markets and market influences. to identify and prioritise areas in which future R, D&D activities need to be focused, particularly those involving UK organisations, to meet current and future demands and to enhance the market potential for UK products/services.

The approach adopted by CRE Group Ltd for addressing the study objectives comprised: An initial literature review and review of other data sources, such as the Internet The production of initial drafts of the key sections of the report, with identification of any gaps in the basic information available A series of interviews and discussions with FBC developers and users, international organisations and governmental bodies designed to fill these gaps The process was expedited through the use of existing databases, reviews, techno-economic studies and testwork undertaken by CRE Group Ltd. both in-house and for clients, and on behalf of international governmental organisations, power utilities, industry and consultants.

2. 2.1

FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Introduction The various types of FBC system (bubbling bed, circulating bed, pressurised bed, pressurised circulating bed) available for power generation and other applications are reviewed briefly below. Each variant of the technology is considered under the headings of system description, main process features, fuel flexibility, performance and environmental issues and advantages/disadvantages. Following this, capital cost and operating cost issues are considered.

2.2

Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion (BFBC) System Description When a packed bed of small particles is subjected to an upward gas flow, the bed initially remains static but the pressure drop across it increases in proportion to the increasing gas flow rate. When the pressure drop across the bed particles equals the weight per unit area of the bed, the bed becomes suspended. The bed is then considered to be at minimum (or incipient) fluidisation. Any further increase in the gas flow rate does not significantly affect the bed pressure drop. However, gas flow in excess of the minimum will, with the size of particles normally considered for BFBC applications, result in the formation of bubbles. At several times the minimum fluidisation velocity, the upwards and sideways coalescing movements of the bubbles provide intense agitation and mixing of the bed particles. In this state the bed particles can transfer heat at very high rates from burning fuel to cooler surroundings. Within the system, the only significant pressure difference is the drop from the air distributor in the base to the top of the bed, as the weight of the bed particles opposes the rising fluidising air. For a particular bed material, as the fluidising velocity increases, the fluidisation process proceeds as follows. Bed particles are free to move around; the bed is fluidised although the particles remain in relatively close contact and are not carried upwards to any significant degree. Thus, the bed maintains a well-defined upper surface, with air bubbles passing through the bed bursting at the surface, much as boiling water appears. Fuel can be fed into and burned in the bubbling bed, this process being known as bubbling fluidised bed combustion.

In a BFBC system, the fuel is delivered into or onto the fluidised bed of inert particles, and burns by virtue of the oxygen within the fluidising air and the temperature of the surrounding particles. If the upward air flow is turned off, the particles become static ie they become defluidised or slumped, and settle down onto the supporting base plate, termed the air distributor. This plate both supports the static particles and also evenly distributes the fluidising air across the whole base area of the particle containment. Many different refractory materials can be used to form the original bed of inert particles, although the most commonly used is graded sand, around 1 mm in mean diameter, enabling fluidising velocities in the range 1-3m/s. Alternatively, graded limestone or dolomite can be used if sulphur dioxide (SO2) capture is required. If SO2 retention is required on a continuous basis, limestone (or dolomite) has to be fed continuously to the bed. When particles are being fed continuously into the bed, excess material has to be drained away, either through the air distributor base plate or via an overflow weir. This maintains the design bed depth. When the fuel being burned has only a low ash content, or if the ash is friable, the fuel ash may be either insignificant or will become degraded by the action of the fluidised bed, such that it is substantially elutriated within the emergent flue gases. Alternatively, when a high ash fuel is burned, especially one that leaves behind hard particles of ash, some of the ash remains in the bed. If the ash particles are a suitable size they will fluidise and will eventually replace the original inert particles. Excess fuel ash may also need to be removed in order to maintain the design bed depth. In order to burn the fuel efficiently and, in the case of limestone or dolomite, successfully retain SO2, the bed particles need to be controlled in the temperature range 800-900C. During normal operation this temperature is achieved and stabilised by the opposing effects of the heat input from the burning fuel and outgoing heat in the flue gases and heat transferred from the bed particles to water cooled tubing and/or containment walls. In the case of a BFBC boiler, such tubes and walls form a part of the boiler construction. When BFBC is used for applications other than as a boiler, such as a hot gas furnace or incinerator, there are no such water-cooled surfaces, so the bed temperature is stabilised by passing excess air through the bed. In the case of a boiler or a waste/biofuel to energy plant, the emergent flue gases are constrained to flow through or across conventional heat transfer surfaces so that they are cooled to <200C before they leave the boiler and flow to atmosphere through the plant chimney. Hot gases from a furnace are usually used for process drying applications. At start-up, the bed particles have to be raised to a suitable ignition temperature for the intended fuel. In order to cater for various start-up requirements, many forms of start-up system have evolved, one of the most widely applied methods being the use of gas or oil burners preheating the ambient fluidising air and so preheating the bed particles. Alternatively, a light fuel oil can be used for the over-bed method. Main Process Features and Component Parts The core of the BFBC installation comprises the combustion chamber. For boiler systems, this generally features water-cooled walls and bottom section. The bottom section may be fully lined with refractory, as may the lower portion of the water wall panelling, as an antierosion measure. Combustion of fuel fed into the combustion chamber takes place primarily in the bubbling bed of sand or other inert material; depending on the particular design, the

height when fluidised may be between 300 mm and 1 metre. The grain size of the inert bed material falls generally within the range 0.3-2 mm. BFBC boilers utilise various systems to remove excess bed material. This equipment can comprise a fully automated classifier system that extracts coarse particles from the bed and returns remaining useful bed material to the combustion chamber, or simply a type of bed drain chute. Because of the low fluidising velocities generally adopted and the low suspension density above the bed surface, conventional oil and/or gas burners can be installed in the freeboard of the furnace walls, allowing, when appropriate, full boiler output to be achieved with different types of fuels. Fuel Flexibility and Performance Coal has long been an important fuel source, although latterly, there has been a growing tendency to use other fuels, either alone or co-fired with coal. However, many BFB combustors remain in use worldwide, fired on coal alone, especially in situations where other indigenous forms of fuel are lacking. Practical experience over the past three decades has confirmed that BFBC technology can be well suited to the utilisation of difficult fuels. There are three groups of fuels that can be described thus: High moisture fuels This group includes various materials such as moist wood bark, woodwaste and sludges from municipal plants, the water industry and biological treatment plants, in which moisture cannot be reduced by conventional means. In addition, oil-derived wastes such as refinery tank sediments, some biomass fuels, and paper mill sludges fall into this category. High ash fuels This group of fuels has ashes that may react in an unexpected manner during combustion. Ashes may have a tendency to melt or agglomerate at the combustion temperature. Problems caused can include bed instability, agglomeration, deposition or explosion. Fuels of this type include boiler ashes and variants of municipal solid waste (MSW) and refuse derived fuel (RDF). Low volatile fuels This group includes anthracite, culm, graphite, power plant ash and ore coke. BFB boilers are utilised widely for the environmentally-acceptable disposal of wastes that would otherwise be sent to landfill. For instance, paper mills produce various combinations of primary sludge from the mill process, coupled with biosludges from plant waste water treatment facilities. BFBC is a proven system for burning such wastes. Similarly, a number of refinery sites utilise BFBC technology for the disposal of a range of wastes such as tank bottom sediments, ship bilge water and oil/water emulsions. The relatively limited solids residence time, particularly for fine carbon particles, in BFBC systems means that the fuel reactivity can have a significant effect on combustion efficiency. Unreactive carbon particles can be elutriated from the bed and pass through the high temperature freeboard into the cooler sections of the boiler plant before they are completely combusted. Less residence time and hence better burnout is needed for carbon particles from more reactive coals and fuels. Testwork on a shallow bed BFBC boiler established that the

combustion efficiency for low volatile coals such as anthracite was less than 85%. At the same operating conditions, medium and high volatile coals achieved combustion efficiencies of 94-96%. BFBC plant designed for waste or high volatile fuel incineration are less susceptible to this effect of fuel type since they usually incorporate a large secondary combustion chamber above the bed to ensure complete combustion of volatiles and carbon particles. Environmental Issues BFBCs can generate a range of pollutants. However, pollutant emissions can be controlled by a variety of means, some specific to FBC technology and others that are essentially the same as those used in conventional combustion plant. The main environmental issues that require consideration with BFBC operations may vary but will include some or all of the following: NOx, N2O, SO2, CO, dioxins and furans. In addition, control of particulates is necessary and, depending on the fuel types and the application, control of heavy metal release may be required. NOx Emissions NOx emissions from combustion are generated from two sources, oxidation of nitrogen in the air (thermal NOx) and oxidation of the nitrogen in the fuel (fuel NOx). At the temperatures used in FBC installations, thermal NOx is negligible, thus virtually all NOx is generated from the oxidation of nitrogen in both the volatile matter and char present. Oxidation reactions occurring are rapid, forming almost exclusively NO; NO2 is formed only gradually on cooling the flue gases and may represent <10% of the total NOx at the stack. There are a number of variables that are generally accepted as impacting on NOx levels generated. These include: Temperature NO emissions increase with rising temperature; the rate is strongly dependent on fuel properties. For instance, operation with a bituminous coal resulted in increases in NOx levels of ~1 ppm per oC temperature rise, from 60 ppm at 760oC, rising to 200 ppm at 880oC. primary:secondary air ratio Decreased primary:secondary air ratios decrease NO emissions by increasing NO reduction rates on char in the lower section of the furnace. In addition, slow mixing of the secondary air with volatiles generated in the primary zone provides an almost continual gradual air addition, this tending to reduce volatile nitrogen oxidation rates. excess air Increased excess air increases the oxidation rates of nitrogen species, and limits the extent of zones available for reduction and the amount of carbon available to reduce NO formed in the system. calcium:sulphur ratio Limestone has a complex role in NOx formation/destruction. While it catalyses the production of NOx from ammonia formed from volatile nitrogen, it also catalyses the

reduction of NOx by CO. For reactive fuels such as bituminous coals, the oxidation of volatile nitrogen dominates, and limestone addition tends to increase NOx emissions. Conversely, for low volatile fuels, the catalytic reduction can dominate, and limestone addition can be beneficial in terms of NOx emissions. Nitrous Oxide Where nitrous oxide emissions are involved, generally, the same operating parameters typically affect N2O in similar ways to NOx. However, the reaction pathways are more complex. Practical experience has confirmed that N2O emissions are reduced by increasing process temperature and decreasing excess air levels. Thus, a trade-off is required between the two. Other FBC parameters can also influence the levels of nitrous oxide produced and levels are decreased by: NH3 injection increasing fuel volatile content use of staged air

Fuel type is also a key variable. Experience has confirmed that, in the case of high volatile coals, relatively low levels of N2O are generated (often ~50 ppmv) whereas fuels such as petcoke may result in emissions as high as 150-200 ppmv. Unlike coals, biomass-derived fuels may produce only low levels of N2O. For instance, BFB combustion of de-inking sludge tend to generate levels of <10 ppm. Sulphur Species A significant advantage of BFB boilers is their ability to use limestone or dolomite to trap SO2 in situ, so avoiding the higher capital and operating costs of a back-end cleanup system such as flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). The limestone or dolomite initially calcines and the CaO component then reacts with the SO2 present. In a BFBC system, sorbent in various states of sulphation and oxidation can comprise one of the main components of the bed material. The fuel particles fed to the bed burn surrounded by sorbent particles and other ash components. Sulphur species generated during combustion pass through the system, the relatively long residence times allowing for effective sulphur capture. Performance of sulphur capture is generally measured as a function of the Ca: S molar ratio. Achieving low Ca:S ratios is crucial as it impacts on limestone costs and the amount of ash for disposal. The utilisation of the sorbent under actual operating conditions depends on a number of complex, and often interacting factors which combine to give a sulphur capture performance that is sensitive to limestone type, system design, and operating conditions adopted. However, unlike most FGD systems where the calcium utilisation may approach stoichiometric levels, BFBCs are associated with much lower utilisation levels. As an alternative to the use of limestone, dolomite is sometimes used for sulphur capture. Work carried out in the UK confirmed that although the MgO component did not take part in the sulphur capture process, dolomite was more effective in avoiding fouling on heat transfer surfaces.

Carbon Monoxide Emissions of CO can be less than 100 ppm(v) as a consequence of the high mixing efficiency, hence high combustion efficiency, achieved in the bed. Although CO emissions tend to be higher than those achieved using CFBC technology, in some situations, levels detected may be well below regulatory limits. For instance, bark-fired BFB units typically generate CO levels of <100 ppm. Even with large coal-fired power generating units, such as those operating in the USA, levels have always been considerably lower than permitted limits. Dioxins and Furans The type of fuel being burned influences the formation of dioxins and furans. However, with suitable equipment and operating conditions, it is possible to minimise their formation. Special features are sometimes designed into BFB units, depending on the fuel sources being used. For instance, in order to minimise the formation of dioxins, the Foster Wheeler BFB unit installed at Aylesford Paper in the UK (fired on 100% sludge) incorporates features that include the use of a long furnace residence time, this allowing for high overall combustion efficiency. In addition, rapid cooling of the flue gases is carried out in order to avoid dioxin formation in the boiler backpass. Some waste-to-energy plants based on the use of bubbling bed technology utilise systems also adopted for other forms of combustion systems: these include spray-dryer/scrubber systems that incorporate hydrated lime and activated carbon injection in order to reduce acid gases such as SO2 and HCl, as well as dioxin and furan emissions. In addition to these measures, a few plants also utilise an additional caustic soda wet scrubber/cooler unit to further clean the flue gases. Hydrogen Chloride Depending on the fuel(s) being combusted, gas cleanup measures (used similarly for other combustion systems) may be required for the control of HCl emissions. In the case of BFBCs operating with MSW, this can take the form of hydrated lime injection and/or scrubber systems. Heavy Metals Where units are operating solely or partially on MSW, heavy metals, particularly mercury, can pose a problem. Emissions may be controlled through the injection of activated carbon. Particulates The capacity of the unit influences the choice of the particulate collection system adopted and economic factors associated with small-medium capacity installations restrict the options available. For small units, systems such as electrostatic precipitators are rarely economic and simpler solutions may be adopted. These include simple multi-cyclones, and partial bag filters used in conjunction with hopper evacuation systems attached to a mechanical dust collector. Larger installations tend to utilise bag filters or ESPs.

Disposal/Utilisation of solid residues Solid residues generated by BFB combustion systems consist primarily of a combination of ash, unburned carbon, and, where a sulphur sorbent has been used, desulphurisation products and unreacted sorbent. In practice, such residues may be collected from several locations within the system, such as the bed off-take and particulate control device. Although ashes from pf-fired combustion have long been used for a variety of applications, ash from BFBC operations is sometimes sufficiently distinct to require separate evaluation of the utilisation and disposal options available. The chemistry of residues from FBC systems is determined largely by the inorganic constituents in the fuel feedstocks, the sorbent reaction products, and any unreacted sorbent present. Thus, the ash produced in BFBC combustion can be different to pf ash in several important ways. The lower temperature of the combustion processes means that the ash particles have rarely been molten and hence tend to retain their shape. The ash may also have a relatively high carbon content (up to 30% as compared with 5% for pf combustion). The most significant difference, however, arises when limestone has been added for sulphur capture as its presence alters the ash chemistry by introducing several new mineral phases. Where sulphur capture forms part of the process requirement, ash disposal options may be affected. If no limestone has been added to the system, the ash generated is generally classified as being inert and as such, is suitable for disposal in a conventional landfill site. Where limestone has been used in the system, the level of residual free lime in the ash may result in the material being classified as a special category waste, requiring disposal in a specialised depository. The latter category usually involves a higher landfill tax than for inert ash. In some locations (eg. parts of the USA) solid waste with a pH >12.5 is classified as hazardous and requires special disposal measures to be adopted. The high alkalinity of some such residues can create potential problems of material escape from the site in particulate form and/or leaching phenomena, and a number of procedures (eg. shake leaching and column leaching tests) have been developed in order to monitor potential leaching problems. Rather than disposal, which is cost negative, various possible options for the utilisation of BFBC ashes have been explored (Table 2.1). Thus, where ash is presently disposed of to landfill, there are incentives for the development of other, more cost-effective options whereby the ash is utilised in a useful manner. The driving force for such utilisation is a suitably structured taxation regime that encourages use, rather than disposal. This increases the incentive to find alternatives to landfilling. Regulatory issues can impact significantly on the attractiveness of ash utilisation processes. In many countries, the majority of regulations and standards in force that govern coal ash utilisation are based on ash residue characteristics from pulverised coal combustion. However, there can be considerable differences between the two types of ashes, and regulations relating to the use of fluidised bed ash in construction and other markets are still under development. Standards for these materials have often yet to be agreed.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion Technology BFB systems are generally cited as providing some of the following advantages over competing systems: environmentally acceptable disposal of many industrial and agricultural wastes that could otherwise not be incinerated high availability is often claimed and many commercial units have operated well for lengthy periods. high combustion efficiency can often be achieved. cost-effective operation is often cited - high availability coupled with high efficiency can result in the generation of additional energy from the same amount of fuel. In some situations, several fuels can be burned simultaneously. fuel flexibility - a wide range of solid fuels has been utilised successfully in appropriately designed units. combustion can be maintained in a stable condition even during fairly significant changes in fuel characteristics. low operating costs - costs can be relatively low as there are no moving parts in the BFB boiler. In addition, refractories are usually very durable. The lack of in-bed heating surfaces in some designs eliminates many potential maintenance problems. low emissions can be achieved relatively low bed temperatures allow limestone to react effectively with sulphur species present. Low bed temperatures coupled with staged air minimise NOx formation. suitable for retrofit applications - BFB units have often been used as replacements for old, inefficient alternatives such as grate-fired or small pf units.

Although BFBC units may have significant advantages over some competing forms of combustion technology, they may have a number of disadvantages when compared with pffired plant. These include: 2.3 To date, commercially proven only at relatively small scale. Range of units available presently limited to small-medium capacity. Slightly lower overall generating cycle efficiencies and higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of power produced compared to some pf-fired technology, unless the latter utilises FGD for sulphur control purposes. Relatively large volumes of solid residues can be generated. Some may require special measures for their disposal.

Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (CFBC) System Description Circulating fluidised beds are a development of bubbling bed technology. As with the latter, air is blown through the bed. As this occurs, the air entrains with it a percentage of the solid particles from the bed. With a bubbling bed, when operating correctly, the majority of these particles fall back into the bed. However, if the velocity of the fluidising air is increased above a defined level, entrained particles are carried upwards away from the bed surface and the distinct surface layer that characterised the bubbling bed operating at lower air velocities disappears. The combustion chamber is then filled with a turbulent cloud of particles that no longer remain in close contact with each other. In a simple bubbling bed, this would constitute

a significant disadvantage. However, this phenomenon can be harnessed usefully by arranging for the particles to be recovered from the air flow and fed back into the lower part of the combustion chamber. This system is known as a circulating fluidised bed and can be utilised to sustain combustion in a similar manner to a bubbling bed. Thus, in a circulating fluidised bed combustor (CFBC) the bed solids may be heated to incandescence and fuel fed into the combustion chamber where it burns in the fluidising air. The turbulent contact between the fuel particles present and the bed solids stabilises the overall temperature. The ability to capture and recirculate elutriated solids back to the combustion chamber is an inherent feature of CFBC design. However, solids collection in a CFBC system is different to techniques used in BFBC units in that the solids loading in the gas emerging from the combustion chamber is far higher in CFBC and the hot solids themselves constitute a major heat transfer mechanism. In this respect, the emerging solids carry with them a significant portion of the heat released during combustion in the combustion chamber. This phenomenon has been addressed in a variety of ways by the different CFBC technology developers. Main Process Features and Component Parts CFBC units, whatever their origin, generally include some or all of the following elements. A furnace/combustion chamber in which the coal or other fuel is injected (often with limestone) and fluidised together with part of the recycled solids. Approximately 50% of the combustion air is introduced below the grid plate. As a result, combustion in the lower part of the bed is reducing, thus limiting the risk of nitrogen oxide formation. Additional combustion air is injected as secondary air at an appropriate point above the grid plate. A solids separation system, such as a cyclone or labyrinth separator, installed at the combustion chamber outlet in the high temperature gases (~750-950C) which enables most of the solids leaving the chamber to be collected and reinjected into the system, allowing only a very small fraction of the ash produced to be carried by the discharged flue gas. An external heat exchanger. This may be fed by fluidised solids from the bottom of the cyclone which are cooled before being fed back into the furnace or other part of the solids recycle loop. The distribution between hot solids and recycled cooled solids keeps the combustion chamber temperature at the desired value. Fuel Flexibility and Performance CFBC systems have an inherent advantage in that they are designed to increase solids residence times by allowing for recirculation of particles into and through the high temperature combustion zones. This means that fuels ranging from anthracites to wood can be burnt in appropriately designed CFBC systems at high combustion efficiencies - up to 99%. However, it should be stressed that any single CFBC plant or design cannot necessarily cope with a wide range of fuel properties since parameters such as fuel reactivity and particle size will have a major effect on the heat release profile in the plant. This in turn will affect the design and control of air distribution, fuel feed, and emission control systems. The ability of CFBC systems to operate on a wide range of fuel types has been confirmed through extensive operational experience and most major suppliers have manufactured CFBC

10

units that have been capable of operating with the major classes of fuel types. Although many CFBC units currently in commercial operation utilise a single fuel feedstock, there are many others that regularly co-fire mixtures of fuels. The high degree of fuel flexibility that characterises many designs of CFBC often allows a plant operator to select fuels on the basis of what may be currently available at an economic price and where appropriate, produce a fuel blend that combines several such elements. Often, a premium fuel may be co-fired with a lowgrade feedstock such as paper mill or oil refinery wastes. Table 2.2 lists examples of fuel feedstock currently in use in CFBC installations: Fuel flexibility has been a significant factor in the commercial success of CFBC technology, and efforts continue to broaden the range and types of fuels combusted. In some cases, CFBC plant that was originally designed for one type of fuel feedstock has been operated successfully on fuel combinations not originally envisaged at the plant design stage. For instance, there are a number of LLB-built plants that are utilising such fuel combinations in varying proportions (Table 2.3). In the case of LLB-based plants, fuel flexibility is enhanced through the use of fluidised bed heat exchangers (FBHE). Thus, differing flue gas rates and variable heat rates as a consequence of changes in fuel feedstock, can be accommodated through the use of a system incorporating a FBHE. Modifications to the boiler section of the plant are not required although modifications may be required to systems that control fuel feeding and handling. Overall, the range of fuels and fuel blends has widened significantly in recent years as CFBC technology has been adopted for the use of waste and/or biomass-derived feedstock. Fuel feedstock that was previously thought of as unusable has been used increasingly, both alone and co-fired, for a variety of CFBC applications. Environmental Issues Many CFBC units have proved to be capable of achieving relatively low levels of the primary pollutants, NOx, SO2, CO and particulates. Sorbent is usually added to the system in order to control SO2 emissions, NOx levels are minimised through careful bed temperature control and other means, and solids passing through the system can be retained using conventional particulate control systems. However, to achieve acceptable overall environmental performance in practice, like BFBC, has often required considerable development effort by system developers. Sulphur species A major incentive for the adoption of CFBC technology is the ability to capture SO2 in situ using limestone or dolomite, fed in solid form to the system. The same issues influencing the efficiency of desulphurisation apply to both BFBC and CFBC systems and are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2 above. However, sulphur abatement in a CFBC is enhanced compared with BFBC as a consequence of the higher residence time and sorbent recycling. Sorbent particle size tends to be smaller in a CFBC as the recycling process results in particle attrition, exposing fresh surfaces and hence improving sorbent utilisation rates.

11

Nitrogen oxides Although NOx levels tend to be inherently low with CFBC combustion, where further reduction is required, this can be achieved through the adoption of one of the well-established control technologies such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR). Factors influencing the level of NOx formation are examined further in Section 2.2 above. Other pollutants Where appropriate, as with BFBC technology, other forms of pollutant emissions can be controlled by using suitably adapted forms of control technology utilised for other combustion systems. Particulate emissions are generally controlled through the use of variants of ESPs and bag filters. Disposal/utilisation of solid residues To date, disposal in landfills has been the most common means of handling ash produced by CFBC operations. As large CFBC units have been brought progressively on stream, the tonnages involved have increased significantly. This will increase further as the technology is scaled-up; hence, eventually, volumes to be accommodated could be substantial. Ash from CFBC applications is sufficiently different to that from pf combustion to require separate disposal/utilisation options. Thus, compared to those generated by pf-fired plant, CFBC ashes generally have high reactivity that can lead to problems such as flash-setting, swelling and cracking in landfills, and possible long-term leaching problems. In some cases, this can limit the available utilisation options. Efforts to develop useful markets for CFBC ashes are continuing although, as with BFBC, there are a number of technical and financial considerations that can influence the use of such residues. These include: Availability of local disposal sites and restrictions on their use. Transport costs ashes are low value materials and hence transportation costs can impact significantly on project feasibility. Characteristics and variability of the material. The volumes available at a particular site. Competing materials. Commercial acceptance of the material.

A number of studies have been carried out addressing the potential for useful application of CFBC ashes, some of which remain on-going. Major CFBC manufacturers have initiated some investigative programmes. For instance, Foster Wheeler has been examining the potential of CFBC fly ashes for a series of structural applications, this having been identified by the company as a major potential area for development. However, compared to pf ash, as a result of the often relatively high sulphur levels present, certain applications may be excluded. Use has been made as a component in some types of cement- and concrete-based formulations and where CFBC ashes are deemed to be suitable for this application, they may be used in several ways. Thus, they may be incorporated as a replacement for cement in

12

Portland cement concrete, as a pozzolanic material in the production of pozzolanic cements, or as a set retardant, along with cement, as a gypsum replacement. Studies have also confirmed that CFBC ashes can be used for certain construction applications that are governed by less stringent specifications. These uses include soil stabilisation, road base construction, structural fill, and synthetic aggregates. Whereas the high alkalinity of the ash is sometimes a disadvantage, conversely, for some potential uses it is an advantage. For instance, the alkalinity of the ash, the presence of residual lime, its physical properties and pozzolanic properties are all desirable characteristics for use in soil stabilisation and mine reclamation. In the case of the latter, work has confirmed that CFBC ashes used in the form of a grout, reduced average acidity levels in areas treated by ~30%. The alkalinity has also been utilised where CFBC ashes have been used as part of the N-Viro process. This is a patented process used for the alkaline stabilisation of municipal sewage sludge. Such alkaline by-products are used to raise pH >12, generate heat (52-62oC), and increase solids content of the biosolids (50-65% solids). In total, there are 38 N-Viro facilities worldwide that utilise alkaline residues, the actual choice being dependent on local availability. The end product is marketed as an agricultural lime, fertiliser, and as a soil substitute for reclamation and horticulture. Many potential applications for CFBC ashes are similar to those generated by BFBC operations; issues regarding other potential applications in, for instance, products of added value, are explored further in Section 2.2 which examines the disposal/utilisation options for BFBC ashes. Advantages and disadvantages of CFBC The advantages over competing combustion systems generally cited by proponents of the various CFBC technologies include: Low levels of SO2 and NOx can often be achieved without the addition of back-end cleanup systems. The capital costs of a CFBC unit can be ~10% lower than those associated with, for instance, a conventional pulverised fuel-fired system of the same capacity. Cooled combustion gases emerging from the CFBC can be cleaned of residual particles using conventional cleanup techniques such as bag filters or electrostatic precipitators. A CFBC is often capable of operating on a wide range of fuel types, including those that cannot be burned in more conventional systems. In effect, a fuel can be regarded as any material whose combustible content is capable of maintaining the bed temperature, thus increasing the range of fuel types significantly over earlier combustion systems. For a given output, an equivalent CFBC unit is often physically smaller than a pf-fired installation. The relatively long residence time of fuel particles in the system allows for the successful combustion of difficult-to-burn or light particles. In addition, it allows lengthy reaction times between limestone or dolomite and sulphur species present, thus reducing emission problems.

13

The disadvantages of CFBC technology are viewed as: Commercially proven only at relatively small scale compared to pf-fired systems. Although developments are in hand to scale up the technology, no demonstration/commercial plants are yet under construction. Thermal efficiencies are limited and comparable with those of pf-fired installations. Although supercritical steam conditions will increase efficiency, application is not yet widespread. Relatively large volumes of residues can sometimes be generated. Some of these residues can require special measures for their disposal. Utilisation of residues is limited and development of further options is required.

2.4

Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) System Description With bubbling bed PFBC, the combustion process takes place within a pressure vessel and occurs at a pressure higher than atmospheric. As the fluidising air is compressed, it carries a greater percentage of oxygen per unit volume and will therefore sustain a higher intensity of combustion within the bed. There is a requirement to feed fuel into, and remove ash from, a system under pressure, and various arrangements have required development to meet these needs. Compared with competing systems, the one major advantage that PFBC has is that the hot combustion gases leave the combustor under pressure. Where this pressure can be maintained and the gases have been cleaned, they can be fed directly into a gas turbine. Other significant advantages include PFBCs fuel flexibility, its modularity, and its suitability for retrofit applications. Construction times are claimed to be two years shorter than for a corresponding pulverised fuel-fired plant. For example, as a result of the ability to make extensive use of shop fabrication techniques, it is claimed that a 70MW PFBC plant can be built in 2-4 years. Steady development over the past decade has led to the situation where PFBC is now accepted as being essentially a commercially proven technology. A number of demonstration plants have been operated successfully and, based on the experience gained with this first tranche of facilities, newer plant are benefiting increasingly from operational refinements and advances made. In the area of PFBC based on the concept of the bubbling bed, one company, ABB Carbon, now part of ABB Alstom Energy, has supplied all but two installations, these initially functioning as demonstration units, although most now operating on a commercial basis. Thus, plants have been supplied by ABB Carbon and its licensees that include Babcock & Wilcox in the USA, and Ishikawajumi Heavy Industries (IHI) in Japan. ABB Carbon PFBC technology comprises a coal-fired combined cycle system that generates power through a combination of steam and gas turbines, with the combustion gases being expanded through the latter. This results in a higher thermal efficiency than can be achieved in conventional coal-fired steam power plant. The split of the plants electrical output between the turbines is generally ~20% from the gas turbine and ~80% from the steam turbine.

14

In the case of ABB-based technology, two standard modules have been developed for commercial applications namely the P200 and P800 (Table 2.4). Each type of module has its corresponding gas turbine and where large capacity plant is required, this has been achieved by combining two modules. The fluidised bed combustor/boiler, gas turbine with intercooler and economisers, and the fuel preparation and internal ash handling systems are collectively referred to as the PFBC Island. Main Process Features and Component Parts In operation, combustion air for the process enters via the gas turbine low pressure compressor. The air is cooled in the intercooler; this is to ensure that the temperature, after the high pressure compressor, is kept <300oC. Air exits the high pressure compressor through a concentric pipe, ending at the pressure vessel. The cyclone ash cooler is located inside the pressure vessel and air is fed through ducts into the bottom section of the bubbling bed; it is then distributed evenly throughout the bottom of the bed via a series of nozzles. Combustion of the coal and/or other feedstock takes place in the bubbling bed. This utilises a low gas velocity of ~1 m/s. The bed comprises a mixture of coal ash and partially depleted sorbent (mean particle size 1-5mm). Sulphur species generated during the combustion process are captured by the sorbent particles in the bed, obviating the need for secondary SOx cleanup measures. After the combustion stage, the exhaust gases (carrying a relatively high dust burden) leave the bed vessel via the freeboard, and are then cleaned in a multi-stage cyclone-based arrangement. Dust is separated from the gas stream in the cyclones (~99.9% removal efficiency) and the cleaned gas is passed to the gas turbine. Because the gas still contains some particulates, the gas turbine is a ruggedised unit. This means that, in order to resist erosion by residual dust, it uses blades of a more robust design than those found in a conventional gas turbine. The blades are also coated with erosion-resistant material. It is generally assumed that they will require replacement after every three years of significant operation. The gas turbine exhaust gas passes to the economiser where it is cooled to a temperature of 140-150oC. Any dust remaining is removed in a baghouse filter prior to release to the stack. Alternative gas cleanup arrangements include hot gas filtration. There are therefore two sources of ash generated, namely fly ash, separated in the cyclones and baghouse, and bed ash. When appropriate, the latter is withdrawn from the bed through a lock-hopper system connected to the base of the bed. This ensures that the correct bed height is maintained. Feedwater, pre-heated in the economiser, is fed into the combustor where it is heated further as it passes through the walls of the boiler enclosure. It then passes through the in-bed tubing bundle, including the evaporator and superheater, and then on to the steam turbine. The steam cycle can comprise any conventional type such as reheat, non-reheat, condensing, etc. To achieve plant turndown, the coal feed is reduced which in turn, reduces bed temperature. In order to maintain bed temperature, bed material is transferred into storage vessels housed within the pressure vessel; this lowers the bed level and reduces the amount of heat-transfer surface immersed within the bed, thus reducing the amount of steam raised. The tubing exposed cools the flue gas, thus reducing output from the turbine. In response, the discharge pressure and air delivery rate of the compressor fall, reducing coal feed rate still further and

15

raising excess air level to >50% at 30% load level. The lower bed level reduces the in-bed residence time and increases the Ca:S ratio necessary for ~95% sulphur retention up to ~3.5. Under part load conditions, the freeboard can be kept hot by burning fuel oil or gas. The main plant components comprise: Combustor The pressure vessel and its internal components are referred to as the PFB combustor. At the design stage, in the case of ABB Carbon, two important principles were incorporated. These were the minimisation of the number of components with movable parts inside the combustor; these are restricted to a single valve used during startup. The other fundamental principle was that, in order to ensure safe operation, hot, dust-laden gas would always be surrounded by clean air at a higher pressure and lower temperature. The major components housed in the pressure vessel comprise: the bed vessel. This contains the fluidised bed and steam generator. The latter consists of a suitable combination of evaporator tubes, superheaters and reheaters. the startup burner, used to provide hot gas for bed warming purposes prior to commencement of fuel feeding. two or more stages of high efficiency cyclones, used to reduce the ash loading to a level acceptable to the gas turbine. the bed reinjection system. This is used to transfer material to and from the bed in order to accommodate load changing.

Gas Turbine The P200 PFBC module is configured around an existing gas turbine of suitable capacity, the ABB Stal GT35 machine. Through utilisation of this machines compressors, the intercooled GT35P turbine was developed. This has a low pressure compressor and low pressure turbine on a freewheeling shaft, plus a high pressure compressor and turbine on the other shaft; this rotates at constant speed and drives the electric generator. This machine is capable of varying the air flow over the range 40-100%, a much greater range of flows than is achievable with a single shaft, constant speed machine. The larger GT140P turbine is a scaled-up variant of the GT35P; it uses the compressors from ABB Stals GT200 machine and hot gas components derived partially from ABBs larger gas turbines. As with the smaller units, the GT140P has an air flow controllable from 40 to 100% of MCR flow. Thus, in the case of ABB-designed PFBC plant, twin shaft gas turbines are used. These have been designed specifically for integration with the PFBC combustor. The turbine design incorporates features to accommodate three special requirements: the utilisation of an intercooler makes it possible to limit air temperature such that conventional materials can be used in the construction of the pressure vessel. the use of the twin shaft concept allows air flow control over a wide range, allowing for optimisation of combustion and minimisation of NOx levels whilst keeping an almost constant volume flow through the combustor.

16

the number of turbine stages is increased, and the turning angles are reduced in order to minimise the risk of erosion by dust-laden gases.

Between the gas turbine and the combustor, an intercept valve is located; this is used during startup and under certain plant trip situations. When closed the valve isolates the gas turbine from the combustor. Fuel Flexibility and Performance In the case of plants supplied by ABB Carbon, all have so far relied on various forms of coalfiring (Table 2.5). Thus, the Vartan plant in Stockholm is fired with high quality export coal; the Tidd unit was designed to operate with high sulphur coal from the Eastern USA; Escatron uses a black lignite with very high sulphur, ash and moisture contents; the Wakamatsu plant was designed to be fired on high quality export coal, and Cottbus is utilising brown coal. The newer Karita plant will operate with a range of coal types. The plant under construction at the Kyushu Power Companys Karita site is based on the ABB P800 module; the others utilise P200s. The performance of the P200-based PFBC plant has not varied significantly with the type of coal being fired (Table 2.6). Apart from the variety of coals noted above, bubbling-bed-based PFBC has shown itself to be amenable to firing blends of coals. For instance, ENEL of Italy requested ABB Carbon to carry out a series of tests firing blends of South African coal with low quality Italian Sulcis coal. Results were encouraging. During the past few years, a series of other fuels or fuel combinations have also been investigated by ABB Carbon using their process test facility. These have included: petroleum coke brown coal + sewage sludge Polish coal + biomass Israeli oil shale

In all cases, the fuels performed satisfactorily. Environmental Issues The first generation of PFBC plants built predominantly using ABB Carbon technology have now been in operation for sufficient time to form firm conclusions as to their overall environmental performance. These are reviewed below: NOx and N2O emissions At the relatively low combustion temperatures encountered in PFBC operations, thermal oxidation of air-borne nitrogen is negligible and the nitrogen compounds present in the flue gas originate from the nitrogen in the fuel. Thus, NOx emissions are dependent on the type of fuel being utilised (especially its volatility), and operating parameters that include excess air levels and combustion pressure.

17

During full load PFBC operations, NOx emissions noted for commercial plant have been lowmoderate. However, where fuels containing higher levels of volatile matter are used, and/or reduced operating pressure and oxygen-rich conditions are used, NOx emissions have been found to increase. Thus, NOx levels have sometimes tended to increase at lower loads, mainly as a result of the greater level of excess air used, but also as a consequence of the reduced pressure. Conversely, the adoption of air staging, with air injection above the bed, significantly reduced NOx levels. Additional downstream NOx control measures such as SCR are capable of reducing levels further. In the case of N2O, emissions tend to be higher than in pulverised coal combustion and fall generally in the range 50-200 ppmv. Emissions are strongly temperature-dependent and a small increase in temperature can lead to a significant decrease in N2O emissions. The type of fuel is also an important factor and low rank coals generate lower levels of N2O. The use of ammonia or urea injection to minimise NOx levels will also result in raised N2O levels. SO2 emissions The successful retention of sulphur is dependent on many factors. These include the sorbent properties, porosity and pore size, resistance to attrition and disintegration processes, specific surface area and microstructure. Various operational parameters also influence overall levels of sulphur capture, the most important being the calcium:sulphur molar ratio, the bed temperature, the coal and sorbent granulometry, the residence time of the gas in the bed and the operating pressure. In PFBC, high levels of sulphur retention can be achieved, often using limestone with feed rates slightly lower than those required for atmospheric FBC. In PFBC, the calcination of the limestone is inhibited by the high partial pressure of CO2. Thus, sulphation involves direct reaction between CaCO3 and SO2 with formation of calcium sulphate (direct sulphation). The CO2 is progressively liberated from the sorbent particles, clearing the pores of the CaSO4 formed and making the residual limestone accessible. In addition, there appears to be no optimum temperature for desulphurisation under pressure (optimum for atmospheric FBC is 850oC) hence the boiler, if not limited by other factors, could be operated at higher temperatures. In practice, the first generation of PFBC plants have all achieved or bettered their original design levels for sulphur removal (Table 2.7). Disposal/Utilisation of Solid Residues There are two separate sources of ashes generated during PFBC operations: fly ash, which is separated in the cyclones and baghouse or ESP, and bed ash, which is withdrawn through the base of the bed via a lock hopper system. As with other forms of FBC technology, the ash generated is different to that from pf combustion as a consequence of the sorbent-derived materials present. PFBC ash is also different to that produced by CFBC operations; in the latter case, the limestone added for sulphur control purposes completely calcines, often resulting in significant levels of free lime in the ash. In PFBC, limestone sulphation proceeds without calcination, resulting in an ash with only low levels of free lime present (~<2-3%), and with the majority of unreacted limestone remaining as calcium carbonate.

18

Ash residues may be disposed of by either wet or dry disposal methods. In the wet method, ash is slurried with water and pumped to settling lagoons. As a result of the potential alkalinity of PFBC ash, pH levels of the lagoon effluent may require monitoring. With dry disposal, the main effluent issue requiring consideration is the potential run-off. However, exposed ash has been found to harden rapidly when moistened, as a result of the hydration of calcium sulphate anhydrite present. Hydration also leads to a significant reduction in permeability that tends to minimise the rate of leaching from ash deposits. There are clear incentives to develop commercial outlets for ash residues generated by PFBC operations. PFBC ash residues, unlike those from conventional coal combustion, are not glassy pozzolans, hence cannot be utilised in normal cements and concretes. Although direct utilisation of some FBC residues in Portland cement has been demonstrated in the USA, they are not presently used widely in this manner elsewhere. Where PFBC ash has been incorporated into cement formulations, the low level of free lime present can make cement products less likely to undergo secondary reactions that can result in cracking. Where dolomite has been used for sulphur control, the magnesium carbonate present is converted to magnesium oxide; this can promote secondary reactions in cements, thus possibly restricting utilisation options available. However, where limestone has been used, investigative work has confirmed that ashes can be mixed with water, vibro-compacted and used to manufacture strong concrete-like materials with low permeability. Thus, potential areas of utilisation include fill material, road construction, synthetic gravel, stabilisation of soil or mine waste, sealing layers for disposal sites, or concrete manufacture. Such uses are being made of ash from the Vartan plant in Stockholm, where none of the 32000 tonnes/year of ash produced is dumped. It has proved more practical and economical to use the ashes directly for soil stabilisation purposes and as sealing layers for the mixture thus obtained. For these purposes, residues from the nearby Hogdalen waste incineration plant are mixed in a predetermined ratio of bed ash and cyclone ash from the Vartan plant, prior to application. In the case of the Wakamatsu plant in Japan, an investigative programme carried out by the Electric Power Development Company into the utilisation of PFBC ashes resulted in the development of a range of decorative and functional mouldings; these are marketed under the trademark ACEMENT. Other uses investigated have included the use of PFBC ashes to ameliorate acidic soil conditions. Thus, several types of PFBC ashes have been used as acid-reducing soil amendments. Advantages and Disadvantages of PFBC The main advantages of PFBC technology are: Hot combustion gases leave the combustor under pressure. Once cleaned, they can be fed directly to a gas turbine, allowing for increased overall system generation efficiency. There is increasing evidence that fuel flexibility is high and that PFBC systems are capable of utilising many of the fuel feedstock fired in CFBC units. To date, various fuel types and combinations have been used successfully on a small scale. Plant modifications required for firing different fuel combinations are claimed to be relatively minor.

19

Systems can have a high degree of modularity, where appropriate, allowing for the construction of facilities based on the use of two or more individual units. PFBC technology is suitable for retrofit applications. Plant construction times are shorter than for pf plant of comparable scale, and a higher degree of shop assembly can be achieved with PFBC systems. PFBC plants are generally physically smaller than CFBC and pf-fired plants of the same capacity. Good environmental performance is achievable.

The disadvantages of PFBC are viewed as being: 2.5 Long-term plant availability has not yet been fully proven, although indications are that acceptable levels should be achievable. Present commercially available PFBC technology is limited to two sizes, dictated by the standardised modules available commercially. Thermal efficiency is currently limited by the relatively low gas turbine inlet temperature available. PFBC technology remains an expensive option compared to competing systems. Plant costs are affected by the necessity of operating various systems under pressure

Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (PCFBC) Although PFBC based on bubbling bed technology currently predominates, an alternative, in the form of pressurised circulating fluidised bed combustion (PCFBC) is also the focus of significant development efforts. Main Process Features and Component Parts PCFBC-based combined cycle plant will generally comprise the following major components: Fuel and sorbent feeding systems. Fuel is fed in a slurry/paste form utilising conventional solids handling technologies. Sorbent is fed pneumatically using conventional lock hoppers or fed in paste form along with the fuel. Combustion chamber and hot loop. This system is contained within the pressure vessel and makes use of developments made with atmospheric CFBC technologies. Hot particulate collection device (eg. hot gas filter) Gas turbine and convective heat recovery section. Conventional gas turbines may be used for recovering energy by expanding the high pressure cleaned flue gases from the filter. Between 20-30% of the plants net output would be generated by the gas turbine. The clean exhaust gases from the turbine are cooled in the convective heat recovery section. Steam generated in this section and the combustion chamber will be utilised to produce 70-80% of the net plant output. Status and potential PCFBC systems are some way behind bubbling bed-based systems in terms of their overall development and commercialisation. It is expected that once developed further, PCFBC systems, as with bubbling bed technology, have the potential to achieve very low levels of pollutants and high process efficiencies. However, despite considerable R&D efforts expended to date by several process developers, there remains considerable scope for

20

improvements in most major plant areas; areas that would benefit from additional effort include examination of combustion behaviour, and improved methods for the minimisation of SO2, NOx and plant residues. In addition, consideration will be required in order to reduce emissions of trace elements. One particular advantage of PCFBC technology is the high level of heat release attainable, compared to competing combustion technologies (Table 2.8), suggesting that plant size could be significantly smaller than bubbling bed-based systems of comparable capacity. It is claimed that potentially, PCFBC technology offers significant advantages over the present atmospheric pressure systems and work is being carried out by several organisations with a view to developing a successful commercial-scale process. Amongst the advantages of such pressurised systems cited are: Smaller size and shorter construction time. High fuel flexibility. Higher plant efficiency. Lower capital costs. Lower operating costs. Reduced emissions of NOx, SO2 and CO2. Ease of operation and maintenance. Suitability for repowering applications.

There are currently several variants of PCFBC at various stages of development and each developer has its own opinions on the outlook for the future of its particular system. 2.6 Capital and Operating Costs for FBC Systems Comment on capital and operating costs of the various alternative fluidised bed combustion technologies including the cost of electricity is provided. Particular focus is given to coalfired utility scale applications of the technology, since as is noted in subsequent sections these represent the major market for FBC. Capital costs Any attempt to provide an overview of capital costs for fluidised bed combustion based power plant must begin with a number of important provisos. These include: Only limited amounts of hard information for actual plants are ever released into the public domain because this type of information tends to be highly commercially sensitive. Even in cases where headline numbers are published it is rarely possible to be certain of the exact extent of inclusions and exclusions. There is a high level of variation in capital costs worldwide for what might ostensibly be the same basic design of plant. These location-related variations arise through, for example, variations in local labour rates, labour productivity, social charges, taxes and duties etc. as well as through other fundamental variations such as material costs.

21

The market for power plant is like any other market in the sense that prices will always be influenced by supply and demand, competition, and other market conditions at the time of ordering. For a given basic technology and location, capital costs are highly dependent on plant specification. Factors such as plant size, fuel type, site ambient conditions, fuel flexibility required, most adverse design fuel specification, availability requirement, turndown and load following capability required, thermal efficiency required, environmental performance required etc, type of site (greenfield or brownfield), infrastructure development, proximity to grid connection, all have a significant impact. A further important determinant of capital cost is the type of contracting arrangement entered into between the customer and supplier. This may range from a turnkey contract for engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning against a basic requirement specification issued by the customer, to the other extreme where the customer essentially acts as his own EPC contractor and manages many small contracts for individual elements of the plant, taking responsibility for ensuring that all interface issues are properly defined and managed. Since the contracting approach adopted affects the apportionment of risk between the customer and supplier, this in turn is reflected in the apparent capital cost of the plant.

With all these issues influencing capital cost it will therefore be apparent that any attempt to focus in on a single best estimate of capital cost must be regarded with caution. Notwithstanding this, however, a number of recent publications do provide some estimates which are summarised below. IEA Coal Research has recently reported on capital costs and efficiencies for clean coal technologies for power generation in their report entitled Competitiveness of future coal-fired units in different countries. This report includes consideration of both circulating fluidised bed combustion and pressurised fluidised bed combustion and presents the following capital costs (for the purposes of this report the quoted costs have been converted from US$ basis to sterling basis at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of writing. These costs are stated to include turnkey construction costs, purchasers engineering and administration costs, and interest charges during construction. By way of comparison, the UK FORESIGHT Clean Coal Power Generation Task Force that examined research, development and demonstration priorities for cleaner coal technology in 1998 indicated that AFBC plant would cost in the range 550-560/kW and PFBC plant would cost in the range 545-550/kW. It is further noted that the Jacksonville Electric Authority demonstration project on CFBC to be undertaken under the US Clean Coal Technology Program is quoted as having a total cost of $309 million, which would equate to around 700/kW based on the quoted net capacity of the plant. However, no breakdown of the programme cost is provided and the resulting figure should therefore be used with caution.

22

Finally results of work carried out under the Joule III programme of the European Commission by the Energy Research Centre of the University of Ulster, and completed in December 1998 are noted. This work addressed strategic considerations for clean coal R&D and presented capital cost data for a wide range of coal technologies for power generation including both CFBC and PFBC systems. The data were obtained by a process simulation approach to establish principal material and energy flows which were then used as the basis for equipment sizing and cost estimating using standard chemical engineering practice encoded in the form of a further stage of computer simulation. This approach forms a reasonable basis for self-consistent cost comparisons between different technologies but is less suitable for development of absolute capex data. Nevertheless, Ulster quote the results obtained as 695/kW for CFBC and 630/kW for PFBC, in both cases based on a 250MW unit size. These data have been converted from data quoted in Euro/kW in the original report by converting at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of writing. The variability of the data from these different and recent sources, which show a range of 550-820/kW for CFBC plant and 545-840/kW for PFBC, serves to illustrate the points made earlier regarding the difficulties involved in establishing reliable capital cost data for power plant generally. For the present review it is noted that capital costs of new utility scale construction may currently be expected to fall somewhere within the above quoted ranges. Operating costs and overall electricity costs Like capital costs, operating costs for fluidised bed combustion-based power plants will exhibit a very high degree of variability depending on location, fuel type, design philosophy, guaranteed running hours etc. It is not considered realistic to state any specific numbers for operating costs, because there is so much intrinsic variability and each individual plant will be unique. Examples of the types of operating cost category that need to be considered in a detailed analysis of a power project using FBC include: Fuel Operating labour (salaries and wages) Maintenance labour (salaries and wages) Water Start-up fuel Limestone (if used as sulphur sorbent) Chemicals Waste disposal Administration Depreciation Insurance Taxation License fees Grid access charges Financing charges Capital repairs Social costs (where applicable)

23

These costs, once identified, feed in to an analysis of overall electricity costs. Although it is possible to address this on a simplistic basis, overall electricity costs for a typical independent power project are in reality the end result of a complex series of interlinked contractual arrangements. Figure 2.1 shows the typical structure of an independent power project in a developing country such as China, of the type that might well use fluidised bed combustion technology. With this type of structure, overall electricity costs per se are of less relevance than establishing the overall financial viability of the project from the point of view of all the stakeholders. Typically, financial viability will be established through the use of a financial model of the complete project, reflecting all of the contractual relationships implicit in the project structure. The overall objective of the financial modelling is to evaluate the project costs and benefits within a consistent framework and one that is transparent to all the parties to the project. The general methodology that is used comprises a number of steps. As a starting point, it is necessary to consider the capital investment required for the project. The capital requirements are broken down into foreign and local currency cost components and the anticipated phasing of disbursements during the project is estimated. The operating costs of the plant are then assessed. Cost components that are considered include those listed above. Projections of these costs in real terms over the operating life of the project are made. At the same time projections are made of the revenues in real terms from electricity and any by-product sales over the operating life of the project, thus enabling cash flow projections to be developed. Estimates of movements in working capital requirements are also made. The operating cash flow projections derived in this way are combined with the capital outflows arising during the investment phase to produce an overall set of cash flows for the entire project cycle covering the construction period followed by an operating life of typically twenty years. These cash flows are then used to determine project viability, of which the key measures are normally (a) acceptable rates of return on equity to shareholders and (b) acceptable levels of debt service coverage for the financial institutions providing the loan element of the finance. The results of the financial model will normally be used iteratively to establish a set of key project parameters, including but not restricted to electricity offtake price, that is acceptable to all project stakeholders and is then reflected in the final versions of the key agreements governing the project. It will be clear from the above that it is not considered realistic to quote specific numbers for operating costs or for cost of electricity from FBC power plants, but rather it is considered more useful to identify the key issues that will affect these and to describe the methodology which would be used to establish them on an individual project basis.

24

3 3.1

CURRENT STATUS AND ASSESSMENT OF FBC SYSTEMS Introduction For each principal technology covered, the current status of the technology is reviewed, including brief historical information on its development, consideration of design issues, steam conditions available, key components, installed capacity with geographical distribution, problem areas, commercial aspects, and UK capabilities in design, materials, equipment, plant and components.

3.2

Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion The first successful development of FBC occurred in the 1920s, and subsequently a number of uses were developed for different applications. In the UK, research into the practical exploitation of FBC for coal burning commenced during the late 1950s. Much of the early development work was carried out by the National Coal Board with a view to achieving combustion efficiencies of ~99.5%, as was then being achieved with pf-fired plants. The technology developed was known as the deep bed system and utilised crushed coal (2-3 mm) injected pneumatically into the base of a fluidised bed with a depth of up to 1 m. Work concentrated on the utilisation of coal with a high ash content (~17%), intended for pf-fired power generation purposes. Crushed coal was generally used. However, crushing resulted in the formation of fines which tended to be elutriated, resulting in significant loss of carbon. In order to minimise this problem, the technology came to incorporate a deep bed (up to 1 m static depth), a fluidising velocity of ~0.9 m/s, a freeboard height of up to 3 m, and coal feed to the base of the bed. However, even at this level of sophistication, achieving 99.5% combustion efficiency did not prove possible. Addition of limestone for sulphur control purposes achieved only modest sulphur capture levels as a consequence of loss of limestone from the bed. Recycling via a cyclone improved this but added to the systems complexity. However, for some applications this level of control was adequate and in several instances (in the USA and Japan), utility-scale operations were achieved (see below). As well as efforts directed towards the development of systems aimed at power generation applications, technology applicable as a substitute for various oil-fired industrial applications was also considered. As part of this programme, a 4 tph vertical shell boiler was developed, using a static bed depth of 0.3-0.5 m and a fluidising velocity of 1-3.5m/s. However, the unit proved capable of achieving only 91% combustion efficiency, against a market requirement of ~ 95%. Further developments resulted in the use of uncrushed, washed coal, fed over-bed by gravity, dropping onto the central surface of a 0.3 m deep fluidised bed. The coal feed system was thereby simplified from previous designs and pre-preparation was minimised. Using this technology, combustion efficiencies of ~95% were attainable, this leading on to the development of the over-bed, lump coal-fired, industrial fluidised bed combustor. Despite the promising results, in the UK, development of FBC technology reduced in the early 1970s although a number of worldwide technology licensing arrangements were entered into. Thus, various licensees constructed BFBC units for a number of coal-fired applications, but also including the incineration of sewage sludge.

25

UK Government incentives of the mid 1970s attempted to transfer some of industrys reliance on fuel oil to coal. BFBC was viewed as a prime candidate for this initiative, although in a modified (shallow bed) form. A number of variants were subsequently developed by both CRE and several UK boiler manufacturers. All used the same basic approach of feeding uncrushed washed coal, over-bed, to a fluid-bed of typically only 150 mm static depth. Thus, the existing technology, aimed primarily at power station boiler applications, was adapted to smaller industrial coal-burning units; these utilised uncrushed washed coal fed over-bed onto the surface of a fluidised bed of <0.3 m static depth. The shallow bed system therefore required no coal preparation, a simpler coal feeding system, less boiler height and less fluidising fan power. Combustion efficiency was >96%, with the more reactive coals, as were conventionally supplied to industry. This efficiency was comparable to that obtained from industrial boilers burning bituminous coal on mechanical grates. The fluidised combustion of high quality coals was a UK innovation, the impetus being to develop automatic, coal-fired combustion plants, comparable in automation to that available from contemporary oil and gas fired units. By 1976 the first generation of shallow bed BFBC prototypes was being installed at various UK premises. These included both FBC boilers and hot gas generators/furnaces. Between 1976-1985, shallow bed technology was adopted by virtually all the commercial coal equipment suppliers within the UK and some 80 boilers and 30 furnaces were installed, totalling over 1,000MWth. Individual units were generally small; many were <5MWth, although a few boilers had a thermal rating of 30MWth and furnace applications reached 40MWth. However, the commercialisation of BFBC shallow bed technology suffered from two major setbacks during the mid-1980s in that oil prices remained low, and natural gas became less expensive and more widely available to industry. There followed the slow, but inexorable demise of much industrial coal burning capacity in the UK. As such, coal-fired shallow bed FBC has reached an evolutionary dead-end. Application of Utility-scale BFBC Technology Although there was a significant reduction in the development and application of coal-fired BFBC units for industrial purposes in the UK, elsewhere, large-scale initiatives continued to be pursued for utility and large-scale industrial applications. In the USA, three existing coalfired power plants were retrofitted with BFBC units (Table 3.1). With the Black Dog Station, the unit to be retrofitted comprised a front-wall pulverised coalfired boiler installed in 1954. The design fuel was natural gas and/or high-sulphur Illinois bituminous coal. Originally rated at 100MWe (gross), the unit was derated to 85MWe when western subbituminous coal became the normal fuel supply to the plant. Based on the successful experience in retrofitting a 15MWe BFBC at the companys French Island Station, Wisconsin, it was decided to also retrofit Black Dogs No. 2 unit with a BFBC. The objectives were to increase the unit rating to 130MWe when operating on subbituminous coal, extend boiler life by 25 years, provide the capability of meeting New Source Performance Standards for NOx and SO2, and allow for the combustion of a wider range of fuel types. Since the conversion, the Black Dog BFBC unit has fired coal for many thousands of hours and achieved quarterly availability figures up to 93%. It continues to be operated both for daily cycling duties and for more limited periods at full steam flow. However, especially during the first year of BFBC operation, the formation of bed agglomerates was a constant problem. This was significantly reduced by consistent control of airflow during startup and

26

shutdown in order to prevent hot spots from forming, and by keeping the bed clear of small agglomerates. In addition, modifications were made to the bed drain system in order to minimise problems of drain plugging with large pieces of agglomerated bed material. Other plant outages have resulted from in-bed tube leaks, inorganic crust formation on in-bed superheater tubes, cyclone problems, and air heater temperatures. The Heskett unit was originally built in 1963 as a spreader stoker travelling grate boiler. The fuel used was North Dakota lignite supplied from a captive mine. From the start of operations, the boiler had been unable to achieve its original rated steam production level of 650,000 lb/hr as a result of severe slag build-up on the furnace division and enclosure walls. The unit rating typically declined from 78MWe (gross) to 55MWe (gross) as slag accumulated on the upper furnace surfaces. In co-operation with Babcock & Wilcox, the option of replacing the travelling grate system in use with a bubbling fluidised bed was developed. The main advantage of this option was that most of the combustion and heat absorption would occur at low temperature (816oC) in the bed. This would preclude the formation of slag on the convection tubes from high temperature combustion in the furnace. The boiler retrofit, which was carried out successfully involved the removal of the grate, installation of the bottom-supported BFBC unit with in-bed steam generating and superheating surface, an in-bed feeding system, replacement of the forced draught fan, installation of screw coolers for bed material withdrawal, installation of a sand (bed material) receiving, drying, storage and metering system, replacement of the existing regenerative air heater with a tubular air heater, and installation of three boiler circulating pumps for in-bed steam generating surfaces. The third utility-scale BFBC repowering was carried out at TVAs Shawnee power plant. The TVA Shawnee 160MWe demonstration project started operation in 1988 and comprised a repowering of the stations existing Unit 10. Much of the existing infrastructure, ancillary systems and steam turbine were reused; however, initially, there were a number of problems associated with the reuse of some components such as the coal feeding arrangement. The new BFBC boiler was designed to match the turbine steam conditions, the steam generator consisting of a balanced draft, drum-type unit with a combination of both natural and forced circulation. The natural circulation encompassed the waterwalls of the bed area, the freeboard area and the lower convection pass. The forced circulation was through the boiler floor tubes and the three in-bed tube bundles. In order to maintain control of the combustion in the boiler and match it with the desired steam conditions, the boiler bed area was divided into twelve compartments. This division was actually in the air plenum, below the distributor plate. Each compartment had its own dedicated coal and limestone (under bed) feeding, and spent bed material removal systems. Since the start of commercial operations, the Shawnee unit is claimed to have operated well and to have demonstrated its ability to generate electricity in a reliable and environmentallysound manner, whilst burning high sulphur coal. Significant modifications carried out to the coal preparation, coal and limestone feed systems, boiler internals and ash disposal systems have resulted in significantly improved performance, compared to the start-up phase. The overall unit performance is comparable with its design specification. It continues to produce power for the TVA system and is operated as a normally despatched unit. Total operational costs are claimed to be competitive with other coal-fired units operated by TVA. The plant now regularly achieves overall availability figures of very close to 100%.

27

Few other utility-scale BFBC developments took place, in part, because CFBC came to rapidly dominate the market, although in Japan, in 1978, the Electric Power Development Co. Ltd (EPDC) began development of its own version of BFBC technology aimed at power generation applications. Initial work was carried out using a 20 t/h pilot plant, followed by construction of a 50MWth unit at Wakamatsu. This was commissioned in 1987 and was used to demonstrate the suitability of the technology for utility-scale operation. The configuration of the EPDC BFBC system comprised a main bed cell, used in association with a carbon burn-up cell, making the unit amenable to operation on low grade coals. Following extensive testing, it was decided to scale-up the technology and apply it to repowering the ageing oilfired Takehara power station. Thus, the existing boiler was replaced with a coal-fired BFBC unit with an evaporation rate of 1115 t/h. The plant entered commercial operation in 1995. However, despite its operation, there has since been little further development of this type of large-scale system in Japan. Development of BFBC in Japan has focused primarily on the development and utilisation of smaller capacity BFBC incinerators used for the combustion of both coal and MSW. In Scandinavia, one manufacturer has continued to develop BFBC technology but primarily for large-scale industrial applications rather than power generation. Although some have been coal-fired, increasing emphasis has been placed on the use of non-coal fuels such as industrial wastes generated by the pulp and paper industries. In this respect, the prime developer has been Tampella, latterly part of the Kvaerner group of companies. Thus, a relatively small number of large capacity BFBC units have been installed at various industrial sites in recent years; all appear to be operating successfully. A schematic of a Kvaerner type unit is given in Figure 3.1. Recent Commercial Developments for the Industrial Market Although BFBC technology has faced increasing competition from CFBC in recent years, it has maintained an important position in the market. In the case of BFBC, the technology is well suited to smaller industrial applications as well as for the combustion of waste-type materials. Thus, BFBCs continue to find wide-ranging adoption in a number of important industrial areas. As well as in new applications, BFBC systems are often encountered as retrofit replacements for older, less efficient facilities. As with many technological developments, there is often a tendency for first generation plant to be less effective and more troublesome than later developments. Such was the case with BFBC technology and some early units were characterised by problems such as erosion of inbed tubing and heat absorption surfaces. Further developments have introduced second generation BFBC, many characterised by such features as: highly staged combustion air. The primary air can represent a varying percentage of the total air requirement. Secondary air is introduced at several levels above the bed, providing the balance of the combustion air, to reduce NOx levels. the adoption of air staging makes it possible to regulate the locations where combustion takes place within the furnace, the temperature, and the amount of fuel burnt within the bed and the freeboard. Velocity within the furnace is also controlled by air staging.

28

Simplified turn-down operations, compared to earlier units. There is no need for partial bed slumping. where low grade fuels such as high moisture content sludges are used, there is no need for in-bed tubing to be utilised for heat transfer purposes. Where low heating value fuels are used, combustion efficiency is heavily dependent on maintaining intimate contact between the fuel particles and the heat transfer medium. Since primary air velocity is kept low (~1 m/s) this ensures that the bulk of the fuel enters the bed, rather than progressing upwards in the air flow.

As noted above, BFBC installations range widely in terms of design and utilisation for industrial and utility applications. However, although there is diversity of design, most systems comprise essentially the same basic component parts. Thus, within the technology, although certain design criteria usually apply, significant differences may be encountered in terms of such features as plant capacity and operating conditions. Capacity of Bubbling Fluidised Bed Installations The capacity of bubbling bed installations manufactured during the past three decades has varied significantly. In the early part of the 1980s, capacities tended to be relatively modest with many BFBC units being built in the range 3-40MWth. A number of more recent units have fallen in the range 30-100MWth, with a relatively small number in the range 150250MWth. However, the trend towards increasing capacity has not been mirrored throughout the world and apart from the small number of large capacity plants built in Japan, Finland and Thailand, most continue to fall in the small-medium capacity range. For instance, by the early 1990s, China claimed to have >2000 bubbling fluidised beds in operation and around the same time India had ~200 in use. In both cases, the majority of plants fell into the small-medium scale, a trend that, by and large, continues. Many major suppliers have manufactured bubbling beds that have varied significantly in terms of their individual capacity. For instance, at the lower end of the spectrum, Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom have supplied a number of units of very low capacity; these include, for example, a 5MWth plant supplied to the Juva district heating plant in Finland, a 7MWth plant supplied to Oy Noresin Ab, also in Finland, and a 7.1MWth plant supplied to Donohue St. Felicien Inc. of Canada. In addition, many plants in the capacity range 20-100MWth have been built for a variety of industrial and utility customers; these include a 20MW unit for Aylesford Newsprint in the UK, a 45MW unit for Golbey Paper in France, and a 94MW unit for Mantan Energia Oy in Finland. In addition to the many small-medium sized units supplied, the company has also built a number of plants of up to 155MW capacity. These include units supplied to Norse-Tech Ltd. and Ocean Sky Co., both in Indonesia. Similarly, Kvaerner has produced a limited number of relatively large plants (Table 3.2): Large-scale BFBC units continue to be supplied, although not in large numbers, primarily to large northern European pulp and paper mills and power producers. Here, there has been a growing tendency for such users to opt for a single large BFBC unit, with its inherent economies of scale, as opposed to several smaller units. In the area of pulp and paper mills, Kvaerner remains the market leader with a claimed >100 BFBC units in operation worldwide.

29

The advantages cited for the adoption of their BFB technology include fuel flexibility, ease of plant control, low maintenance and service costs, high availability, low emissions, simple and robust design, and ease of operation. Although, in terms of overall capacity, the 350MWth Takehara unit in Japan is the largest single unit operating, Kvaerner Pulping remains the leading supplier of giant BFBCs in Scandinavia where the company has supplied all solid fuel-fired boilers sold to the Nordic pulp and paper industries during the past decade. Steam Conditions Available The steam conditions adopted reflect the particular requirements of the installation in question. The uses that bubbling beds have been put are many and include hot gas generator, steam boiler, hot water boiler, district heating plant, thermal oil heater, and power plant. Often, combinations of uses arise and plants often generate combinations of hot water, process stream and electricity. As a result, it is impossible to generalise as requirements are site-specific and this is reflected in the wide range of steam conditions, in terms of evaporation rate, steam pressure and steam temperature encountered. Plant Availability and Operational Experience As a consequence of the great diversity within the technology, it is not possible to generalise, as individual site circumstances can vary so widely. Availability can be affected by a variety of factors that include poor construction and operation, difficulties caused by fuel characteristics, and lack of maintenance. In some countries, this can be exacerbated by a general lack of resources and skilled personnel. At the other extreme, many units installed in recent years have been characterised by reliable operation and high availability. Suppliers of Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustors Worldwide, there are numerous organisations who have, or continue to manufacture bubbling fluidised bed combustors (major technology suppliers are noted in Appendix A). Historically, some companies have tended to specialise in specific areas. For instance, from the late 1950s, Lurgi developed and marketed a range of bubbling fluidised bed systems that were utilised for a variety of industrial processes such as ore roasting, and alumina and phosphate calcining. During a 30 year period, over 400 such units were supplied. Another important area that developed from this experience was the combustion of waste-derived materials. Thus, Lurgi developed a compact design of bubbling bed combustor, suitable for the utilisation of various slurried materials that included sewage sludge, biosludges, oil wastes and industrial effluents. By the late 1970s, more than 60 such units had been supplied for waste incineration purposes, these treating >3 MT/year of sludge-type materials. Where the materials were of particularly high moisture content and could not be de-watered effectively, the company developed a novel multiple hearth/BFBC system capable of handling such materials. More recently, the trend of specialisation in particular niche markets has continued with companies such as Kvaerner, who now dominate the market of supplying paper and pulp mills. Similarly, Ebara in Japan tends to concentrate its efforts in the waste-to-energy market sphere. In a number of instances, commercial agreements and joint ventures have been entered in to, allowing a manufacturer to establish a presence in another country.

30

Problem Areas Although both bubbling (and circulating) fluidised bed combustors have been available commercially for some years, surface loss (metal wastage) from in-bed and other components remains a generic problem in both types of installation. These boilers are generally characterised by furnace freeboard fluidising velocities in the range 2 m/s or less (BFBC) up to ~6 m/s (CFBC). In BFBC, this results in a dense bed restrained in the lowest section of the furnace where most of the erosive wear is concentrated. In contrast, in CFBC technology, the bed density decreases from the lower to the upper furnace areas; particle-laden gas then passes to the particle separation system where some particles are removed and recirculated to the furnace bottom. Erosion can take place at any point in the gas path in both BFBC and CFBC units. The severity of the erosion occurring depends on the type and configuration of the boiler, the characteristics of the fuel and fuel ash, the material adopted as inert bed material, and operating parameters that influence flue gas velocity and temperature. All forms of fluidised bed combustion rely heavily on metallic components for their construction and damage caused to these during operation has been a recurring theme since the introduction of the technology. Historically, this has mainly taken the form of accelerated metal wastage resulting from contact with the material comprising the fluidised bed. Some early problems associated with such wastage can be attributed to inexperience or poor operating philosophy. However, there were well-documented cases of persistent wastage that appeared to be peculiar to the technology. Occasionally, one unit of a nominally identical pair, operating under the same conditions and using the same fuel, was affected whilst the other remained unaffected. Despite significant R&D efforts, the exact causes of such wastage are not always fully understood. However, on a practical level, a number of techniques have been developed to manage the problems so that units can operate for sufficient time between maintenance shutdowns. Thus, prevention of additional unscheduled outages remains a primary goal. The areas in which major problems of metal wastage have been experienced with BFBC units are: in-bed tube bank in-bed tube support system lower waterwalls in the vicinity of the bed splash zone grid floor air distributors back pass convection areas having high velocity gases

Where tubes have been damaged by wastage, they may take on a polished appearance, often on the underside. Damage is frequently highest at the 6 oclock position, with a uniform tapering off to the sides. Where bed material has flowed predominantly in one direction, obvious areas (wastage flats) occur on the tubes; wastage may be minimal on the opposite side to the flats formed. Where in-bed tubes are inclined to the horizontal, wastage is usually more severe close to the tube bends. Where the inclined tubes are partially uncovered by the bed, during part-load operations, the top surfaces of the tubes can also experience wastage.

31

Where waterwall constructions have been used, wastage of the tubes is typically greatest adjacent to the membrane, apparently as a result of bed movement causing bed material to travel up or down the grooves between adjacent tubes, as well as the action of particles ejected from the bed and sliding back down the walls. Significant efforts have been made to understand the exact mechanisms occurring during bed operations, both through cold flow modelling studies and the monitoring of units in commercial operation. Investigative work has identified a series of criteria to minimise wastage-related problems in BFBC installations. Thus, at the design stage, the following issues require consideration: Tubes should be arranged on a square pitch, as opposed to triangular, if possible. Where triangular or cross-over arrangements have to be used, protection of the underside of the tubes may be required. Tubes of the smallest practicable diameter should be used. Horizontal tubes should be used if possible. Fluidising velocity should be kept <2.5 m/s, preferably much lower. Non-uniform flow through the combustor should be avoided. Poor flow is influenced by poor plenum design, inappropriate air distributors, and accumulations of oversized/sintered materials in the bed.

UK Capabilities Design and Manufacture Design and manufacturing capabilities in the UK reside with a number of equipment suppliers. This area includes expertise in the design, manufacture and supply of either complete BFBC installations or system component parts. Some of the organisations have manufacturing capabilities in the UK, whereas others maintain a point of contact within the UK although core manufacturing and development activities remain overseas. (Further company information and contact details are given in Appendix B). Organisations with UK-based manufacturing/design capacity include: Resource Development Engineering Aztec Energy Ltd. Wykes Engineering Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd. OSC Process Engineering/Thyssen

For the purpose of later review, this group is considered to be a part of UK plc for the purpose of this study. International technology vendors with UK points of contact include: Kvaerner Energy Ltd/Kvaerner Enviropower Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. Lurgi/Lentjes (UK) ABB Alstom Energy

Materials Development

32

This includes expertise and facilities available in materials development and testing. The main organisations are: UMIST, Corrosion & Protection Centre University of Leeds, Department of Fuel & Energy Cranfield University University of Sheffield, Department of Engineering Materials

Specialist Support Services This includes characterisation and testing of fuels and other materials, and provision of techno-economic studies. CRE Group Ltd. The company can provide a wide range of specialist support services that include fuel characterisation and testing, residue evaluation and utilisation, environmental impact assessment and monitoring, and techno-economic studies. University of Ulster. The University undertakes detailed technoeconomic assessment and strategic studies. TES Bretby. The company undertakes coal analysis and characterisation.

In addition to the above, a number of UK universities have various analysis facilities and other capabilities. These include Imperial College and the Universities of Nottingham, Loughborough, Leeds, Strathclyde, Sheffield, Birmingham, Glamorgan, Middlesex, University College (London),and the University of Wales at Cardiff. 3.3 Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion Development of CFBC Technology During the mid 1970s, several engineering companies embarked on the development of CFBC technology, building on the concept of earlier bubbling bed combustion. All designs capitalised on the elutriation of significant levels of particles from the bed not only to the top of the combustion chamber, but beyond it. The solids lost from the bed were then captured using a variety of techniques and fed back (recirculated) into the combustion chamber. During subsequent years, CFBC technology was developed further and commercial acceptability was achieved with remarkable rapidity, with CFBC variants being introduced by a number of commercial organisations. In Finland, A Ahlstrom were at the forefront of CFBC development, developing what became known as the Pyroflow design. The first unit (15MWth) started up in 1979, having been installed at an Ahlstrom industrial site. The first full-scale commercial unit was subsequently installed at a Finnish paper mill; this unit was rated at 65MWth and started up in 1981. Early units such as these utilised a variety of fuels that included coals, biofuels, peat and wood waste. The high degree of success achieved with these plants resulted in a large number of orders, initially in Finland and Sweden. These were then followed by many others worldwide. The company went on to establish a number of overseas operating units and partnerships, leading to a widespread and significant uptake of its technology. The layout of a typical Ahlstrom CFBC is given in Figure 3.2.

33

Another organisation that was active in the field of CFBC development was the German firm of Lurgi, latterly Lurgi Lentjes Babcock (LLB). By the late 1970s, Lurgi engineers had constructed a small 1.5MWth CFBC pilot plant in Frankfurt. Results from the test programmes carried out were encouraging, especially in terms of environmental impact. Successful development led to a number of commercial-scale plants being supplied (see Figure 3.3 for a typical layout). These early units included an 84MWth plant at Luenen fired on 50% ash coal, followed by orders for a number of larger cogeneration plants; these included plants for the cities of Duisburg and Flensburg, plus a number of installations for industrial sites. Orders for further power generation and CHP configurations followed. Several large plants based on LLB technology were subsequently built in France, the 125MWe schlamms-fired Emile Huchet plant, and more recently, the 250MWe Gardanne plant, currently the largest individual CFBC unit operation in the world. As with Ahlstrom, Lurgi/LLB has operated overseas via a number of co-operative agreements, licences and joint ventures. Other developers included Foster Wheeler in the USA; the Finnish engineering firm of Tampella, who later purchased the Keeler Division of the US-based engineering company Keeler/Dorr-Oliver; Goetaverken; Thyssen; Mitsui; Battelle; Studsvik; Aalborg Ciserv; ABB Combustion Engineering; Babcock & Wilcox; Senior Foster Wheeler; and Bharat Heavy Electricals. In many instances, technology has been transferred to overseas manufacturers via various licensing and technology transfer agreements. For instance, several variants of CFBC technology have been imported into China for both demonstration purposes and licensing to Chinese manufacturers. The result has been the construction of several hundred CFBC units, predominantly of local manufacture. To date, China has a range of CFBC boilers in operation (Table 3.3). Recent Commercial Developments In terms of overall number of individual plants operating, the clear leaders in the field of CFBC technology have now become Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom Wheeler, and Lurgi Lentjes Babcock; the former now have ~180 commercial units operational and the latter, probably around half that number. Significant niche markets also continue to be serviced by companies such as Kvaerner and Babcock & Wilcox. Orders for new installations from Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom have continued at a steady rate with some shift from coal-fired to alternative fuels such as petcoke and/or other waste-derived fuels, reflecting the usefulness of the technology for the environmentally acceptable disposal of such materials. New orders from Europe and China are of increasing commercial significance to the company. LLBs activities in the CFBC area appear to have been somewhat slower during the last few years. In 1994, they supplied single units to Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Japan and China (2 off). More recently, single units were supplied to the Czech Republic and India, plus a further two to China. Relatively few orders have been received by other CFBC suppliers in the last year or so. There have been several orders and/or plant startups reported for projects involving ABB-Combustion Engineering; these have included a project in the Czech Republic and a further project in Korea utilising two 100MWe lignite-fired units. In addition, there have been orders for several units from Kvaerner. Two of these were for Archer Daniels Midlands in the USA; these were presumably re-orders, as ADM already operate a number of units previously supplied by

34

Tampella. In addition, an order was placed with Kvaerner for a 37MWe CYMIC CFBC unit for the Tychy heat and power plant in Poland. In addition, further contracts were placed for a unit in Thailand as well as for two 75MWth units for a waste-to-energy plant in Spain, scheduled for startup c2000. Babcock & Wilcox have continued the steady progress made with their internal recirculating design CFBC units, with a further project taking place at Southern Illinois University in the USA. Austrian Energy has been active in China, undertaking the installation of two sets of twin coal/sludge-fired 100MWe CFBC units at Suzhou and Changshu (a total of four units). Other orders have been received by the recently formed (1999) ABB Alstom Power, the 50:50 joint company merger between ABB and Alstom. The new company has announced orders for a 160MW lignite-fired unit for TEAS, at Can in Turkey, and two lignite-fired units for Choctaw Generating in Mississippi. Especially during the last decade, the successful development and commercialisation of CFBC technology has led to its widespread uptake by the industrialised nations. However, its impact has also spread to the developing nations, particularly China.. In an effort to upgrade the countrys capabilities to manufacture large-scale CFB units, the State Science and Technology commission allocated 460,000 in order to develop a Chinese-designed 220 t/h steam CFB under the Ninth Five Year Plan. Key aspects of the design were undertaken by Harbin, Dongfang and Sichuan Boiler Works in co-operation with Tsinghua University in Beijing. The outcome of the project has been that the largest boiler manufacturers in China now have the capability to manufacture CFBC boilers in the range 220-400 t/h. Experience with some of the Chinese projects has been encouraging. For instance, in the case of the Gaoba Power Plant, owned by Sichuan Electric Power Administration (SEPA), actual plant construction was carried out successfully jointly by Foster Wheeler and SEPA. The contract for the boiler was awarded to Foster Wheeler Energia Oy of Finland in 1992 and civil engineering works commenced at the site in 1994. The design and engineering of the CFB steam generator, together with most of the pressure parts, was carried out by Foster Wheeler in Finland. The manufacture of the economizer and air preheater, plus much of the steelwork, was sub-contracted to Dongfang Boiler Works. Commercial plant operations started in 1996, firing a high-sulphur, high-ash anthracite from Sichuan Province. Within a year, the plant had been operated successfully for >4500 hours and had generated 340GWh of electricity. Boiler operation has proved to be controlled easily, even under low load conditions. The unit has proved to have good turn-down capability; minimum stable load with coal is 30% MCR, without oil firing. The poor fuel selected has been fired successfully in the unit and emission levels of SO2, NOx and CO have been consistently below levels required by the relevant Chinese standards. These low emissions were achieved at relatively low capital costs. Thus, the operation of the Neijiang CFB boiler has been but one of a number of successful projects that is helping to drive forward greater uptake of CFBC technology within China. Capacity of CFBC Installations In terms of individual plant capacity, the situation with CFBC plants has mirrored that of bubbling bed installations in that the capacity range produced by the major manufacturers has been very wide, reflecting the diverse nature of the end-uses involved. To date, CFBC units are operating that range from a few MWth to 250MWe. The overall capacity of a site depends almost entirely on the end-uses involved. Thus, installations may generate

35

electricity, produce steam and/or hot water, or combinations of the two. The latter situation is often encountered where a CFBC boiler forms the core of a district heating plant. Although efforts are now underway to scale up CFBC technology to ~600MWe, historically, where the capacity required has exceeded that available from a single unit, multiple units have been adopted. There are many plants that utilise two CFBC units to achieve the required overall capacity. For instance, the Barbers Point plant in Hawaii uses two coal-fired Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom CFBC boilers, generating between them 180MWe. Similarly, the TexasNew Mexico Power Company uses two ABB Combustion Engineering CFBC boilers to generate 175MWe. Customer requirements have not been limited to the use of two units, and there are a number of installations that comprise three or more CFBC boilers. In the case of the Black River Partners site in New York State, three Ahlstrom boilers, each of 56MWth are used. A smaller number of plants operate with four boilers; for instance, the AES Shady Point facility in Oklahoma uses four coal-fired reheat CFBC boilers, each of 226MWth. In total, the site generates 285MWe (net) and is one of the largest non-utility cogenerators in the USA. The large plant sells electricity to the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, plus supplies considerable quantities of steam to nearby industrial facilities. At the other extreme are numerous CFBC installations that meet the modest needs of a commercial or industrial site, often supplying steam to on-site facilities. For instance, Ahlstrom supplied a number of small CFBC boilers (Table 3.4). Small capacity plants have not only been based on the companys traditional design of CFBC, as a Compact unit of 18MWth has more recently been delivered to Kuhmo Lampen Oy of Finland. A number of other manufacturers have also supplied a handful of small capacity units, such as the 17.5MWth unit built by NKK for the Myojo Cement Works in Japan. Steam Conditions Available As with bubbling bed installations, it is virtually impossible to generalise in terms of steam conditions adopted for CFBC installations. Invariably, although similar uses will often result in similar steam conditions, it is usually specific to a particular customer requirement. This in turn is dictated by the duties that the unit is expected to perform; these can be diverse and often include steam raising combined with power generation. Thus, CFBC units can differ widely in terms of their evaporation rate, steam pressure and steam temperature, the precise requirements being site/use-specific. By way of example, a number of Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom CFBC plant are noted in Table 3.5. Thus, in the case of Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom CFBC units, evaporation rate varies widely, steam pressures fall within the range 18-144 bar, and steam temperatures fall within the range 350-540oC; in the case of the latter, most modern plants tend to utilise temperatures ~530540oC. Similar variations are found within the range of CFBC units produced by other manufacturers.

36

Plant Availability and Operational Experience As with the more recent BFBC installations, there has tended to be a steady increase in plant operating availability as the various CFBC technologies have been developed, refined and improved. Later plant has inevitably benefited from operational experience gained with earlier units. A number of CFBC technologies have now been in commercial operation for some years and extensive operating experience has now been accumulated. Such operational experience gained through on-going commercial operation has allowed for many refinements to be carried out, thus improving overall plant efficiency, environmental performance, fuel flexibility and availability. The total number of operating hours now logged for many plants is in some cases, considerable. For instance, there are a number of steam plants utilising LLB technology that have operated more or less continually since commissioning in the 1980s (Table 3.6 ). Many of the above plants have regularly achieved availability figures well in excess of 90%; in the case of some LLB-based plants operating in the USA, over 95% has been achieved regularly. According to LLB, an availability of less than 90% is a usually limited to the plants initial year of operation, as a consequence of commissioning and fine tuning of the system. A consequence of such high availability has meant that plant shut-downs for scheduled maintenance has, in many cases, been extended from 12 months to up to 24 months. However, even though CFBC technology has been adopted widely in many countries, the technology has not been without its problems. For instance, some earlier units relied on very heavy applications of refractory materials in several strategic areas, and these sometimes did not perform as had been expected. These problems were gradually overcome or at least minimised through the development of more advanced refractory materials and improved methods for their attachment. More recent developments have seen a move away from the application of such heavy refractories, with newer designs utilising much lighter applications. As noted elsewhere, this move has had several beneficial results, not the least of which has been the minimisation of refractory-related problems and hence plant outages. Although lengthy periods of good operation have been achieved regularly with many plants, in most cases, fuel quality has been consistent. However, where quality tends to be poor and variable, reduced plant performance and significantly reduced availability can result. For instance, such has been the situation with some Chinese plants where inconsistent fuel quality has impacted adversely on: Combustion efficiency many plants suffer from incomplete carbon burnout. Restricted fuel flexibility some plants experience problems operating efficiently on fuels that differ significantly from the design fuel. Low levels of operation some plants are used on an irregular basis and may experience repeated startup/shutdown procedures. Problems with auxiliary systems use of coals with varying characteristics have resulted in outages of feed systems, ash removal systems, etc.

However, not all large CFBC projects in China have been marked by poor performance. For instance, the 100MWe Gaoba power plant, Neijiang, referred to earlier has confirmed that CFBC technology is suitable for operation using the local Sichuan anthracite. This is characterised by high ash and high sulphur contents and had previously proved difficult to burn

37

in both pulverised coal and stoker-fired boilers. In this case, performance tests carried out have been generally encouraging, with guaranteed performance results exceeding minimum requirements. However, as with a number of other Chinese plants, as a result of the anthracites low reactivity, the amount of unburned carbon in the fly ash is higher than in some CFBC boilers burning bituminous coal and other reactive fuels. Thus, although CFBC technology has been proven to operate successfully elsewhere, there are some considerations peculiar to China, and probably India, that appear to require further consideration by manufacturers, particularly where the actual coal type differs significantly from the design coal. The major problems identified confirm that imported auxiliary systems may not always be able to accommodate fully the type of fuel and /or operations encountered in practice. Suppliers of Circulating Fluidised Bed Technology Since the first commercial development of CFBC technology, a number of manufacturers have developed circulating fluidised bed combustion systems; some have met with greater commercial success than others. In a number of cases, entire manufacturing concerns have been taken over or merged with competitors, and in other situations, technology has been licensed to third parties and/or key technological and design features have been adopted by competing firms. The major forms of CFBC technology now in operation have been supplied predominantly by the following: Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom Corporation Lurgi Lentjes Babcock ABB Combustion Engineering Goetaverken Energy Systems Tampella/Kvaerner Keeler/Dorr-Oliver Studsvik Energy Systems Mitsui Babcock Deutsche Babcock Werke Babcock & Wilcox

Problem Areas One of the major problem areas associated with CFBC technology has been that of metal wastage. The major areas affected by this phenomenon have included: intersection of the waterwall with the refractory liner used in the lower furnace area superheater pendant tubes and bends suspended in the combustor upper waterwall tubes in the vicinity of the cyclone inlets convective pass evaporative and superheater surfaces in the furnace and external heat exchanger economiser hanger tubes and bends air heater tubing

38

As with bubbling beds, practical solutions have been developed, often to meet specific needs. For instance, where metal thinning has occurred at the interface region with the refractory, weld overlays have been applied. These have been periodically replaced as required and treated as a maintenance item. In some cases, unacceptable loss of metal has occurred in this region immediately after startup. In this situation, the cause has often been the downflow of solids along the walls. Various techniques have been applied, the degree of success depending on the specific unit. For instance, weld overlays have been applied and shelf-type structures have been inserted at different elevations within the boiler in order to deflect the solids flow. There have been instances where wastage has been much higher in the rear corners of the furnace enclosure than at the centre of the walls. This has been attributed to the location of the cyclone inlet openings at the corners of the rear walls. Flue gas containing entrained bed materials flows from the centre of the boiler towards these openings and, since only a fraction of the solid material enters the cyclone, the remainder is distributed towards the corners and back regions of the side walls. The extra particle loading descending the boiler walls at these locations results in increased wastage. In order to overcome this type of problem, refractory tiles have been applied in the corner regions. Alternatively, re-design/re-configuration has sometimes been adopted. The rapid thinning of convection pass tubes has also occurred in some units, usually operating with high ash, high sulphur fuels (eg. anthracite culm). Other problems associated with this type of fuel caused by the increased amount of ash covering the superheater bank have included high wastage rates of economiser tube banks, distortion and failure of rotary soot blower lances, increased cooldown times during outages, and re-ignition of unburned carbon by the soot blower operation. Operation under these conditions also has resulted in the development of flat spots over large areas of the upper furnace waterwalls, with uniform wastage across the entire roof and on large vertical sections on the three sides leading to the cyclone entrance; this was apparently due to the flow of ash from the combustor across the tube surfaces towards the cyclone. Remedial measures have included the shielding of the superheater elements and pad welding of specific areas of the combustor side walls. Where tubes have failed in the superheater, the cause has sometimes been attributable to the downwards flow of solids in regions conducive to flow channelling, specifically at bends in tubes where they bend out to connect with the superheater. In this type of failure, re-design of the offending section has sometimes proved effective. One technique that has been increasingly adopted in recent years has been the application of thermal protective coatings. Thus, there are a number of remedial actions that can be taken to minimise wastage in CFBC operations and where appropriate, re-design of the particular component may be in order. A number of variables have been identified that affect rates and location of wastage in fluidised bed operations. These include: the source of erosive/abrasive particles. Of these, materials containing significant levels of quartz and their behaviour in the bed/recycle loop are likely to be the worst offenders. tube metal temperature. A significant decrease in wastage can be effected by increasing the temperature above which a protective oxide scale of sufficient thickens can form. tube overheating. Because of the high heat transfer coefficients possible for tubes immersed in a fluidised bed, it is essential that good circulation of the working fluid is maintained in order to avoid problems of internal corrosion and overheating.

39

 other variables include the chlorine content of the fuel. Besides erosion, with some fuel feedstocks, the corrosion of metallic components used in CFBC systems is an on-going concern although technological developments have significantly improved the reliability and lifetime of many such components in recent years. Corrosion mechanisms can be complex and can be significantly influenced by various factors that include unit operating conditions and the fuel type(s) being utilised. In an effort to increase overall efficiency and environmental performance, there has been a growing tendency for CFBC plants, especially for power generation purposes, to use higher steam pressures and temperatures. In addition, where CFBC technology has been harnessed for waste-to-energy plants, the range of potential corrodants present in the flue gases has broadened. As a consequence, the requirements placed on tubing, etc. have increased significantly and this has led to the development of a number of metallic alloys that are now being used in particularly aggressive environments. The presence of various potential corrodants can cause a variety of problems and this can be exacerbated in waste-fired units where the fuel composition can vary significantly, resulting in fluctuations in composition and temperature of the flue gases generated. Corrosive gas components such as HCl and fly ash contained in the combustion gases can create severe high-temperature corrosion environments. In ash depositing and accumulating on material surfaces exposed to the combustion gases, high concentrations of chlorides and sulphates of alkali metals, alkaline earth metals and heavy metals can be present. The presence of these mixed salts can result in a lowering of ash melting points to between 300-550oC, and corrosion rates can increase rapidly at temperatures above these melting points. Particularly in waste-fired units, at locations within the boiler where the temperature is high and reducing conditions occur, there can be a tendency for large quantities of chlorides to deposit on the heat transfer surfaces of waterwall tubes, creating a corrosive environment. In addition, depending on various operating parameters and fuel properties, corrosion rates can differ significantly between locations; thus, superheater tubes may not corrode at the same rate as waterwall tubes. A further complication arises as corrosion may sometimes be a general phenomenon, and at other times/locations, predominantly a localised effect. As with combating erosion-related effects, the application of high-temperature corrosionresistant coatings may be used to minimise corrosion effects. Their application can be accomplished in several ways: Metal Spraying - this technique is currently used to extend the lives of waterwall tubes as spraying is relatively easy to apply on site. For instance, the flame spray coating of Al/80Ni20Cr has a lifetime of at least 3 years when applied to waterwall tubes. Materials with even higher durability are currently being developed. Weld-overlay - although metal spraying has the advantage that it can be applied on site, the thickness of the coatings is relatively small (~200-800 um); this limits durability under high-temperatures and in strong corrosive environments. Conversely, weld-overlay techniques can be used to create a layer up to several millimetres in thickness, chemically bonded to the base metal, hence, longer durability can be achieved. For instance, in the USA, Alloy 625 is used for weld-overlaying applications on waterwall tubes. Work can be carried out on site, sometimes using automatic welding units.

40

Generally, the choice of technique adopted will depend on the particular requirements of the plant, its operating conditions and the fuel types utilised. Some of the materials and techniques noted above are also applicable to BFBC and PFBC systems. UK Capabilities Design and Manufacture Design and manufacturing capabilities in the UK are limited. Only Mitsui Babcock is considered to have CFBC manufacturing capabilities within the UK. As with BFBC technology, some other organisations maintain a point of contact within the UK although core manufacturing and development activities remain overseas. These include: Kvaerner Energy Ltd/Kvaerner Enviropower Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. Lurgi/Lentjes (UK) ABB Alstom Energy

Further company information and contact details are given in Appendix B. Materials Development The expertise and facilities available in materials development and testing for BFBC (see Section 3.2) are equally pertinent for CFBC. Specialist Support Services As for BFBC, the organisations listed can provide relevant input (see Section 3.2). 3.4 Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion Development of PFBC Technology Initial development of PFBC started in the UK in 1968, with activities subsequently centred on facilities at British Coals Leatherhead and Grimethorpe sites and at its Coal Research Establishment (CRE) in Cheltenham. Between 1975 and 1985, work was concentrated at the Grimethorpe facility, primarily under the auspices of a USA/German/British consortium. Work carried out here provided useful operating experience and resolved many of the technical issues outstanding. Work then continued under the auspices of the British Coal Corporation and CEGB with considerable testwork also on the IMW rig at CRE. However, by 1992, the last of the PFBC activities taking place in the UK had been closed down, the impetus for further development and commercialisation passing to ABB Carbon in Sweden. It is largely through ABB Carbons subsequent efforts that bubbling bed-based PFBC has now achieved a significant degree of development and has been applied to a number of demonstration and commercial power plants

41

PFBC Plants based on ABB Carbon Bubbling Bed Technology There are a number of plants, built initially as demonstration plants but now operating on a commercial basis, based on ABB Carbons pressurised bubbling fluidised bed combustion technology. In many respects, overall targets have been met and performance has been considered to be good. However, all plants have suffered from various teething troubles and other problems; most of these have subsequently been resolved. The various PFBC plants comprise: Vartan Plant, Stockholm, Sweden The Escatron PFBC Plant, Spain The Tidd PFBC Plant, USA The Wakamatsu PFBC Plant, Japan The Cottbus PFBC Plant The Karita PFBC Plant, Japan

The only other bubbling bed-based PFBC plant operational is in Japan, ie that of the Hokkaido Electric Power Company (HEPCO). HEPCO have installed PFBC technology at their Tomatoh-Atsuma Unit No. 3 site. The entire package was supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and comprised the PFBC, coal handling system, ceramic filters. steam turbine, gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator, SCR system and direct digital control systems. Capacity of PFBC Plants The capacity of individual plants based on ABB Carbon bubbling bed technology is governed largely by the limited number of standard modules available, namely the P200 and P800. The P200 module has a nominal thermal input of ~200MW, and a net power output in the range 85-100MWe. The P800 module has a thermal input of ~800MW, plus a net power output of 360-425MWe. In practice, the only plant so far utilising the larger P800 module is the Karita plant in Japan. All other plant operational have been based around the P200 module (see Figure 3.4) and had outputs as shown in Table 3.7. Thus, two routes have been adopted in increasing overall plant capacity, namely the utilisation of two P200 modules, as at Vartan, and the use of the larger (newer) P800 module, as at Karita. Future uptake of either option will clearly be dependent on individual customer/site requirements. Other plants, such as the Hokkaido plant supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, have capacities similar to those of the ABB P200-based units. The Hokkaido plant has a capacity of 85MWe. Steam Conditions Available The PFBC combined cycle depends for ~80% on a steam cycle and ~20% on a gas turbine cycle. Thus, the effectiveness of the steam cycle is important in achieving and/or improving the overall efficiency and economy of a plant. The plants using various configurations based around the smaller P200 module are cited by ABB Carbon as providing steam conditions of 140 bar, 565oC main steam, and 549oC reheat steam. In practice, steam conditions have

42

varied between individual plants. For instance, the Vartan plant operates at 137 bar/530oC, Escatron at 94 bar/513oC, Wakamatsu at 102 bar/595oC/595oC, and the newer Cottbus plant, currently commissioning, will operate at 142 bar/573oC/573oC. The MHI-built TomatohAtsurah plant in Japan operates at 165.5 bar and 566oC main steam, with 538oC reheat. Important factors in improving steam conditions include the successful adoption of ultrasupercritcal (USC) steam conditions. The upper limit of steam conditions is determined by the materials used in the superheater construction. Thus the Karita plant in Japan is based on an ABB P800 module and uses USC conditions that comprise a pressure of 241 bar, main steam at 566oC, and reheat steam at 593oC. Plant Availability and Operating Experience To date, reported overall plant availability figures have been few, and it is considered that, so far, experience in this area has been limited. Appropriate data has also limited as a result of the various plants being operated initially as demonstration units. In addition, one major plant (Vartan) is only operated on a part-year basis. In the case of the Vartan plant, experience has indicated that availability increased gradually during the first few years of operation, and has since been maintained at acceptable levels. Although most bubbling bed-based PFBC plant built subsequently to Vartan have experienced a number of materials-related and operational problems during various stages of operation, their record, in terms of hours of trouble-free operation, appears to have been relatively good. Thus, it is anticipated that availability figures of fully optimised plants will be relatively high. Suppliers of PFBC Technology Although there are a number of organisations actively developing variants of PFBC technology, to date, only plants based on ABB Carbon bubbling bed technology have achieved any degree of commercial maturity. Problem Areas Several studies have examined the potential for erosion, corrosion and other damage in various plant areas. The areas at particular risk and the potential problems include: Wastage (erosion, abrasion, erosion/corrosion) in the combustor. Particle removal system. Duct liner oxidation and corrosion. Expander first stage erosion, deposition and hot corrosion. Condensate corrosion.

To date, problem areas identified in practice have been restricted to plants based on ABB Carbon bubbling bed PFBC technology. In all cases, initial plant operations were hampered by a variety of teething problems. For instance, in the case of the Vartan plant, during initial operations, undesirable combustion took place in both the freeboard and the cyclones as a result of uneven fuel distribution. In addition, some problems of erosion were encountered in areas such as the bed enclosure walls. Teething problems were also encountered in several other areas of the plant.

43

With the Escatron plant, during the first four years of operation the majority of plant outages were not as a direct result of the PFBC components, most being related to the conventional equipment such as fuel preparation and feeding systems. Fuel-related problems were encountered in the form of sintering in the fluidised bed as a consequence of localised hot spots and blockages in the cyclone ash handling system caused by deposition formation. Most of these difficulties were gradually overcome through component refinement and modification. For instance, bed deposits were eliminated through design changes that included the removal of uncooled metallic components within the tube bundle. Apart from the teething problems, the major issues were related to the gas turbines and boilers: Gas Turbine

There have been a number of experiences that have resulted in modifications being introduced. These included high cycle fatigue damage to the variable speed low pressure turbine blades, made from cast IN 738 material. Blade cracks were detected at the shanks in turbines at Tidd, Vartan and Escatron. The damage resulted from a resonance phenomena at certain speeds. Design modifications appear to have eliminated this problem. Despite the use of an erosion/corrosion-resistant coating applied to the turbine blades, some erosive wear has been experienced. In some cases, this has occurred as a consequence of plugging of the cyclone ash legs, causing the carryover of relatively coarse particulates to the turbine. When the cyclone ash system has performed without problems, minimal wear has been detected. Boiler Overall, the various PFB boilers have performed acceptably. Wear on the tubing and membrane walls in the different plants has been limited, and is claimed to be no more than for that experienced with AFBC units; this has been controlled through the use of coatings (for evaporator and other low temperature component surfaces) and the use of sleeves at locations with enhanced tube/particle interaction. Other remedial measures carried out during the course of commercial operations have included: installation of ceramic refractory onto parts of the membrane wall. installation of protective sleeves to steel primary superheater tubes. installation of sleeves to the austenitic steel secondary superheater tubing. By October 1998, the number of accumulated operating hours in PFBC plants based on ABBs P200 PFBC technology had exceeded 102,000 hours.

44

UK Capabilities in Design and Manufacture There is currently no PFBC-based manufacturing capacity within the UK although the main international vendors/developers maintain UK points of contact. Significant R&D, design and operational experience has been accumulated as a result of the PFBC developments centred at Grimethorpe and CRE. Thus, considerable experience and expertise continue to reside within CRE Group Ltd. while Cranfield University has gained certain expertise in terms of PFBC and materials data, and holds an archive of process feedstocks, residues and component parts relating to the Grimethorpe project.

4. 4.1

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION TRENDS Introduction This section of the report examines the trends in development and application of FBC systems on a regional basis, to identify the underlying reasons for any such trends, and to review research, development and demonstration activities at national and international levels.

4.2

Regional Trends in Development and Application It is convenient to consider regional trends in development and application with reference to each of the three principal types of FBC technology, namely pressurised, circulating and bubbling bed systems. The simplest case to examine initially is that of PFBC where there are only a limited number of plants worldwide, although a number of potential projects are at various stages of discussion. The plants currently in service (or having completed a planned programme of development and demonstration in the case of Tidd) are shown in Table 4.1 in approximate chronological order of in-service date. From the above and from the plant descriptions elsewhere in this report the following observations may be made in terms of regional trends in development and application. Only a very limited number of PFBC plants have been built worldwide, in fact just eight plants with nine gas turbine/combustor islands, although the technology has been offered commercially for at least a decade. This may be contrasted with the situation for CFBC discussed later, where there are a far larger number of facilities worldwide and the uptake of the technology may be clearly be judged to have been more successful. This may well reflect the rather longer timescale over which CFBC has been available for commercial deployment, the perception of utilities that the benefits claimed for PFBC over CFBC have not generally been deemed to compensate for the perceived additional risk associated with the pressurised operation and the more complex cycle arrangement, and other advantages of CFBC discussed elsewhere in the report.

45

The technology marketplace for PFBC has clearly been dominated to date by one supplier, originally known as ABB Carbon but now trading as part of the Boiler Segment of ABB Alstom Power, which either directly or through its licensees has been responsible for six of the eight plants listed (for the sake of brevity reference will continue to ABB Carbon). Although much of the research and initial development and demonstration of PFBC technology took place in the UK, the introduction of the technology into initial commercial service was not achieved in the UK but rather in Sweden. Thus, on a geographic basis, the initial application of the technology can be seen to have been in the home country of the pioneering developer, ABB Carbon. Such a reference plant in the country of origin of the technology may be seen as almost a sine qua non for the introduction of an essentially totally new technology in the utility scale power generation market where customers have traditionally been risk-averse. The majority of the capacity is in power-only applications with just two out of the current fleet of plants incorporating an element of district heating through the use of back pressure turbines rather than fully condensing steam cycles. The total worldwide installed capacity in electrical terms is just 1125MW, with an additional thermal capacity of 445MWth from the Vartan and Cottbus units.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the regional distribution of PFBC capacity, based on the information in Table 4.1, and considering electrical generation only rather than heat production. On this basis, it can be seen that just over two thirds of worldwide PFBC capacity is located in Asia, more specifically, in Japan. At the same time an increase in unit size over time has been noted, with the early units all being based on the ABB P200 gas turbine/combustor module, the most recent unit being based on the ABB P800 gas turbine/combustor module, and the non-ABB units based on Mitsubishi or Hitachi gas turbine equipment leading to a differentiation in unit size from the ABB standard modules. Thus, the first few orders were all for plants in the 70MWe ballpark whereas more recent orders have been for units of 250MWe and for one of 360MWe. The latter, the ABB Carbon facility at Karita, supplied by ABB Carbons licensee IHI, attained 100% load for the first time during October 1999. The growth in maximum unit size over time is illustrated in Figure 4.2. It is therefore concluded that on a regional basis initial exploitation of the technology took place in the country of domicile of the initial monopoly supplier, it subsequently expanded into other European countries and into North America, and the highest level of current activity is in Asia, specifically in Japan. The underlying reasons for this pattern of regional development and application are speculative rather than factual but the following may be possibilities contributory factors to the observed pattern of regional development and application: Initial application in home territory of lead commercial developer Subsequent replication to other territories facilitated by factors including licensing agreements, aggressive sales and marketing effort, successful operation of reference plant, availability of public funds for demonstration plant support in other countries eg EC for Escatron and US DoE for Tidd.

46

Latterly the focus has been very much on Japan which can be attributed to a number of factors all of which have combined to create a favourable commercial and technical environment for PFBC deployment. These may include: _ the presence of a licensing agreement between ABB Carbon and IHI _ the successful operation of the Wakamatsu plant, leading in turn to the decision to proceed with the launch of the first P800 unit at Karita _ reduction in the perceived risks in view of the growing suite of PFBC reference plants and the successful engineering development leading to the solution of teething problems on the earlier units _ the tradition in Japan for innovation in technology and willingness to take risk. For example, Kyushu Electric Power Company, the launch customer for the P800, has a long tradition of technical innovation. Japan has a very strong heavy industrial manufacturing base well suited to fabrication of major equipment required for PFBC at increasing sizes, including pressure vessels and heavy duty industrial gas turbines. _ the need for coal based capacity in the Japanese utility market because of scarcity of other fuels in the energy mix, and need for relatively high efficiency as much coal has to be imported.

The apparent lack of uptake of the technology in Europe and North America despite initial applications supported by public funds suggests a continuation of risk-averse behaviour on the part of utilities, coupled with an increasing focus on natural gas fired combined cycle gas turbine plant for environmental, efficiency and capital reasons, in both Europe and North America where gas is relatively abundant. Japan does not have access to substantial gas reserves and is a net importer of LNG, so these factors do not apply there. In Europe the Cottbus plant has received public sector support from the EC through EU Thermie funding and through additional funding from the State of Brandenburg. There is speculation on PFBC projects which have not yet been formally announced and it is known from communications with licensors that a significant number of projects are in various stages of discussion. Most of these are reportedly based on multiple P200 units. In particular, in China two projects based on the ABB P200 module are under contract negotiations, one in Dalian which is a CHP application and one at Jiawang which is a condensing plant. Many of the reasons which are noted above as having contributed to the success of PFBC in Japan also apply to China, in particular, the importance of coal in the generation portfolio and the absence of significant quantities of gas available for power generation. This is such that coal fired generation provided 82 % of total electricity generation in 1995 and accounted for one third of national coal consumption. CFBC technology is rather more mature than PFBC, with the first units having been brought into service in the late 1970s. Thus, the timescale over which the technology has been available for deployment is about double that for PFBC There are currently of the order of 1130 CFBC plants worldwide with a total installed capacity of some 65.5GW thermal (most references quote unit size in terms of boiler thermal rating rather than electrical duty). The global average plant size is therefore of the order of 60MWth.

47

Information on the majority of individual plants including features such as unit size, location, fuel type, year of start-up, technology supplier etc. is available in the public domain. The exception is China where there are some 840 CFBC plants known to be in operation with a further 197 under construction at the time of writing. In the analysis below they are treated as aggregated national capacity without a breakdown by actual location, capacity, in-service date etc since this information was not in the public domain. In addition, since it is Chinese practice to express unit size in terms of tonnes per hour of steam rather than MWth, conversion factors have been used to estimate capacity in MW terms for consistency with the rest of the regional trends analysis. Finally it is noted that China has a large number of bubbling bed units which have effectively been converted to CFBC operation by incorporation of an ash separation and fines recycle package. There are estimated to be around 2000 of these units, which are generally small plants with a steam generation capacity of less than 35 t/h per unit. Since accurate data on the numbers and sizes of these units are not available, they have been omitted from the analysis which follows, but their existence does illustrate the clear benefits of circulating operation which have been recognised. Thus, excluding the Chinese plants for which accurate information on in-service dates and individual plant sizes is not available, the cumulative installed capacity in the rest of the world has grown over time in a manner which shows a relatively long gestation period from launch of the first unit in 1978 to significant and relatively constant year-on-year growth of capacity additions from the mid 1980s, slowing somewhat in the early and mid 1990s but now beginning to display an upward trend again as the end of the decade approaches. It may be speculated that a number of factors have contributed to this pattern, including: the relatively successful performance of the first few units the ability to match the technology to a wide range of plant size requirements the availability of the technology from a number of licensors the ability to configure the technology for fuel flexibility global trends in the electricity sector during the 1980s which generally favoured relatively small plant with rapid build times and quick entry into revenue generating service, increased attention to environmental performance and the ability to use fuels on an opportunistic basis, a combination of factors ideally suited to the introduction of CFBC technology recession conditions in the mid to late 1990s, particularly in the Far East, may have contributed to the observed slowing in the rate of capacity addition

Figure 4.3 illustrates the regional distribution of CFBC capacity. It can be seen that the dominant application region for CFBC to date is Asia with some 52% of installed capacity, or 33.8GWth. North America accounts for some 26% of worldwide capacity, or 17.3GWth. Europe has around 22% of capacity, or 14.1GWth. The small amount of other capacity, ie not falling within these three main regions, is represented by one plant in Latin America and one in the Middle East and represents less than 1% of total worldwide. As shown in Figure 4.4, almost all of the Asian CFBC capacity is located in China where there are some 840 CFBC plants of average size around 30MWth. A further 197 plants are under construction. Coal is the predominant fuel used in these facilities and the driving force for the introduction of CFBC has been the need for control of SO2 emissions.

48

Within North America, virtually all of the CFBC capacity is in the USA with a small proportion in Canada. Coal and lignite are the predominant fuels although a significant proportion of capacity is based on culm which was used particularly in some of the earlier plants which took advantage of the ability of CFBC to burn very low calorific value fuels and the presence of large inventories of culm from coal washing operations, notably in Pennsylvania. The distribution of North American CFBC capacity by fuel type is illustrated in Figure 4.5. Within Europe the distribution of CFBC installations in terms of installed capacity by country is shown in Figure 4.6. This indicates that the dominant countries of application in capacity terms are Germany (32%), Finland (13%) and France (10%). In France and Germany the dominant fuel used in CFBC facilities is coal with average unit size in Germany being 118MWth and in France 206MWth. The latter reflects the trend in France to pioneer the scale-up of coal fired CFBC for utility plant with the 250MWe unit at Gardanne being the largest unit in service and with studies underway by Electricite de France to support the engineering design of a 600MWe CFBC configured as a single boiler. By contrast in Finland the focus is more on peat and biomass fuels which account for some 75 % of the installed capacity and the average plant size is somewhat smaller at 75MWth. The distribution of CFBC in Europe expressed in terms of numbers of plants is shown in Figure 4.7. This shows a broadly similar situation to that shown in the distribution by capacity, with the exception of Sweden which has 18% of the installed plants with 23 plants albeit of relatively small average size (56MWth) but only 9% of installed capacity. Coal is the dominant fuel in the Swedish plants although a significant amount of the capacity, around 30%, is based on biomass. In relation to BFBC, the sheer number of plants operating worldwide makes a quantitative analysis of regional trends in application and development impractical. There are currently several thousand BFBC units in operation, predominantly in China. Many others are also in use worldwide, supplied by a variety of manufacturers, some of whom are of local origin and others who operate on an international basis. Often, various forms of co-operative agreements have been entered into by international vendors and local manufacturers. There is currently only limited use of BFBC technology in the UK. This is restricted largely to a handful of industrial/commercial installations. There have been only a few BFBC units installed in recent years, aimed primarily at niche markets such as waste and rendered cattle incineration. A number of other units have been proposed under recent NFFO rounds. In terms of capacity, BFBC plants vary from a few MW to the large (~270MWth) biomass/waste-fired units supplied by Kvaerner to pulp and paper mills. However, the vast majority of units operating are of much more modest capacity. Steam conditions adopted reflect the particular application; these can include hot water heating, steam generation and power generation, plus various combinations of these. That said, worldwide, overall, although there remains a significant market for smaller units, and despite the on-going use of a handful of large capacity plants, it appears that technological efforts have, in general, moved on to other more advanced systems such as CFBC. CFBC has effectively superseded BFBC in many areas although the latter still holds a

49

significant price advantage for small-scale industrial and commercial operations. Uptake of BFBC for large-scale application remains a niche market, taken up primarily by industrial users generating mixed, waste-derived fuel sources that would otherwise pose problems of disposal. In the USA, since the utility-based programmes of the 1980s, little further development has taken place and virtually all new solid fuel-fired capacity has adopted CFBC technology. 4.3 R, D and D Activities at National and International Level The major research, development and demonstration activities in the field of FBC, which are both current and are also truly national or international in nature, are reviewed. USA The Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program is a partnership between the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and industry that has as its primary goal the successful demonstration of a new generation of advanced coal-based technologies, with the most promising technologies being moved into the domestic and international marketplace. The growing concern over global climate change is being addressed through the demonstration of high-efficiency advanced electric power generating technologies. Nearly 900MWe of new capacity and more than 800MWe of repowered capacity are represented by 12 projects valued at nearly $3.4 billion. These projects include five FBC systems, four integrated gasification combined-cycle systems, and three advanced combustion/heat engine systems. These projects not only will provide environmentally sound electric power generation in the mid- to late 1990s, but also will provide the demonstrated technology base necessary to meet new capacity requirements in the 21st century. The five FBC projects that form part of this major national programme are: McIntosh Unit 4A PCFBC Demonstration Project McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFBC Demonstration Project JEA Large Scale CFBC Demonstration Project Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project Nucla CFBC Demonstration Project

The Tidd and Nucla projects were completed in 1995 and 1992 respectively and are therefore not discussed further in the current review. The McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project is being undertaken by Lakeland Electric of Florida in partnership with Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation. It will use Foster Wheelers PCFBC technology integrated with Siemens Westinghouses hot gas particulate filter system. The net plant capacity is planned to be 145MWe and the total project cost of $186 million is being covered by a 50/50 cost sharing agreement between the United States Department of Energy and the project participants. The project has a somewhat long history, being first selected in the third round of solicitations under the Clean Coal Technology Programme in 1989. Currently, design and construction are scheduled to be complete by November 2002 with two years of operation planned to follow.

50

The second McIntosh project will involve the addition of a carboniser, topping combustor and high temperature filter to the basic configuration established in McIntosh 4A to convert the cycle to a topping arrangement. Coal will be partially gasified in the carboniser and the resulting fuel gas will be cooled and cleaned before firing in the topping combustor, raising the gas turbine inlet temperature to 1315oC compared with 900oC in the configuration without the carboniser. This will increase the thermal efficiency by 3.9%age points while increasing plant output by 93MWe compared with the base configuration without the carboniser and topping combustor. The design and construction phases of this project are scheduled to be complete by November 2004 and a two year period of operation is then planned. The Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Large Scale CFBC Demonstration Project is designed to demonstrate Foster Wheelers CFBC technology at a scale of nominally 300MWe, representing a scale up from previously constructed facilities. The project will involve retrofitting a CFBC boiler to an existing unit at JEAs Northside Station and is being undertaken by JEA in partnership with Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. Features to be demonstrated include the integrated recycle heat exchanger in the furnace, steam cooled cyclones, parallel pass reheat temperature control, an SO2 polishing scrubber and a fabric filter for particulate control. The total project cost is just over $309 million with DOE contributing 24% and the industrial participants providing the balance. The project has had a lengthy gestation period, having been selected in the first round of CCT programme solicitations in 1989 and has undergone considerable restructuring and relocation since it was first proposed. The current plan is to have design and construction complete by May 2002 with a two year period of operation to follow. The US Department of Energys PFBC programme activities are aimed at full commercialisation of the advanced-generation PFBC systems in the next two decades. The programme consists of several components, namely advanced research, component development, systems development, integration and testing, environmental and economic performance studies, and commercial scale demonstration. Activities in each of these areas are summarised below. Advanced Research Moderate levels of advanced research are planned to provide continuing refinement and improvement of PFBC power systems. Activities in this programme element include coal and ash chemistry basic research (including combustion and devolatilisation mechanisms), process control methodologies advanced research, materials base research, and development of advanced instrumentation. Component Development Component development will allow significant improvements in the economic viability of PFBC systems. Further development of ceramic barrier filters is needed. A crucial project in the development of ceramic filter components was the testing of ceramic filter hot gas cleanup devices in utility-scale tests at Ohio Powers Tidd PFBC demonstration project. These tests showed that improvements were needed in the durability of the filters to extend their life and prevent embrittlement that hampered performance. From lessons learned from the Tidd tests, a new series of hot gas filters will be tested at the Wilsonville Power Systems Development Facility in Alabama.

51

Cost-sharing contracts with US equipment manufacturers are intended to create a capability for US industry to produce PFBC components that compete in the domestic and international markets. In addition to ceramic filters, important components that it is believed by DOE could be produced competitively in the US are hot gas piping, solids transfer valves, coalwater paste pumps, and gas turbines optimised for PFBC systems. Systems Development, Integration and Testing The testing activities for PFBC systems consist mainly of assessing the operating performance of a partially integrated second-generation PFBC at the Foster Wheeler Development Corporations pilot plant facility. This testing will verify the economic and environmental performance and efficiency of this PFBC system. Major components and high-temperature solids transfer issues are also under study. A fully integrated second-generation PFBC will be operated and analysed at the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, Alabama. This will evaluate the integration of all of the components in the PFBC system with primary emphasis on the linkage of hot gas cleanup ceramic filters to gas turbines. Environmental and Economic Performance Studies Environmental and economic performance studies are addressing the ongoing need to develop and commercialise more efficient, environmentally superior power systems. The activities in this area of the PFBC programme will explore the full potential of PFBC systems to produce extremely low pollutant emissions levels, while also attaining correspondingly high ratings for energy efficiency. The engineering issues associated with integrating advanced steam turbines and advanced gas turbines into highly efficient and environmentally friendly PFBC systems will be investigated. Activities will include research studies using cost-shared, competitive contracts resulting from proposals submitted in response to Program Research and Development Announcements. Feasibility studies and proof-of-concept evaluations will be conducted at PFBC pilot plants, utility facilities, and boiler manufacturing facilities. Crosscutting research conducted by the DOEs Fossil Energy Waste Management programme on ash utilization is also a part of this programme element. Commercial-Scale Demonstration The results of the component development, environmental studies, and efficiency development activities in the PFBC programme are intended to lay the technological foundation for commercial-scale demonstrations on a 50/50 cost-sharing basis. The demonstration programme element focuses on the design, construction, start-up, and operation of an advanced, highly efficient PFBC commercial-scale power plant. France Although not strictly definable as a national programme, Electricite de France (EdF) has established a very substantial programme of research, development and demonstration on CFBC centred on the Carling (125MWe) and Provence (250MWe) power stations. The R&D division of EdF is involved in numerous aspects of the programme. Integration of physical

52

models in the LEGO code environment has led to the creation of the SILVA numerical simulation tool, which has been operational since the first quarter of 1996. The models integrated have been assessed using measurement data obtained on a cold model of a CFBC loop. The numerical and physical models have been validated using measurements obtained by the Feedback and Test Resources Department in the Carling and Provence power stations. Physical analysis of heat flux measurements on wall surfaces in the Provence power station has made it possible to determine the heat flux field in the complete furnace. The cold model was then used to validate the sample and optical probes which have been installed in the furnace at the Provence power station. EdF is also active in investigating issues associated with scale-up of CFBC to 600MWe in a single boiler unit. Australia Information on performance of Australian coals in PFBC is closely held by technology developers. This creates problems for coal marketers and for Australian utilities seeking to implement PFBC in that it is difficult to optimise product specifications or plant design concepts to suit local conditions and requirements. A project being undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for Black Coal Utilisation seeks to provide such information. The initial scope was completed in December 1997 with reporting of overseas testing and its independent assessment, and of a review of the research needs for Australian coals in PFBC. Evidence from PFBC pilot and full-scale plants indicates problems with certain Australian coals due to carbon elutriation from the bed and with sticky ash in high-temperature dust filters. These issues are considered to be the principal research needs for Australian coal with respect to PFBC. Research to study mechanisms of carbon loss from the bed was initiated. This required the construction of an innovative, pressurised, laboratory-scale fluid reactor to emulate in-bed reactions. The reactor operates at similar temperatures, pressures, velocities and particle size to full-scale plant. It provides time-resolved measurements of carbon compounds leaving the bed and also allows collection of partially-combusted coal samples. Initial experiments have confirmed unusually high carbon carryover with a coal that caused such problems in a pilotscale plant. A comprehensive experimental programme being undertaken in 1998/99 will elucidate the mechanisms of fine char particle generation. Elutriation of fine char is expected to be responsible for the majority of carbon carryover from the bed. Separate experiments will be undertaken to understand mechanisms of in-bed char combustion and to provide coal-specific combustion rate parameters for prediction of bed carbon loadings. This work is supported by extensive characterisation of the physical and morphological properties of char and elutriated carbon.

53

International Programmes Green Aid Program

In Asia-Pacific countries such as the Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of the Philippines and the Kingdom of Thailand, the Clean Coal Technology Centre which is a part of Japans New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO) is implementing demonstration (model) projects with counterparts to support the self-help efforts of Asia-Pacific countries in protecting the environment. These projects are collectively referred to as the Green Aid Program (GAP), the main goals of which are to promote sustainable economic development and to encourage stability in the worlds energy supply. Model projects which have been or are being implemented under the GAP include: Simplified Flue Gas Desulphurisation System Circulating Fluidised Bed Boiler Briquette Production Plant Water-saving Coal Preparation System Desulphurisation Agent Added CWM System Low Grade Coal Combustion System

The model project on CFBC was located at Batangas Coal-Fired Thermal Plant of National Power Corporation, Calaca, Batangas, the Republic of the Philippines. It was implemented between April 1994 when basic agreement was signed with the counterparts and the end of December 1996 when demonstration operation was completed. The project confirmed that a steam evaporation rate exceeding 10t/h, a boiler efficiency exceeding 80%, and a desulphurisation efficiency exceeding 90%, the initial targets, could be reached stably. International Energy Agency An international programme of research on FBC is carried out under the auspices of the International Energy Agency and in particular under the Implementing Agreement on FBC (sic). This aims to bring together experts wishing to work on common problems. The main activity is technical exchanges during meetings and workshops. Participants conduct research and to some degree share the results on operational issues in support of local commercial fluidised bed conversion activities and sharing the results on operational issues in support of local commercial fluidised bed conversion activities. Mathematical modelling has been a major activity in the past. A one-dimensional model for atmospheric fluidised bed combustion of coal has been developed and the exchanges of information on threedimensional modelling of gas/solid flows have assisted the development of knowledge of local solids concentration and heat transfer. In addition, efforts are being devoted to the study of solids attrition and fragmentation, NOX and N2O formation and reduction, sorbent reactivity and sulphur capture mechanisms, bed sintering and agglomeration problems, and ash utilisation. The Agreement has published a series of papers on R&D activities in fluidised bed conversion and a guide book for the use of the one dimensional CFBC combustion model. 54

There are active Contracting Parties from ten countries: Canada, France, Finland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. EC Programmes The European Commission has provided funding for R&D and D of clean coal technology within the Framework Programmes. Under the Third and Fourth Framework Programmes, considerable support was provided for the development and demonstration of FBC technology, including the 250MWe CFBC at Gardanne and the 70MWe PFBC at Escatron. In each case, multi-partner collaborations from member countries of the EU were encouraged. Under the current Fifth Framework Programme, there is no designated funding for either development or demonstration of FBC technology. The structure of the programme has changed significantly with a harmonisation of technical and social-economic requirements having to be met. Thus the funding for any clean coal technology activity has to meet a range of criteria of which the most pertinent in the context of this report, is improved environmental performance. Thus, funding can be sought not for technology development per se, but rather for improving environmental impact of such technologies. In addition, some R&D funding is available via the ECSC for multi-partner activities. There are guidelines for allocation of funding with environmental considerations, again, a major issue.

5.

FUTURE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Consideration has been given to probable future developments with the different forms of fluidised bed combustion technologies through assessment and extrapolation of market trends currently taking place. A number of technology developers and manufacturers have announced future technological goals for their respective systems. From these accumulated data, a number of issues have been identified that are likely to be pursued in the future. In addition to the above, opinions were solicited from a number of individuals and organisations involved heavily in FBC technology directly. The information thus gathered was assimilated and combined with in-house data and predictions and used in the preparation of the following sections. Significant input was noted from the individuals/organisations noted in Appendix C.

5.1

Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion The widespread adoption of cheap natural gas as the preferred industrial fuel in many areas and the proven advantages, and therefore, domination of CFBC for utility-scale power generation (compared to BFBC) mean that coal-fired BFBC has little future outside countries such as China and India which remain heavily dependant on coal in all market sectors. In these countries, simple, robust designs of BFBC furnaces and boilers are likely to remain popular for many years to come. Experience of such countries suggests that there will only be limited incentive to attempt the development of coal-fired BFBC plant capable of matching the performance and amenity of gas and oil firing. This will avoid the frequently excessive

55

cost and complexity (and very high demands on coal quality) which such targets placed on UK industrial fluidised beds in the 1980s. In terms of new technological development, as BFBC technology has now been in commercial use for so long, little of real novelty is expected to be developed within the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage what further significant developments of the technology in its present form could be made. Where development efforts do take place, they are likely to focused primarily on improving environmental performance and ensuring an increased variety of biomass feedstocks and waste can be utilised. However, in general, it appears that further technology development is likely to take the form of gradual refinements and improvements in areas such as control and instrumentation systems, rather than in the development of any particularly novel idea. Even several supposedly novel concepts recently brought into the commercial marketplace or under development have their roots in the 1960s and 70s. For instance, Kvaerner recently introduced the Hydro Beam grate, a design that is claimed to improve BFBC operations through improved bed solids control. The concept behind this design was developed in the UK in the 1960s, intended for use with various configurations of industrial BFB boilers. Similarly, work continues in some parts of the world to increase overall carbon burnout, especially with problem fuels. One route being examined is the use of a carbon burnout cell integrated into the system. Again, this concept has existed for several decades, having been developed and investigated in the UK during the 1970s and 80s. As with other forms of FBC, one area that will continue to receive attention will be the further development of improved materials of construction. Here, work will continue to improve existing alloys and to develop new, improved variants. These will continue to be applied to metallic unit components, especially for those that may be impacted on by erosion and/or corrosion mechanisms. In a similar way, alloy coatings will also continue to be developed, aimed at imparting a degree of protection, particularly, to in-bed components. Similar efforts continue with CFBC-based applications in mind (see below). In terms of scaling-up the technology, it seems likely that the upper limit is now approaching, and in this respect, in terms of number of units, Kvaerner continues to be the world leader, having supplied a number of large installations to industrial and commercial concerns, in Scandinavia and elsewhere. Although large capacity waste-fired BFBC units are operational in various industrial concerns with the prospect of further such units being required, it seems unlikely that there will be any further development of units of similar capacity fired on coal. Thus, it is unlikely that utility-scale BFBCs will be applied to any further large-scale power generation schemes. 5.2 Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion Although CFBC technology has achieved considerable commercial success, there are a number of areas that continue to be the focus of attention. Thus, a variety of on-going national and international initiatives continues to examine ways in which to improve plant construction and operation, increase the range of fuel types and applications, increase efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and reduce capital and operating costs. However, support for further development effort in some quarters is diminishing. For instance, as noted in Section 4.3, historically, FBC technology has been supported by the European Commission since 1978. However, under the Fifth Framework Programme,

56

atmospheric pressure CFBC is now deemed to be of commercial status and hence does not appear directly in the programme in the terms of reference, although certain areas remain eligible, with the emphasis now concentrating on environmental issues and innovation. In the UK, since 1992, the DTI via the Cleaner Coal Technology R&D Programme has supported some ten FBC related R&D projects, many of which have been concerned with the use of CFBC in advanced combined cycle systems. However, currently, there are no direct FBC-related projects being supported via that Programme. In the USA, the Department of Energy, through the Federal Energy Technology Centre (FETC), is vigorously promoting CFBC technology and has announced a set of technical goals to be pursued. For then near-term, these include: to improve understanding that FBC technology has a viable, competitive growth potential even in an era of deregulation to continue the development of FBC Clean Coal Technology projects to scale-up atmospheric units to 250MWe or greater to increase FETC public outreach efforts by educating the general public about the importance of research and development and the benefits derived from an environmental technology such as fluidised bed combustion In the longer term, the main objectives of the programme will encompass efforts to: fully define product(s)/application(s)/merits instil need for long-term commitment to support products improve/enhance FETCs and in-house R&D capabilities to support products innovative use/augment foreign technology promote the co-firing of biomass and opportunity fuels and by-products in both CFBC and PFBC. develop the market information on current/potential uses for FBC by-products Anticipated technology improvements suggest goals achievable by 2015 with advanced FBC (ie hybrid cycles) commercial units will include increased efficiencies of >50%, costs 25% less than todays units, air emissions of 99+% sulphur capture, 95+% reduction in oxides of nitrogen, and 25+% reduction in CO2. It is anticipated that these initiatives will allow for the capture of 40% of the market share of new and retrofit units. As a result of domestic demonstrations, FBC technology is expected to become an increasingly profitable export commodity for U.S. technology vendors. Based on the opinions of the organisations active in FBC technology noted above, it is anticipated that in overall terms future CFBC technological developments are likely to concentrate on the following Improved component design Although CFBC has established itself firmly in the industrial and power generation spheres, manufacturers continue to develop the technology further. Depending on the configuration and end-use of the particular CFBC variant, efforts remain on-going to improve a variety of characteristics. For instance, in the case of LLB, even though 15 years of operational experience with LLB-based CFBC plants has been accumulated and a high degree of reliability

57

has now generally been achieved, efforts to increase availability still further, and reduce capital and maintenance costs continue. The major areas of technological development and commercialisation being pursued by the major CFBC vendors include: LLB - Integrated Fluid Bed Heat Exchanger (FBHE) Kvaerner - CYMIC and Integral Cylindrical Cyclone & Loopseal Assembly (ICCL) Foster Wheeler - Compact CFBC design and INTREX heat exchanger system.

These developments are reviewed in Appendix D. Repowering Applications for CFBC Technology Whilst many future applications will be for new plant and/or new applications, there will be increasing adoption of CFBC for the repowering of ageing pf-fired power plants throughout the world. In many locations, much of the stock of conventional power plants is nearing the end of its working life. Often, plant operations suffer and maintenance requirements escalate, impacting both on overall plant efficiency and economics. There are many situations where the replacement of the existing pf boiler with a CFBC unit can effectively extend the working life of the station by many years. Often, much of the existing infrastructure and systems can be re-used, resulting in significant savings compared with a completely new plant. Thus, coal and ash handling systems, gas cleanup systems, and steam turbines may be re-used. In recent years, there has been a steady stream of such repowering applications, with a number of ageing pf-fired plants being repowered using CFBC technology. For instance, several significant initiatives have taken place on Poland and the Czech Republic. The attractions of CFBC technology for large-scale repowering applications has also been investigated in Russia, a country where many of its conventional power plants are constantly plagued with unplanned outages and steadily diminishing efficiency. A study carried out by the All-Russian Engineering Institute in Moscow concluded that more than 100 ageing pf-fired boilers required updating and that current environmental requirements, coupled with the use of low grade coal, made repowering with the CFBC the most cost-effective option available. Development of Improved Materials of Construction Although CFBC technology has matured rapidly into one of the most widely accepted combustion techniques and has met with considerable commercial success, there are still materials-related issues that have not always been fully resolved. Thus, work will continue to develop improved alloys, especially for application to plant components that may be at risk from erosion-corrosion mechanisms. Although a number of fixes have been developed that allow most plants to achieve acceptable availability levels, there is still a clear incentive to develop new, improved alloys capable of withstanding these effects without recourse to the, sometimes temporary, alternatives adopted. As demands on plants to achieve higher levels of reliability and improved economics continue to escalate, it is expected that improved materials will ultimately play an important role in meeting these criteria. As the range of fuel sources broadens, and increasingly aggressive steam conditions, in terms of temperature and pressure, are pursued, the requirements for improved alloys will increase. A number of initiatives to develop such materials are on-going.

58

Similarly, other programmes continue to develop improved non-metallic materials such as refractories. Although a number of more recent CFBC designs have minimised the quantities of refractory materials utilised, there is still a requirement for its application in several areas of a plant. Several manufacturers are known to be developing proprietary refractory systems for application in CFBC situations; for instance, Babcock & Wilcox have recently obtained several patents for improved refractory systems. Broadened range of fuels It is considered that significant opportunities exist for CFBC technology, suitably configured, to be applied further to a variety of waste-type fuels. With some forms of the technology, further developments in design and construction may be required to burn some waste-derived feedstocks in an economically and environmentally-acceptable manner. CFBC Technology Scale-up There is now considerable confidence within the industry and some utilities that CFBC technology has now matured sufficiently to the point where it is capable of scaling-up significantly. However, it is recognised that in order to achieve the levels of scale-up suggested, there are still issues to be resolved. In this respect, Electricite de France (EdF) has been involved with several manufacturers with a view to constructing a utility-scale power plant based on CFBC technology. Thus, in the light of the operational success achieved in recent years with the two large CFBC plants operating in France (Emile Huchet 4-125MWe and Gardanne 4-250MWe) EdF have carried out a comprehensive study into the possible scaling-up of CFBC technology into the 600MWe range, using a single unit as opposed to multiple units. A number of technical aims were identified associated with the basic 600MWe design, utilising advanced steam conditions. The main objective of the study was to compare the competitiveness of CFBC technology with that of pulverised coal firing, and to prepare precise specifications needed to ensure the proposed plant was optimised in terms of quality/cost and service/cost. EdF consider that, at present, there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the refined and complex two-stage flow, hence plant design has to be based on reliable and comprehensive data obtained from plants in commercial operation. They consider that this would ensure the advantages of CFBC that arise from the hydrodynamics within the circulation loop are maintained. Thus, important goals of the study included the maintenance of good particle residence time and concentration in the furnace, and an examination of CFBC furnace bottom design. The main conclusion from the study of the basic design for a 600MWe boiler was that it is feasible in technical and process-related terms. However, a number of technical points were identified that require further examination in order to ensure greater technical confidence in terms of electricity generation, and to provide a design that will ensure operational flexibility for large-scale plants. The main areas that EdF is already actively investigating include: the particle circulation loop. This is to ensure the appropriate particle flow rate, good heat transfer in the riser, low levels of pollutant emissions, and good overall combustion efficiency. the arrangement of the heat transfer surfaces. This is necessary in order to maintain metal temperatures within their allowable design range, thus reducing costs associated with construction, operation and maintenance.

59

 the understanding of where refractory material is required, and for what reason (erosion, corrosion, etc) and the reduction of such materials in order to minimise operating and maintenance costs. In addition to the above, basic studies are required in respect of the dynamic behaviour of the overall power plant in order to quantify plant flexibility and to avoid excessive metal temperatures during transient operations. Further studies are also required to examine coal characterisation in terms of fragmentation as a result of devolatilisation and attrition processes, and cyclone design, to enable accurate design of the circulation loop to be achieved. Development of Internal Recirculation CFBC Systems Several designs have been produced that trap internally a high percentage of the solid particles being recirculated in a CFBC system and return them directly to the furnace. Of these, only two variants currently appear to be of commercial interest, those of Babcock & Wilcox and Ebara. Babcock & Wilcox Technology

The Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) design utilises what are known as U-beams, a system originally developed by Studsvik. Essentially, internally recirculating B&W CFBC units now incorporate a two-stage solids separation system. An impact primary solids separator (Ubeam) is installed across the full width of the gas exit and solids carried in the gas stream impact against the suitably configured beams and fall back into the lower furnace section. The U-beam system is integral with the boiler enclosure, thus making the boiler more compact than conventional cyclone-based CFBC variants. A secondary separator of the multicyclone type is installed in the lower gas temperature region (~260-371oC) of the convection pass. Solids from the multi cyclone are recycled to the furnace. B&W claim that the two-stage solids separation system provides an overall collection efficiency exceeding that of conventional cyclone-type CFBCs. Final particulate cleanup utilises a conventional baghouse or ESP. In some operational units, the first field of the ESP functions as a secondary separator, with the solids collected being recycled to the furnace. Ebara Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed (ICFB) Technology

Since 1978, the Ebara Corporation of Japan has been involved in the development and commercialisation of an internally recirculating FBC system that avoids the use of in-bed heat transfer tubes. Main developments have focused on the co-combustion of coal with various industrial wastes. By the early 1990s, Ebara ICFB technology was in commercial use, fired on both municipal and industrial solid wastes, as well as coal-fired for power generation purposes. New Designs of CFBC Technology Although the major CFBC suppliers now often offer several variants of their particular form of technology, novel designs continue to be pursued by some developers. Several systems that show potential include:

60

The York-Shipley Vortex Fluidised Bed System (VFBC) The Multi Circulating Fluidised Bed (MCFB) [in reality this not a truly new concept, rather a design that has not achieved as significant market penetration as the technology leaders].

A schematic of the York Shipley system is given in Figure 5.1 Use of CFBC technology as part of Advanced Processes or Cycles There are a number of initiatives either under development or that have come into recent service that are claimed to achieve improvements over many existing systems. In some cases, new developments are improving plant economics, and in others, enhancing reliability and/or environmental performance. All systems incorporate CFBC technology as part of the overall design. Some of the most important developments are: Gas Turbine - CFBC system The exhaust gas from an LPG-fired gas turbine is being fed to a Swedish wood-fired CFBC boiler. The efficiency of the system is high, since the heat content of the gas turbines exhaust gases is recovered and utilised. The plant is expected to be in commercial operation c2000, producing ~4MW of electrical power and 10MW of thermal power. Use of CFBC in Advanced Cycles There are a number of technologies that propose to make use of CFBC technology as part of advanced cycles involving gasification, etc. These include: The Rheinbraun HTW Gasification Process and Uhde/Lurgi Topping Cycle (Germany) This proposed system incorporates an HTW gasifier (KoBra Project) operating on brown coal. Uhde and LLB, who are engineering contractors for the gasification and gas cleaning sections of the plant, are also promoting a topping cycle based on the HTW gasifier and an LLB CFBC char combustor. In the KoBra project, carbon conversion will not be complete, hence, gasifier residues will be burned in an atmospheric CFBC. The steam raised from the combustion of these residues forms part of an entirely separate steam system. CFBC-related activities are continuing although the KoBra Project is stalled. M W Kellogg Alternate Advanced PFBC Concept (USA) Between 1988 and 1990 M.W. Kellogg, in association with Southern Company Services Inc., DIPAC Associates and Linhoff March carried out a conceptual design study for a hybrid combined cycle based on their own transport gasifier. The system proposed uses the Kellogg transport gasifier which achieves ~90% carbon conversion. The hot residual solids/char is fed to the pressurised transport combustor. The basic principle is the same as that of a circulating fluidised bed, although the gas velocity of 9 m/s in the riser section is higher. The project appears to be presently on hold.

61

VEW Combined Cycle with Partial Coal Gasification (Germany) VEW have developed a partial gasifier and an associated hybrid combined cycle. Residual char from the gasification stage will be burned in an internally recirculating fluidised bed, developed by Steinmller. VEW has analysed the cycle efficiency under a range of conditions and the net efficiency is predicted to be 48% (LHV) with a 1300oC gas turbine inlet temperature and a 230 bar/550oC/550oC steam cycle. No significant work related to the project appears to have been carried out recently. The UK Air Blown Gasification Cycle (ABGC) The ABGC is a combined cycle based on the partial gasification of coal with separate combustion of residual char. Coal is gasified in an air-blown spouted fluidised bed gasifier operating at a pressure of around 25 bar and temperatures up to 1050oC. Residual char is removed from the base of the gasifier, the cyclone and hot gas filter, depressurised and transferred to an atmospheric pressure CFBC combustor (CFBC) where it is burned to raise heat from the steam cycle. However, it is understood that the industrial group leading the development has decided not to proceed with demonstration plans. Consequently, without an industrial champion, this UK technology option must be considered, at best, stalled. Japanese Developments The Japanese have recently been showing some interest in the development of topping cycles and preliminary work is being carried out by Japanese boiler manufacturers (MHI, Hitachi). The current intention is to carry out testing at the 3-5MWth scale up to c1999. Few details of the gasifier type and cycle configuration have yet been revealed although MHI are known to have built a 20kg/h bench-scale apparatus incorporating a gasifier, desulphuriser and char combustor. A number of alternative cycle configurations are apparently being considered. The gasifier being tested in MHIs bench-scale plant is an air-blown dry-feed fluidised bed unit operating at 900-1000oC and 15-18 bar. A 40t/d pressurised pilot plant has also been operated at Yubari City, logging >8000 hours operation between 1981 and 1989; carbon conversions were between 40-60%. The char from the gasifier, cyclone and filter and the partially spent sorbent from the desulphuriser are sent to the combustor; this is likely to comprise a pressurised CFBC. The combustor operates at up to 1000oC with high excess air. CaS from the desulphuriser is oxidised to CaSO4 while the char is burned. Flue gas from the char combustor is filtered hot before being passed to the gas combustor. The Lakeland PCFBC Project, Florida In an initiative being carried out at the McIntosh station, Foster Wheelers PCFBC technology will be used in conjunction with a topping combustor, used to boost plant efficiency. This project is described in Section 4.

62

5.3

Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion Pressurised Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion To date, ABB Carbon has been involved with most major bubbling bed-based PFBC projects. The company has announced a range of future initiatives and programmes in order to improve various aspects of their technology. Thus, in the short term, efforts are being focused on remedying problems that have occurred with the first generation of commercial plants. In addition, efforts are being made to simplify the systems in order to increase availability and reduce costs. In the longer term, there are several avenues that are being explored in order to enhance the attractiveness of the technology: Scale-up Issues The majority of ABB-based plants have so far utilised their P200 module. However, the latest plant is being based on the P800 module; this represents a considerable degree of scale-up. The bed area of the P800-based plant has been increased threefold over P200 plants, the bed enclosure utilising an hexagonal cross-section. The geometry is suitable for placement inside vertical pressure vessels, hence the overall diameter is only 15.5 m for the P800 units, compared to 13.4 m for the P200-based plants. The P800 bed comprises a single entity although the air distribution and tube bundle are divided into three parts, enabling mechanical designs similar to those of the P200 to be used. The cyclones and bed re-injection vessels are located above the bed enclosure, the design also utilised by IHI in the Wakamatsu plant. The cyclone design is identical to that of the P200 units; the P800 plant uses eighteen pairs of cyclones as opposed to the smaller units six. The main development issue for the adoption of the P800 has been the design and manufacture of a new, larger gas turbine (the GT140P). This is essentially a scale-up of the smaller GT35P unit. As with the smaller turbine, the GT140P uses a twin shaft configuration. The inlet temperature of 850oC is the same, although the pressure ratio is 16 bar, as opposed to the smaller machines 12 bar. Thus, both design and operational experience from operations based on the use of the GT35P has been used in the design of the GT140P. The philosophy of re-using components and designs developed for the P200-based plants has helped to minimise technical risks associated with scaling up of designs. ABB Carbon anticipate that adoption of this strategy will help avoid new, unexpected problems when the first P800 unit enters commercial operation at the Karita plant. According to the company, independent assessment of this concept has confirmed its robustness. Freeboard Firing This system has been developed by ABB Carbon and comprises an arrangement for over-bed firing. This is being used for its first commercial-scale application in the Cottbus facility in Germany. In order to maintain a constant flue gas temperature over the entire load range, a small quantity of light oil is injected into the freeboard when operating at part-load. The combustion of this additional secondary fuel increases the temperature of the flue gases, hence the inlet temperature of the expander section of the gas turbine. Overall, this results in an improvement in the plants part-load efficiency. In addition, such a system maintains the appropriate conditions for non-selective NOx reduction with ammonia, close to those

63

achieved at full load. Freeboard firing is also claimed to be beneficial for SOx, CO and N2O emissions at part-load. During the past few years, freeboard firing using secondary fuel has been extensively tested by ABB Carbon in its pilot plant and also at the Vartan facility in Stockholm. From 1997, ABB Carbon began offering the system with commercial guarantees. Fly Ash Recirculation (0-Stage Cyclone) It is well known that in FBC technologies, the recirculation of fly ash improves both sorbent utilisation and combustion efficiency. This impacts positively on environmental performance, overall plant efficiency, and plant economics. In the case of PFBC, such a recirculation system has been under development (since 1994) by ABB Carbon. The term adopted indicates that an additional cyclone is now located before the existing primary and secondary cyclone trains. The aim of the programme has been the development of a system to improve PFBC process performance in terms of improved sorbent utilisation (ie lower Ca:S ratio), and improved combustion efficiency, especially with low reactivity fuels such as petcoke and anthracite. Process development proceeded via cold modelling followed by hot testing in ABBs 1MWth PFBC pilot plant in Sweden. The results led to the involvement of the Electric Power Development Company, owners of the Wakamatsu PFBC plant in Japan, and IHI. A programme of test work was carried out using the IHI 3MWth pilot plant and the Wakamatsu plant subsequently retrofitted with the fly ash recirculation system. This comprised a circulating cyclone and ceramic tube filter. The system was installed in 1998 and was fully operational by the latter part of the year. To date, ~3000 hours of successful operations have been achieved with three different bituminous coals and Japanese limestone. Operational data has confirmed the effectiveness of the recirculation system in terms of sorbent utilisation and combustion efficiency. Broadened Range of Fuels ABB Carbon has demonstrated that its bubbling PFBC technology can provide significant advantages when operating on low grade fuels such as high ash brown coal, petcoke and oil shale. The company is pursuing a programme to evaluate the further use of such fuels, both alone and in combination with other feedstocks, in order to broaden the range of fuels applicable to bubbling bed PFBC, thus increasing process flexibility and reducing fuel costs. . Increased Thermal Efficiencies PFBC plants currently in operation are characterised by the relatively modest turbine inlet temperature (TIT)of ~850oC. Development of hybrid PFBC cycles with higher inlet temperatures will continue. Present PFBC technology has resulted in plants with efficiencies ~46%. However, there is potential for further improvements, possibly up to the range 5053%. This will require increasing the turbine inlet temperature through the combustion of a topping fuel, which can be gas generated in a partial gasifier. The resulting char could then be burnt in the PFBC boiler. Further efficiency increases can also be achieved through the application of more advanced steam cycles and overall, it is suggested that PFBC plant efficiencies in the range 50-53% will become feasible in the relatively near future. This, in practice, could result in fuel savings of

64

10-15%, compared with conventional power plant. The further development of hot gas filtration systems will also be important in developing further the potential of PFBC systems.

6. 6.1

MARKET POTENTIAL Introduction This section of the report provides an assessment of the likely global markets for fluidised bed combustion in terms of market size, location, etc. and to comment on the prospects for UK suppliers and manufacturers. In the assessment which follows particular focus is made on the market potential for coal fired fluidised bed combustion systems and on the utility-scale power generation market since this is likely to be the dominant market sector for FBC systems in the foreseeable future, although industrial scale plant based on other fuels and wastes will continue to have a role. However, the analysis of regional development and adoption trends presented elsewhere in the report has illustrated the dominance of coal in the worldwide FBC capacity mix.

6.2

Assessment of Commercial Aspects Current electricity market In order to develop a picture of the future market potential for fluidised bed combustion systems it is necessary first to assess the current size of the global electricity market and the role of coal within that market. This information will then form a basis for analysis of forward trends on a global and then regional basis. The latest estimates of total worldwide electricity generating capacity available from sources such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the US Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that total installed capacity worldwide is some 3075GW. Actual total worldwide generation in 1996 quoted by the IEA was 13650TWh, which is consistent with the above capacity figure on the basis of an annual average load factor for all operating plant of just over 50%, which is considered reasonable. IEA statistics further indicate that coal fired generation accounted for 38.4% of world electricity generation in 1996, the most recent year for which information is readily available. Figure 6.1 illustrates the geographical distribution of this coal fired generation and further serves to highlight the most significant countries insofar as coal fired power generation is concerned. Of the total worldwide installed electrical generation capacity of around 3075GW, some two thirds is thermal generation with a very substantial proportion of this being coal-based. To place the current contribution of fluidised bed combustion in perspective it is noted from Section 4 that CFBC capacity installed worldwide is around 65GW thermal which would equate broadly to 20GW electric, and PFBC accounts for just over 1.1GW electric. It is therefore evident that utility scale fluidised bed combustion is contributing only a very small percentage of world coal fired generating capacity at present.

65

Future Trends in Electricity Demand There is a general consensus among reputable forecasters such as the IEA and the EIA that world electricity generation is likely to exhibit a steady and sustained rate of growth over the period to 2020. For example, the EIA forecast in their International Energy Outlook 1999 Reference Case that electricity will continue to be the fastest growing form of energy consumption, rising to almost 22 000TWh in 2020. This represents an annual average growth in generation of just over 2.5%. This average, however, masks a relatively broad range of growth rates within individual countries or regions as shown in Table 6.1. In the following subsections comment is made on individual regions or countries with the objective of narrowing the focus to the key countries where high growth rates are expected to be coupled with a high degree of dependence on coal, thereby creating at least in principle the most favourable conditions for FBC deployment in the utility sector. China Chinas electric power industry is currently experiencing an oversupply problem, due in part to slower Chinese economic growth arising from the Asian economic crisis. The Chinese government has responded to the short-term oversupply in part by implementing a drive to close down small thermal power plants and imposing a moratorium on approval of new power plant construction (with a few exceptions). Most of the small plants being closed are diesel or coal-fired plants which were opened by provincial or municipal governments as demand grew in the 1980s, and are relatively inefficient and environmentally damaging. Chinese officials have stated that the moratorium on new power plant construction will remain in place for two years, and three years for new coal-fired plants. To help provide a measure of protection to Chinas domestic power equipment manufacturers during this period, a moratorium on purchases of foreign built plant with a capacity of less than 600MW has been imposed. Even so, as of the beginning of 1999, there was a total of 70GW of new capacity under construction or with final approval, so there will still be a significant capacity increase in the near future. Notwithstanding the above comments, the growth projection of 5.7% per annum over the period to 2020 implies a very major programme of capacity addition over that period. China is by far the largest economy in developing Asia, accounting for roughly one-third of the regions economic activity. Overall, China is expected to add more to its electricity generation capacity than any other nation. The nations reliance on coal for electricity generation is forecast by the EIA to remain roughly stable at roughly 75% of the total. In 1996, total electricity generation in China was 1080TWh from a total capacity of around 237GW of which 179GW was thermal capacity, mostly coal fired. Assuming the 5.7% annual average growth rate in demand as per Table 6.1 a total generation in 2020 of 4085TWh can be forecast of which coal may be expected to contribute 3060TWh. On the not unreasonable assumption that the coal plants will operate in 2020 at broadly the same annual average load factor as implicit in the 1996 data, which can be calculated to be ~52%, generation of 3060TWh in 2020 would imply an installed coal capacity of some 680GW by that year, an increase of 500GW in total or an average annual growth of about 20GW over the period 1996-2020. Clearly this is a very substantial rate of growth of capacity addition.

66

As has been noted previously, China already has a long standing commitment to FBC and consequently suppliers of such units may expect to pick up a significant share of the expected growth in the coal fired utility generation sector. It is difficult to speculate on what share of the market this might be but it is clear from the analysis elsewhere in the report that there is a high level of commitment to CFBC and it would not be unreasonable to postulate a market penetration in the range 25-40%. If a relatively conservative estimate of 25% is used, this would translate into an annual FBC capacity installation rate of 5GW. The share of this market that will be available to international bidders rather than local manufacturers is likely to be restricted, unless a significant element of the capacity growth is financed through the international commercial banking sector which would most likely impose covenants relating to international competitive tendering. India India is second only to China among developing countries in terms of growth of population and economic activity. In the EIA International Energy Outlook 1999 Reference Case (IEO99), the nation is projected to increase its consumption of electricity at a 4.9% average annual rate from 1996 through 2020 as shown in the Table 6.1. However, the current heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation is expected to lessen somewhat over the next 25 years. By 2020, coals share of the market is expected to decline to 62% from 79% in 1996. Natural gas is expected to largely make up for coals lost share, accounting for 14% of the electricity fuels market in 2020, compared with 5% in 1996. Indias use of nuclear and hydropower for electricity generation is also projected to increase. In 1996, IEA statistics indicate that total electricity generation in India was 435TWh from a total capacity of around 97GW. Coal fired generation was 318TWh from a capacity of around 70GW. Assuming the 4.9% annual average growth rate in demand as per the EIA International Energy Outlook 1999 reference case data shown in Table 6.1, one may forecast a total generation in 2020 of 1370TWh of which coal may be expected to contribute 850TWh, again on the basis of the EIA analysis of future fuel mix in the generation portfolio. On the not unreasonable assumption that the coal fired plants will operate in 2020 at broadly the same annual average load factor as implicit in the 1996 data, which can be calculated to be ~52%, generation of 850TWh in 2020 would imply an installed coal capacity of some 190GW by that year, an increase of 120GW in total or an average annual growth of about 5GW over the period 1996-2020. Although less substantial than in the case of China, this is still nevertheless a very substantial rate of growth of coal fired capacity addition. Indias government is currently encouraging the construction of very large plants termed mega-projects. These are defined as plants with capacity of more than 1,000MW for thermal plants and more than 500MW for hydroelectric plants. Coal fired plants currently under development in line with this policy include: A 1040MW coal fired plant at Vishakapatnam A 1072MW coal fired plant at Bhadrawati A 1070MW thermal plant at Korba A 1000MW coal fired plant at Mangalore A 1000 to 1500MW coal fired plant planned for Cuddalore.

67

If this policy of large scale thermal capacity increments is continued, the likely market penetration of fluidised bed combustion technology in the utility sector will be modest to small, since current FBC designs are limited to around 300MWe. However a number of developers of independent power projects have expressed reservations over the policy because they do not at present qualify for import duty exemptions which are available to importers of equipment for larger projects. A reasonable view might be that FBC plant could achieve a market penetration of around 5% over the timeframe of the forecast, corresponding to 6GW of FBC capacity. In the short term, the prospects for FBC are clearly not especially favourable. However, if the policy framework which encourages large plant is reversed, the prospects for FBC could be significantly better, particularly as Indian coals are typically low quality and hence suited for FBC applications. Further speculation on the likelihood of a policy change is not considered appropriate. Other Developing Asian Nations Developing Asian nations, other than China and India which are discussed above, are expected to have rapid growth in electricity consumption over the coming years. Although in the near term many other Asian economies have slipped into recession their previous economic growth rates are expected to be re-established over the next few years. Electricity consumption for the region is expected to grow at a 3% average annual rate between 1996 and 2020. Coal plays a much smaller role in the electricity industries of other developing nations of Asia than it does in China and India. In 1996, the region as a whole depended on coal for 31% of generation, renewables for 21%, and oil for 20%. By 2020, however, oil is projected to account for only 16% of the electricity fuels market in the other developing Asia region. Renewables are also expected to decline in importance, with a projected 16% share in 2020. For the most part, natural gas is expected to supplant oil and renewables in the regions electricity generation mix, increasing from 21% of the electricity fuels market in 1996 to 33% in 2020. In the near term, the most rapid growth will be in the use of imported LNG. On the basis of the above forecasts the prospects for deployment of coal-based FBC for utility scale power generation in the region would seem to be rather limited. Japan As the Table 6.1 indicates, Japans annual growth in electricity consumption is expected to average 1 to 2% over the period 1996-2020, reflecting the nations advanced level of economic development and slow population growth. Currently, Japan produces one-third of its electricity with nuclear power. Japan is expected to continue construction of nuclear power plants, slightly increasing its reliance on nuclear power from 33% of its total electricity needs in 1996 to 34% in 2020. On the other hand, growing public opposition to nuclear power could intensify in the future particularly in the light of a number of incidents in recent years that have undermined public confidence in the technology. Japans dependence on natural gas for electricity generation is also expected to grow slightly in the forecast, mostly in the form of LNG. Japan is by far the worlds largest importer of LNG, most of which comes from Indonesia and Malaysia.

68

By 2020 coal is expected to account for around 18% of the generation in Japan, based on the EIA projections. In 1996, total generation was 1003TWh from a total capacity of 210GW of which some 36GW is coal fired capacity. Assuming a 1.5% annual average growth rate in demand, ie at the centre of the range in Table 6.1, a total generation in 2020 of 1435TWh of which coal may be expected to contribute 260TWh can be forecast. On the not unreasonable assumption that the coal plants will operate in 2020 at broadly the same annual average load factor as implicit in the 1996 data, which can be calculated to be ~54%, generation of 260TWh in 2020 would imply an installed coal capacity of some 55GW by that year, an increase of 19GW in total or an average annual growth of about 750MW. Given the importance attached to thermal efficiency of coal fired plant in Japan, since the country imports virtually all of its steam coal, and the significant environmental driving forces, the prospects for uptake of fluidised bed technology must be considered to be quite favourable. This is already being observed in the significant uptake of PFBC systems mentioned elsewhere in the report and. Providing that the fleet of PFBC plants in Japan operate satisfactorily, and in particular the relatively large scale units, it would appear probable that further capacity of this type will be ordered. Although it is difficult to quantify, a base level of market penetration of 15% can be assumed. The main competition for fluidised beds for increasing coal based utility capacity will most probably come from other forms of advanced clean coal technology such as IGCC and supercritical pf plant. Circulating fluidised bed plants would appear to have an ongoing role in the industrial market with around 1.9GW thermal already installed and reasonable prospects for further growth. Central and South America For the forecast period, after developing Asia, Central and South America is projected to realise the fastest growth in electricity consumption. In the IEO99 reference case, the regions electricity use is expected to average 4.5-percent growth per year between 1996 and 2020. Brazil, which accounts for about half the regions economic activity and population, is expected to see electricity consumption growth of nearly 5% annually. The region is projected to rely increasingly on natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation, with the gas share of the electricity market growing from 10% in 1996 to 34% in 2020. Currently, the regions energy mix is dominated by hydroelectric power. Oil, coal, and nuclear together account for 14% of the regions electricity generation. That share is expected to remain relatively stable over the forecast period with coal taking around 4% of the generation portfolio in 1996 and projected to account for 3% in 2020. An aggregation of electricity generation in the countries of the Central and South American region indicates a total generation of around 609TWh in 1996. On a 4.5 % annual growth rate as indicated in Table 6.1, electricity generation in the region in 2020 would be forecast to be of the order of 1750TWh of which around 52TWh would be from coal. Again on the assumption that the coal-fired generation operates at a load factor of 50%, the implied capacity in 1996 is around 5.5GW and in 2020 it is around 11.7GW. There would therefore appear to be a prospect of some 6GW of capacity addition over the 25 year timeframe of the forecast, or 240MW per annum on an annual average basis. This is modest and is likely to be limited to the countries with significant coal reserves, namely Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela. The proportion of this capacity which might be secured by FBC is difficult to speculate upon but a reasonable estimate of the uptake might be 10-20% of the available capacity growth. If 15% as a central estimate is assured, this would imply around 1GW over the forecast period.

69

Western Europe Western Europe is projected to average roughly 2% annual growth in electricity consumption from 1996 to 2020, based in part on the expectation that current measures aimed at unifying the region both financially and economically will improve its long-term prospects for growth. Most of the increase is expected to be met by gas-fired generation. For more than two decades, Western Europe has been reducing its reliance on coal and oil as electricity generation fuels. They accounted for 40% and 22% of the regions generation market, respectively, in 1970 but only 26% and 8% in 1996. By 2020, coals share of the market is expected to slip to 16%, and oils share is expected to remain at 8%. In 1996 total electricity generation in Western Europe was 2588TWh and on the basis of a 2 % per annum growth this might be expected to reach 4162TWh by 2020. However, if coals share of this falls as projected to 16%, coal based generation in Western Europe in 2020 would be 666TWh, compared with 672TWh in 1996. On this basis the outlook for significant growth in coal fired capacity in Western Europe taken as a whole would seem to be poor, and the likelihood of substantial new FBC facilities, at least in the utility sector, must therefore be viewed as relatively improbable. Further industrial units may, however, continue to be ordered. Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union The FSU and much of Eastern Europe suffer from an antiquated electricity supply infrastructure. Future investment will be directed in large part to upgrading the industry to the standards of industrialised nations rather than to investment in new capacity. Indeed, some commentators hold the view that installed capacity in this region is likely to fall in the short to medium term. Coal accounted for 26% of electricity generation in Eastern Europe and the FSU in 1996, in which year the total electricity generation in the region was 1558TWh. By 2020, in contrast, coals share is expected to fall to 12%, largely being replaced by hydropower and Russian natural gas. The outlook for FBC is uncertain and so it is not worthwhile to quantify the levels of utility FBC capacity that might be deployed in future. It should be noted, however, that CFBC is beginning to be deployed in retrofit situations in, for example, Poland, in response to the governments policy of reducing SO2 emissions in the energy sector, and also in the Czech Republic where similar environmental driving forces are operating. CFBC is also the technology of choice for future deployment in Estonia for power generation based on oil shale combustion. Slovakia is also beginning to deploy CFBC, again primarily for environmental reasons. Much of this commitment to clean coal technology in Eastern Europe can be traced to the desire for accession to the EU as early as possible and hence the need to conform with various EU directives, including the Large Combustion Plant Directive. North America Electricity consumption in the United States is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.2% per year from 1996 to 2020. Demand growth in the United States has slowed considerably since the 1960s, when electricity consumption was rising at a rate of 7% per year.

70

Coals share of the U.S. electricity fuels market is expected to remain roughly constant at around 50% over the period covered by the EIA International Energy Outlook 1999 Reference Case. Natural gas and, to a much smaller extent, coal, will largely supplant nuclear power in the United States. No new nuclear power plants have come on line in the United States since 1996, and none is expected in the future. In 1996, IEA statistics indicate that total electricity generation in the USA was 3652TWh from a total capacity of around 780GW. Coal fired generation was 1924TWh from a capacity of around 320GW. Assuming the 1.2 % annual average growth rate in demand as per the EIA International Energy Outlook 1999 reference case data shown in Table 6.1, one may forecast a total generation in 2020 of 4860TWh of which coal may be expected to contribute 2560TWh, on the basis that coal is expected to maintain broadly the same share of generation as at present. This would imply an installed coal capacity of some 425GW by 2020, an increase of 105GW in total or an average annual growth of just over 4GW over the period 1996-2020. Within this, the prospects for FBC must be regarded as reasonably good once the technology has been established at unit sizes of 300MW such as should be demonstrated by the Jacksonville Electric Authority project under the Clean Coal Technology Program. In particular CFBC is likely to find a following amongst IPP project developers where it offers the prospect of short construction times, early entry into revenue generating service, capability of using opportunistic fuels etc. There is, however, some risk that the drive to ever more stringent environmental standards may lead to a preference for other forms of advanced coal technology such as IGCC, provided that this technology matches the expectations of the developers undertaking the small number of demonstration projects worldwide and provided also that the expected reductions in capital cost materialise in practice. On current judgement a reasonable estimate of the level of FBC market penetration in the USA coal fired utility market might be 15%, corresponding to around 600MW per annum. Canadas electricity sector is much less dependent on coal than that of the USA, with coal based generation in 1996 estimated to be 104TWh from a capacity of around 22GW. Many forecasters hold the view that the share of coal in the generation portfolio will remain broadly constant in future, at around 19%. On this basis and assuming the 1.4 % annual average growth in generation implicit in the EIA International Energy Outlook 1999 Reference Case, there would appear to be a prospect of some 8GW of coal fired capacity addition over the timeframe of the forecast. This equates to a very modest annual average capacity addition of just over 300MW. FBC should be an attractive prospect for this market given the implied relatively small incremental capacity additions and it is estimated that perhaps 20% of the future coal fired generation could be based on FBC. Over the period to 2020 this equates to some 1.6GW of FBC capacity. Africa South Africa accounts for 61% of all the electricity generated on the African continent and, in combination with Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco, 89% of the continents total electricity production. The continent as a whole is expected to see electricity consumption grow at a 3% annual rate from 1996 to 2020 on the Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook 1999 Reference Case.

71

South Africas generation capacity of around 35GW is primarily coal based but also includes one nuclear power station at Koeberg (1930MW), two gas turbine facilities, two conventional hydroelectric plants, and two hydroelectric pumped-storage stations. In addition to serving the domestic market, the national utility Eskom also exports power to Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Coal fired generation in 1996 amounted to 185TWh. The South African Government has recently granted Eskom permission to sell for scrap three coal fired power plants which are currently decommissioned. The total capacity of these three plants is 1460MW. Three further coal fired power plants with a total capacity of 3800MW are currently mothballed. Projected electricity demand growth could require that these three plants return to operation and the government is currently reviewing proposals for their reintroduction to service. The existence of the significant capacity in mothballed plants coupled with the tradition of construction of large (1000MW+) coal fired facilities would not seem to present a particularly encouraging scenario for the uptake of FBC technology in the South African utility market. Egypt currently has installed generating capacity of 16.6GW, with plans to add 9.3 additionalGW (mainly gas-fired) by 2010. Around 84% of Egypts electric generating capacity is thermal (gas turbines), with the remaining 16% hydroelectric, mostly from the Aswan High Dam. All oil-fired plants are being converted to run on natural gas, in a programme that will be completed by the end of 1999. There is no coal capacity at present and the likelihood of any future coal based power plant construction is remote, rendering the prospects for FBC essentially negligible. Algeria currently has installed generation capacity of 6GW, based principally on gas and distillate. As with Egypt, the prospects for FBC are considered negligible. Overall, it is not considered that Africa will offer a significant market for FBC plant in the foreseeable future. Middle East The Middle East depends heavily on petroleum to fuel its electricity generation. Oil-fired generation accounted for 38% of all electricity produced in 1996 and natural gas 36%. These levels are expected to be broadly maintained over the period to 2020 covered by the EIA forecast. The prospects for coal are therefore considered negligible as, indeed, are the prospects for FBC in this region. Summary Table 6.2 summarises the conclusions of the above regional analysis of the prospects for coal fired FBC in the utility scale generation sector in the period 1996 to 2020. It is clear that the great majority of projected coal fired capacity addition over the timeframe considered is projected to be in Asia, in particular in China and India which account for about 80% of the total. The annual average coal fired capacity addition worldwide on these figures is around 30GW. The prospects for FBC are very difficult to judge but the most promising areas

72

for FBC deployment can be seen to be China, India and North America. These conclusions relate to the utility sector and it is likely that there will continue to be orders for FBC for coal and non-coal industrial applications; however, the worldwide market for these will be relatively very small compared to coal fired utility opportunities.. The key driving forces for the introduction of FBC are likely to continue to be environmental and financial, with project developers seeking to take advantage of features of the technology covered elsewhere in this review. Over the timeframe to 2020, there exists a possibility that other clean coal technologies such as IGCC will reach the stage of development at which the technology is: proven to the point where risk-averse utilities and financial institutions have full confidence in it; available from a wide range of licensors; available at capital costs lower than projected for the first few units which have been demonstration plants by nature; and with efficiency and environmental performance that FBC may prove unable to match. If this set of circumstances transpires then it is likely that FBC for utility scale power generation will essentially have a window of opportunity for deployment before it is superseded by more advanced technology. In terms of PFBC technology, further refinements of ABB Carbons bubbling bed technology will continue in an effort to increase competitiveness. Additional plants are likely to be built in the period up to 2010, although indications are that the number may be small. In China, bubbling bed-based technology, of local design, is likely to achieve demonstration status within the same timescale. Primarily in North America, pressurised circulating fluidised bed combustion is likely to reach demonstration scale in the period 2005-2010. 6.3 Prospects for UK plc The prospects for UK industry in exploiting the potential market for fluidised bed combustion systems have been considered. Although much of the pioneering R&D work on pressurised fluidised bed combustion and on bubbling bed combustion was undertaken in the UK, this early leading position of technical excellence was not converted into a commercially successful business sector, for a variety of reasons. Amongst the most significant of these was the policy, while the UK electricity sector was in public ownership, of adding coal-fired capacity in the form of large (2000MW) plant based on the proven technology of pulverised fuel combustion, a policy which persisted during the key development years of FBC and which must now with hindsight be reorganised for stifling the commercial exploitation of FBC for utility application in the UK. Consequently, the prospects for UK industry to exploit the potential worldwide market for FBC would appear to be severely restricted, for a variety of reasons: the UK does not have a strong home market for the technology with only a small number of FBC installations and no major national programme of technology development as a consequence, very few UK organisations have the capability to provide FBC technology international competitors are now well established in the technology marketplace as can be seen from examination of the reference lists presented elsewhere in the report.

This view appears to be shared by the UK FORESIGHT Clean Coal Power Generation Technology Task Force that reported on R, D and D priorities for cleaner coal technology in October 1998. They stated that AFBC and PFBC are not current UK strengths.

73

There would appear to be a small niche in the home market in establishing BFBC systems for non-coal applications but the export potential is likely to be limited. The best prospects for UK industry and other business in this sector would in fact appear to be in the field of promoting technology transfer and in consulting. Both of these activities are able to make use of the expertise that remains vested in UK organisations. The key focus area would appear to lie in advising clients of the merits of different technology options from a position of impartiality.

7. 7.1

UK ACTIVITIES AND PROSPECTS Introduction Background information and a critical review of UK capabilities are presented, including a summary of R&D and D activities involving the UK at national and international levels. This is followed by an assessment of areas where further R&D&D activities in the UK would be beneficial to UK plc.

7.2

UK Capabilities As has been noted previously in several sections of this report, the major driving force for FBC in the UK was vested in the British Coal Corporation. In particular, the major pioneering BFBC and PFBC development was undertaken at CURL (Leatherhead), CRE and Grimethorpe. In the former case there was, for many activities, significant collaboration with UK boilermakers, while PFBC was an international collaboration effort with input both by government and private companies. However, for the reasons noted earlier, the UK failed to fully exploit its technological developments and, following the demise of the British Coal Corporation, the developmental driving force was severely curtailed. Indeed it can be argued that the UK no longer has the strength in depth to undertake major technology developments in the coal and combustion related sector. However, as noted in Section 5, the driving force for FBC will primarily be incremental improvements to the four basic technology variants including, in particular, enhanced fuel flexibility and environmental performance. On such a basis the UK still has something to offer. Thus, FBC capabilities continue to exist within the UK in several forms. These include expertise in terms of design, operation and manufacture of FBC facilities, held primarily by a limited number of FBC vendors, some based in the UK and others that maintain a presence in the UK. With current multi-national corporations, definition of what constitutes a UK plc company is somewhat arbitrary. As a starting point for FBC vendors, it is assumed that it is a company which has established manufacturing and/or design facilities for FBC in the UK. On such a basis, the following companies can be included: Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd. Aztec Energy Ltd Resource Development Engineering Wykes Engineering OSC/Thyssen

74

Of these, at present, Mitsui Babcock maintains and supports overseas licences for BFBC in a number of countries, but is not believed to be active in furthering BFBC sales. For CFBC, Mitsui Babcock have advised that the multisolids CFBC technology as owned by Mitsui Energy Ltd will be vested in the UK company. There are tentative plans to establish some form of FBC testing facility based at Renfrew, using rigs gained from British Coal, but as yet it is understood that no decision has been made. Thus, bearing in mind the limited take-up worldwide of the multisolids CFBC technology, it remains to be seen whether CFBC will become a major product stream for Mitsui Babcock. Of the other companies listed, these are concerned, at present, with UK activities, to establish FBC for wastes disposal. All companies are active and see reasonable UK prospects (see also Section 7.3) but as noted in Section 6.3 the export opportunities are likely to be limited. Besides vendors, there are independent research and consultancy organisations plus universities that maintain and offer FBC support and expertise. The range of test facilities associated with FBC that is maintained by these various organisations, is mostly laboratoryand/or bench-scale. However, there are a number of pilot-scale facilities also available although these are limited to CRE Group Ltd. Additionally PowerGen plc and Mitsui Babcock offer consultancy and technical support services on FBC in the UK and overseas. The UK Section of the CUSTNET Register was reviewed and analysed to determine those UK industrial companies and universities who had identified FBC as a topic of interest (see Table 7.1 and 7.2). Of these various UK-based organisations active in the field of FBC technology, CRE Group Ltd remains the most active. CRE provides assistance to energy users for improving existing systems and developing new technologies with improved environmental performance. The expertise and experience gained over a period of some thirty years of activity in these fields now form part of the core skills offered by CRE to its commercial clients both in the UK and overseas. A few examples of international consulting projects carried out by the company with a focus on fluidised bed combustion are presented below: for various clients, often with EU support, provision of technical expertise, costing information and financial analysis of the construction of demonstration units on behalf of various clients, evaluation of the combustion and environmental characteristics of various fuels in bubbling FBC. The work has been carried out in CREs purpose-built atmospheric bubbling fluidised bed combustion test rigs. provision of detailed reviews of future power generation options in nations in transition. This has included a technical evaluation of coals for application in CFBC and PFBC systems, and an assessment of the associated longer term environmental benefits of introducing these technologies compared to existing pulverised fuel fired plant. Some of these studies have been used by international financial institutions in their power sector lending policy in certain of these nations. On behalf of an Indian client, CRE carried out a fluidised bed boiler design suitable for the clients coal. Scope of work included preliminary and subsequent detailed design using CRE

75

FBC design software; training of Indian engineer in FBC boiler design using CRE computer design package; environmental calculations; and industrial application training. The final design was developed in order to allow it to be connected to the clients standard water tube boiler. In the UK CRE has continued to work for the introduction of FBC into many applications within different industrial sectors, often via collaborative R&D activities. For some of these activities CRE has and continues to work closely with selected universities (see next section). 7.3 UK Input to R, D & D Activities There is currently a relatively low level of activity in the UK in terms of FBC-related activities. Indeed no fluidised bed combustion projects are currently being supported by the DTI Cleaner Coal Technology Programme although one related project is to be supported (using fluidised beds for gas cleaning). At present there are three industrially focused projects, with EC support, together with some rather more academically based work at universities. Industrial focused projects The co-combustion of coal with a high energy fuel recovered from plastics and paper waste. This is an ECSC supported project being carried forward by a consortium whose work is being co-ordinated by CRE Group Ltd. Issues being investigated and the individual project partners are: Area of investigation Fuel development and preparation issues Techno-economic assessment Plant process and environmental issues Partner Fibre Fuel and CRE Group Ltd. University of Ulster Slough Heat & Power, VTT Energy (Finland), Coeltec e Ambiente (Portugal), University of Leeds

The total project budget is 2.3 M Euros. The focus of the work is to assist Slough Heat & Power to improve fuel flexibility on their 95MW CFBC CHP system in the UK. The second project is an ECSC supported project entitled Improving the performance and environmental impact of co-utilisation of coal and waste in FBC boilers designed for coal firing. The project partners and their individual areas of activity are: Area of investigation Implications of burning waste on boiler controls, environmental emissions and solid residues Fuel and boiler testing programme Impacts of burning waste on particulate fragmentation, partitioning of heavy metals Heavy metal behaviour, release of toxic trace elements, partitioning studies Partner CRE Group Ltd. UPM Kymmene Group (Caledonian Paper) IVD Imperial College

76

CRE Group Ltd. is also acting as project co-ordinator. The total project budget is 1.6 M Euros, with the aim being to enhance fuel flexibility on the 45MW CFBC of Caledonian Paper. The third project is a Joule project entitled Improved Energy Generation Based on Biomass FBC with Minimum Emissions. A European-based consortium comprising six organisations is investigating a number of issues. These include Wykes Engineering as plant manufacturer; CRE Group Ltd. is acting as a sub-contractor to Wykes, and is investigating: NOx emission reduction techniques Effects of biomass fuels, bed materials and additives on bed and fly ash agglomeration Fuel supply/utilisation logistics The total project budget is 1.3M Euros, with the aim being to identify appropriate bed materials, additives and operating conditions to enable biomass to be burnt efficiently and reliably in FBC systems whilst minimising the emissions of nitrogen oxides. Current University-Based Projects and Proposals The universities confirmed as being actively involved in projects that are completely or partially centred on FBC investigations are shown in Table 7.3. 7.4 Areas for Further R, D & D Activities in the UK The opinions of a range of individuals and organisations actively involved in the development and commercialisation of FBC-based technologies were canvassed and a number of areas requiring further research and development identified. These are outlined below together with consideration of whether the UK can undertake the work and, more, importantly whether it is in the interest of UK plc for UK companies to undertake the work. These are: Improved understanding of the combustion process, to aid scale-up of CFBC technology. Improved emissions control for gaseous and solid pollutants for BFBC and CFBC applications Increased utilisation of FBC residues Increased fuel flexibility with particular reference to wastes and biomass derived feedstocks. Improved reliability through resolution of materials related issues.

All such topics can be tackled by UK technical organisations. However, given the dearth of UK FBC vendors, the likelihood of industrial support will be limited. Currently the priority areas are seen as: Increased fuel flexibility (particularly use of biomass and wastes) Increased utilisation of residues

UK end-users and vendors have expressed support, in principle, for such activities. As such, the near-medium term driving force would appear to be the local UK niche market for industrial FBC, primarily for the use of wastes and biomass derived feedstocks.

77

7.5

Other Prospects Although strictly not an R,D & D issue, as has been outlined previously, there is scope for UK companies to apply their expertise overseas in developing and industrialising nations and nations in transition, with regard to provision of technical assistance for industrial and likely refurbishment.

8.

CONCLUSIONS Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion BFBC was originally considered as a potential technology for coal-fired power generation. However while there have been some large (up to 180MWe) demonstration units in the USA and Japan the technology has been eclipsed by CFBC. Rather it has established a niche at the small-medium industrial scale with the very great majority of units in the range 3 100MWth and a few in the range 150 280MWth. Although many units presently operate on coal, other fuel types are becoming of increasing importance. Many of these are waste-derived and/or problem feedstocks that would either be sent to landfill or be otherwise disposed of. Even when burning such fuels, overall energy efficiency and environmental performance can be good with a variety of techniques available to be used to minimise environmental impact. There are numerous organisations who continue to manufacture and supply BFBC, including Kvaerner who are the market leader for the larger scale units. However, future technology development is likely to be limited to ensuring fuel flexibility on existing designs for the increasing use of biomass and/or waste as feedstocks with or instead of coal. There are no major industrially focused international R&D projects underway. There is however, a potential UK niche in waste to energy schemes which is referred to below. Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion In contrast to BFBC, CFBC technology has become increasingly established for a variety of applications including steam raising, cogeneration and power generation. CFBC is a recognised as a versatile technology capable of burning a wide range of coals and other feedstocks; the list of fuels utilised successfully continues to grow. Different plant configurations are now available from major vendors. The leaders are FosterWheeler/Ahlstrom and Lurgi Lentjes Babcock, with the maximum unit size at present 250MWe. On a worldwide basis, the market opportunities appear good, with a potential market up to 2020 of some 150GW capacity being estimated. This represents some 20% of the likely global capacity increase for coal fired power generation over that time period. The market proposals are localised with the major opportunities being seen as China (125GW), although there are concerns regarding a true market being available to international suppliers, North America (17GW) and India (6GW). In terms of development requirements and opportunities, there are strong driving forces to improve competitiveness of the technology. The need is to improve overall cycle efficiency, minimise environmental impact while enhancing fuel flexibility, reduce capital costs and to

78

ensure effective scale up in order to compete over the full product range with pf units. There is a major US DoE programme to support US vendors in achieving these aims, while in Europe there is a nationally focussed R&D programme in France, various other national based R&D programmes, plus opportunities for EU industry to gain some development support from the European Commission. With regard to the use of CFBC in advanced combined cycles systems, while there have been a number of development activities, including one in the UK, all appear to be stalled. Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion PFBC offers the prospect of a coal/multi fuel-fired combined cycle process of higher efficiency than CFBC and, ultimately, of pf (under comparable steam cycle conditions). There is also scope for its use in a topping combined cycle advanced configuration to achieve still higher cycle efficiencies. To date the majority (seven of the eight) of PFBC plants operating as commercial prototypes have been based on ABB Carbon bubbling bed technology. Most have been based on their use of the smaller P200 module. However, the start of commercial operation of a plant using the scaled-up P800 module is imminent. Good environmental performance has been achieved with the present tranche of PFBC plants. Efforts are continuing to improve environmental impact further, reduce plant capital and operating costs, and increase flexibility through initiatives that include a broadened range of fuels. The R&D is driven by ABB Carbon, working with other institutes and universities where appropriate. Overall, the uptake of bubbling bed PFBC technology is progressing slowly although there are a number of proposals under consideration. PFBC technology is effectively excluded from some regions and market areas as a result of its perceived higher costs and complexity compared to competing systems. It is believed that the success of the scaled-up unit in Japan is critical to the success of the technology, as the major potential market is seen to be Japan (3GW) over the time period to 2020. The technology may well have a narrow window of opportunity and runs the risk of being overtaken by other combined cycle systems systems such as IGCC in the future. Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion is the alternative technology variant and remains at an earlier stage of development. Several major suppliers are actively developing their versions of the technology including Foster Wheeler and Lurgi Lentjes Babcock. PCFBC is being championed by the US DoE through several demonstration plants including a topping cycle concept. These should be completed before 2020 but market opportunities at the commercial scale cannot be predicted at this time. Capabilities and opportunities for UK plc. The prospects for UK industry in exploiting the potential market for fluidised bed combustion systems have been considered. Although much of the pioneering R&D work on pressurised fluidised bed combustion and on bubbling fluidisied bed combustion was undertaken in the UK, this early leading position of technical excellence was not converted into a commercially successful business sector, for a variety of reasons. Amongst the most significant of these was the policy, while the UK

79

electricity sector was in public ownership, of adding coal-fired capacity in the form of large (2000MW) plant based on the proven technology of pulverised fuel combustion, a policy which persisted during the key development years of FBC and which must now with hindsight be recognised for stifling the commercial exploitation of FBC for utility application in the UK. Consequently, the prospects for UK industry to exploit the potential worldwide market for FBC would appear to be severely restricted, for a variety of reasons: the UK does not have a strong home market for the technology with only a small number of FBC installations and no major national programme of technology development. as a consequence, very few UK organisations have the capability to provide FBC technology. international competitors are now well established in the technology marketplace as can be seen from examination of the reference lists presented elsewhere in the report.

This view appears to be shared by the UK FORESIGHT Clean Coal Power Generation Technology Task Force that reported on R, D and D priorities for cleaner coal technology in October 1998. They stated that AFBC and PFBC are not current UK strengths. Thus promoting technology transfer and consulting are activities that are able to make use of the expertise that remains vested in UK organisations. The key focus area would appear to lie in advising clients of the merits of different technology options from a position of impartiality. Those UK FBC vendors who have an interest include: Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd. Aztec Energy Ltd Resource Development Engineering Wykes Engineering OSC/Thyssen

Of these, at present, Mitsui Babcock maintains and supports overseas licences for BFBC in a number of countries, but is not believed to be active in furthering BFBC sales. For CFBC, Mitsui Babcock have advised that the multisolids CFBC technology as owned by Mitsui Energy Ltd will be vested in the UK company. There are tentative plans to establish some form of FBC testing facility based at Renfrew, using rigs gained from British Coal, but as yet it is understood that no decision has been made. Thus, bearing in mind the limited take-up worldwide of the multisolids CFBC technology, it remains to be seen whether CFBC will become a major product stream for Mitsui Babcock. Of the other companies listed, these are concerned, at present, almost only with purely UK activities, to establish FBC for wastes disposal. Besides vendors, there are independent research and consultancy organisations plus universities that maintain and offer FBC support and expertise. The range of test facilities associated with FBC that is maintained by these various organisations, is mostly laboratoryand/or bench-scale. However, there are a number of pilot-scale facilities also available although these are limited to CRE Group Ltd.

80

In terms of FBC R&D drivers these are: Improved understanding of the combustion process, to aid scale-up of CFBC technology. Improved emissions control for gaseous and solid pollutants for BFBC and CFBC applications. Increased utilisation of FBC residues. Increased fuel flexibility with particular reference to wastes and biomass derived feedstocks. Improved reliability through resolution of materials related issue.

All such topics can be tackled by UK technical organisations. However, given the dearth of UK FBC vendors, the likelihood of industrial support will be limited. Currently the priority areas are seen as: Increased fuel flexibility (particularly use of biomass and wastes) Increased utilisation of residues

UK end-users and vendors have expressed support, in principle, for such activities. As such, the near-medium term driving force would appear to be the local UK niche market for industrial FBC, but from a worldwide perspective this must be viewed as a small opportunity. Although strictly not an R&D and D issue, there is scope for UK companies to apply their expertise overseas in developing and industrialising nations and nations in transition, with regard to provision of technical assistance for industrial and utility refurbishment.

9.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CRE Group Limited wishes to acknowledge the contribution of a number of individuals and organisations to the discussion of potential future technology developments presented in Section 5 of this report. A full listing of those who contributed is given in Appendix C. The project was funded by the Department of Trade and Industrys Cleaner Coal Technology programme.

10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anon. PFBC Update. ABB Carbon Newsletter. n11. December 1997. Freeboard firing with commercial guarantees. Anon. Clean Coal Technology. Markets and opportunities to 2010. DTI Publication. IEA/OECD. 1996. p4 Anon. P200 - Competitive Clean Power with Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combined-cycle Plants. Descriptive brochure published and supplied by ABB Carbon. nd. Anon Cottbus opts for PFBC repowering. Reprint of article from Modern Power Systems. Supplied by ABB Carbon. 1998.

81

Anon. Combined cycle with pressurised fluidized bed combustion. UNIPEDE report. 02001Ren9405. Thermal Generation Study Committee. 20.01 THERCOALGAS. p15-16. Anon. Pressurised Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) World Bank website. http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/em/power/EA/mitigatn.pfbcsubs.stm E J Anthony & D L Granatstein. CANMET. Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion. p5. Copy of paper supplied by the authors. L Astrom & S Vayda. The Combustion of Sludge and Other Low Grade Waste Fuels. In FBC Technology and the Environmental Challenge. Adam Hilger. pp 83-93. D I Barnes (Ed). Enhanced Utilisation of Solid Residues Arising From Coal. ECSC Contract 7220-ED079. Proceedings of Workshop. Vienna. October 1998. In press. T H Brown. The use of PFBC ashes to ameliorate acid spoil conditions. Proc. International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. J M Bursi, L Lafanechere & L Jestin. Basic Design for a 600MWe CFBC Boiler (270b x 6000C) Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. S M Burwell et al. Fluidized Bed Combustion Ash Concrete. Proc. 12th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1993. pp847-858 W R Carsons et al. Process performance of TVAs 160MWe bubbling AFBC demonstration unit. Proc. 12th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1993. pp 102 1-1026. C B Carr & T W Price. The Disposal and Utilisation of AFBC Residues. Proc.Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. v2 1987. Published by ASME. L B Clarke. Applications for coal-use residues. IEACR/5O. IEA Coal Research publication. 1992. K Cleve. Latest Developments and Status of Long Term Experience in CFB-Technology. Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. P Colclough & C Carr. Disposal of fluidised bed ash. COAL. ROl 7. ETSU publication. 1994. R E Conn et al. Utilization of CFBC Fly Ash for Construction Applications. Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. F Engstrom, Foster Wheeler Development Corporation. Research Needs in Fluidized Bed Combustion. Copy of paper supplied by the author. November 1999 J Frigge et al. Leaching Properties of Dumped Fluidised Bed Combustion Residues. Proc. Conference on Fluidised Bed Combustion Assessment Concept Perspectives. Essen. nd

82

J R Grace (ed) et al. Circulating Fluidized Beds. Blackie Academic & Professional. London. 1997. p5 G Y Gunn. Coal brings energy flexibility to Hawaii. Power. April 1993. pp106 112. S A Jannson et al. Pressurised fluidized bed power plants. Proc. Energy 96 Conference. Haifa. 1996. S A Jannson & S-O Ostman. Status of PFBC and experience with materials performance during over 75000 hours of operation in ABB.s PFBC plants. Proc. Second International Workshop on Corrosion in Advanced Power Plants. Tampa. 1997. pp29-33. S A Jansson & J Anderson. Progress of ABB s PFBC Projects. Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. Jianyang Xie et al. Carbon Burn-out in an AFBC Boiler for Efficient Utilization of Coal Washery Rejects. Proc. 12th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1993. pp539544. Y Kawahara. Development and application of high-temperature corrosion-resistant materials and coatings for advanced waste-to-energy plants. Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Corrosion in Advanced Power Plants. Tampa. 1997. A G Kim. Environmental Remediation with Products of Fluidized Bed Combustion. Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. D M Lloyd et al. Metal Wastage in Fluidized-Bed Combustors. Materials Science and Engineering. 88. pp295-301. T J Logan. Use of combustion byproducts in biosolids stabilisation: The N- Viro Process. Proc 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. J Makansi. Special Report. Fluidized-bed Boilers. Reprinted from Power. nd. pp31-32 M D Mann & A K Henderson. Optimising Performance of the Heskett Station. Proc. 15th ASME International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1999. Savannah. A J Minchener (Ed). Utilisation of solid residues arising from coal. ECSC Contract 7220 ED-077. Proceedings of Workshop. Vienna. October 1998. In press. E D Montrone. Characteristics of bed material in FBC units. Proc. Workshop on Wear Potential of Bed Material in Fluidized-Bed Combustors. pp 251-262. J W Stallings (ed) EPRI TR- 100056. M Muthukrishnan et al. Salient Features and Operating Experience with Worlds First Rice Straw Fired Fluidised Bed Boiler in a 10MW Power Plant. Proc. 13th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1995. vi. pp609-6l4.

83

R A Newby et al. FBC Sulphur Removal - Do We Know Enough? Proc. 11th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. Montreal. pp65-7l. K-J Nilsson & L Anderson. ABB Carbon. Experience from ABBs PFBC Technology and its Application to Utility Size Power Plants. Proc. American Power Conference. Chicago. 1998. W B OBrien & M K Hill. TVAs 160MW Shawnee atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) demonstration unit 20,000 hr of operation. Proc. 12th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1993. pp1035-1038. D Scott & P-A Nilsson. Competitiveness of future coal-fired units in different countries. lEA publication CCC/14. 1999. p16 K Schulz, Schumacher Umwelt und Trenntechnik GmbH. EU Joule III Project. JOF3-CT95 0018. Final Report, as part of Work Package Co-gasification & Gas Quality Studies. 1999. In press. K M Sellakumar et al. Ahlstrom PYROFLOW pressurised fluidized bed technology development. Proc. of the Inst. Energy FBC Conference, published in FBC Technology and the Environmental Challenge. Adam Hilger. pp373-380. P K Sen & N D Josh. Fluidized bed combustion Indian experience. Proc.of the Inst.Energy FBC Conference, published in FBC Technology and the Environmental Challenge. Adam Hilger. pp95-l04. Ye Shenshou, Zang Ming & Arto Hotta Nejiang Power Plant Experiences with the Largest CFBC in China. Proc. Clean Coal Technologies Conference. Xiamen. 1997. Ye Shensou & Arto Hotta. Positive experience with the largest CFBC in China. Modern Power Systems. November 1998. pp33-35 L L Sloss. Residues from advanced coal-use. IEAPER/3O. lEA Coal Research publication. 1996. I M Smith. Management of AFBC residues. IEACR/2 1. IEA Coal Research publication. 1990. J Stringer. EPRI. Materials Issues in Pressurised Fluidized Bed Combustion. Copy of paper supplied by the Author. L Svensson & L Anderson. PFBC Clean Coal Technology The Competitive and Environmentally Responsible Choice. Proc. Second International Symposium on Clean Coal Technology. Beijing. 1999. pp602-612 G Valenti & A Testi. Performance of a pressurised fluidised bed combined cycle using high sulphur content coals. Proc. Power Gen Europe Conference. Milan. 1998. J M Wheeldon. Proc. A Review of PFBC Power Plant Designs. 13th Pittsburgh Coal Conference. 1996. pp247-260

84

P A Wheeler & N M Patel. Fluidised Bed Combustion of Municipal Waste. Proc. 13th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. 1995. Pp597-607 I G Wright. A review of experience of wastage in fluidized-bed boilers. Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Corrosion in Advanced Power Plants. Tampa. 1997. M Yamada. EPDCs R&D update on Wakamatsu SO MWAFBC demonstration and Takehara 350MW AFBC project. Proc. 11th ASME Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion 1991.

85

Table 2.1 Potential Utilisation Options for BFBC Residues Agriculture Liming agent Soil nutrient source Minesoil rehabilitation Building/structural material Cements Mortars Concretes Road base Strata control Masonry units Synthetic aggregates Bricks Tiles Mineral wool insulation Polymer fillers Pollution control Acidic Waste neutralisation SOx control Materials recovery Aluminium Carbon Sulphur

Table 2.2 Examples of CFBC Fuel Feedstock

Bituminous coal Subbituminous coal Anthracite Brown coal Lignite Anthracite culm Bit. coal waste (gob) Washery wastes Semi-anthracite Coke

Petcoke Oil shale Oil Natural gas Peat Paper mill sludges Water treatment sludges Waste oil Oil/water emulsions Tea leaves

MSW

Fibre rejects

Waste Rice husk paper Agricultura Almond shells l Wastes Wood bark Corn cob resides Wood Bitumen chips Sawdust Asphaltenes RDF Diatomite Straw Bagasse Waste plastics Shredded tyres De-inking sludges Off gases

Table 2.3 Fuel Flexibility in Selected LLB CFBC Plants Plant Chatham, Canada Duisburg, Germany Flensburg, Germany Berlin, Germany Kassel, Germany Wolfsburg, Germany Texas-New Mexico, USA Gardanne, France Lenzing, Austria Design fuel Coal, oil shale Bituminous coal Bituminous coal Bituminous coal, lignite Lignite Bituminous coal Lignite Brown coal RdF, rejects Additional fuel Petcoke, wood waste Various imported coals Various imported coals Cacao shells, wood waste Bituminous coal, petcoke Shredded tyres Petcoke, shredded tyres Pitch (proposed) Sewage sludge, wood waste, coal

Table 2.4 ABB PFBC Standard Modules Designation Nominal thermal input Net power (MWe) Net efficiency (%):LHV (%):HHV P200 ~200 85100 42.5 40.25 P800 ~800 360425 45 43

Table 2.5 Coal Types Utilised in ABB Carbon PFBC Plants Plant Coal type Escatro Tidd Varta n n lignite Ohi Polis o h 7-8 4 0.65 10 past e 15 paste Wakamat su Australia n 0.4 2-18 paste Cottbus Brown coal <0.8 5.5 dry Karita ligniteanthracite na <20 paste

Typical sulphur (%) Typical ash (%) 36 Coal feed dry

Table 2.6 Examples of Thermal Performance Data for Standard P200 PFBC Plant Petcok Low volatile e bit. coal 105 105 42 41 Medium vol. bit. coal 104 42 Sub-bit. coal 95 42 Brown coal 94 42

Net output (MWe) Net efficiency (%LHV)

Table 2.7 Sulphur Oxide Emissions from First Generation ABB PFBC Plant Plant Designed for Vartan 60 ppm 92.4% removal Ca:S 3.8 Escatron ~600 ppm 90% removal Ca:S 1.8 Tidd ~220 ppm 90% removal Ca:S 2.0 Wakamat <100 ppm su 95% removal Ca:S 4.9 Typical values 6-30 ppm 94-99% removal Ca:S 2.8-3.0 300-450 ppm 91-93% removal Ca:S 1.8-2.1 ~220 ppm 90% removal Ca:S 1.8-2.4 40-70 ppm 90-95% removal Ca:S 4.4 Best values <6 ppm >99% removal Ca:S 2.8 150 ppm 97% removal Ca:S 2.1 ~220 ppm 90% removal Ca:S 1.6 35 ppm 95% removal Ca:S 4.4

Table 2.8 Plan Area Heat Release Rates in Combustion Systems Technology Stoker - travelling grate Pulverised coal BFBC atmospheric BFBC pressurised CFBC atmospheric CFBC pressurised Heat Release (MW/m2) 1.3-2.2 4.4-6.3 0.7-2.1 up to 10 2.8-3.3 up to 40

Table 2.9 Capital Cost Comparisons Technology Unit size, MWe Capital cost, /kW CFB C 250 820 PFBC 350 840

Table 3.1 US Utility Scale BFB Retrofit Demonstration Programmes Owner Site Capacit y (MWe) 445 78 1750 No. of Unit 5 2 (75MWe) 10 (175MWe) Fuel Startu p 1986 1987 1989

Northern States Power Montana-Dakota Utilities TVA

Black Dog Heskett Shawne e

Hard coal Lignite Bit. Coal

Table 3.2 Largest BFBC Boilers Manufactured by Kvaerner Customer/Location Thermal capacity (MWth) 267 242 271 271 203 157 157

Rauhalahti Power Plant. Finland Oulu City Energy Board, Finland Oulun Voima Oy, Finland Veitsiluodon Voima Oy, Finland Enso Group, Finland Advance Agro Public Co, Thailand Thai Power Supply Co, Thailand

Table 3.3 Capacity and Type of Chinese CFBC Boilers in Operation Capaci ty 130 t/h 75 t/h 35 t/h <35 t/h Number in operation 0 250 180 400 Number under construction 7 50 60 80

Table 3.4 Examples of Small Capacity CFBC Boilers Supplied by Ahlstrom Location Lomma Energi, Sweden Stora Billerud AG, Germany Perlen Papier, Switzerland Papier Utzenstorf, Switzerland Central Soya, Tennessee, USA Oy Alko Ab, Finland Enzo-Gutzeit, Finland Capacity (MWth) 16.2 13.5 17.5 16.2 27.0 19.0 20.0

Table 3.5 Steam Conditions Adopted for Selected Foster Wheeler/Ahlstrom CFBC Installations Location Lomma Stora Billerud AG Entsorgung Rourkela Grenoble Thai Paper Vaxjo Hodonin Kokkola Brista Kraft Zhenhai Panjin Ulsan Petrochemicals Zhenjiang Neijiang Flow (kg/s) 5.6 4.7 15.3 17 25 30.6 41 47.2 50 50 61.1 61.1 69.4 111 114 Pressure (bar) 61 44.5 80 18 65 100 142 96 61 144 98 124 91 125 98 Temp (oC) 510 433 480 350 485 510 540 510 510 540 540 540 540 537 540

Table 3.6 Operating Hours of Selected LLB CFBC Plants Plant Dusiburg Scott Paper, USA Flensburg 9, 10, & 11 Leverkusen WSK 1 Leverkusen WSK 2 Homberg Thames 1 & 2, USA Wolfsburg E Wolfsburg F Berlin North East Power, USA Texas-New Mexico 1 Texas-New Mexico 2 Shady Point 14, USA Startup 1985 1986 19851991 1988 1991 1989 1989 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 1991 1990 Operating hours (to mid 1998) 94000 90000 164000 77000 54000 70000 126000 60000 60000 65000 63000 66000 58000 240000

Table 3.7 P200-based PFBC Plants Location Tidd, USA (closed) Vartan, Sweden (2 units) Escatron, Spain Cottbus, Germany Wakamatsu, Japan Output (MWe) 70 133 + 224 MW of heat 75 65 + 90 MW of heat 70

Table 4.1 Summary of PFBC Plants Worldwide Plant name Plant size Plant size Fuel Countr Region y MW MW electric thermal 135 70 79 225 0 0 0 0 220 0 0 Coa l Coa l Coa l Coa l Coa l Coa l Coa l Coa l Sweden Europe USA Spain Japan Japan North America Europe Asia Asia In Number of service units Supplier

Vartan Tidd Escatron

1989 1991 1993 1995 1995 1999 1999 1999

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wakamatsu 71 TomatohAtsuma Cottbus Osaki Karita 85 74 250 360

ABB Carbon ABB Carbon ABB Carbon ABB Carbon MHI ABB Carbon Hitachi ABB Carbon

Germa Europe ny Japan Asia Japan Asia

Total

1125

445

Table 6.1 Annual Electricity Generation Growth Projections Region/Country Annual Average Electricity Generation Growth Projection, 1996-2020 (% per annum) 5.7 4.9 3.0 1-2 4.5 ~2 Not available 1.2-1.4 ~3 ~3

China India Other Developing Asia Japan Central and South America Western Europe Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union North America Africa Middle East

Source: Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook 1999

Table 6.2 Prospects for FBC by Region Country/Region Estimated Coal Annual Average Fired Coal Capacity Fired Capacity Addition Addition 1996-2020 1996-2020 (GW) (GW) 500 120 ~0 19 6 ~0 ~0 113 ~0 ~0 758 20 5 ~0 1 0 ~0 ~0 5 ~0 ~0 30 Potential FBC Capacity Addition 1996-2020 (GW) 125 6 0 3 1 0 0 17 0 0 152

China India Other Developing Asia Japan Central and South America Western Europe Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union North America Africa Middle East Total

Table 7.1 Main UK FBC R&D Capabilities - Industrial Organisations Organisat ion CRE Group Ltd. Facilities/equipment Pilot Scale Fluidised Combustion/ Gasification/Pyrolysis Test Rig (0.4MW) Associated Materials Handing and Processing Facilities to deal with standard and non standard feedstocks. Various small-scale laboratory FBC rigs. Research Interests Provision of technical support to UK and overseas clients in FBC with emphasis on processing of coals, biomass and wastes (processing includes briquetting, pelletisation and carbonisation). Technical and economic assessment of BFBC, CFBC, PFBC and associated advanced cycles. (For example PFBC - for combined-cycle power generation; hot gas cleanup, including removal of particulates, sulphur capture. NOx and N2O abatement, and removal of vapours of alkali metal compounds and of halides). Assessment of emissions and their effects for all FBC systems. Associated life cycle analysis for FBC industrial and power generation applications. Coal combustion in fluidised beds, equipment design and operation to control atmospheric emissions from coal combustion.

ABB Alstom

Range of small-medium scale test facilities

Table 7.2 Main UK FBC R&D Capabilities Universities

University Leeds Surrey Facilities/equipment Laboratory-scale FBC test rigs Laboratory-scale test rigs Research Interests Characterisation of emissions and studies of pollutant control Mathematical modelling of combustion phenomena under fluidised bed combustion conditions. Emissions and their control. Analysis of coal fluidisation and DEM simulations of particle interactions in fluid-particle systems. Investigations into FBC using coal and/biomass feedstocks. Emission and control and partitioning of heavy metal species.

Imperial

Cambridge

Laboratory and benchscale reactors including PFBC reactor (30 bar/1000oC) Electrically heated fluidised beds. Flat flame burners Range of laboratory-scale test rigs Range of laboratory-scale test rigs Fluidised bed with in-bed cooling. Fully instrumented pot combustor. Wide range of established physical modelling facilities; computational modelling facilities. Range of laboratory-scale test rigs

Bristol Glamorgan Portsmouth

Fluidised combustion of coal with special reference to the combustion of volatiles and the burn-out time of the char particles. The production and removal of pollutants, such as the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Heat and mass transfer in fluidised beds. Fluidised beds, particularly fundamental understanding of bubbling units. Combustion and classification processes, particle separation and classification, briquetting, fluid/particle dynamics. Fluidised bed combustion; co-firing of coal with waste and biomass; physical and computational modelling of above processes, all with a clear overlay of commercial application

Birmingham

UMIST

Various test facilities

Sheffield

Bradford Cranfield

Four static fluidised beds. Three spinning fluidised beds. Diosin equipment Physical bed models. Instrumentation (conventional and novel) Computer package (eg Fluent) Laboratory-scale test rigs Several laboratory FBC test rigs. Physical modelling facilities. Thermal cycling facility. Materials assessment and analysis test rigs. Erosion/corrosion coating application and evaluation facilities.

Gas cleaning testing of rigid ceramic media for gas cleaning at high temperatures, with particular emphasis on dust cake characterisation and mechanisms of cake removal by reverse pulse; removal of gaseous pollutants by dry scrubbing and modelling and experiment characterisation of cyclones and granular bed filters. High temperature corrosion in coal-conversion environments. Erosion-corrosion of materials in fluidised-bed combustion systems. Erosion in high-temperature coal-conversion gases. Sliding friction, wear and abrasion of materials. Modelling CFD and burning bed modelling. High temperature heat exchangers (1200oC). Coal gasification, including co-gasification with sludge. Power generation, including novel cycles.

High temperature heat transfer issues PFBC processes and materials. Hot gas filter data and materials. Gas turbine data and materials. Precision measurement of erosion/corrosion effects. Refractory materials. Assessment of sulphur sorbents. Heat transfer modelling.

Table 7.3 Summary of University FBC research University Bradford Topic Areas Heat transfer in fluidised beds at elevated temperatures. Being carried out in conjunction with Leeds. Absorption and catalytic reaction of sulphur compounds Funding Source EPSRC

Queen Marys College, University of London Exeter Cambridge Loughborough Swansea, University of Wales UMIST, Corrosion & Protection Centre

Nya

Mass transfer issues. Combustion of gases in fluidised beds Dynamics of granular materials in fundamental studies. Direct computational modelling and granule dynamics.

Nya EPSRC EPSRC Nya

Determination of erosion-corrosion resistance, determination of mechanisms of damage and development of models to estimate service lifetimes, development of confidence to use coatings for plant protection. Imperial College Emissions and abatement of polycyclic hydrocarbons from fluidised bed coal combustion (with INCO and Cerchar) Leeds Particle and bubble tracking, factors affecting emissions of NO and N2O from FBC of coal, NOx and SOx control, heat transfer in CFBCs at elevated temperatures. Cranfield Development of twin fluidised bed system for hot gas cleaning for advanced power generation. Strathclyde Emissions and abatement of PAH from coal fluidised bed combustion (nya = not yet announced)

Nya

Joule

EPSRC

DTI

ECSC