PowMagazine 07 2014

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

V
o
l
.

1
5
8

N
o
.

7
Vol. 158 No. 7 July 2014

A Brewing Storm of
Environmental Concerns
PRBCUG Plant of the Year
Middle Easts Power Pivot
(Not So) Temporary Power
Decommissioning Zion Nuclear
Units
Answers for industry.
siemens.com/verticalmilldrives
Trouble-free grinding
Reliable FLENDER gear unit solutions for vertical mills
by the world market leader in drive technology E
2
0
0
0
1
-
F
4
1
0
-
P
9
0
0
-
X
-
7
6
0
0
Conventional standard drive
solution: FLENDER gear unit
If you are in the business of grinding
coal, hold-ups in the production pro-
cess must be avoided at all costs. You
must be able to rely on your drive
one hundred per cent, because every
vertical mill has its own special re-
quirements:
continuous operation, tough oper-
ating conditions and high energy
intensity.
Its a good thing that FLENDER drive
solutions are extremely reliable and
combine high productivity with opti-
mum energy efficiency.
As world market leader in drive tech-
nology with decades of experience
in grinding technology, we offer the
power industry first-class, tailor-
made, application-specific and con-
ventional gear unit solutions and
concentrated consulting expertise
close to the point of use. This close-
ness to the customer is supported
by lean processes and market-focused
production and customer service
centres.
Benefit from the decisive competitive
advantages that our solutions have to
offer.
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD
July 2014
|
POWER www.powermag.com 1
ON THE COVER
The variety, number, and strength of environmental regulations facing the power industry
are all quickly building to create what, for some plants, may be a perfect storm. Photo:
POWER/Gail Reitenbach; type: Michele White
COVER STORY: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
22 Combined Mercury and SO
3
Removal Using SBS Injection
Using a sorbent that removes SO
3
before the air preheater, plants can remove higher
levels of mercury than is otherwise typical. They also enjoy co-benefit capture of two
other elements that could position a plant for compliance with proposed effluent
limit guidelines without adding new equipment.
28 Biomass Exemption Sails into the Sunset
How small is small? The definition matters enormously to U.S. biomass plants that
may soon find themselves falling into a different category, where they would be
subject to new permitting and equipment hurdles.
32 The Water-Energy Nexus Takes Center Stage
As droughts and growing demand strain water resources worldwide, the power sec-
tor is being called upon to make water efficiency a top priority. Heres what plant
operators will be facing in the future.
36 Shifting Sands: The Middle Easts Thrust for Sustainability
With its reputation for fossil fuel wealth, the Middle East may seem an unlikely place
to encounter low-carbon and energy-efficiency efforts, but population and economic
growth coupled with scarce water are behind the shift.
40 Geoengineering: A Practical Climate Work-Around or Just Plain Crazy?
Global political and economic approaches to reducing atmospheric greenhouse
gases are going nowhere, so some say its time to take various geoengineering
approaches seriously.
SPECIAL REPORTS
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
44 Blurring the Line Between Temporary and Permanent Power
Although temporary power is familiar to many readers from major construction proj-
ects or off-grid mining operations, fewer may realize that the project characteristics
for the business are quickly approaching those for permanent power stations.
Established 1882 Vol. 158 No. 7 July 2014
Youll find more online at powermag.com every month, from news stories as theyre
posted, to blog posts, to feature stories. Look for these exclusive stories associated with
the July issue features in the Archives:
Evolved Strategy Accelerates Zion Nuclear Plant Decommissioning
The EEIs Campaign for Electric Utility Industry Supremacy
RWEs Thomas Birr on Corporate Strategy in a Changing German Electricity Ecosystem
The EPAs Clean Power Rule in Three Infographics
Web Exclusives
32
22
44
www.powermag.com POWER
|
July 2014 2
FEATURES
PRBCUG 2014 PLANT OF THE YEAR
50 Springerville Generating Station Earns PRBCUG 2014 Honors
A former POWER Plant of the Year has been recognized this year as the Powder
River Basin Coal Users Group 2014 Plant of the Year award winner for implement-
ing industry best practices, continual improvements, and worker safety.
COAL
54 Does IGCC Have a Future?
Is integrated gasification combined cycle the future of coal or a boondoggle?
That depends on whom you ask, but the challenges in making the technology
economically viable are large. We review the state of the sector and where things
may be going.
DEPARTMENTS
SPEAKING OF POWER
6 We Have Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards. Now What?
GLOBAL MONITOR
8 Is China Considering Carbon Targets?
8 The Expanding Wood Pellet Market
9 New Floating Wind Array Planned in Scotland
10 THE BIG PICTURE: Recycling CO
2
12 Grid-Scale Iron-Chromium Redox Flow Battery Connected
13 POWER Digest
FOCUS ON O&M
14 Latest Electromagnetic Technology Device Improves Inspection Accuracy and
Repeatability
16 Is Your Plant Ready for MATS?
LEGAL & REGULATORY
20 Nest Thermostats: The Future of Demand Response Programs?
By Olivia Para, Davis Wright Tremaine
COMMENTARY
68 As Clean Energy Accelerates, a New Era of Choice Is Upon Us
By Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund
Connect with POWER
If you like POWER magazine, follow us online for timely industry news and comments.
Become our fan at facebook.com/POWERmagazine

Follow us on Twitter @POWERmagazine
Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine Group
Price increases have injected politics into the question of how to generate and dis-
tribute power in British Columbia and may propel the province to invest in liquefied
natural gas infrastructure. (p. 57)
Sponsored ReportPower British Columbia:
Addressing the Old, Pursuing the New
50
9
16
Using the power of moving water,
hydropower is the oldest and most
reliable form of renewable energy.
MWH has nearly 100 years of industry
expertise and is committed to providing
the engineering solutions to power the
world.
mwhgl obal .com/energy
HYDRO.Power
H Y D R O P O W E R S E R V I C E S :
PLANNI NG AND PERMI TTI NG
PRELI MI NARY AND DETAI LED DESI GN
CONSTRUCTI ON MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
|
July 2014 4
Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com
Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw
POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access
Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rock-
ville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD
20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box
3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588 . Email: pwr@omeda.com.
Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian
Addresses to: IMEX Global Solutions, P.O. BOX 25542, Lon-
don, ON N6C 6B2.
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified exec-
utives and engineering and supervisory personnel in electric
utilities, independent generating companies, consulting en-
gineering firms, process industries, and other manufacturing
industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions: $107
for one year, $171 for two years. In Canada: US$112 for one
year, US$188 for two years. Outside the U.S. and Canada:
US$227 for one year, US$368 for two years. Payment in full
or credit card information is required to process your order.
Subscription request must include subscriber name, title,
and company name. For new or renewal orders, call 847-501-
7541. Single copy price: $25. The publisher reserves the right
to accept or reject any order. Allow four to twelve weeks for
shipment of the first issue on subscriptions. Missing issues
must be claimed within three months for the U.S. or within
six months outside U.S.
For customer service and address changes, call 847-559-
7314 or fax 847-291-4816 or e-mail pwr@omeda.com or
write to POWER, P.O. Box 3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588.
Please include account number, which appears above name
on magazine mailing label or send entire label.
Photocopy Permission: For licensing and reprints of
POWER magazine content, please contact Wrights Media at
877-652-5295 or niademarco@wrightsmedia.com.
Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000
Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright
2014 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION
Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
editor@powermag.com
Consulting Editor: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Associate Editor: Thomas Overton, JD
Associate Editor: Sonal Patel
Associate Editor: Aaron Larson
Contributing Editors: Brandon Bell, PE; Charles Butcher; David Daniels, PE;
Steven F. Greenwald; Jeffrey P. Gray; Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize;
Dick Storm, PE
Senior Graphic Designer: Michele White
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com
Marketing Manager: Cristane Martin
GENERATING COMPANY ADVISORY TEAM
Melanie Green, Director, Strategic Planning & Analysis, CPS Energy
Randal S. Livingston, VP of Power Generation, Pacific Gas & Electric
Sharon Pfeuffer, Director and Chief Engineer, Fossil Generation, DTE Electric
ADVERTISING SALES
Associate Publisher: Matthew Grant
Southern & Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/
Latin America: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com
Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com
Northeast U.S. Ed Mueller, 309-278-8120, edm@powermag.com
UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/
Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, ptrautes@accessintel.com
Italy/France/Spain/Portugal: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it
China: Rudy Teng, +86 13818181202, rudy.teng@gmail.com
Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com
India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, Rudy.teng@gmail.com
South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, peterhkwon@hanmail.net
Classified Advertising
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com
POWER Buyers Guide Sales
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service: pwr@omeda.com, 847-763-9509
Electronic and Paper Reprints: Wrights Media, sales@wrightsmedia.com, 877-652-5295
List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, j.felling@statlistics.com, 203-778-8700
All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887
BUSINESS OFFICE
TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042
Senior Vice President: Jennifer Schwartz
Vice President and Publisher: Michael Grossman, 713-343-1887, mgrossman@accessintel.com
Vice President, Energy and Engineering Events: Daniel McKinnon
Energy Events Content Director: David Wagman
ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC
4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850
301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com
Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour
Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo
Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto
Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley
Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra
Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek
Vice President, Production, Digital Media & Design: Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko
Handling a World of Materials
Posimetric is a licensed trademark of GE Energy (USA) LLC.
The brands comprising TerraSource Global (Gundlach Crushers, Jeffrey Rader and
Pennsylvania Crusher) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI)
2014 TerraSource Global. All Rights Reserved.
Precise Product Sized for Maximum Yield The Leader in Uptime Since 1905
Impactors
Granulators
Roll Mills
Cage Mills Breakers
Grinders Coalpactors
Hammermills
Eliminate
Fugitive
Dust!
a brand of a brand of
Posimetric
Feeders
Improve plant safety with these
dust-free feeders.
For coal, limestone, biomass, crushed stone, sand, wood chips and more.
Gundlach Crushers
Phone: +1 (618) 233-7208
E-mail: BetterCrushers@GundlachCrushers.com
Pennsylvania Crusher
Phone: +1 (610) 544-7200
E-mail: Buster@PennCrusher.com
Models To Suit Any Capacity
Uses Ultra-Low Horsepower
Unmatched Reliability
Only One Moving Part
www.terrasource.com/pm
C
I
R
C
L
E

3

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
|
July 2014 6
SPEAKING OF POWER
We Have Proposed Carbon
Pollution Standards.
Now What?
T
he most contentious (though not neces-
sarily the most expensive) proposed en-
vironmental regulation to hit the power
industry in this century was released by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
June 2. The most immediate consequence
was an increase in the volume of email.
The Big One
As I write this column a week after the
EPA unveiled its proposed Carbon Pollu-
tion Standards for existing fossil-fired
power plants, those of us in the media
are still being inundated with comments
and perspectives from all corners. The
tsunami began even before the proposal
(remember that its not a fait accompli)
was released. Some of those pre-release
statements in particular made claims
based on inaccurate assumptions about
what the proposal would include.
Im not surprised by the volume (in
both senses of that word) of chatter both
before and after the announcement. (The
rule was also a topic of discussion at the
annual Edison Electric Institute meeting
the following week, though the tone there
was one of wait and see what emerges
from the final plan. See my report on that
meeting, associated with the online fea-
tures for this issue, at powermag.com.)
Until the proposal was made public, it
was easy to fixate on the fossil industrys
worst fears about what the EPA would
require. Now that we know (but maybe
havent read the thousand-plus pages of
documents), its easy to worry about how
states will decide to implement the plan.
However, some aspects of the standards
are a bit less worrisome now that we know
whats in the proposed rule. For example,
the impact on reliability and affordabil-
ity may be minimal, as the EPA promised.
Given the range of options for compliance,
the coal plants likely to be shuttered, if
any are, are those already too old and un-
economic to maintain, let alone invest in,
especially given current gas prices.
And the carbon rule looks to be less costly
than the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS). The EPA projects that the annual in-
cremental cost of compliance with the carbon
rule (excluding costs associated with moni-
toring, reporting, and recordkeeping) could
be as high as $7.4 billion in 2020 and $8.8
billion in 2030 (in 2011 dollars). Its project-
ed annual incremental private costs to the
electric power industry for the final MATS Rule
were $9.6 billion in 2015. Not surprisingly,
various industry estimates are higher.
As for the overall economic consequenc-
es, those may be flat to positive. A June
6 story in The New York Times noted that
Some critics of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agencys new requirements for power
plants argue that forcing emissions reduc-
tion will curtail economic growth. But the
recent experience of states that already
cap carbon emissions reveals that emis-
sions and economic growth are no longer
tightly tied together. The articles case
in point was the market-based Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the
Northeast, which announced the results of
its 24th auction the same day. The nine
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states partici-
pating in the cap-and-trade program have
substantially reduced carbon emissions
while experiencing stronger economic
growth than the rest of the country.
There were other factors driving the
trends as well, the Times noted. RGGI
states emissions were dropping even be-
fore the 2009 program due to lower de-
mand (caused by recession and warmer
winters), switching to natural gas, retir-
ing coal capacity, and adding renewables
to the mix. But as the economy and de-
mand recovered, since 2009, the nine
states have cut their emissions by 18 per-
cent, while their economies grew by 9.2
percent. By comparison, emissions in the
other 41 states fell by 4 percent, while
their economies grew by 8.8 percent.
RGGI has not been without controver-
sy (including New Jersey Governor Chris
Christies pulling his state out of the com-
pact in 2011), and one should expect some
bumps with any new type of program, but
it has achieved its primary goal of reduc-
ing carbon emissions. A similar program,
the President George H.W. Bush-era SO
2

cap-and-trade program to reduce acid rain,
also achieved its environmental goals at
minimal cost and has been a model for
subsequent market-based initiatives.
The experience of RGGI states aside, a
multistate cap-and-trade program is only
one possible approach. (For more de-
tails, see our June 2 story Carbon Rules
Proposed for Existing Power Plants at
powermag.com; for news coverage of future
developments, watch for stories online and
in our weekly POWERnews eletter.) The fact
is, nobody knows whether this plan will,
on its own, hurt or help the U.S. economy
when it is eventually finalized. The odds
are high that there will be some regional
variation, given that implementation will
be driven by the states. That conclusion
doesnt make for a clever sound byte or
a rallying cry for any particular lobbying
group, but its as close to reality as its
possible to get at this early stage of the
process. (Click the Webinar link at power-
mag.com to learn about our July webinar
on how to prepare for the next stages of
the EPAs Carbon Pollution Standards.)
The Cumulative Effect
Of course, the flurry of analysis and pundit-
ry about carbon standards doesnt dimin-
ish the significant challenges of complying
with all the other long-standing regulations
(including those governing traditional
pollutants like SO
x
, NO
x
, and particulate
matter), those recently finalized (especially
MATS and the cooling water intake rule),
and those anticipated (particularly coal ash
and effluent limit guidelines). In fact, its
the combination of all those rules that has
to be giving heartburn to those charged
with developing unit and fleetwide compli-
ance plans.
Thinking about the tradeoffs involved
including those between energy and water
and between efficiency and added controls
and the potential conflicts between the goals
of various regulations led to the creation of
this months cover, with its cumulus clouds.
Taken together, the regulatory requirements
and economic imperatives (including low gas
prices, flat demand, and customer defection)
facing coal plants in particular are going to
make running more efficiently a core business
goal. Look for articles on ways to do that in
forthcoming issues.
Gail Reitenbach, PhD is POWERs
editor (@GailReit, @POWERmagazine).
The equation in energy is simple: More productivity = More output = More prot. You cant afford downtime. Or a
supplier who doesnt share your vision of success. Just one reason why so many equipment builders recommend
Mobil-branded industrial lubricants. With a wide range of standard-setting products and exceptional industry
expertise, we dont just make things run. We make them y. Visit mobilindustrial.com for more.
Copyright 2014 Exxon Mobil Corporation. All rights reserved. All trademarks used herein are trademarks
or registered trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries unless otherwise noted.
Bringing energy output
to impressive new heights.
|
July 2014 8
Is China Considering
Carbon Targets?
China, the worlds biggest emitter of green-
house gases (GHGs) could limit its total
carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions for the first
time, possibly starting in 2016. He Jiankun,
chairman of Chinas Advisory Committee on
Climate Change, reportedly told confer-
ence attendees in Beijing in Juneone
day after the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency proposed rules to slash carbon
emitted from existing power plants by 30%
from 2005 levels by 2030that China will
use two ways to control CO
2
emissions in
the next five-year plan: by intensity and an
absolute cap, he said.
He, a high-level advisor and not a gov-
ernment official, later told news agency
Reuters that the comments were a per-
sonal view, but the announcement stirred
up optimism from clean energy policy
groups. Experts have pointed out that
China has been reluctant to establish a
binding carbon target, cautioning that
the announcement did not mean anything
substantive. The country set its first-ever
emissions cut40% to 45% by 2020,
compared to 2005 levelsrelative to its
economic growth, which means absolute
carbon emissions could still grow as Chi-
nas economy expands.
Many of Chinas cities are plagued with
severe air quality problems, inciting wide-
spread concerns and protests. Among the
worst hit is the capital Beijing (Figure 1),
which during 2013 endured a total of 189
polluted air dayswhen residents were
advised to stay indoors as fine particulate
levels soared. This January, the city intro-
duced an all-out effort, setting targets
to tackle smog by 2017 by scrapping old
cars, suspending polluting industries, and
reducing coal burning.
Last September, meanwhile, China an-
nounced it would put in place a national
plan to reduce its dependence on coal to
improve air quality. Clean-up efforts are
showing progress, albeit slow, said the
countrys environmental watchdog in the
2013 Report on the State of the Envi-
ronment in China, which was released
in early June. Only three of 74 cities that
adopted revised air quality standards
achieved required levels of sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, fine particulates, carbon
monoxide, and ozone. To achieve addi-
tional progress, China would further en-
hance the countrys energy efficiency and
optimize the industrial structure, as well
as enhance regional cooperation, a senior
environmental protection official said as
the report was released.
In related news, Chinas government this
May invited private companies to partici-
pate in 80 major national projects, includ-
ing hydropower, solar energy, wind power,
and oil and gas pipelines. The move is a
boost for reforms to increase privatization
because, as observers note, state-owned
investment ventures in energy, informa-
tion, and infrastructure have a combined
outstanding debt of $3 trillion as of June
last year, Reuters reports.
Investor concern over unsustainable
debts in Chinas emerging markets were
spotlighted this March, when Suntech
Power Holdingsthe worlds largest pro-
ducer of solar panelsdefaulted on a
$541 million bond and other outstanding
loans, marking the first-ever default of a
Chinese multinational company.
Suntechs troubles are said to have fol-
lowed the plunge in solar module prices
as production outpaced demand. In March,
Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science and
Technology Co. also missed payment on
debt, signaling Chinas first onshore bond
default. That event was seen as a test case
for the Chinese government, which inves-
tors had assumed would bail out any Chi-
nese corporation in danger of defaulting.
Among sectors open to new investors
are State Grid Corp.s distributed power
grids and electric vehicle charging equip-
ment, which have an estimated market
value of $32 billion, state media reported.
Chinas state-controlled grid operator has
called for a $100 billion infrastructure
project to build a nationwide network of
ultra-high-voltage links to reduce long-
distance power losses and as a means to
tackle fine particulates and other air pol-
lution. However, skeptics have questioned
the projects feasibility and high costs.
The Expanding Wood
Pellet Market
Last year, the U.S. exported nearly twice
the amount of wood pellets it sent over-
seas in 2012and almost all of it went
to Europe for heat and power needs. This
trend has gained momentum since 2009,
when the European Commission (EC) en-
acted its 2020 climate and energy pack-
age, and will possibly continue in the long
term, says the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) in a new report.
As recently as 2008, about 80% of U.S.
made wood pellets, typically from wood
1. Chinas pollution fog. According to
the U.S. embassy in Beijing, Chinas capital
has seen at least 1,812 days since 2008 when
air quality reached unhealthy levels and only
two days when levels were good. This im-
age was taken in February 2013. Courtesy:
Screw/Wikipedia Commons
2. From trash to treasure. Wood pellet exports from the U.S. nearly doubled last year,
from 1.6 million short tons in 2012 to 3.2 million short tons in 2013. Source: EIA
U.S. total exports
United Kingdom
Belgium
Denmark
Netherlands
Italy
Rest of Europe
Rest of world
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Imports of U.S. wood pellets by country
(2013)
United Kingdom
59%
Italy
5%
Netherlands
6%
Denmark
7%
Belgium
18%
Rest of Europe
3%
Rest of world
2%
2013
2012
Thousand short tons
July 2014
|
waste (such as sawdust, shavings, and
wood chips), but also from unprocessed
harvested wood, were consumed domesti-
cally for residential heating fuel. But the
ECs binding 2009 legislation, which calls
on the European Union (EU) to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from
1990 levels and to produce 20% of its pow-
er from renewables, has sent demand for
U.S. wood pellets soaring, the EIA says.
At least 98% of wood pellet exports
(and 99% sourced from ports in the south-
eastern and lower Mid-Atlantic regions of
the U.S.) went to Europe in 2013, mostly
to the UK, Belgium, Denmark, the Neth-
erlands, Italy, and other countries that
are using wood pellets to replace coal
for power generation and space heating
(Figure 2). The UK, specifically, consumed
59% of U.S. wood pellet exports to meet
demand that has grown from near zero in
2009 to more than 3.5 million short tons
in 2013. It also imported from Canada and
other European sources.
One reason for the soaring growth is
the UKs Renewables Obligation program,
through which operators of several large
coal-fired power plants have either ret-
rofitted existing units to cofire biomass
wood pellets with coal or have converted
to 100% biomass. Last December, for ex-
ample, Drax completed the $1.14 billion
conversion of three of its six coal-fired
units at the Drax Power Station to bio-
mass. The facility reportedly needs at
least seven million metric tons of wood
pellets a year. At the same time, Drax
is considering converting a fourth unit,
meaning pellet demand could exceed
nine million metric tons. The company is
building two of its own pellet plants in
Louisiana and Mississippi.
According to one of the largest U.S.
wood pellet manufacturers, Enviva, the
primary reason that European utilities are
banking on importsrather than using
wood from European forestsis because
North America has significantly more for-
estland than Europe as well as a long his-
tory of sustainable forest management and
productive commercial forest product in-
dustries. And, biomass isnt being adopted
on the same scale in the U.S. because it
just doesnt have a cohesive national re-
newable policy as the EU does. Meanwhile,
ocean freight is substantially more carbon
and energy efficient in a per ton basis than
trucking, says the company. This means
that shipping a ton of pellets from the
Southeast U.S. to England results in less
carbon emissions than trucking that same
ton from northern Scotland to England.
For Enviva, the growth of the wood pel-
let export market is sound. Though the UK
recently placed a 400-MW limit on new-build
biomass-fired power plants, theres no limit
on the conversion of existing coal plants to
biomass or on the construction of biomass-
fueled combined heat and power (CHP) fa-
cilities, it says. Demand for sustainably
produced biomass fuels is still expected to
grow substantially through 2020 as coal-
fired power facilities attempt to meet regula-
tory targets and improve the environmental
profile of energy generation.
New Floating Wind Array
Planned in Scotland
The worlds first floating wind turbine ar-
ray could be installed offshore of north-
east Scotland by 2017 if a project recently
unveiled by Kincardine Offshore Windfarm
Ltd. proceeds as planned.
The joint project between Pilot Off-
shore Renewables and the construction
giant Atkins entails the installation of
eight turbines on semi-submersible plat-
forms about 8 miles off the fishing port
Do you have flows up to
1,400 US GPM (320 m
3
/hr),
heads up to 3,400 feet
(1,000 m), pressures up to
1,500 psig (100 bar),
temperatures from 20F to
300F (-30C to 149C), and
speeds up to 3,500 RPM? Then you need Carver Pump
RS Series muscle!
Designed for moderate to high pressure pumping applications,
the RS is available in five basic sizes with overall performance to
1,000HP. As a standard, with a product lubricated radial sleeve
bearing and two matched angular contact ball bearings for thrust,
it only takes a mechanical seal on the low pressure, suction side
to seal the pump. Optional features include ball bearings on both
ends with an outboard mechanical seal, various seal flushing
arrange ments and bearing frame cooling. These features make
the RS ideally suited for Industrial and Process applications
including Pressure Boost Systems, Boiler Feed,
Reverse Osmosis, Desalination and Mine Dewatering.
Whatever your application, let us build
the muscle you need!
1972 Buick GS Stage 1
RS Series
Creating Value.
Carver Pump Company
2415 Park Avenue
Muscatine, IA 52761
563.263.3410
Fax: 563.262.0510
www.carverpump.com
RS CE BuickGS 042213_Layout 1 4/21/13 10:19 PM Page 1
|
July 2014 10
07
CONCRETE CURING
What: At a precast concrete
production facility, on-site waste
CO
2
from ue gas can be reacted
with calcium to form limestone
within the concrete, and possibly
increase concrete strength and
durability.
Status: Under development
06
ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL
SYSTEMS (EGS)
What: A new approach to this geothermal
technology involves circulating supercritical
CO
2
as a heat exchange uid instead of
water or brine to recover geothermal heat
from reservoirs 3 km deep or more for power
generation. The concept could signicantly
increase the cycle efciency compared to
current EGS.
increase con
du
St SSt SSS atus: Un
for power
nicantly
pared to
nt
05
METHANOL PRODUCTION
What: CO
2
can be combined with
hydrogen, compressed, and
reacted to produce methanol and
water.
Status: Demonstration stage
(plant in Iceland)
N
h
d
04
ALGAE CULTIVATION
What: CO
2
can be bubbled through
algae cultivation systems, increasing
yield for a range of uses, including
biomass, biofuels, chemicals, and
food products.
Status: Demonstration level of
technical maturity technical matur
03
CLATHRATE DESALINATION
What: CO
2
, mixed with brine from an aquifer
at high pressure and low temperature, forms
a hydrate of CO
2
surrounded by water
molecules. The hydrate is removed and
rinsed, and then goes through multiple
stages to remove dissolved solids in the
brine, resulting in an exhaust stream
of potable water that can be sold where
water is in short supply.
What: C
hydr
reacted
Statu
W
02
UREA YIELD BOOSTING
What: During production of urea (which
is used to make fertilizers), a surplus of
ammonia is often produced when natural
gas is the feedstock. CO
2
can be
compressed and combined with the
surplus ammonia for additional urea
production.
Status: Commercial. CO
2
capture plants
for urea yield boosting have been
installed since the late 1990s.
W
at
W
a
01
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR)
What: Involves injection of CO
2
into a
depleted oil bearing eld to decrease oil
viscosity, allowing it to ow to a
production well more easily, and
increasing production by 5% to 40%.
Status: Commercial. At least 113
CO
2
-EOR projects inject 3.1 billion cubic
feet per day of natural and industrial
CO
2
for EOR across the U.S.
The ongoing focus on carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
has resulted in novel ways carbon dioxide (CO
2
) captured from industri-
al processes and power generation can be used protablythereby
offsetting costs associated with carbon capture. Here are seven
potential options that are undergoing development or are in commer-
cial use today. Source: Department of Energy, Ofce of Fossil Energy
Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, associate editor
THE BIG PICTURE: Recycling CO
2
Magna Tough
2014 Baldor Electric Company
BaldorDodge
MagnaGear XTR speed reducers are

designed and manufactured to be the most rugged
and reliable reducers in the world for high torque
applications. Available in parallel shaft or right angle
with torque capacities from 100,000 to 2,100,000 in-lbs.
and capable of accommodating 4,500 Hp or more, the
MagnaGear XTR is ideal for bulk material handling in dirty,
dusty, harsh environments.
Proven BaldorDodge planetary and helical gear
technology, a universal housing design allowing for
multiple mounting configurations, and bearings designed
for projected L-10 life twice that of the competitions, all
make the MagnaGear XTR one tough act to follow.
baldor.com 479-646-4711
Unmatched Quality
Superior Reliability
Lower Total Cost of Ownership
Quickest Delivery Available
Download a QR reader app
and scan this code for
more information.
http://qr2.it/Go/1002298
|
July 2014 12
of Stonehaven, in waters that are about
60 meters (m) to 80 m deep. Kincardine
wants to begin construction in the second
quarter of 2016 to have the wind farm op-
erating by the end of 2017.
Several developers have proposed float-
ing offshore wind arrays off the coasts of
the UK, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and
the U.S., touting the use of semi-submers-
ible platforms as a means to cut construc-
tion and installation costs, because they
remove the need for costly foundations.
Floating offshore wind turbines can also
be located in deeper waters and take ad-
vantage of stronger winds.
According to Navigant Consulting, 1.7
GW of offshore capacity was installed in
2013 worldwidemostly in Europe
bringing the total capacity to 7 GW. New
and expanding projects are likely to con-
tribute a record-setting 2.2 GW in 2014
alone, mostly in Germany and the UK.
Globally, offshore wind projects continue
to trend further from shore into increas-
ingly deeper waters, explained Bruce
Hamilton, who directs research at Navi-
gants energy arm, this May.
Hamilton noted that Principle Power
deployed a full-scale 2-MW prototype
WindFloat turbine off the coast of Agua-
doura, Portugal (Figure 3), a system that
has since produced more than 9 GWh de-
livered by subsea cable to the local grid.
Japan also has two experimental floating
2-MW Hitachi turbines and plans to put a
new Mitsubishi 7-MW turbine on a semi-
submersible platform this year.
Among notable floating projects pro-
posed are Principle Power and Deepwater
Winds five floating platforms, each with
a 6-MW turbine, off Coos Bay in southern
Oregon, and Statoils proposed 30-MW
venture planned for the Buchan Deep site,
about 19 miles off Peterhead in Scotland.
The European Commission has also award-
ed funding to Principle Power to build a
27-MW second phase consisting of five
WindFloat platforms developed by Prin-
ciple Power, with a final build-out phase
that could have a capacity of 150 MW.
However, the costs for the initial proj-
ects are very high, and as with any new
technology configuration, years of testing
will be required to understand how reliable
and economical the technology can be,
cautions Steve Sawyer, secretary-general
for the Global Wind Energy Council. And
then the challenge will be the same as for
the current round of offshore deployment,
that is to say how to get the scale-up re-
quired to make the economics work.
Grid-Scale Iron-Chromium
Redox Flow Battery
Connected
One of the worlds first grid-scale iron-
chromium redox flow batteries was inter-
connected this May to the distribution
grid. The EnerVault Turlock, which its
developer EnerVault says is a 250-kW,
1-MWh battery grid-scale energy storage
system, will be charged by a 150-kW dual-
axis tracking solar photovoltaic system in
an almond orchard in Californias Central
Valley, will power a 260-kW irrigation
pump, and will inject energy back into the
grid during peak times (Figure 4).
According to the Energy Storage Associa-
tion (ESA), iron-chromium flow batteries,
pioneered and studied extensively by NASA
in the 1970s and 1980s, are essentially re-
dox flow batteriesa class of electrochem-
ical energy storage devices that employ
reduction and oxidation reactions to store
energy in liquid electrolyte solutions, which
flow through a battery of electrochemical
cells during charge and discharge.
That means, unlike other types of bat-
teries, which are packaged in small mod-
ules, iron-chromium flow batteries consist
3. Floating through. The current 2-MW WindFloat prototype off the coast of Aguadoura,
Portugal, could be expanded to five platforms. A final build-out phase is planned to have a capac-
ity of 150 MW. Courtesy: Principle Power
4. Novel development. EnerVault connected its unique iron-chromium redox flow bat-
tery to the grid this May. Courtesy: Government Contractors Network
July 2014
|
of two large tanks that store electrolytes
containing iron and chromiumboth
abundant, relatively low-cost materials
that are relatively environmentally be-
nign. During discharge, the electrolytes
are pumped through an electrochemical
reaction cell and power becomes available.
To store energy, the process is reversed.
EnerVault, however, has developed a new
electrolyte pumping system to improve the
efficiency of the charge/discharge cycle. In
its design, electrolytes flow through a cas-
cade of cell stacks, each holding electrolyte
with a progressively lower state of charge.
That allows an increase in energy density
compared to a conventional flow battery.
Development of the technology was
backed by $5 million in Department of
Energy (DOE) funding. The DOE says that
flow batteries could be an especially good
solution for small island grids such as Ha-
waii or at military bases. Or, they could
be paired with renewables and used in a
microgrid that can continue to operate
during a power outage.
POWER Digest
Chile Banks on Renewable Capacity
Expansion, Energy Efficiency. Chile in
mid-May released a $650 million invest-
ment plan to reduce energy costs and
promote non-hydro renewable energy de-
velopment for the country that imports
about 60% of its primary energy resources.
The plan calls for a 30% cut in marginal
power costs on Chiles central grid, which
serves 90% of the countrys citizens, by
2018. It also requires that 45% of pow-
er capacity installed between 2014 and
2025 be from solar, wind, and geothermal
sources to put Chile closer to its target
of producing 20% of its energy from re-
newables. The government also called for
energy savings of up to 20,000 GWh per
year. Experts have warned that Chile must
triple its 18 GW capacity within 15 years
to continue growing its economy (see
Chiles Power Challenge: Reliable Energy
Supplies in the September 2012 issue).
Chiles power mix is dominated by hydro-
power, but droughts have left a country
that has no indigenous oil or natural gas
reserves energy-strapped. Beyond calling
on the state oil company to boost explo-
ration, the country also hopes to build a
liquefied natural gas import terminal in
the mineral-rich north.
Columbia Passes Renewable Energy
Law. Columbia in May passed a bill that
encourages investment in research and de-
velopment of clean technologies as well as
the use of renewables via tax incentives. The
bill also calls for rural areas that are isolated
from the national grid to take up unconven-
tional renewable energy solutions.
Germany Approves Industrial Ex-
emption to EEG Fees. Germanys federal
government in early May approved a bill
that, if adopted in July, will become ef-
fective in August and protect energy-in-
tensive industries from increases in a levy
to promote renewables under the 2008 Re-
newable Energy Act (EEG). The EEG surged
to 0.0624/kWh in 2014a 20% increase
that represents nearly a fifth of residential
electricity bills. Eligible companies will be
defined by guidelines set by the European
Union. They will pay 15% of the EEG fee,
though payment is limited to 4% of the
gross added value of the company (limited
to 0.5% for energy-intensive consumers
such as steel or aluminum plants).
Mexicos Energy Reform Efforts Inch
Forward. Mexicos efforts to pass second-
ary legislation to finalize its energy reform
are grinding ahead slowly, and experts say
final passage of the bills could occur be-
fore the end of June. The countrys federal
congress and a majority of state congress-
es in December passed the much-awaited
constitutional energy reform, which could
spark increased private participation in
power projects, lower electricity prices,
and transform the profile of the countrys
ossified, state-dominated power sector.
Turkey Point Reactors Get Florida
State OK. Floridas state authorities have
granted Florida Power and Light (FPL)
approval to advance development of two
planned AP1000 units at the Turkey Point
Nuclear Power Plant, which already has
two 1970s-built reactors. FPL submitted
a construction and operating license ap-
plication for the new Units 6 and 7 to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009,
but it is still awaiting approval. In 2011,
the Florida Public Service Commission al-
lowed FPL to recover costs for the nuclear
investment via customer charges.
Westinghouse to Fuel Three Vatten-
fall Reactors. Westinghouse Electric Co.
was selected in May by Vattenfall Nuclear
AB in Sweden to provide replacement nu-
clear fuel deliveries and related engineer-
ing services for three reactors: Forsmark 3,
Ringhals 3 and Ringhals 4. The contract in-
cludes yearly deliveries of fuel for the three
reactors during a four-year period (2016 to
2019). Westinghouse will produce the fuel
at its facility in Vsters, Sweden.
Sonal Patel is a POWER associate edi-
tor (@POWERmagazine, @sonalcpatel)
|
July 2014 14
Latest Electromagnetic
Technology Device Im-
proves Inspection Accu-
racy and Repeatability
Eddy currents are electrical currents in-
duced within conductors by changing
magnetic fields. They are commonly used
in nondestructive evaluation (NDE) and
corrosion monitoring of structures with
painted surfaces. The work of eddy current
technicians, who specialize in the elec-
tromagnetic modality, requires a high de-
gree of accuracy even when working under
challenging testing conditions.
Traditionally, technicians relied on ser-
vice bulletins or paper-based instructions
that outline each step of the test to en-
sure accuracy and their own safety. This,
however, can add to the complexity, cost,
and timeliness of the testing. It also pro-
vides opportunity for error, often requiring
a second technician to read the instruc-
tions and record the result, which itself is
an error trap.
General Electrics (GEs) Measurement
and Control business recently introduced a
first-of-its-kind, handheld electromagnetic
inspection technology that integrates test-
ing intelligence and industry experience
into an easily adaptable platform. The GE
Mentor EM allows technicians to access in-
formation and guidance needed to perform
efficient and accurate weld, rotary, and sur-
face inspections (Figure 1). By decreasing
the need for paper-based service bulletins
and cumbersome manuals, the device re-
places legacy processes and takes full ad-
vantage of the latest technology.
The equipment makes eddy current in-
spections easier, more accurate, and less
time-consuming than in the past. Techni-
cians are given instant access to critical in-
formation by simply connecting to a local
network to share data, immediately down-
load up-to-date procedures and workflows,
and collaborate with Level-3 experts in real
time directly from the device. Additionally,
reports can be generated on the spot, from
the site of inspection. By placing workflows
directly on the device, the Mentor helps to
ensure strict compliance with codes, guide-
lines, and standard practices.
According to Lyle Spiess, NDE inspec-
tion programs supervisor for South Texas
Project (STP) Electric Generating Station,
NDE toolboxes need to have the necessary
tools to validate material defects. Inter-
granular stress-corrosion cracking (IGSCC)
on stainless steel material is very difficult
to detect with liquid penetrant alone, and
the magnetic particle method cant be
utilized. The Mentor is a field unit that
provides very reliable IGSCC surface detec-
tion with the use of a simple eddy current
surface probe, Spiess said. We also use
the Mentor for our heat exchanger bobbin
probe functionality test while our high-
end, more expensive, multi-channel units
are in the field.
GE Mentor Create software can be used to
create customizable, on-device inspection
workflow applications that provide consis-
tent, up-to-date, and easy-to-follow instruc-
tions for technicians of all levels. Inspection
technicians gain access to on-device pho-
tos, procedures, and videos for reference
while setting up, acquiring data (Figure 2),
or analyzing data. By limiting the range of
adjustments available to the operator, the
opportunity for error is minimized.
The menu-driven features of the Mentor
allows linking the eddy current technique
utilized for examination to the procedures
required for guidance, said Spiess.
In high-consequence inspection envi-
ronments, it is essential that technicians
have access to the information they need,
when they need it, said Dave Jankowski,
North American commercial NPI leader
for GE Measurement & Control. GE Men-
tor EM with Mentor Create eliminates the
cumbersome paper trail traditionally as-
sociated with electromagnetic eddy cur-
rent testing, dramatically improving the
safety, efficiency, and accuracy of the
testing process. Additionally, GEs inno-
vative technology will help transform the
industry by bridging the skills gap and
addressing the current global shortage of
experienced inspection personnel in the
workforce today.
The device has a high-resolution dis-
play, and its touchscreen is designed to
work with gloves. We at STP find the flex-
ibility of the Mentor useful for many ap-
plications, Spiess said.
Edited by Aaron Larson, a POWER
associate editor (@AaronL_Power, @
POWERmagazine).
1. Eddy current testing with the
GE Mentor EM. On-device workflow ap-
plications allow efficient, accurate data collec-
tion. Courtesy: GE Measurement and Control
2. Testing in progress. Accessing procedures on the device reduces the potential for
errors. Courtesy: GE Measurement and Control
l
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
slgnal-Lo-nolse rau o
-
lm
p
r
o
v
e
d

s
l
g
n
al sLrengLh - CompleLe probe oerlng - Craphlc dlsplay - Advanced dlagnosucs
1he mosL innovaLive magneLic level indicaLor
on Lhe planeL jusL received an .
RELOADED
orioninsLrumenLs.com
2103 Cak vllla 8oulevard - 8aLon 8ouge, Loulslana - 70813 - 866-33-C8lCn - p: 223-906-2343 - f: 223-906-2344
Crlon lnsLrumenLs, MagneLrol, Aurora, and Lcllpse are reglsLered Lrademarks of MagneLrol lnLernauonal, lncorporaLed
1& cnc~L ~~cv1cne
!ie ==fe:fec AL=c==
:=e:efic LeveL
i:cic=fc= ==c: c=ic: :ef=L:e:fe

==cvicee iiei-vieieiLif Lcc=L
i:cic=fic: viiLe eL==Li:e =e=L-
fi:e cLicec v=ve ==c== cieif=L
=eece=c fc fie cc:f=cL =cc:.
!ie ev ccLi=ee
ce cv= ==c:
=e:ef=cL ceLive=e =cve==LL
=e==c=:=:ce =:c = icef c=
:ev =e=fL=ee. cc:f=cf c=ic:
:ef=L:e:fe fc Le==: :c=e.
Aurora

MLl
C
I
R
C
L
E

8

O
N

R
E
A
D
E
R

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

C
A
R
D
|
July 2014 16
Is Your Plant Ready for
MATS?
It has been more than two and a half
years since the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
from coal- and oil-fired electric utility
steam generating units (EGUs), and stan-
dards of performance for fossil fuelfired
electric utility, industrial/commercial/in-
stitutional, and small industrial/commer-
cial/institutional steam generating units.
Specifically, the rule created mercury and
air toxics standards (MATS) designed to
reduce emissions from new and existing
coal- and oil-fired EGUs.
Existing sources have up to four years,
if they need it, after the final rule be-
came effectiveApril 16, 2012to com-
ply with MATS. The period includes three
years provided to all sources by the Clean
Air Act and an additional year the EPA al-
lows state permitting authorities to grant,
as needed, for technology installation. In
other words, power plants have less than
one year left to comply with the rule, un-
less granted the additional one-year ex-
tension by their state.
While MATS compliance strategies have
been covered extensively (see Using Neural
Network Combustion Optimization for MATS
Compliance in the February issue and The
Role of Activated Carbon in a Comprehen-
sive MATS Strategy in the March issue of
POWER, online at powermag.com), in this
article we will try to touch on a few key
operational best practices that will help
plants meet the new EPA requirements.
1. Nozzle deterioration. Low primary
airflow resulted in damage to this burner.
Courtesy: Storm Technologies
2. Burner geometry. It is essential
for mechanical tolerances to be within one-
quarter inch of design specification. Courtesy:
Storm Technologies
3. Good as new. Following repairs, the
burner will fire more efficiently. Courtesy:
Storm Technologies
Putting Nature to Work
A utility client was looking for ways to reduce selenium
and mercury from the industrial waste stream of a coal-red
power plant. Their focus was on nding tools to preserve
environmental quality. Chris Snider led the team of client,
academic and Burns & McDonnell professionals in nding
the solution: constructed wetlands. At the end of an intensive,
2-acre pilot project a $3 million investment the client
has a blueprint to move on to a larger-scale wetlands that
will be a cost-effective, engineered lter for reducing
elements to below regulatory compliance levels.
WHERE WATER
and
POWER MEET
CUSTOMI ZED WATER SOLUTI ONS THAT FI T YOUR POWER PLANT
Chris is a recognized technical leader in landll design and coal
byproduct handling. He has 18 years of experience with solid waste
disposal and landll-related subsurface investigations. He is one
of our experienced power plant professionals who can help you identify the
water alternative that ts:
Zero liquid discharge
Customized wastewater treatment and water management
Constructed wetlands
Landll and pond management
Bottom ash handling
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
www.burnsmcd.com/water-team
E n g i n e e r i n g , A r c h i t e c t u r e , C o n s t r u c t i o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d C o n s u l t i n g S o l u t i o n s
|
July 2014 18
Tuning Up
To comply with the performance tune-up work practice require-
ment, each facility must demonstrate continuous compliance by
conducting a combustion process tune-up, a thorough equip-
ment inspection, and an optimization to minimize generation
of CO and NO
x
. The work practice requirement must be completed
at least once every 36 calendar months (or 48 calendar months
if a neural network is employed). The work practice involves:
maintaining/inspecting burners (Figures 1 and 2) and associ-
ated combustion controls; tuning the specific burner type, as
applicable, to optimize combustion; obtaining and recording
CO and NO
x
values before and after burner adjustments; keep-
ing records of measurements and adjustments (Figure 3); and
submitting a report for each tune-up conducted.
A combustion tune-up will involve optimizing combustion
of the unit consistent with the manufacturers instructions, as
applicable, or in accordance with best combustion engineering
practices for that burner type. Under the final rule, the tune-
up must be conducted at each planned major outage and in
no event less frequently than every 36 calendar months, with
an exception that if the unit employs a neural network system
for combustion optimization during hours of normal unit op-
eration, the required frequency is a minimum of once every 48
calendar months.
Initial compliance with the work practice standard of
maintaining burners must occur within 180 days of the com-
pliance date of the rule. The initial compliance demonstra-
tion for the work practice standard of conducting a tune-up
may occur prior to the compliance date of the rule, but it
must occur no later than 42 months (36 months plus 180
days) from the compliance date of the rule or, in the case
of units employing neural network combustion controls, 54
months (48 months plus 180 days). Adequate records must
be maintained in order to show that the tune-ups met the
requirements of this standard.
Boiler Tune-Up Requirements
The work practice standards for boiler tune-ups require inspec-
tions of the burners and combustion controls. Should issues be
found with the burners or combustion control components that
affect the ability to optimize NO
x
and CO, these items must be
installed/corrected within three calendar months after the burner
inspection. Burner or combustion control component parts that
do not affect the ability to optimize NO
x
and CO may be addressed
on a timetable determined by the plant.
Boiler tune-ups are to include visual inspection of flame pat-
tern, damper observations, evaluation of windbox pressures and
air proportions, and inspection of the air-to-fuel control system.
Combustion should be optimized to minimize generation of
CO and NO
x
, with adjustments made consistent with the manu-
facturers specifications or best combustion engineering practice
for the applicable burner type. Optimization includes burners,
overfire air controls, firing system improvements, neural network
or combustion efficiency software, control systems calibrations,
adjusting combustion zone temperature profiles, and add-on
controls such as selective catalytic reduction and selective non-
catalytic reduction systems.
Testing and tuning should be completed at full load or unit
normal operating load. Figure 4 shows an actual CO, NO
x
, and O
2

curve developed during testing/tuning that was completed.
The EPA has amended the work practice and management prac-
tice tune-up standards to clarify that CO measurement, required
before (Figure 5) and after (Figure 6) tune-ups, may be taken
using portable CO analyzers. The requirements to inspect burn-
ers and the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio may be com-
pleted during the next scheduled shutdown. Units that produce
electricity for sale may also delay these inspections until the first
outage, not to exceed 36 months from the previous inspection.
Optimization of CO emissions must also regulate NO
x
within the
given emissions limits. For units that are not operating when a
tune-up is required, the tune-up must be conducted within 30
days of startup.
Danny S. Storm is president and COO of Storm Technologies Inc.
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4
C
O

(
p
p
m
)
N
O
x

(
p
p
m
)
O
2
(%)
4. An inverse relationship. The curves show the effect excess
O
2
has on CO and NO
x
. Courtesy: Storm Technologies
5. Before. The imagery shows significant differences between the
north and south ducts. Courtesy: Storm Technologies
6. After. Following tuning, there was much less variation between
the ducts. Courtesy: Storm Technologies
CO NO
x
Convection
Furnace
800.848.5086
2014 Diamond Power International, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
July 2014 20
Nest Thermostats:
The Future of Demand
Response Programs?
Olivia Para
S
ure, the Nest Learning Thermostat is smart, user-friendly,
and downright sexy, but at $249, its more a luxury item
than a mass-market appliance. Indeed, Nest thermostats
are highlighted in upscale real estate listings alongside marble
countertops and stainless steel appliances. Although Nest has
done well since its debut in 2011, with almost a million units
sold, its hard to see how a luxury market item would justify the
$3.2 billion price Google paid for Nest Labs earlier this year.
More Than a Thermostat
But Nest is not just selling sleek thermostats. Nest is partnering
with utilities to provide residential demand-response programs.
Currently, Nest offers two: Rush Hour Rewards and Seasonal Sav-
ings. Customers participating in Rush Hour Rewards are compen-
sated for allowing their thermostats to be adjusted during peak
demand episodes. During a Rush Hour episode, Nest automati-
cally makes small adjustments to temperatures based on each
customers past schedule and settings. Typically, this means pre-
cooling before the peak demand and short periods of cooling
during the rush hour. The program is fully automatedthe cus-
tomer doesnt have to remember to adjust the temperature and
doesnt even need to know there is a rush hour event occurring.
Last summer, Rush Hour Rewards helped achieve a 55% reduc-
tion in energy use during peak times. A better sign of success,
according to Nest, is how few customers manually changed the
temperature during a peak eventjust 14%. This is an indica-
tion that Nests approach to demand response keeps customers
comfortable, which should result in greater and more consistent
participation.
Rather than responding to specific events, Seasonal Savings,
by contrast, makes small, gradual adjustments to participating
customers thermostats twice a yearin early summer and win-
ter. The Seasonal Savings algorithm takes a customers historical
schedule and temperature preferences and what the Nest ther-
mostat has learned from the customers use to identify small ad-
justments that will save energy while minimizing the noticeable
change. Seasonal Savings helped reduce air conditioning usage
by 4.7% on average by automatically making small temperature
adjustments over time. On average, the temperature changes
were less than 1 degree.
Demand Response 2.0
Nest is not the first company to offer such programs, but it
has uniquely combined smart and effective algorithms with a
customer-focused approach. Most demand response programs re-
quire customers to allow their utility to simply shut off air-con-
ditioning units with special thermostats. Other utility demand
response programs send an email with savings tips and hope the
customer remembers to implement them. The inflexibility and
effort required with these programs are major barriers to greater
participation. Both Rush Hour Rewards and Seasonal Savings are
designed so that customers dont even notice the changes. In
fact, 84% of customers who participated in Rush Hour Rewards
and 89% of customers who participated in Seasonal Savings told
us they were just as comfortable as they were before they partici-
pated in our energy service programs, Tony Fadell, Nest founder
and CEO, said in a statement. This is critical to the adoption and
ultimate success of these programs.
Most importantly, Nests demand response programs are fast
responding and centrally controlled. The main issue facing utili-
ties and grid operators today is integrating renewable energy
generation and the increased ramping that results. To address
this issue, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
is focused on increasing the availability of fast-responding de-
mand response programs that it can control. CAISO wants more
resources that are callable at a certain time or during certain
system conditions. Specifically, in response to critical emer-
gency or stressed system conditions, CAISO needs to be able
to dispatch the demand response program itself based on real-
time system needs.
Currently, Rush Hour Rewards episodes are called on by utili-
ties, usually a day in advance of a forecasted shortage. However,
Nest has just announced Rush Hour Rewards 2.0. In the past,
Rush Hour events would last two to four hours, depending on
the utilitys best guess of air-conditioning needs during a heat
wave. Rush Hours Rewards 2.0 will allow on-demand events that
last just 30 minutes. This option gives energy companies and
grid operators the ability to react quickly to rapidly changing
system conditions. This will be valuable during unexpectedly hot
days and could also be used to respond to sudden changes in
production from intermittent renewable generation. With Rush
Hour Rewards 2.0, power companies and grid operators will be
able to act quickly to balance energy needs instead of having to
guess the day before.
It does not appear that selling fancy thermostats to design-
and green-minded consumers is the reason for Googles $3.2 bil-
lion investment in Nest. Rather, the potential is for Nest/Google
to use the technology to become a major player in energy mar-
kets. Together, Nest and Google could help multiply the reach
of this technology in a way that utilities have failed to do with
utility-run demand response programs. While individual custom-
ers may notice few changes in their heating and cooling, the
impact this technology will have when aggregated at utility scale
could help avoid development of new power plants and transmis-
sion lines.
Olivia Para (oliviapara@dwt.com) is an associate in Davis
Wright Tremaines energy practice group in the firms
San Francisco office.
AI R-COOLED HEAT EXCHANGERS COOLI NG TOWERS AI R-COOLED STEAM CONDENSERS
|
July 2014 22
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Combined Mercury and SO
3
Removal Using SBS Injection
T
he U.S. Environmental Protection
Agencys (EPAs) Utility Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regula-
tion requires power plants to reduce emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including
mercury. The regulation requires that these
emission reductions be achieved by April
2015, or April 2016 if the plant is granted an
extension. Activated carbon injection (ACI)
is the most widely used technology for the
specific control of mercury emissions; how-
ever, ACIs effectiveness is greatly reduced in
the presence of sulfur trioxide (SO
3
).
This article describes a novel approach
for mercury control that relies on the injec-
tion of a single sorbent to effectively remove
SO
3
upstream of the air preheater (APH),
which greatly enhances mercury adsorption
onto the native unburned carbon in the
flue gas downstream of the APH. Further-
more, removal of SO
3
prior to the APH al-
lows for the flue gas temperature exiting the
APH to be reduced, which further enhances
mercury capture and improves the plant en-
ergy efficiency. The co-benefit capture of
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and selenium from
the flue gas using this approach is another
advantage.
The Challenges of Removing SO
3
Over the past decade many generators have
installed new emissions controls on their coal-
fired power plants, including selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) systems for nitrogen oxides
(NO
x
) control and flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems for SO
2
control. One conse-
quence of SCR retrofits has been a significant
increase in the amount of SO
3
generated in the
flue gas and the potential to create a visible
sulfuric acid blue plume. In addition, higher
SO
3
levels can adversely affect many aspects
of plant operation and performance, including
severe corrosion of back-end equipment, foul-
ing of the APH, and limitations in the ability to
operate at reduced loads due to SCR operating
temperature constraints.
The addition of SCR or FGD to a power
plant, or a switch to higher-sulfur fuels, can
also trigger the EPAs New Source Review
(NSR) rules. In some cases, power plants
have been required to mitigate the elevated
SO
3
emissions as a result of NSR rules.
The trademarked SBS Injection technol-
ogy has been widely applied to control SO
3

emissions from coal-fired power plants.
However, it is only in recent years that the
co-removal of mercury has also been docu-
mented and demonstrated at several plants.
The technology injects a sodium-based
solution into the flue gas, typically ahead of
the APH or SCR. By removing SO
3
prior to
these devices, many of the adverse effects of
SO
3
can be successfully mitigated, and plant
performance and reliability can be improved.
SO
3
removal efficiencies of greater than 98%
have been achieved using SBS Injection, with
stack emissions typically less than 1.0 part per
million (ppm). The process has been installed
on 24 boilers representing more than 15,000
MW of generating capacity, and has been in
continuous operation for more than 10 years.
A typical installation is shown in Figure 1.
As with any emissions control technol-
ogy, proper design and operation are critical
to ensure that desired performance and reli-
ability are achieved. Because the SBS Injec-
tion technology relies on the injection of a
wet sorbent solution into the flue gas, care-
Though no single mercury capture approach is best for all plants, when you can
capture two (or more) pollutants with one sorbent, its worth a careful look.
Sterling M. Gray, Jim B. Jarvis, and Steven W. Kosler
Courtesy: URS Corp.
July 2014
|
ful attention during system design is needed
to ensure proper atomization and drying of
the liquid to avoid solids deposition within
the ductwork.
In addition, the injection of any sodium-
based sorbent can result in secondary reac-
tions producing sodium bisulfate, which can
lead to fouling of the APH. As a result, the
injection location must be properly selected
to provide adequate reaction time prior to
the APH to ensure the SO
3
concentration is
sufficiently reduced to avoid these reactions.
Recent experience has shown that with proper
design and operation of the SBS process, these
operational issues can be easily overcome.
Mercury Control Challenges
As noted, MATS requires power plants to re-
duce emissions of HAPs, including mercury,
and although ACI is the most widely used
technology for the specific control of mer-
cury emissions, its effectiveness is greatly re-
duced in the presence of SO
3
. Plants burning
medium- to high-sulfur fuels and equipped
with SCRs can have as much as 30 to 80 ppm
of SO
3
in the flue gas.
Research shows that even low levels of
SO
3
(2 to 5 ppm) can inhibit good mercury
adsorption. There has been significant ef-
fort to develop sulfur-tolerant carbons to
overcome this challenge, but with only lim-
ited success. Dry sorbent injection (DSI)
has also been used to control SO
3
, but this
technology is often unable to achieve the
low SO
3
levels required for good mercury
capture, and it can adversely affect the per-
formance of downstream particulate control
equipment.
Another widely used approach for mercury
control is catalytic oxidation and subsequent
capture in a wet scrubber. SCR catalyst can
be particularly effective for oxidation of mer-
cury, but its performance is sensitive to flue
gas temperature and halogen concentration.
Wet scrubbers are very effective in capturing
the oxidized form of mercury, but they will not
capture mercury in its elemental form. Some-
times, oxidized mercury captured in the scrub-
ber can be converted back to the elemental
form and be re-emitted, thereby increasing
stack emissions. Much research has been done
to understand and control re-emissions, with
some success reported in recent years. (For
more on the variety of approaches to mercury
capture, enter mercury capture in the Search
box at powermag.com.)
The EPA also recently proposed new
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG)
for the power industry that place a limit
of roughly 120 parts per trillion (ppt) for
mercury in wet scrubber or FGD waste-
water streams. For plants that discharge
wastewater from their FGD system, this
may present another challenge in manag-
ing the fate of mercury with their plant.
Achieving the proposed limits may require
additional physical and chemical treat-
ment of the stream to transfer the soluble
mercury from the liquid phase to the solid
phase, with subsequent separation and re-
moval from the waste stream. In the worst
case, expensive mercury-specific treat-
ment techniques may be required.
In addition to mercury, these two regula-
tions place limits on acid gasincluding HCl
and hydrofluoric acid (HF)emissions in
flue gas and selenium discharges in wastewa-
ter. The MATS rule requires HCl emissions to
be limited to 0.002 lb/MMBtu as a surrogate
for the control of emissions of acid gases.
The proposed ELG rule could limit selenium
levels in FGD wastewater streams to only 10
parts per billion (ppb). The ability to capture
and remove these two species ahead of the
wet scrubber could be advantageous and may
be an effective strategy in complying with the
regulations.
A New Approach to Mercury Control
Given the challenges of controlling mercury
emissions, and the associated high costs, there
is a need for a new cost-effective approach.
Over the past decade, testing by URS and oth-
ers has confirmed the significant impact of
SO
3
on mercury capture by activated carbon.
1. SBS Injection system. The SBS system typically includes a field-erected reagent
solution storage tank (shown on the right), shop-fabricated injection skid (center), and smaller
water storage tanks (left). Courtesy: URS Corp.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
M
e
r
c
u
r
y

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

a
s
h

L
O
I

(
u
g
/
g
)
Measured or estimated SO
3
concentration at ESP outlet (ppm)
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Plant E Plant D (Post-APH) 2009
Plant D (Pre-SCR) 2009
2. The lower the better. Native mercury capture across the electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) can be greatly enhanced when SO3 is reduced to only a few ppm. Source: URS Corp.
|
July 2014 24
URS has gathered extensive data from
existing SBS Injection installations that also
show how SO
3
affects the native capture of
mercury by the unburned carbon (UBC) or
loss on ignition (LOI) that is typically present
in flue gas. Figure 2 shows how mercury ad-
sorption onto unburned carbon increases dra-
matically as the flue gas SO
3
concentration
is reduced from 5 ppm to 1 ppm. The data
shown were collected by varying the SBS
sorbent injection rate and measuring both the
mercury and LOI levels in the fly ash and the
SO
3
concentration in the flue gas exiting the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The results
show that reducing the SO
3
down to very low
levels can result in significantly higher mer-
cury capture rates.
Industry research also shows that mercury
adsorption onto carbon is temperature depen-
dent with minimal capture above 350F and
maximum capture below 250F. To investigate
both the effect of flue gas temperature and
SO
3
concentration, URS recently conducted
a full-scale test program with cofunding pro-
vided by the Electric Power Research Insti-
tute (EPRI) and a host utility. Testing was
conducted at a Midwestern power plant with
an existing SBS Injection system. The plant
burns high-sulfur bituminous coal and is
equipped with an SCR, ESP, and wet FGD.
During the test program, the APH exit
gas temperature was varied from nominally
340F down to 290F at full-load conditions by
simply varying the degree of combustion air
preheat. Temperatures as low as 265F were
achieved at reduced load conditions. The
SBS sorbent injection rate was also varied
from a typical molar injection ratio of 1.5 to
an elevated ratio of 2.5 Na
2
CO
3
:SO
3
.
Flue gas measurements of elemental and
oxidized mercury concentrations were made
at the ESP outlet using a semi-continuous
emission monitor and were validated with
limited sorbent-trap testing in the stack. Flue
gas SO
3
measurements were also made at the
ESP outlet using the controlled condensation
sampling method. Coal and fly ash samples
were collected during the test program, and
both were analyzed for mercury and UBC
content. Finally, HCl and selenium measure-
ments were made in the coal, fly ash, and flue
gas at the ESP outlet.
Parametric test results, summarized in
Figure 3, show the overall mercury removal
efficiency as measured from the coal to the
ESP outlet. Results indicate that higher mer-
cury removal was achieved by both increas-
ing the SBS injection rate and lowering the
flue gas temperature.
At the highest temperature (340F), mercu-
ry removal was limited to about 60% at ele-
vated sorbent injection rates. However, at the
lower flue gas temperature (270F), mercury
removal increased to 80% and above, even at
the lowest sorbent injection rate.
Test results also indicated that both elemen-
tal and oxidized mercury were removed across
the ESP, ensuring a reduction in stack mercury
emissions. For example, at the lowest flue gas
temperature (270F), the elemental mercury
concentrations at the ESP outlet were reduced
to about 0.6 lb/TBtu, well below the MATS
emission limit of 1.2 lb/TBtu. During the
testing, flue gas SO
3
levels at the ESP outlet
ranged from 0.8 to 1.2 ppm, and fly ash LOI
levels varied from 3.5% to 5.0%.
Results from the test program clearly
show the benefit of both reducing the flue
gas SO
3
concentrations to very low levels and
reducing the flue gas temperature leaving the
APH. Some of the approaches to lowering
the flue gas temperature include eliminating
preheating of the combustion air entering the
APH, modifying the depth and design of the
APH heating elements to increase overall
heat transfer, and lowering the furnace exit
gas temperature. Most plants can use one or
more of these approaches to reduce their flue
gas temperatures. However, Figure 3 shows
that even at moderately high APH outlet tem-
peratures, SBS Injection can enhance native
mercury capture and reduce emissions.
By capturing a very significant fraction of
the mercury across the ESP, the stack mer-
cury emissions can typically be reduced to
well below the MATS emission limit. Based
on the positive results from the EPRI test pro-
gram, the host utility has elected to upgrade
its existing APH elements to achieve much
lower flue gas temperatures and much higher
mercury capturea key component of its
MATS compliance strategy.
Other power plants are also exploring how
they can use their SBS Injection system to
reduce mercury emissions. Recent testing at
an SBS installation in West Virginia has also
shown that reducing the APH operating tem-
perature can lower mercury emissions. In the
Midwest, Indianapolis Power & Light recently
selected the SBS Injection process for its Pe-
tersburg Station specifically to control both SO
3

and mercury as part of its MATS compliance
strategy. For plants burning fuels with a range
of sulfur and mercury levels, the SBS injection
process can effectively mitigate the impact of
SO
3
, thereby maximizing the native capture of
mercury and minimizing emissions.
Furthermore, by reducing the SO
3
con-
centration at the inlet to the APH to very low
levels, it is also possible to eliminate fouling
of the APH due to sulfuric acid and/or am-
monium bisulfate. Based on research and
testing conducted by a leading APH manu-
facturer, the APH can now be reliably oper-
ated at much lower temperatures, improving
mercury capture and plant heat rate or energy
efficiency. One might say that this new ap-
proach allows a power plant to capture more
mercury by burning less coal.
Capturing more mercury in the fly ash also
significantly reduces the amount of mercury
that is captured by the wet scrubber, which
can provide several potential benefits. First,
if less mercury is retained in the scrubber,
then the potential amount of mercury that
can be re-emitted is also reduced, thereby
lowering the risk that this phenomenon will
result in exceedences of the MATS limit.
Second, by lowering the mercury content in
the FGD scrubbing liquor, it is much more
likely that ELG limits for mercury content in
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350
Air preheater outlet temperature (F)
M
e
r
c
u
r
y

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

(
%
,

c
o
a
l

t
o

E
S
P

o
u
t
l
e
t
)
SBS molar ratio 1.5 SBS molar ratio 1.8 SBS molar ratio 2.5
3. Reducing temperature reduces emissions. Once the SO
3
is removed ahead of
the air preheater, mercury emissions can be further reduced by lowering the flue gas tempera-
ture. Source: URS Corp.
July 2014
|
FGD wastewater streams can be met without
the need for additional treatment.
HCl and Selenium Co-Removal
As mentioned earlier, HCl emissions in flue gas
and selenium discharges in wastewater are also
regulated by MATS and proposed ELG rules,
respectively. Recent testing has shown that
sorbent injection for the removal of SO
3
and
mercury is also effective for the capture and re-
moval of HCl and selenium from flue gas.
HCl removal results as a function of the
SBS sorbent injection rate are illustrated in
Figure 4. At typical SBS sorbent injection
rates, roughly 40% HCl capture was achieved,
while elevated injection rates resulted in
nearly 70% HCl capture. These results are
consistent with previous testing that shows
that SO
3
is preferentially removed, with ex-
cess sorbent available to remove HCl present
in the flue gas. However, results at a given
plant will vary depending on the relative con-
centrations of SO
3
and HCl in the flue gas,
and the overall sorbent injection rate.
Co-removal of HCl with the fly ash can pro-
vide several advantages to the operating plant.
Some plants must control the dissolved chlo-
ride levels in their wet scrubbers due to materi-
als of construction and corresponding corrosion
concerns. As a result, many plants must operate
with a chloride purge stream from the FGD sys-
tem. In most cases, this chloride purge stream
must be treated prior to discharge.
In addition, the newly proposed ELG rules
may require additional treatment to meet new
stringent limits for mercury and selenium. By
capturing HCl in the fly ash, and reducing the
amount captured in the FGD system, it may
be possible to greatly reduce, or even elimi-
nate, the need for a chloride purge stream.
As a result, it may be possible to avoid the
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
SBS Injection molar ratio (Na
2
CO
3
:SO
3
)
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

a
c
r
o
s
s

E
S
P

(
%

o
f

c
o
a
l

C
l
)
4. HCl captured in ESP. In addition to very high SO
3
removal, SBS Injection can achieve
significant co-removal of hydrochloric acid (HCl), thereby reducing levels in the downstream flue
gas desulfurization system and wastewater streams. Source: URS Corp.
|
July 2014 26
significant capital and operating costs associ-
ated with FGD wastewater treatment.
Effective capture of selenium has also
been demonstrated using the SBS Injection
process. Figure 5 shows selenium removal
across the ESP as a function of the SBS sor-
bent injection rate and flue gas temperature
at the APH outlet. Results indicate that 60%
to 90% capture efficiency was achieved over
the range of sorbent injection rates tested.
As described earlier, the newly proposed
ELG rules place stringent limits on selenium
in FGD wastewater streams. By capturing a
significant fraction of the gaseous selenium
with the fly ash, it may be possible to meet
the ELG limits without the need for costly
treatment technologies.
It All Adds Up
Achieving new stringent MATS and ELG
limits presents numerous challenges for con-
ventional approaches that will require signifi-
cant capital expenditures, as well as increased
plant operating costs. As described here, re-
cent testing has shown that the injection of a
single sorbent can effectively remove the reg-
ulated pollutants while improving plant heat
rate and energy efficiency, reducing plant
operating costs, and achieving significant co-
removal of HCl and seleniumwhich may
make it possible to avoid costly wastewater
treatment requirements resulting from the
proposed ELG rules.
Sterling Gray (sterling.gray@urs.com)
is a technology and business development
manager in the Process Technologies group
at URS Corp. Jim B. Jarvis is a senior project
manager, and Steven W. Kosler is a senior
process engineer for URS Corp.
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
SBS Injection molar ratio (Na
2
CO
3
:SO
3
)
S
e
l
e
n
i
u
m

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

a
c
r
o
s
s

E
S
P

(
%

)
5. Captures selenium too. Significant co-removal of selenium across the ESP us-
ing SBS Injection can help plants meet the stringent proposed effluent limitation guidelines.
Source: URS Corp.
340F 315F 293F 270F
MATS and MACT compliant mitigation of
Hg SO
2
SO
3
HCI HF
Dependable, continuous sorbent fow, with
redundant design as needed
Reliable automated operation and control, for
optimal performance and consistent costs
On-site, self-contained testing systems, to ensure
the precise results you need
When it has to work, when it has to last
Call 651-780-8600 today to begin an analysis
of your pollution mitigation needs.
With 30 years of industry experience, Nol-Tec
thoroughly understands air pollution migitation.
We design our dry sorbent injection systems to
suit your specifc control needs. Our experts look
at every variable to guarantee compliant levels
for your emissions.
And were there for you throughout the life of your
system. You can rely on Nol-Tec expertise and service.
Sorb-N-Ject
Nol-Tecs experts are there for you.
sales@nol-tec.com www.nol-tec.com
Nol-Tec Systems
your parnter in handling success
Engine and Marine Systems Power Plants Turbomachinery After Sales
Go for Gas
For exibility in an era of renewables
As we enter an age of renewables, the V35/44G is a great source of power, and a great source
of exibility. It is the rst fully electr onic four-stroke gas engine from MAN Diesel & Turbo, and
combines exceptional efciency, proven reliability and excellent TCO. The V35/44G produces up to
10.6 MW, making it ideal for industrial applications and local electri city generation, including CHP.
Discover the power of MAN gas technology:
www.mandieselturbo.com
|
July 2014 28
Biomass Exemption Sails into
the Sunset
A
pproximately four years ago the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) took the first step in regulating
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from elec-
tric generating units (EGUs) by promulgating
the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule on June 10,
2010. The rule was implemented over a two-
and-a-half-year period with three major steps
covering new and existing emission sources.
This rule will significantly affect new and ex-
isting sources, as GHG emissions are now reg-
ulated pollutants. Facilities that generate more
than 100,000 tons a year of equivalent carbon
dioxide are now classified as major sources.
Carbon dioxide equivalent is defined as the
combined emissions from carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
For the majority of fossil fuelfired sourc-
es, this rule is just another regulatory speed
bump requiring EGUs to address GHGs.
For smaller renewable power generators and
utilities adding biomass power plants to their
fleet, this regulation is a serious roadblock
that will push small biomass facilities from
less-regulated area emission sources to full-
blown major emission sources.
With deadlines for meeting renewable
portfolio standards quickly approaching, ad-
ditional regulatory hurdles would decrease
the likelihood of reaching those mandated
levels of renewable generation. It is with this
in mind that shortly after promulgation of
the GHG Tailoring Rule, several members of
the U.S. Congress filed complaints with the
then-administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson,
requesting a deferral of the rules applicabil-
ity to biomass sources.
Enough pressure had been placed on the
EPA that action was taken to temporarily
exempt renewable EGUs from the Tailoring
Rules impact. On July 1, 2011, the Federal
Register published an update to include a
three-year deferral for the application of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Title V permitting requirements to carbon
dioxide emissions from bioenergy and other
biogenic stationary sources. The purpose of
this three-year deferment was to allow the
EPA to conduct a detailed analysis of the sci-
ence associated with biogenic carbon dioxide
emissions from stationary sources.
For clarity, not all biomass power genera-
tors were granted the deferment. As part of
the three-step implementation process of the
GHG Tailoring Rule, the first step included fa-
cilities that currently were covered under Title
With quickly approaching deadlines for achieving renewable portfolio stan-
dard goals, the likely lapse of a critical exemption this month may increase the
challenges for meeting those mandates.
Brandon Bell, PE
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Need an easy way to obtain more
information to make an informed decision?
Customized newsletters are now available giving
you everything you need to make the right decision.
Look for DecisionBriefs on www.powermag.com
For information, contact Matt Grant at mattg@powermag.com
PRODUCT DETAILS. SPECS. TUTORIALS.
DB DecisionBriefs |
INTRODUCING
|
July 2014 30
V permitting programs. Those facilities would
not be granted a deferment and would be sub-
ject to carbon dioxide equivalent regulations.
For biomass facilities that were already cov-
ered under Title V programs, the EPA issued
a guidance document for determining the best
available control technology (BACT) for bio-
genic carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA also
made the deferral voluntary, leaving it to the
discretion of individual states to adopt the de-
ferral and to regulate accordingly.
Significance of Area Sources
Area sources, sometimes also referred to as
minor emission sources, are facilities that have
emissions too small to be treated as a point
source. The EPA defines area sources as those
emitting any individual hazardous air pollut-
ant (HAP) less than 10 tons per year, emitting
combined HAPs less than 25 tons per year, or
(depending on the source category) a facility
emitting less than 100 or 250 tons per year of
individual criteria pollutants.
HAPs are defined by the Clean Air Act,
which was last updated in 1990 and contains
a list of 189 chemicals classified as HAPs.
Criteria pollutants consist of nitrogen oxides
(NO
x
), sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), fine particulate,
carbon monoxide, and volatile organic com-
pounds.
EGUs that have the capability of firing
more than 250 million Btu an hour of fossil
fuels fall under the more stringent regulation
of 100 tons per year of criteria pollutants to
achieve area source classification. Assuming
a facility uses biomass as its primary fuel
source and the combined fossil firing of any
ancillary equipment is less than 250 million
Btu an hour, the facility would be regulated
as an area source. This is advantageous, as
biomass area sources are allowed to emit up
to 250 tons per year of criteria pollutants and
avoid federal PSD regulations.
There are other advantages for a facility
being classified as an area emission source. If
a facility falls under PSD permitting require-
ments, the following areas must be addressed
in the permit application: BACT analysis
addressing emission controls technologies,
an air quality analysis, an additional impact
analysis, and public involvement:
BACT analysis is a case-by-case analysis
that addresses the maximum degree of
emission control for each pollutant and
factors in energy, environmental, and eco-
nomic impacts.
The air quality analysis is meant to dem-
onstrate that the new facility will not
violate any National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards as a result of the facilitys
operation. This analysis first assesses the
existing air quality of a site using ambient
monitoring devices. The second part of the
analysis incorporates dispersion modeling
of the new emission source to predict the
impact on the surrounding environment.
Additional impact analyses pertain specifi-
cally to the effect of construction and opera-
tion of the new facility on the proposed site.
These assessments include ground and wa-
ter pollution on soils, impacts on wetlands,
vegetation, visibility, endangered species
analysis, and archaeological impacts.
Public involvement allows the general pub-
lic to provide comments to a draft permit
and typically involves a public hearing to ad-
dress any concerns directly to the EPA and
owners. The time to permit a major source
can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months,
depending on the complexity of the facility.
Because area sources have been deemed
too small to be classified as a point source,
their permitting process is typically done at
a state level. Most states do not impose PSD
permitting requirements such as BACT, air
quality analysis, and impact analyses.
As a result of the less-onerous permit re-
quirements, the process to obtain a construc-
tion permit for an area source is reduced to
approximately three months. The speed and
reduced complexity of the permitting process
is particularly favorable to utilities wishing to
utilize biomass fuel sources to meet renew-
able portfolio standards. Private developers
also favor the area source permitting process,
as less capital is required and quicker con-
struction start times are expected.
How Biomass EGUs Are Affected
With a greater focus on adding renewable
power generation to meet renewable portfolio
standards, the ability to permit and build bio-
mass power generation facilities is becoming
crucial. Biomass fuels by their nature tend to
have low levels of compounds that create reg-
ulated byproducts as a result of combustion.
As an example, a typical woody biomass fuel
used to generate steam from a fluidized bed
combustor and using only a pulse jet fabric fil-
ter for particulate control could be sized at 25
MW and still be classified as an area source.
In the U.S. there are approximately 144
power generating facilities using biomass fu-
els as their primary fuel source (Figure 1). Of
those 144 facilities, nearly half (71 facilities)
have a rated capacity of 25 MW or less, mak-
ing small generators a significant portion of
the national biomass generation portfolio.
If the current GHG Tailoring Rule exemp-
tion for biogenic sources were vacated, the
rated capacity of the same wood burning bio-
mass facility outlined above would plummet
to approximately 8 MW of generation capac-
ity before crossing the major emission source
threshold. This reduction is significant, as the
number of biomass sources currently rated at
8 MW and less is a mere 16. Assuming the
25 MW or less >25 MW 8-25 MW 8 MW or less
73
71
16
55
1. How small is small? Currently, biomass plants of 25 MW and less fall below the
threshold for being classified as major emission sources. If biomass plants were subject to
the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, the threshold would drop to 8 MW, exempting only 16 of the
144 existing biomass facilities instead of the 71 considered area sources today. Source: Energy
Information Administration
July 2014
|
same distribution of biomass plant sizes is
expected in the future, approximately 89% of
those facilities would be classified as major
emission sources as a result of the GHG Tai-
loring Rule being applied.
Sunset Provision
The exemption of biogenic carbon dioxide
sources from the GHG Tailoring Rule was
not a popular move for some industry groups.
This is evidenced by the more than 200-page
Summary of Public Comments and Re-
sponses document issued on June 28, 2011.
With such strong feelings against the defer-
ral, these groups filed a challenge to vacate
the EPAs deferral.
In July 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued
a 2-1 ruling vacating the biogenic carbon diox-
ide deferral and caused turmoil in the biomass
industry. The industry legally had 30 days to
file for a rehearing on the ruling, but the op-
portunity to appeal is being withheld. Instead,
the court decided to tie any additional actions
to another key case, Utility Air Regulatory
Group (UARG) v. EPA. In this case the UARG
is challenging the EPAs authority to regulate
carbon dioxide from stationary sources via the
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruling.
The D.C. court withheld the mandate of
the vacatur until a ruling from UARG v. EPA
was issued. As a result of this withholding,
the original biogenic exemption remains in
place. The Supreme Court heard oral argu-
ments in the UARG v. EPA case on Feb. 24,
2014, and a decision is expected in the latter
part of the year.
Although this would appear to give renew-
able biomass power generators hope for the
future, the reality is that time is still running
out on this exemption. In the published defer-
ral, section 51.166 provided clear direction for
the lifespan of this deferral: For the purposes
of this paragraph, prior to July 21, 2014 the
mass of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
shall not include carbon dioxide emissions re-
sulting from the combustion or decomposition
of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic
material originating from plants, animals,
and biodegradable organic material.
That statement is commonly referred to as
a sunset provision for the deferral. Without
EPA studies supporting the future exemption
of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions, and
barring any decisions by the federal courts
to overturn the vacatur, on July 21, 2014, the
deferral will simply expire.
Regulatory and Permitting
Complexities
Although it may appear that the expiration of
the biogenic deferral will be detrimental to
new biomass facilities, the problem may be
more complex than that. With the assumption
that no further action by the courts will be
realized, facilities that took advantage of the
biogenic carbon dioxide deferral during this
three-year period most likely will be required
to retroactively obtain permits that address
the GHG Tailoring Rule.
Precedence for this retroactive permit mod-
ification was demonstrated with the vacatur
of the EPAs Section 112(n) Revision Rule
of the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The Section
112(n) revision rule was published Mar. 29,
2005, and removed coal- and oil-fired EGUs
from the list of applicable sources in Section
112(c). On Feb. 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court vacated
the Section 112(n) revision rule and issued a
mandate on Mar. 14, 2008. EGUs that used
this exemption in the permitting process and
began construction or reconstruction between
Mar. 29, 2005, and Mar. 14, 2008, were now
legally required to comply with Section
112(g) requirements.
Implementation of the GHG Tailoring Rule
has been around for several years now, and by
far the most common control method for carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions has been energy
efficiency methods. However, for those facili-
ties constructed between June 10, 2010, and
July 21, 2014, that used the biogenic carbon
dioxide deferral and now will be classified as
major emission sources, other pollutants may
be subject to emissions control technologies.
Depending on the specific pollutant in
question, expensive control technologies
may need to be retroactively installed at ex-
isting facilities. Equipment such as selective
catalytic reduction systems for NO
x
control
and wet and dry scrubbers for SO
2
control
potentially work their way into the econom-
ics of these biomass facilities. However, it is
too early to say if any of these pollution con-
trol technologies will be mandated.
Although the biogenic carbon dioxide de-
ferral is set to expire in July, there is still the
possibility that the regulation of carbon diox-
ide emissions from EGUs could be vacated
later this year. Deadlines for meeting state
renewable portfolio standards are quickly
approachingnine are set for 2015and the
need for renewable power sources is great.
Adding additional permitting, capital, and
operational hurdles for new and some exist-
ing sources will only make achieving these
goals more problematic.
With so much uncertainty, its hard to pre-
dict what the future holds, but new biomass
EGUs should be prepared for stiffer environ-
mental controls, and existing biomass EGUs
that utilized the biogenic exemption should
prepare for possible permit modifications.
Brandon Bell, PE (bbell@valdeseng
.com) is a project manager at Valdes Engi-
neering and a POWER contributing editor.
|
July 2014 32
The Water-Energy Nexus Takes
Center Stage
U
nless youve been living in a cave,
youve likely heard the term water-
energy nexus recently. Around the
globe, experts and policy makers are waking
up to the reality that the worlds energy needs
and its water needs are on a collision course.
A recent report from the Congressional
Research Service lays out the challenge in
the U.S. National water consumption is pro-
jected to increase 7% by 2030, and 85% of
that increase is attributable to the energy sec-
tor. Globally, the figures are dire: According
to the International Energy Agency (IEA),
consumption is projected to increase 2.5% per
year through 2035 even with policy changes
designed to increase water use efficiency,
with energy-related consumption doubling
over the same period.
The potential for a staggering conflict can
be drawn from just two statistics: Worldwide,
according to the United Nations, 2 billion peo-
ple lack access to safe water supplies, and 1.3
billion lack access to electricity. In most cases,
these numbers represent the same people.
Uncertain Data
One problem in tackling these challenges is
a paucity of good data. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), which publishes comprehen-
sive reports on water usage in the U.S. every
five years, has not reported water consumed in
power generation since 1995only total with-
drawals. The USGS plans to return to report-
ing this data with the study for 2010, but this
report will not be available until late 2014.
Thus, though it is known that withdraw-
als for once-through cooling (OTC) have
been more or less level since 1980, it is not
clear how recent moves toward generation re-
sources with very different water use profiles
may have affected consumption. The Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) has attempt-
ed to fill this gap, most recently with a report
updated in April 2014, though it covered only
thermoelectric plants using freshwater.
The EPRI results, based on data from
2009 for all thermal plants except nuclear
(for which data through 2011 was available)
are consistent with previous studies suggest-
ing that while power generation withdraw-
als are a significant portion (about 40%) of
total withdrawals, consumption constitutes a
much smaller share. Total withdrawals were
estimated at 139,800 million gallons per day
(mgd), with OTC accounting for almost all
of this. Consumption was estimated at 3,930
mgd, with most of this (2,760 mgd) account-
Power plant operators have long understood the vital role water plays in power
generation. Now, as the rest of the world begins recognizing that as well, a conflict
is brewing between the growing demand for electricity and increasingly strained
water resources.
Thomas W. Overton, JD
Source: EPA
July 2014
|
ed for by wet recirculating cooling.
This appears to represent a largely un-
changed load on the nations water resources
compared to 2005 USGS data. The USGS es-
timated that total (fresh and saltwater) with-
drawals for power generation that year were
201,000 mgd, of which 142,710 mgd were
freshwater.
Regional Challenges
While the U.S. is far less water-stressed than
countries such as China and India, many
states face challenges in meeting water de-
mand. A May 2014 report from the U.S. Gen-
eral Accounting Office (GAO) found that 24
of 50 states were likely to experience region-
al water shortages over the next decade and
40 out of 50 state water managers expected
some portion of their states to experience
shortages under average conditions.
These responses are not surprising given that
large portions of the western U.S. are currently
experiencing severe to exceptional long-term
drought. This includes nearly all of California,
Arizona, and New Mexico, and large portions
of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
Significantly for the generation industry,
California and Texas represent the two largest
markets for future capacity, according to the
Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Further, the Southwestern U.S. as a whole is
projected to see greater than 30% electricity
demand growth by 2040.
Ongoing droughts have threatened disrup-
tions to generation in Texas and the Midwest
(see Water Issues Challenge Power Genera-
tors in the July 2013 issue) and have caused
curtailments in hydropower generation in
California and the Pacific Northwest. The
California Independent System Operator
said in May that the state was likely to have
as much as 1,669 MW of its hydroelectric
capacity unavailable this summer, while
as much as 1,150 MW of thermal capacity
would be unavailable due to limitations on
cooling water withdrawals.
Kate Zerrenner, project manager for the
Environmental Defense Funds U.S. Climate
and Energy Program and a former climate
policy analyst with the GAO, isnt convinced
generators fully appreciate what theyre fac-
ing. Many electric utilities and power grid
operators have drought contingency plans,
but drought planning is not the same thing
as water planning, she told POWER. If we
anticipate a growing demand of this limited
resource (and we do), we need to talk about
climate change. It is no longer an option to
conduct long-range planning without using
all the available data. We need a thorough
analysis of climate impacts on water, so both
electric and water utilities know what theyre
working with.
Globally, water stresses are concentrated
in the Asia-Pacific region, with the greatest
future stresses projected to come in the coun-
tries expected to see the greatest electricity
demand growth: China and India (Figure 1).
Many of Chinas problems stem from a
geographic mismatch between its resources
and population. While water is relatively
abundant in the south, its population and
water-intensive industryand thus its great-
est power demandsare concentrated in
the water-poor northeast. About 60% of the
nations planned capacity growth is sited
in this region, even though it has but 5% of
the countrys water resources. According to
a report from the World Resources Institute
released in April, almost 60% of Chinas
generating capacity is expected to face steep
competition for water in the future, which has
forced the central government to enact caps
on withdrawals and set goals for increased
efficiency. (For more on Chinas water chal-
lenges, see Power Sector Link to Water Is
Deep, Complex in the June issue, available
at powermag.com.)
According to the IEA, withdrawals for
power generation in India are expected to
grow by almost 50% between 2010 and
2035, with consumption more than doubling.
Most of the stresses will come in the southern
and eastern coastal regions, as well as heavily
populated Gujarat state. The country has al-
ready experienced water-related disruptions
to generation: Shortages forced the 2.3-GW
Chandrapur coal plant in Maharashtra offline
in the summer of 2010, leading to power out-
ages across the state, a situation that nearly
recurred during a second drought in 2012.
A similar shutdown occurred at a plant in
Chhattisgarh in 2008, and the 2012 drought
was blamed in part for a massive blackout in
August that knocked out power for almost
half the nation.
Though Europe is not generally consid-
ered water-stressed, it has still experienced
water-related challenges to generation, nota-
bly during droughts in 2003 and 2005, which
caused a series of curtailments at thermoelec-
tric plants. France in particular lost a quar-
ter of its nuclear capacity during the 2003
drought as a result of constraints on cooling
water. Climate change is expected to aggra-
vate future water stresses in Europe, accord-
ing to the IEA, with reduced summer river
flows and higher water temperatures.
Other regions of the world are facing po-
tential water-energy collisions. The Middle
East, one of the most arid regions on earth,
is a study in contrasts. The wealthy countries
around the Persian Gulf have managed their
water stresses through energy-intensive de-
salination. Though this has given them suf-
ficient water supplies, a substantial portion
of their total generation capacity is devoted
to producing water. Meanwhile, the poorer
countries struggle to meet both water and
power needs of their population. (For more
on this regions energy profile, see Shifting
Sands: The Middle Easts Thrust for Sustain-
ability in this issue.)
Latin Americas heavy reliance on hydro-
power has meant fewer challenges with respect
to cooling but greater exposure to drought-in-
duced curtailments. Conflicts have also arisen
between hydroelectric plants and agricultural
interests. Though the region as a whole is less
water-stressed than others, there are still arid
countries, such as Chile, where generators
have had to plan carefully to meet their water
needs (see Chiles Power Challenge: Reliable
Energy Supplies in the September 2012 is-
sue). Climate change is also expected to re-
duce the reliability of existing hydro resources
in the future, according to the IEA.
Finally, Africathe least electrified re-
gion in the worldis also looking toward
hydropower as a way forward. Hydro cur-
rently supplies 32% of Africas generation,
though only 8% of its economically feasible
hydro potential has been developed (see The
Power Potential of Southern Africa in the
February 2014 issue).
Changing Regulations
Given its numerous inherent challenges, its
hardly surprising that the water-energy nexus
has drawn increasing regulatory attention.
At the federal level, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) on May 19 issued its fi-
nal rule governing power plant cooling water
intake systems under Section 316(b) of the
Clean Water Act. The rule is focused on reduc-
ing impingement and mortality of aquatic life
and is expected to have little immediate effect
on total withdrawals. Closed-cycle cooling is
favoredthough not requiredfor new ca-
pacity. (For more on the new rule, see the June
2014 issue cover story, Site-Specific Factors
1. Under threat. Indias drive to boost
its generation capacity will be challenged by
its perennial water shortages. The 2.6-GW
Ramagundam coal plant in the southern state
of Andhra Pradesh is located in one of the na-
tions most water-challenged areas. Source:
Getsuhas08/Wikipedia
|
July 2014 34
Are Critical for Compliance with Final 316(b)
Existing Facilities Rule.)
The EPA is also in the process of revis-
ing its rules on power plant effluent. The
proposed rule, published in April 2013, es-
tablishes new or additional requirements
for wastewater streams. Several compliance
options are proposed for existing plants, but
zero-liquid discharge could potentially be the
standard for new plants. The final rule was
supposed to be published on May 22 but has
been delayed until September 2015 while the
EPA completes its rulemaking for coal ash.
At the state level, California in 2010
moved to phase out OTC at plants that draw
cooling water from the ocean or marine estu-
aries (Figure 2). The rule requires retrofitting
with closed-cycle cooling or reducing impact
on marine life through other means. Most
plants will need to be in compliance by 2020,
though a few have until 2029.
While regulatory attention is growing,
Zerrenner believes more than that is neces-
sary. In most instances, power and water
are not managed by the same regulatory enti-
ties, she noted. To the same effect, at the
legislative level, often the committee charged
with water policy is not the same as the one
charged with energy policy. Tackling the
water-energy nexus will require breaking
down policy and regulatory silos.
At the federal level at least, that may be
happening. In May, Senators Lisa Murkowski
(R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), both
members of the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, introduced a bill to
establish an interagency coordination com-
mittee focused on the water-energy nexus.
The bill also proposes a budget mechanism to
allow policymakers to see where funding is
needed across energy-water initiatives.
The Challenge of Changing
Technologies
While a shift away from OTC may reduce
withdrawals, Kent Zammit, senior program
manager with EPRI, warned that it could also
increase consumption. Wet cooling towers
typically evaporate over twice as much wa-
ter as OTC, he said. According to the EPRI
study, coal plants using OTC from adjacent
rivers consumed 212 gal/MWh on average,
while those using cooling towers consumed
365 gal/MWh. The differences were even
greater for nuclear plants, with those using
cooling towers consuming 545 gal/MWh ver-
sus 155 gal/MWh for OTC.
This suggests that while shifting to
closed-cycle cooling will require much lower
volumes of available water, it is likely to in-
crease the power sectors overall consump-
tion, perhaps significantly, unless dry cooling
methods constitute the bulk of the new sys-
tems. Dry cooling, however, is the most
expensive and carries the largest efficiency
penalties. It is also not appropriate for every
plant or every location. Large nuclear plants
in particular are unable to use dry cooling, in
part for safety reasons. Dry cooling for coal
plants, while currently rare, is seeing increas-
ing use, particularly overseas: China, South
Africa, and Australia have all built large coal
plants using dry cooling methods in water-
challenged areas.
While wind and solar photovoltaic gen-
eration require negligible amounts of water,
the same cannot be said of all new genera-
tion technologies. Concentrating solar power
(CSP), in particular, when coupled with wet
cooling methods, can consume substantial
amounts of water, in some cases exceeding
that of fossil generation methods. This is a
problem since these systems are typically
sited in hot, arid, water-poor areas because
these regions typically experience the highest
insolation.
When coupled with dry cooling, CSP re-
quires very little water (Figure 3). However,
in addition to the increased costs, dry cooling
is much less effective in hot environments,
and CSP plants can experience reduced out-
puts of 10% to 15%, or more, on hot days.
Integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) generation, should it gain a foot-
holdwhich is uncertain (see Does IGCC
Have a Future? in this issue)could reduce
overall water consumption from coal genera-
tion. However, the savings are not as great as
might be suspected because the water saved
from the steam cycle and emissions control
systems is offset by consumption from the
gasifier.
According to research by the National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), cur-
rent IGCC designs consume around 102 gal/
MWh to 139 gal/MWh for process and emis-
sions control, compared to 107 gal/MWh to
116 gal/MWh for steam plants. The main
savings are in cooling, if wet evaporative
methods are used: Largely because of their
greater efficiency, IGCC plants consume
around 20% to 30% less water for cooling
than do steam plants.
When carbon capture and storage (CCS)
is included, however, the water savings are
significant. Though CCS itself consumes
substantial additional water, it requires far
less when coupled with IGCC than with
steam. Adding CCS could nearly double a
2. Shifting gears. Dynegys 2.5-GW Moss Landing plant near Monterey, Calif., must
cease using ocean water for cooling before 2018. Dynegy is considering retrofitting wet cooling
towers for the four-unit facility. Courtesy: David Monniaux
3. Sipping lightly. The 392-MW Ivanpah
Solar Electric Generating Station near Las
Vegas uses large air-cooled condensers that
keep the plants water needs very low. It con-
sumes only 5% of the water of a comparably
sized thermal plant using wet recirculating
cooling. Source: POWER/Tom Overton
July 2014
|
steam plants water consumption, according
to the NETL report, but it would increase
an IGCC plants consumption by only about
37%. Still, said Zammit, the penetration
and impact [of CCS] will be unit- and site-
specific.
Another impact on water resources could
come from biomass generation. While in-
plant water consumption is comparable to
coal plants, growing biomass fuel may re-
quire significant amounts of water, particu-
larly if it is grown specifically for use in a
power plant. This is a concern in areas where
agricultural water supplies are already under
stress, such as China, India, and the U.S. cen-
tral plains.
Biomass is not the only fuel with an effect
on water resources. Natural gas from shale is
projected to constitute 53% of the U.S. gas
supply by 2040, according to the EIA. While
the water consumed by hydraulic fracturing
is small compared to agricultural use, much
shale gas development is taking place in ar-
eas under water stress, such as Texas. Shale
gas, as a new industry, must compete with
existing demands on water resources, some-
thing that has caused controversy in many
areas. It is worth noting as well that, unlike
water used in agriculture, most of the water
used in hydraulic fracturing is permanently
lost from the hydrological cycle. Waterless
methods, though currently limited, are likely
to grow in importance.
The Way Forward
There is clearly pressurepolitical, social,
and environmentalto reduce the power sec-
tors load on water resources. Most of these
pressures will be experienced in areas such as
India and China, where both electricity and
water supplies are constrained.
Zerrenner believes one key is better coor-
dination between power and water suppliers.
The power sector and the water sector need
a better understanding of how they impact
each other, she said. A crucial first step is
for power and water engineers to start collab-
orating. They can then work with regulators
and legislators to reveal novel conservation
strategies. Everyone in the chain in both
sectors needs to understand the interconnec-
tion.
For existing plants, a focus on improving
efficiencyof both water and plantswill
be key. A 2010 NETL study reviewed various
methods that have been employed globally,
among them:
Replacing/retrofitting with modern, more
efficient plant systems.
Switching to higher-quality coal.
Use of waste heat to dry high-moisture
coals.
Retrofitting dry cooling.
Retrofitting cogeneration.
Purification/desalination of brackish water
and saltwater.
Dry bottom ash handling.
Dry emissions scrubbing.
Recycling and reusing wastewater.
Improved monitoring of water consumption.
The use of alternative sources of water de-
serves special attention, since it can have the
most direct impact on a plants consumption
of local water resources. One facet of this can
include capturing wastewater streams, such
as cooling tower blowdown, and using these
for processes that do not require high water
quality. Cascading wastewater from higher-
to lower-quality needs enables extensive re-
use. Many plants in water-stressed areas have
already implemented such recycling mea-
sures. Making degraded water sources more
cost-effective for cooling is another area with
future possibilities, according to Jessica Shi,
a senior technical leader at EPRI.
Where large quantities of water are needed
for wet cooling, municipal wastewater has
proven useful as a replacement for freshwa-
ter. A number of new plants in the U.S., such
as the Sand Hill Energy Center in Austin
(Figure 4) and the Empire Generating Plant
in Rensselaer, N.Y., have leveraged such sup-
plies. Doing so, however, requires special
measures because of the potential for gener-
ating airborne pathogens.
For high-quality water needs, purifica-
tion and desalination of water resources
that are not suitable for agriculture or other
competing useswhether seawater or low-
quality groundwateris an option. While
expensive and energy intensive, it can be
made cost-effective if a desalination plant is
co-located with the power plant in an area
where freshwater is at a premium (that is,
where it can be sold to recapture some costs)
and waste heat can be captured for use in the
desalination process (see Adding Desalina-
tion to Solar Hybrid and Fossil Plants in
the May 2010 issue). Advanced membrane
distillation technology could also greatly re-
duce the costs of desalination.
Going forward, new technologies will
be necessary to further improve efficiency
and reduce costs for closed-cycle cooling,
as well as improving overall plant water
efficiency. We have technologies today
that can reduce water consumption for new
plants, said Zammit. However, research is
still needed to address the cost and O&M
impacts of such technologies. In addition,
research into technologies such as the ther-
mo-syphon cooler and more cost-effective
water treatment options could help conserve
water at existing plants.
EPRI and several partners inaugurated the
Water Research Center at Georgia Powers
Plant Bowen in Cartersville, Ga., in 2012
with the goal of generating industry-wide
insights that will help generators minimize
their impact on water resources. (See Re-
search Center Dedicated to Power Plant Wa-
ter Use Opens in the November 2012 issue,
and Advanced Cooling and Water Treatment
Technology Concepts for Power Plants in
the April 2014 issue.) Specialized research
such as this is certain to be key.
Thomas W. Overton, JD is a POWER
associate editor (@thomas_overton, @
POWERmagazine).
4. Nifty shades of gray. The Sand Hill Energy Center in Austin, Texas, began using treat-
ed wastewater from a nearby wastewater treatment plant for cooling in 2006, which allowed it
to reduce its use of municipal potable water by 80%. Courtesy: Austin Energy
|
July 2014 36
Shifting Sands: The Middle
Easts Thrust for Sustainability
T
he Middle East is a region of ex-
tremes. While some countries enjoy
opulent wealth, others are some of
the poorest in the world. While it is the
center of global oil and gas production,
it is also a primary center of oil demand,
driven ever higher by soaring peak power
demand. And, already one of the driest
and most water-scarce areas of the world,
the region is expected to double its popu-
lation in the next 40 years.
In response to expected soaring growth
in power demand, and with some countries
already afflicted by crippling power short-
ages, governments in the 14 countries across
the region (Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates
[UAE], and Yemen), and specifically the Is-
lamic monarchies that make up the Gulf Co-
operation Council (GCC)Qatar, the UAE,
Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman
are embarking on ambitious plans to expand
power capacity.
But compared to countries with soaring
needs like China, Brazil, and India, this re-
gions efforts are distinguished by a shift
toward diversification and away from depen-
dence on indigenously sourced fossil fuels.
Conservation of fossil fuels is being pursued
not only because the hydrocarbon resources
are finite but also because it makes sound fi-
nancial sense.
The Middle East, for example, uses oil for
33% of power generationcompared to the
world average of just 4%especially during
the sultry summer months. But at internation-
al prices of $100 per barrel, burning oil (at
highly subsidized prices) in low-efficiency
thermal power stations that characterize the
region poses a financial drain and diminishes
prospects for oil exports.
Natural gas has been the replacement of
choice, given the regions large gas resource
basethough, as experts point out, the re-
gion suffers a moderately underdeveloped
transmission and distribution network that
puts countries at risk of shortages. In Iraq,
for instance, gas shortages have currently
stalled operations at four power plants that
were completed in the country last year,
and in Saudi Arabia, gas shortages have
forced generators to turn to burning heavy
fuel oil or crude oil directly. (For more on
the use of heavy fuel oil, see Blurring the
Line Between Temporary and Permanent
Power in this issue.) The uncertain sup-
ply of natural gas has in some cases even
impelled countries like the UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain to consider
building coal-fired capacity.
And beyond volatile prices and tightening
supplies, Middle Eastern oil-producing na-
tions are also wary of the diminishing com-
petitive advantage for hydrocarbons posed
by global climate change policies, prompting
them to look to renewables, which provide
obvious sustainability advantages. Others,
still, are considering nuclear.
The Challenges
According to experts, long-term sustainable
growth in the Gulf Arab states particularly
will depend on how well they introduce ener-
gy efficiency measures, invest in low-carbon
energy supplies, improve water efficiency,
and expand water desalination capacity.
The Renewable Energy Policy Network
Economic and population booms forecast for several countries in the oil- and gas-
rich Middle East are forcing a reassessment of those countries historic reliance on
fossil fuels and a new focus on securing sustainable electricity and water supplies.
Sonal Patel
Courtesy: Dhuruma Electricity Co.
July 2014
|
for the 21st Century (REN21), a global policy
research network, and the International Re-
newable Energy Agency concur that progress
is happening rapidly. One factor spurring a
dynamic shift in the policy landscape across
the region is the establishment or expansion
of regional cooperation and institutional ac-
tivities related to enhancing energy and water
supply sustainability.
Recent years, for example, have seen the
founding of the Masdar renewable energy
development and investment cluster in Abu
Dhabi and the King Abdullah City for Atom-
ic and Renewable Energy in Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, at least 12 of the 14 Middle East-
ern countries, both net oil-exporting and net
oil-importing, have renewable energy targets
(Table 1).
Some are staggering: Saudi Arabia alone
is looking to add 54 GW of renewables by
2032 to replace an estimated 23% to 30%
share in total primary energy supply (see
sidebar Saudi Arabias Planned Transforma-
tion). Several countries also have net meter-
ing in place or capital subsidies and tax or
production credits or reductions, and most
rely on either direct or indirect public fund-
ing or public competitive bidding processes
for fixed quantities of renewable energy.
REN21 reports that investment trends
in the region are healthy, despite a global
downturn. New investment in renewables in
the Middle East and North Africa combined
totaled $2.9 billion in 2012, an increase of
almost 40% over 2011, and a 6.5-fold in-
crease from 2004. Yet, that progress could
be hindered by a number of challenges, it
warns, including the regions susceptibility
to political unrest, financial uncertainty, and
policy risk.
Nuclear Possibilities
Considering those risks, it is significant that
several countries in the Middle Eastamong
them, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and to a
lesser extent, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Bah-
rainare actively considering starting nuclear
programs for power and water supply.
In a 2008 independently published com-
prehensive policy on nuclear energy, the gas-
rich UAE dismissed coal as an option to meet
projected escalating power demand because
of its environmental and energy security im-
plications. In an explanation that has since
been echoed by the regions other countries,
the UAE said nuclear emerged as a proven,
environmentally promising and commercial-
ly competitive option.
Today, after accepting a $20 billion bid
from a South Korean consortium to build
four nuclear reactorsa total of 5.6 GW
two are already under construction at UAEs
Barakah site in Abu Dhabi (Figure 1). The
UAE hopes to have all four 1.4-GW APR-
1400 units producing power by 2020 and
plans to export power to Gulf neighbors via
the regional power grid. Uniquely, the UAE
offset delays to a construction start by offer-
ing joint-venture agreements to foreign in-
vestors for the construction and operation of
future nuclear plants, and it plans to manage
its nuclear power program based on contrac-
tor services, rather than indigenous expertise.
It also concluded long-term agreements for
the supply of nuclear fuel. The plants will,
for the most part, be financed by the state and
Korean equity partners.
The Barakah reactors wont be the first in the
region. That honor goes to Irans controversial
Bushehr reactor. Construction was suspended
in 1979, resumed in 1994, and the plant began
commercial operation in late 2013, reconfigured
as a VVER-1000 by Russias Atomstroyexport.
Installed
capacity (MW) PV CSP Wind
Biomass/
Waste Geothermal Hydro Total Renewable target(s)
Oman 0.7
d
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0.70 200 MW targeted total installed PV capacity
Palestine* 1
b
0
c
0
c
0
c
0.023
b
0
d
1.02 20% of total electricity consumption by 2020
Yemen 1.5
b
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
1.50 15% of total electricity by 2025
Kuwait 1.8
d
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
1.80 10% of total electricity consumption by 2020, 15%
by 2030
Bahrain 5
c
0
c
0.5
b
0
c
0
c
0
c
5.50 NA
Saudi Arabia 7
a
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
7.00 23%30% targeted share of renewables in total
primary energy supply by 2032
Jordan* 1.6
b
0
c
1.4
b
3.5
b
0
c
10
b
16.50 1 GW renewable capacity by 2018
Qatar 1.2
d
0
b
0
b
40
b
0
b
0
b
41.20 10% targeted share of replaced energy used for
power and desalination with solar power by 2018
UAE 22.5
b
100
a
0
c
3
b
0
c
0
c
125.50 7% of total capacity by 2020 (Abu Dhabi); 5% of
total consumption by 2030 (Dubai)
Lebanon* 1
b
0
c
0.5
b
0
c
0
c
282
b
Israel* 269
b
0
c
6
c
27
b
0
c
7
e
Syria 0.84
d
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
1,151
d
1,151.84 195 MW target of PV and wind in primary energy
by 2015
Iraq 3.5
e
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
1,864
b
1,867.50 450 MW additional renewable capacity by 2017
Iran 4.3
d
17
c
91
b
0
c
0
c
9,500
b
9,612.30 NA
Notes: a = 2013, b = 2012, c = 2011, d = 2010, e = 2009. All countries are net oil-exporting, with the exception of those marked with an asterisk.
Table 1. Installed renewable capacity in the Middle East. Source: REN21
1. Nuclear option. In August 2012, the
United Arab Emirates became the worlds
first newcomer in 27 years to start nuclear
power plant construction when it began work
on Barakah 1. Today, two of four planned APR-
1400 reactors are under construction there,
slated to come online by 2020. Courtesy:
Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp.
|
July 2014 38
And beyond Saudi Arabias lofty call for 18
GW of new nuclear capacity, Qatar is also look-
ing into the viability of nuclear power to sup-
port soaring electricity demand and expanded
desalination capacity. The country signed a
nuclear cooperation agreement in 2010 with
Russias Rosatom. Oman, meanwhile, has
expressed interest in investing in a neighbor-
ing countrys nuclear plant. In 2010, Kuwait
announced an intention to build four 1-GW
nuclear reactors by 2022, but in mid-2011 said
it would not proceed with those plans.
Finally, Jordan, which must import more
than 95% of its energy needs at a cost of
nearly one-fourth its GDP and which also has
a substantial water deficit, in October 2013
selected Atomstroyexport as the supplier of
two AES-92 nuclear units. The country will
make its final decision on the new builds in
late 2015. Russia is expected to contribute
about half of the projects total $10 billion
cost for the build-own-operate project.
Power Trading
Emerging solutions to address potential en-
ergy shortfalls in the region include the estab-
lishment of cross-border interconnections and
power trading. While most countries have had
long-existing interconnections with neighbor-
ing countries, some are considering transcon-
tinental imports, including hydro from the
Nile Basin, the Congo, and Central Asia and
Pakistan. The most prominent interconnec-
tion program is the Gulf Cooperation Council
Interconnection Authoritys (GCCIAs) partly
commissioned 400-kV supergrid, which
links GCC countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar,
Oman, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
That $1.2 billion project entails three
phases (the first two were completed by
2011), including a high-voltage direct cur-
rent back-to-back 1,200-MW installation
between a 50-Hz, 400-kV system and a 60-
Hz, 380-kV system. Developers highlight
the lines success, saying it has provided
instantaneous transfer of power to state net-
works to avoid full or partial interruptions
during major incidentsthus avoiding sig-
nificant economic losses caused by outages.
A 2013-released GCCIA report claims it has
saved GCC countries $3 billion in invest-
ments as well as $330 million in operating
costs and fuel.
The interconnection authority is now re-
portedly eyeing the introduction of an en-
ergy market management system, a bidding
platform that would replace time-consuming
Saudi Arabias Planned Transformation
The regions energy supply woes and future trends are perhaps best
characterized by Saudi Arabia, the worlds 13th-largest country
that is mostly a harsh, dry desert with great temperature extremes.
It is the worlds largest country without a river. The kingdom also
takes the distinction of being the worlds largest oil producer, ex-
porter, and holder of proved oil reserves.
But during the summer, when temperatures can soar to 128F, the
country sees sharp upward swings in oil demand, primarily driven
by power sector consumptionand specifically, from its largest
utility, Saudi Electric Co. (SEC).
In 2012, the kingdoms power fuel mix was 39% natural gas
(down from 52% in 2007), 35% crude oil, 20% diesel, and 6% fuel
oil. Despite calls for more gas-fired generation to free up more
crude oil for exports, an increasing preference for oil-fired genera-
tion over gas generation is being bolstered by highly subsidized
prices for oil paid by power producers. In 2012, for example, gen-
erators paid $0.73/MMBtu for crude oil (the corresponding interna-
tional price was $19.26/MMBtu) and $0.75/MMBtu for natural gas
(compared to an international price of $9.04/MMBtu). However,
observers also note that Saudi Arabia lacks adequate infrastructure
to pipe natural gas from the production and processing centers in
the eastern region to the oil-rich western and southern regions.
One of the kingdoms newest gas plants, shown at the top of this
story, is Dhuruma Electricity Co.s (DEC) Riyadh PP11 plant, a 1.7-
GW independent power project situated about 125 kilometers west
of Riyadh, which was completed in March 2013 after three years
of construction. Hyundai Heavy Industries was the projects en-
gineering, procurement, and construction contractor. GE supplied
the seven high-efficiency gas turbines and two steam turbines.
Experts posit that Saudi Arabias key challenge lies in a low
energy pricing policy. Despite gradual reform recently embarked
on by the government, and a revision of tariffs in 2010, the policy
caps power prices in the kingdom at 1.3 cents to 6.9 cents/kWh
and encourages wasteful consumption, notes Bassam Fattouh,
director of Oxfords Institute of Energy Studies and head of the
research centers Oil and the Middle East Programme.
Between 2003 and 2012, electricity sold (a proxy for electricity
demand) increased from 128,629 million kWh to 240,288 million
kWh, an increase of 78%. During the same period, the peak load
increased from 23,938 MW to 51,939 MW, an increase of 117%,
he says. Fattouh also points out that 50% of the kingdoms total
generated power is consumed by the residential sectorand nearly
three-quarters of that is used for air conditioning. Industry uses
17%, commercial entities 16%, and governmental agencies 13%.
Because Saudi Arabia has a regionally unique 60-Hz grid fre-
quency that severely limits the potential for grid interconnections,
the country has embarked on plans to increase its generating ca-
pacity from 55 GW in 2013 to 120 GW by 2020 to meet soaring
future demand and support expanded water desalination efforts.
But beyond its short-term options to use fuel oil and diesel instead
of crude oilwhich often has to be imported during summer de-
mand swingsand reluctant to undertake the political wrangling
required to raise prices of fossil fuels to reflect true costs, Saudi
Arabia plans to press ahead with improving power sector efficiency
by phasing out old power plants and introducing more efficient
ones (thus gaining 37 GW of capacity), reducing consumer de-
mand, and changing its power mix.
Among its diversification ambitions is building up to 18 GW of
nuclear capacity over the next two decades, at a cost of nearly $7
billion for each of the 16 planned reactors. The country has signed
key nuclear cooperation agreements with Japan, France, and Jor-
dan, and hopes to call in preliminary bids for its first reactor this
year. Construction could then commence in 2017, with completion
slated for 2022. Meanwhile, the kingdom has also unveiled formi-
dable renewable energy capacity targets: 25 GW of concentrated
solar power, 16 GW of solar photovoltaic, 9 GW of wind, 3 GW of
waste-to-energy, and 1 GW of geothermal by 2032.
Combined, Saudi Arabias plans effectively call for nuclear
and renewables to make up 50% of produced electricity by
2032though, as experts point out, the kingdom has not
matched its targets with a dedicated national policy frame-
work or energy strategy.
July 2014
|
bilateral negotiations and contracts and al-
low countries to request bulk electricity and
advertise spare capacity at the same time.
The GCCIA ultimately wants to establish a
wholesale and spot-priced market in the GCC
and beyond, though GCCIA Chief Operating
Officer Ahmed Ali Al-Ebrahim acknowledg-
es several hurdles must first be overcome.
Perhaps its greatest challenge, though:
The GCC must orchestrate a policy shift
away from electricity subsidies in the region.
Subsidies on power and natural gas produced
obstruct a proper electricity market from
forming in the GCC, because true prices of
both are unknown. Until GCC countries can
address the political and economic issues that
inhibit price-reflective electricity markets,
the full potential of the GCC interconnection
grid will be left untapped, he said.
Water Woes
For the drought-prone Middle East, where
average rainfall ranges between 20 and 40
cm per year (compared to 72 cm globally),
water scarcity is a paramount concern. The
region hosts about 5% of the worlds popula-
tion but only 1% of its renewable water re-
sources, most of which is in transboundary
basins such as the Euphrates and Tigris River
Basins (shared by Syria, Iraq, and Iran) and
the Jordan River Basin System (Jordan, Pal-
estine, and Israel). As a result, almost all of
the regions water resources are overexploit-
ed and severely polluted, leading to saltwater
intrusion in the aquifers and subsequent low-
ering of water tables. Meanwhile, population
and economic growth are expected to further
catapult water demandwhich, compounded
by adverse climate change effects, could set
the stage for conflict.
Some initiatives entail regional collabo-
ration on water and electricity. The oil-rich
countries on the Arabian Peninsula, specifi-
cally, are tackling the problem with large de-
salination schemes to help alleviate water
stress. Desalination is costly and energy in-
tensive, with energy costs accounting for up
to 50% of operation costs. According to the
Pacific Institute, desalination plants general-
ly require 15 MWh for every million gallons
of freshwater produced. Still, the process has
been practiced for more than 50 years in the
region (Figure 2) and emerged as the most
feasible solution for some countries.
The International Desalination Associa-
tion (IDA) reports that more than half of the
worlds capacity growth between 2001 and
2011276%, rising to 6.7 billion cubic me-
ters a day (m
3
/d)took place in the Middle
East. The regions desalination efforts are
characterized by three main methods differ-
ing in terms of energy consumption and cost,
and whether they can be used for seawater
or brackish water treatment. Multistage flash
and multi-effect distillation are distillation-
based methods that are generally preferred
because they support cogeneration of water
and power. The third, more energy-efficient
methodreverse osmosis (RO)uses mem-
branes to separate salts from water. But
though membrane technology and energy
recovery have improved markedly since the
1960s, and RO today makes up the bulk of
worldwide desalination capacity, energy con-
sumption still accounts for about 40% of op-
eration costs.
The regions recent shift to promote sus-
tainability encapsulates the water and energy
nexus (see also The Water-Energy Nexus
Takes Center Stage in this issue). Experts
posit that Saudi Arabias water use is seven
times its sustainable level, while the UAE
uses 15 times its sustainable level, and Kuwait
more than 20. Meanwhile, several leaders are
actively backing projects that shift from fu-
eling desalination efforts with oil (and, less
frequently, natural gas) and toward concen-
trated solar power and other renewables
even though some experts are unconvinced
renewables can match the high-energy foot-
print needed for desalination.
As the largest desalination producer in
the world, Saudi Arabias efforts to produce
more than 4 million m
3
/d (representing 18%
of global production), for example, require
roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per day. The
kingdom in December announced it would
build the worlds largest solar-powered de-
salination plant in Al-Khafji Governorate on
the Arabian Gulf Coast that will have the ca-
pacity to produce 30,000 m
3
/d and 2.5 GW of
power via ultra-high concentrator photovol-
taic cells when completed. That RO project
is only the first phase of the King Abdullah
Initiative for Solar Water Desalination that
requires all seawater desalination in the king-
dom to be powered completely by solar by
2020. The second phase entails a 300,000
m
3
/d solar-powered desalination plant; a third
phase implements the initiative throughout
the kingdom.
Finally, with 120 desalination plants oper-
ating in the region and more water required
to fuel the energy boom and vice versa, some
experts express trepidation about the possible
environmental consequences from release of
so much brine back into the oceans. Then
there are concerns about greenhouse gas
emissions from the intense amount of energy
required for the process.
But the solutions here too are standard.
Two levels of actions require urgent atten-
tion to achieve a lower energy footprint, says
Middle East expert and former IDA President
Dr. Corrado Sommariva. The first one is the
creation of policies that encourage energy
efficiency, providing a realistic price for en-
ergy even in oil-rich countries and rewarding
energy efficiency. On the technical level, it
is necessary to educate managers and plant
operators on how to operate plants in a much
more energy efficient manner with relatively
few changes.
Sonal Patel is a POWER associate edi-
tor (@POWERmagazine, @sonalcpatel).
2. Rendering water. The desalination facility at Kuwaits 300-MW gas-fired Shuwaikh
power plant in the Arabian Gulf region went into operation in the 1950s. The plants efficiency
was recently improved by up to 15% with the overhaul of three blocks. The countrys popula-
tion hit three million in 2010 and is expected to be 5.5 million in 2025. While its only renewable
water comes from wells, per capita water consumption is 110 gallons per day, almost double
the international rate. Courtesy: Bilfinger Engineering and Services
|
July 2014 40
Geoengineering: A Practical
Climate Work-Around or Just
Plain Crazy?
A
s it looks increasingly unlikely that
the world will adopt a political and
economic approach to reducing
greenhouse gas emissionsprimarily car-
bon dioxidewhat was once regarded as
a far-fetched, fringe idea is generating in-
creased mainstream interest. The popular
term is geoengineering, although the chief
proponent prefers solar radiation manage-
ment or SRM.
Initially, the attention of those focused
on preventing or managing global warming
focused on the political and economic ap-
proach: How do we get the governments of
the world to find ways to stop putting more
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere? But that strategy has
become mired in international politics with
little prospects of effective action.
Whats left? Attention is increasingly fo-
cusing on ways to cool the planet by blocking
some sunlight from reaching Earth, either by
preventing it from getting to Earth or reflect-
ing it back toward the sun. Its no longer a
fantastic notion but is becoming a main-
stream approach.
Add Another Gas
The SRM acronym is the creation of David
Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Ap-
plied Physics at Harvards School of Engi-
neering and Applied Sciences (and also a
professor of public policy at Harvards Ken-
nedy School of Government). His recent
book, A Case for Climate Engineering (MIT
Press, 2013), argues that research should be-
gin now on ways to slow global warming by
engineering practices, rather than by what
appear to be dead-end policy directives and
regulatory initiatives.
Keith is humble about the path he urges.
The bitter truth, Keith writes, is that the
worlds efforts to cut emissions have (with
a few exceptions) amounted to a phony war
of bold exhortation and symbolic action. Its
tempting to assert emissions cuts are impos-
sible and that we must look to alternatives
like geoengineering. This is double wrong.
First, solar geoengineering may reduce risks
in the short term but it cannot get us out of the
long-term need to cut emissions. Second, to
assert that emissions cannot be cut is to take
human agencyand responsibilityout of
the picture as if emissions were coming from
some species other than our own.
Keith wants to test a managed approach to
using sulfate aerosols released into the atmo-
sphere: a controlled attempt to mimic what
nature has already done repeatedly with major
volcanic eruptionssuch as the Mount Pina-
tubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991that
cool the planet. (The NASA image at the top
of this article shows the atmosphere less than
two months after the Pinatubo eruption; two
dark layers of aerosols make distinct bound-
aries in the atmosphere.) The best case for
taking solar geoengineering seriously, he
said in a Washington Post interview last year,
is that the balance of scientific evidence we
havefrom the same kind of climate models
and other science that we use to understand
climate changesuggests that these technolo-
Faced with roadblocks to reducing greenhouse gas emissions via globally meaning-
ful regulations or carbon pricing schemes, some scientists say its time to consider
even more drastic human intervention.
Kennedy Maize
Source: NASA
July 2014
|
gies could, if used carefully, significantly re-
duce climate risk. Full stop.
Keith says the technologies hes explored,
injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or
adding fine sea salt to marine clouds to make
them whiter and change the solar albedo, or
reflectivity, appear to provide a pathway by
which we could substantially reduce climate
risks over the next half-century. That means
reducing the risks of sea-level rise, reducing
the risks of stress for crops of people in the
poorest and hottest parts of the world.
Keith says he sees geoengineering as a
short-term way to buy time. Nothing chang-
es the fact that in the long run, the only way
to manage carbon risk is to stop emitting car-
bon dioxide. But, similarly, nothing we know
about cutting carbon dioxide emissions says
thats going to help us deal with the risk of
CO
2
thats already in the atmosphere. He
says he sees cutting emissions as a long-
term solution and geoengineering as more of
a short-term solution.
In his book, Keith says, Geoengineer-
ing complements emissions reductions. Cut-
ting emissions reduces the long run risk by
stopping the accumulation of carbon, while
geoengineeringif it works as expected
will mask risks in the short run (in the slow
moving world of carbon and climate short
run means the next half century).
But geoengineering cannot eliminate the
underlying risk that comes from humanitys
rapid (in geological time) transfer of carbon
from underground reservoirs to the atmo-
sphere. Its hard to overstate the importance
of geoengineerings ability to reduce risk
for current generations as there are no other
methods that can reduce these risks signifi-
cantly in the next half century.
The Reflection Option
Another approach to geoengineering comes
from Scottish engineer Stephen Salter, emer-
itus professor of engineering design at the
University of Edinburgh. Salter is the inven-
tor of the Salter Duck, a device for turn-
ing ocean wave motion into electricity (see
sidebar). His latest idea, which has won sub-
stantial support, including investment from
Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, is to mount
a fleet of ships to spray seawater into the at-
mosphere to change the albedo of clouds to
reflect sunlight back into space (Figure 1).
(Keith also has money from Gates.)
Gates provided funds for prolific inventor
Armand Neukermans to test the idea of alter-
ing the reflectivity of clouds to deflect sunlight
away from the planet. Neukermans calls it
cloud brightening.
He more or less showed it was feasible to
my satisfaction, said Ken Caldeira, a promi-
nent climate scientist who advises Gates on
global warming issues.
Jane Long, a former top executive at the
Department of Energys Lawrence Liver-
more National Laboratory, said, If we have
to intervene, we should be doing the research
now, because these ideas are extremely com-
plicated and extremely risky. I hope we never
have to do it, but I think its irresponsible not
to understand as much as we possibly can in
case we need it.
Long was the co-chair of a Bipartisan
Policy Center task force, which three years
ago concluded that the federal government
should embark on a focused and systematic
program of research about climate remedia-
tion. The federal government is the only en-
tity that has the incentive, responsibility, and
capacity to run a broad, systematic and effec-
tive program; it can also play an important
role in effectively establishing international
research norms.
Not So Fast
But thats not a unanimous opinion by any
reckoning.
The enthusiasm for geoengineering,
even for small-scale research, is dangerous
techno-optimism that risks turning over the
state of the climate to business interests, says
Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at
Charles Sturt University in Australia and also
the author of a recent book, Earthmasters:
The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering
(Yale University Press, 2103). He argues that
research into geoengineering would threaten
the moral imperative to protect the Earth. He
writes that geoengineering actually repre-
sents a profound change in the relationship of
Homo sapiens to the Earth. In the twenty-first
century the fate of nature has come to depend
on the goodwill of humans, and to the ex-
tent that humans are part of nature the Earth
system itself has acquired a moral force.
Hamilton and Keith debated the geoengi-
neering topic at a joint HarvardMassachu-
setts Institute of Technology meeting last
fall, with predictably inconclusive results
(Figure 2). Nonetheless, the eventand the
publication of dueling bookshas served
to raise the profile of the geoengineering is-
sue. The sparring between those advocating
geoengineering research and its opponents
has been going on for several years, but it has
been rekindled by the publication of the two
books and the failure of the governments of
1. Cloud brightening. When aerosol
particles from ship exhaust enter the lower at-
mosphere, marine stratocumulus clouds are
brightened, leaving ship tracks visible in sat-
ellite images. Scientists at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are
among those studying the effects of particle
injection to evaluate whether this technique
could be used to offset some effects of global
climate change. Courtesy: Jeff Schmaltz,
MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/God-
dard Space Flight Center
Salters Ducks
Back in 1974, amidst the Arab oil embargo,
University of Edinburgh engineer Stephen
Salter came up with an interesting idea
for how to generate electricity from ocean
waves. It was a pear-shaped device about
the size of a house that floated in the wa-
ter. As the waves hit it, the gyroscopes in-
side the device converted the wave energy
into rotation, which could then be used
to generate electricity. Each duck could
generate up to 6 MW, and the plan was
to install them in groups of a dozen or so
(perhaps to be known as flocks). A small-
scale prototype was built in 1976.
Initial estimates from the government
concluded that Salters ducks were far
too expensive to compete with even the
most expensive generation of the time,
nuclear power.
As oil prices fell in the 1980s, the Brit-
ish government abandoned its wave en-
ergy program. It later turned out that the
government had overestimated the costs
by a factor of 10. In an article in 2008, The
Economist magazine said, The reasons for
this were not made public, but it is widely
believed to have happened after lobbying
by the nuclear industry. In testimony to
a House of Lords committee in 1988, Dr
Salter said that an accurate evaluation of
the potential of new energy sources would
be possible only when the control of re-
newable energy projects is completely re-
moved from nuclear influences.
|
July 2014 42
the world to agree on ways to curb carbon
dioxide emissions.
The advocates portray geoengineering as
a technological issue. The opponents tend to
advance moral objections. In his book, Ham-
ilton argues, Climate engineering may lend
itself to moral corruption. If we are preparing
to pursue for self-interested reasonsbecause
we are unwilling to restructure our economies
or adjust our lifestylesthen the promotion of
geoengineering can provide us with a kind of
cover or even self-absolution. But if climate
engineering is inferior to cutting emissions
(in the sense of being less effective and more
risky) then merely by choosing to engineer the
climate instead of cutting emissions we suc-
cumb to moral failure.
One of the most aggressive foes of geoen-
gineering has been Joe Romm, a physicist and
former Clinton administration Energy Depart-
ment official, now ensconced at the liberal
Washington think tank Center for American
Progress. (Hamilton dedicates his book to
Romm.) Romm has commented, Frankly, it
would be more literally accurate to rename
geoengineering smoke and mirrors, as those
are two of the most widely discussed measures
for managing incoming solar radiation.
Several years ago, when the geoengineer-
ing discussion was just gaining steam, Romm
commented, Were screwing up the planet
with unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions,
and the question is, do we want to try to fix
that problem by gambling on some other
large-scale effort to manipulate the climate
or should we just try to restrict emissions? Its
as if the doctor says you have a disease that
can definitely be cured by diet and exercise
but you opt for expensive chemotherapy even
though the doctor cant guarantee the results
but is pretty certain the side effects would be
as bad as the disease.
Former Vice President Al Gore is also op-
posed to geoengineering, although he endors-
es small-scale approaches such as white roofs
to reflect incoming solar radiation. But he
sneered at the larger-scale plans of technolo-
gists such as Keith and Salter. In a conference
call with reporters recently, as reported in the
Guardian newspaper, Gore said, The most
discussed so-called geoengineering propos-
alslike putting sulfur dioxide in the atmo-
sphere to reflect incoming sunlightthats
just insane. Lets just describe that clearly
it is utterly mad.
Gore is also cool to what some have
termed soft geoengineering, a planetwide
endeavor to build new nuclear power plants.
This is a course proposed by several leading
climate scientists, including the prominent
climate campaigner and former NASA sci-
entist James Hansen and National Center for
Atmospheric Research scientist Tom Wigley.
Gore told the conference call that hed been
a staunch supporter of nuclear power when
he was in Congress, but is no longer optimis-
tic about expansion today. I do believe that it
may be possible for scientists and researchers
to develop a better and more inherently safer
and cheaper form of nuclear reactor, which
may yet play a significant role in resolving
this crisis. It is not available now.
Geoengineering advocates acknowledge
that nasty side effects could result from spray-
ing sulfur into the air or seawater into clouds.
In his Washington Post interview, Keith said,
We can say what the technical risks are. Put-
ting sulfates in the stratosphere can accelerate
the depletion of ozone that comes from the
chlorine that weve already put up there from
CFCs. It could change atmospheric circula-
tion in ways that are hard to predict. . . . The
bigger risks have to do with misuse. People
often talk about using these technologies to
return temperatures to pre-industrial levels. If
you did that, that would be a dramatic climate
cooling, with bad consequences, like reduc-
ing precipitation a lot.
Keith also takes on the moral question.
Nothing plausible we do to reduce emis-
sions in the next, say, quarter-century is
going to materially reduce the risk for real
people, especially some of the poorest and
most vulnerable on our planet from climate
change. So yes, the potential moral hazard is
a major problem. But the fact that its a major
problem is hardly an argument for foregoing
a technology that might substantially reduce
risk for those living now.
A Geoengineering Retrospective
Geoengineering sounds like a new and
somewhat radical, frightening to some, ap-
proach to the potential problem of global
warming. But using technology, often at large
scale, to confront environmental and human
issues, is nothing new. Mankind has long
moved the environment to suit its needs.
Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scien-
tists, biologist Robert Carlson says, Humans
have a long history of modifying the living
systems they rely on. Forests in Europe and
North America have been felled for timber
and have regrown, while other large tracts of
land around the world have been completely
cleared for use in agriculture. The animals and
plants we humans eat on a regular basis have
been selected and bred over millennia to suit
the human palate and digestive tract. All these
crops and products are shipped and consumed
globally to satisfy burgeoning demand.
In the field of power generation, its hard
to view big hydro as anything other than
terrestrial geoengineering. Chinas Three
Gorges Dam spanning the Yangtze River is
the worlds largest generating station in terms
of capacity at 22 GW. As is the case of many
large dams (including those in the Tennessee
Valley Authority territory and along many of
the rivers of the U.S.), Three Gorges has mul-
tiple purposes, including power generation,
flood control, improved shipping, and pro-
viding irrigation water. According to the Car-
bon Planet website, the dam displaces some
31 million metric tons of coal annually.
The most audacious early approach to
geoengineering came in the 1960s and 1970s
from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commissions
(AECs) Lawrence Livermore National Lab-
oratory. Legendary nuclear physicist Edward
Teller (the inspiration for Terry Southerns
satirical movie Dr. Strangelove Or: How
I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb) concocted and ran a multibillion dol-
lar, multi-decade program, supported by the
U.S. Congress, to use hydrogen bombs to re-
arrange the landscape around the world. He
called it Operation Plowshare. Teller want-
ed to create a new port in Alaska, blast out
natural gas storage in Pennsylvania, and re-
route the Panama Canal. He ultimately failed,
as detailed in my 2012 book, Too Dumb to
Meter: Follies, Fiascoes, Dead Ends and
Duds on the U.S. Road to Atomic Energy.
Its oddly ironic, but several of the promi-
nent advocates of modern geoengineering,
including Jane Long and Ken Caldeira, have
close ties to the Livermore lab, although well
after Teller exited the direct management of
the Department of Energy lab (as successor
to the AEC). Teller remained closely associ-
ated with Livermore until his death in 2003.
Caldeira was a Teller disciple, although Long
joined the laboratory staff after Teller died.
There is no direct connection to Tellers ag-
gressive ideas about geoengineering and
those of Caldeira or Long, who is a senior
advisor to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Whats Next in Geoengineering?
In addition to the smoke and mirrors (par-
ticulates and clouds) approach to geoengi-
2. Point counter point. Clive Hamilton
(left) of Australias Charles Sturt University
argued against geoengineering while David
Keith of Harvard spoke in favor of it during an
October 2013 event. Courtesy: Harvard Public
Affairs and Communications
July 2014
|
neering, technologists are looking to move
beyond preventing sunlight from penetrating
the atmosphere and warming the climate. Call
it that giant sucking sound, or direct carbon
capture from the atmosphere. In 2007, flam-
boyant British entrepreneur Richard Branson
put $25 million into a competition for an en-
vironmentally sustainable and economically
viable way to remove greenhouse gases from
the atmosphere. The idea is not to capture
carbon before it is emitted, but after.
One of the 11 finalists for the Virgin Earth
Challenge, is Carbon Engineering in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. David Keith is the president
of the company. Keith comments, We hope
this technology will make it cheaper to reduce
carbon emissions from parts of the transpor-
tation infrastructure such as aircraft that are
otherwise hard to decarbonize, and we see
ourselves competing with other ways to ac-
complish this goal, such as biofuels.
The company describes its process as fol-
lows: Our capture technology brings atmo-
spheric air containing CO
2
into contact with a
chemical solution that naturally absorbs CO
2
,
in a device called a contactor. This solution,
now containing the captured CO
2
, is sent to a
regeneration cycle that simultaneously extracts
the CO
2
while regenerating the original chemi-
cal solution, for re-use in the contactor. The ex-
tracted CO
2
is combined with all the CO
2
from
the systems energy use and both are delivered
as a high-pressure pipeline-quality product. (A
video of the companys technology is available
at http://carbonengineering.com/).
In their Harvard debate, Hamilton sug-
gested that sucking carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere could attract private investors,
which he implied would be a bad idea. He
noted that N. Murray Edwards, a Canadian
oil sands mogul, recently invested in Keiths
Carbon Engineering. Hamilton argued that
private interests would pursue profits and
ignore the role of governments in guiding
climate policy.
Keith countered that there is nothing
sinister about the Edwards investment,
which is a matter of hedging his bets if
fossil fuels prove to be a bad investment. In
his book, Keith said he sees a sharp dis-
tinction in the role of private enterprise in
solar geoengineering and carbon removal.
The development of solar geoengineering
should be as public and transparent as pos-
sible. The extraordinary global power of
these technologies means that they can-
not be effectively governed by the local
rules appropriate for more conventional
technology. I believe that private, for-
profit development (and patenting) of the
core technologies for solar geoengineering
should be strongly discouraged.
But carbon removal is different, says
Keith. Succeed or fail, the technology we
are developing in Carbon Engineering is a
contained industrial process with local risks
similar to other industrial or mineral pro-
cessing technology. Our job at Carbon Engi-
neering is to develop a technology but not to
decide how or if its used.
The Great Gamble
Is there any last word in this burgeoning dis-
pute? Perhaps it comes from the legendary
scientist Freeman Dyson in his 1981 book
Disturbing the Universe.
Science and technology, like all original
creations of the human spirit, are unpredict-
able. If we had a reliable way to label our toys
good and bad, it would be easy to regulate
technology wisely. But we can rarely see far
enough ahead to know which road leads to
damnation. Whoever concerns himself with
technology, either to push it forward or to
stop it, is gambling with human lives.
Kennedy Maize is a POWER contribut-
ing editor and blogger.
Potential is limitless.
An idea has no momentum until talented people start chasing it. Its then that
one begins to glimpse whats possible, and the future begins to take shape.
Today, we are thousands of people sharing ideas, dedicated to nding new
ways to meet the needs of an ever-demanding Power sector. Which is why,
when it comes to nuclear, natural gas, coal, renewables, hydroelectric and
electric delivery systems, more people are turning to us to get it done.
We are URS.
For more information, please contact 609.720.2000.
FEDERAL
OIL & GAS
INFRASTRUCTURE
POWER
INDUSTRIAL
URS.COM
|
July 2014 44
Blurring the Line Between
Temporary and Permanent Power
Temporary power may be the most widely distributed distributed generation
worldwide, and its distribution is spreading, thanks to its ability to quickly
meet urgent needs not only for event, construction, and post-disaster emer-
gency power but also for fast-growing economies and stressed grids. Thats
making it a serious competitor for permanent power in some situations.
Gail Reitenbach, PhD
W
hen temporary power supplies
nearly a quarter of a grids demand,
is it still temporary power? How
about when a project lasts 10 years?
Those questions were prompted by an an-
nouncement on Mar. 31 that temporary power
provider Aggreko was increasing its grid-
connected generation capacity on Bali to 170
MWrepresenting 23% of the island prov-
inces total electricity demand. The appeal of
power rental in Bali is directly connected to
an economy that is growing at roughly 9.75%
per year, according to Scotland-based Ag-
greko, which has been in business for more
than 50 years.
As for the 10-year-long project, that was a
Cummins contract at a gold mine in Bulghah,
Saudi Arabia, located hundreds of miles from
the countrys electrical grid, that produced
82,000 ounces of gold per year using what
Cummins calls its Prime Power System.
The project was particularly challenging,
Cummins General Manager for Rental Proj-
ects Rick Duncan said, due to the environ-
mental challenges associated with ambient
temperatures of 55C (131F) and excessive
dust levels.
APR Energy Chief Operating Officer Brian
Rich directly addressed the shifting focus of
the major players in this sector when he com-
mented, We view many of our plants to be
semi-permanent in that they can integrate
seamlessly into existing permanent infra-
structure (Figure 1), using the same technol-
ogy [gas turbines], and run reliably for many
years if needed, just as permanent infrastruc-
ture would. Many of our customers are run-
ning our plants as a baseload operation, where
we are supplying a significant portion of the
countrys electricity and providing power to
millions of people.
A somewhat newer but ambitious player,
10-year-old Saudi Arabiabased Altaaqa,
explained that its business, too, is respond-
ing to the continuously increasing gap be-
tween supply and demand, especially in light
of significant economic development in spe-
cific regions. This increase in demand that
sometimes cannot be catered for by the avail-
able grid is causing temporary power solu-
tions to have longer timeframes, and the term
temporary can sometimes extend to several
months or even years, said Andrew Keddis,
business development manager.
Defining Temporary
Calling power service temporary doesnt
quite capture all of its distinguishing attri-
butes. Its temporary rather than permanent,
rented rather than owned, and mobile rather
than fixed. Its also modular and easily scal-
able. Ask some of the major companies
in the power rental space how they define
temporary power, and some even shy away
from that term because their projects run six
months or longer and range up to 450 MW
in size.
APR Energys Rich explained, When
we think of temporary power, we think of
short-term rental contracts, typically of a year
duration or less, including event power. APR
Energy has removed temporary power from
our vernacular. Rather than focus on short-
term rental projects, we instead work to de-
velop long-term, larger-scale power projects
that bridge customers until their permanent
infrastructure is in place.
Cummins Duncan told POWER, In the
1. Semi-permanent power. APR Energys 200-MW mobile turbine plant in Uruguay
sits next to the permanent turbine plant of national utility UTE in Punta del Tigre. The utility had
a strong preference for dual-fuel gas turbines given its familiarity with the technology and the
countrys strict environmental regulations. It also needed a solution that would integrate into its
current site and infrastructure. Courtesy: APR Energy
July 2014
|
past, temporary power mainly constituted
mobile power, which was required to be
made available quickly and for very short du-
ration. Today temporary power also includes
long-term requirements by utilities whose
capital constraints make investment in per-
manent sources of energy difficult.
Renting vs. Building
Theres no question that when speed is of the
utmost importance, temporary power has the
edge even over relatively easy to site, permit,
and construct gas-fired peakers. In an inter-
view with Utilities-me.com last October,
Altaaqa Managing Director Steven Meyrick
noted that it took 23 days from contract to
plant commissioning at Aden, Yemenre-
portedly the fastest installation of a temporary
power plant in Yemen. Another projecta
24-MW temporary peaking power plant in-
cluding district cooling for the Sultanate of
Omantook four days to complete.
Even when new capacity isnt needed
on very short notice, power rental offers an
advantage to utilities worldwide. Cummins
Duncan noted: Utilities typically lever-
age temporary power in a couple of differ-
ent ways. Many leverage temporary power
where they have a significant gap between
supply and demand, typically while they
are investing in expanding grid capacity or
to supplement existing capacity if they are
capital constrained. There are also utilities,
particularly in the Middle East, who leverage
temporary power to address seasonal shifts in
demand, effectively acting as additional ca-
pacity during peak periods.
Compared with building new grid-con-
nected generationeven distributed solar or
wind generationrenting power (and, often,
distribution infrastructure) offers far faster
deployment. It also eliminates maintenance
headaches. As Keddis noted, even when grid
power isnt an option over a longer term,
customers may opt to continue renting rather
than purchasing the power supply because
they can count on a specialized provider to
handle operation and maintenance.
Venkie Shantaram, Aggrekos group busi-
ness development director, also noted that
global mobile power providers are selling not
just power but also reliable operation: One
day a generator can be found at a cement
factory in the United Arab Emirates having
to withstand 50C-plus heat, and the next the
same generator is providing power to a gas
production plant in Russias Arctic region,
so providing consistently reliable power de-
spite the environment is critical.
But what about costs of power compared
with power from traditional fossil plants? As
with permanent generation sources, costs vary
not only by country and region but also in re-
sponse to fuel costs, regulatory environment,
size of installation, and other factors. But, ac-
cording to GEs Dan Kempf, general manager,
LM2500 and Small GT Program, as with all
onsite generation, line losses, up to 5%, are
saved, so [t]his can result in the temporary
power units having a higher overall efficiency
than centralized/remote power generation.
And in many cases, cost comparison is
moot, because, as Shantaram noted: The
consequences of power interruptions for
utility-related companies responsible for the
timely delivery of electricity could run into
millions of dollars worth of penalties in a
very short amount of time, with no respite
until the disruption is fixed. At the end of the
day, our customers main concern is having
access to guaranteed reliable power so that
they can get on with the task at hand, be that
repair of onsite permanent equipment, refur-
bishment, replacement, or new builds.
An Expanding Market
According to an April power rental mar-
BIOMASS
to
ENERGY
www.processbarron.com | 888-663-2028
|
July 2014 46
ket research report by MarketsandMarkets
(M&M), the global power rental market is
expected to grow from an estimated $7.8
billion in 2012 to $17 billion in 2017 with a
compound annual growth rate of 17% during
the same period. Global power rental market
revenuegenerator rental plus revenue from
the temporary power plantwas estimated
at $6.4 billion in 2011. Roughly half of that
revenue derives from peak load installations,
with prime load and standby service making
up the other half.
To put those numbers in perspective, Ag-
greko, the largest player in the market, says
that in 2013 it served customers in about 100
countries and had revenues of approximately
$2.5 billion.
Theres good reason to be skeptical of
market report figures, in part because, as Al-
taaqas Keddis noted, the barriers to entry in
this industry are fairly low, especially for
local, small-scale generation rental. Also,
this business is very dynamic with high
transaction rate. The combination of these
factors, in addition to the lack of transpar-
ency in many countries, makes the industry
extremely difficult to track and size.
And, as Cummins Duncan noted, the size
and location of the market varies from year
to year. He said market studies hes seen es-
timate that the temporary power opportunity
is in the region of $5 billion globally; this
can vary significantly by year, with large op-
portunity existing in North America, Europe,
Middle East, Africa, and Asia Pacific. When
looking at market opportunity, it is important
to distinguish between local hire (short-term
rental) and power project markets (longer-
term rental) because the market drivers, ap-
plications, and geographical presence are
significantly different, he added.
The most familiar uses of temporary power
are for construction sites, events, disaster re-
covery, off-grid mining operations, and the
like. But utilities are also major customers.
These days, according to Aggreko, the larg-
est provider of temporary power, aging in-
frastructure, grid instability, seasonal peak
shaving, transmission and distribution limita-
tions, planned maintenance, weather events,
and unplanned outages are all driving the mar-
ket. (See Shifting Sands: The Middle Easts
Thrust for Sustainability in this issue.)
The M&M report found that the utility
sector is the largest user of temporary power,
followed by the oil and gas industry and the
industrial sector. Utilities and the event in-
dustry are the fastest growing markets.
Geographically, according to M&M, the
largest markets are, in order: North America,
Middle East, and Asia-Pacific. However, the
report also found that the Middle East is the
fastest growing market.
At country level, the report finds that
the U.S. accounts for the largest revenue
share, followed by China, India, and Can-
ada. That list shouldnt surprise anyone, as
it includes the two largest industrializing
nations and the two countries experiencing
unprecedented shale resource exploration
and development. In fact, just last year, Ag-
greko opened new service centers in Sas-
katchewan and Texas to be closer to its oil
and gas mining customers.
And although temporary power is the prima-
ry focus here, some firms also offer related ser-
vices, such as cooling and heating equipment,
compressors, heat exchangers, and remote
monitoringmarkets that are also growing.
Changing Project Profiles
Temporary power has long been a staple in
the global resource development industry,
and that remains the case. But at least for the
market leaders, both the sizes and types of
projects have expanded recently.
Size. One of the biggest changes in the
industry over the past decade or two is the
scale of installations. Previously, GEs
Kempf noted, they were small by necessity,
but electricity has become more and more
critical to sustaining the modern way of life.
The worlds economy is electrifying and ur-
banizing, creating large potential demand for
temporary power on short notice.
GE has handled projects in excess of 600
MW in a single order, with first power put to
the grid within 60 days, Kempf said.
APR Energys largest installation to date
was more than 450 MW across six sites in
Libya in summer 2013, but its largest single-
site installation was 200 MW in Uruguay,
part of an overall 300-MW project (see Fig-
ure 1). The plants installed as part of these
two projects are still in operation.
New Roles for Temporary Power. GEs
Kempf identified two major trends his com-
pany is seeing that were not part of the busi-
ness just 10 or 20 years ago:
Emerging economies that are attempting
to electrify and are challenged to meet
near-term power needs and get ahead of
anticipated growth.
Rapid and unexpected needs driven by
natural disasters.
Another newer role that Cummins is heav-
ily involved in is providing prime power to
U.S. military bases in war zones like Iraq and
Afghanistan. Cummins largest installation
to date was at Victory Base Complex-East,
Iraq, a 74-MW Prime Power Plant. The proj-
ect consisted of a new 54-MW plant designed
and constructed by Berger/Cummins (a joint
venture between Cummins Power Generation
and The Louis Berger Group), an integrated
and previously existing 20-MW plant, an
electrical infrastructure upgrade consisting
of a new 100-MW bus/switchgear, 40-MW
substation, six new 11-kV overhead distribu-
tion feeders, and a fuel farm constructed to
supply the power plant.
According to Duncan, the plant resulted in
the removal of 103 spot generators, resulting
2. Cross-border power delivery. Aggrekos 232-MW temporary power project on the
border of Mozambique and South Africa supplies power to both countries as well as Namibia.
Courtesy: Aggreko
July 2014
|
in a savings of millions of dollars a year in
fuel and operation and maintenance expenses
for the U.S. military. At the time, this plant
was the U.S. militarys largest expeditionary
prime power plant serving a military base.
Like other global players in this market,
Cummins also provides temporary power
solutions to public utility companies where
projects are awarded for terms of three years
or more. A couple of decades ago, custom-
ers relied more on spot generation, which
involved placing small generators near a
place of power demand. This was quick and
easy, but resulted in fuel consumption inef-
ficiencies, lower reliability, and high cost of
equipment. The trend now is to have consoli-
dated prime power plants, where a central
power plant is leveraged and power is sup-
plied through a distribution network. This
has resulted in high plant load factors, high
plant utility factors, and high reliability, driv-
ing down capital costs as well as operation
and maintenance costs.
Keddis told POWER that in Saudi Arabia,
the type of power demand is driven by the
change in socioeconomic trends and gov-
ernment spending. For example, we have
noticed a significant increase in Saudi Ara-
bias entertainment industry business that
we didnt have few years ago. Furthermore,
new types of projects such as railway and
metro projects are starting in Saudi Arabia
and are using Altaaqas services; supplying
power to tunnel boring machines for metro
projects, for example, is a unique new expe-
rience for Altaaqa. Saudi Arabia is working
towards diversifying its economy from be-
ing heavily dependent on petroleum to other
sources of revenue such as mining, petro-
chemicals and other industries. That in turn
reflects on the diversity of projects requiring
power.
Altaaqa is the official Caterpillar partner
for power rental and temporary power solu-
tions in Saudi Arabia, and all Altaaqa ser-
vices are provided by CAT diesel engines. Its
longest-running project is a 16-MW tempo-
rary power station supplying a mall in Jed-
dah, Saudi Arabia, that has been operating
for six years.
Another type of new playing field is the
multinational one. Aggreko is producing and
delivering cross-border power to three util-
ity companies in Southern Africa (Figure 2).
Shantaram explained that the 232-MW tem-
porary power site uses natural gas from the
Temane gas fields as a fuel source and is lo-
cated on the Mozambique and South African
border at Ressano Garcia. The project is pro-
ducing and delivering power to Electricidade
de Mozambique (EDM), Eskom, and Nam-
Power (the Namibian power utility). This is
thought to be the first project by a private
company to supply power to multiple utilities
in Southern Africa, underlining the potential
benefits that can accrue to countries sharing
resources.
Technology Trends
Shantaram noted that Aggrekos basic busi-
ness of delivering flexible power solutions
anytime, anywhere hasnt changed much
over five decades, but the technology has.
Today we have generators that range from
10 KW right up to 1 MW, and deliver our
solutions in stackable, 20-foot containers
for efficient transportation by road, rail,
ship, or plane.
Diesel-powered internal combustion en-
gines have been the go-to technology in this
part of the generation world. However, gas
gensets and turbines are becoming much
more common.
APRs Rich argued that one of the biggest
innovations in this sector has been the use of
mobile turbines: Before 2011, utilities were
forced to use smaller-MW reciprocating en-
gine power modules because that was the
only feasible fast-track solution. As mobile
turbine technology has developed and be-
come available, utilities have turned to them
3 Turbine on wheels. GEs trailer-mounted (TM) mobile gas turbine generators, includ-
ing the TM2500 shown here, supply power for 50-Hertz and 60-Hertz applications using essen-
tially the same technology as that used in permanent gas turbine power plants employing the
LM2500 turbine. Courtesy: GE Power & Water
Clean Diesel?
Diesel engineswhether in vehicles or
stationary power systemshave a reputa-
tion for dirty emissions. But when it comes
to the latest generation of technology,
that reputation is becoming outdated.
The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF), a
U.S. industry group formed in 2000 that
promotes the use of clean diesel, says
that todays diesel generators emit 26
times less particulate matter than those
manufactured 10 years ago.
Diesel generators used for other than
emergency use are subject to a variety
of federal, state, and local regulations
in the U.S. and abroad. In 2006, the
EPA finalized the first national emission
standards for new stationary diesel en-
gines under the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), the DTF notes. The
NSPS requires all new diesel engines to
be certified to emission standards that
generally follow EPAs non-road or marine
mobile emissions standards which gener-
ally require over 90 percent reduction in
emissions of particulate matter and ni-
trogen oxide.
The DTF notes that [o]ver the 2011
2015 period, EPA requirements will mean
that emissions for all non-emergency diesel
generators regardless of horsepower rating
will be approaching a near-zero level.
It adds that, since October 2010, most
diesel fuel used in diesel-powered gen-
erators has been ultra-low-sulfur diesel
(ULSD) fuel (no more than 15 ppm sulfur).
Using ULSD in existing units reduces par-
ticulate matter emissions by 10% to 20%,
and when cleaner fuel is used in todays
new technology lower-emissions engines,
the DTF says that particulate matter will
be reduced by 90% compared to engines
made before 2011.
Clean diesel, is appears, is more than
just a catchy slogan.
|
July 2014 48
rapidly. . . . Since 2011, turbine share has
grown rapidly, from zero in 2010 to a 35%
share of the 100-MW+ deal space in 2013.
Approximately 20% of all fast-track power
deals since 2012 have been for gas turbines.
Utilities prefer the grid stability and power
density that turbines provide, and it is a tech-
nology that they understand.
He also noted that the aeroderivative tur-
bine technology used in many APR plants is
the same technology used in many perma-
nent plants; the only difference being that it
is mobile and can be moved if needed.
Another advantage of mobile gas turbines
Rich mentioned is that they are opening
doors to new markets and opportunities in
developed countries, where emissions and
scale are of importance.
In fact, in October 2013, APR Energy an-
nounced it had agreed to acquire GEs power
rental business, which will tie it even more
closely with gas turbine technology. Today,
APR Energys fleet is about 55% mobile
gas turbines and 45% gas or diesel power
modulesprimarily GE and Caterpillar
equipment, as the company currently has a
strategic alliance with GE and a global agree-
ment with Caterpillar.
Even non-utilities are turning to gas tur-
bines. In September 2005, when Hurricane
Rita flooded and caused the shutdown of
the Valero Energy Corp. refinery in Port
Arthur, Texas, and when utility power was
unavailable, Valero looked for a quick yet
simple option. GEs Aeroderivative Gas Tur-
bine business provided the refinery with a
TM2500 gas turbine (Figure 3), a blackstart
diesel generator, and an automatic transfer
switch. The 22.5 MW supplied was, accord-
ing to a GE press release, more powerful
and much less sprawling than a cumbersome
string of diesel generator sets. Six days after
Valero signed the temporary power contract,
the unit was fully installed and delivered aux-
iliary power for three months until the utility
could resume supplying permanent power.
Typically, Kempf said, units can be ready
to enter commercial operation in about 30
days. GE has also supplied its trailer-mount-
ed, mobile aeroderivative gas turbines in
other countries. For example, two of the four
dual-fuel (gas and diesel) TM2500+ units
involved in a $135 million project for Gen-
eral Electricity Co. of Libya were installed
and commissioned within six weeks after site
selection in December 2013. The project will
provide more than 100 MW for the summer
peak by expanding the Zawia and W. Trip-
oli power plants. GE notes that the mobile
units can be moved anywhere in the country
to supply emergency backup power or as a
base-load bridge to permanent power instal-
lations. The TM2500+ can produce more
than 26 MW of powera 31% increase over
the TM2500, GE says.
GE also offers gas engines from 300 kW
to 10 MW. Kempf said, A containerized gas
engine solution, for fast installation/reloca-
tion, can be supplied up to 4.4 MW and with
efficiencies up to 46%.
Whatever the prime mover, squeezing
maximum efficiency out of the technol-
ogy is key. Aggreko, which manufactures
its own equipment, last year launched the
G3+, a 1-MW engine that the company
says provides customers with up to 14%
more power and 12% lower cost per MW
than previous models. Aggreko says it be-
lieves its G3+ reciprocating engine is the
most efficient engine on the market and
provides fuel efficiencies surpassing that
of mobile turbine technology.
Fuel Options
Because it is available almost everywhere,
diesel has been the traditional fuel of choice
for temporary power (see sidebar). However,
its not the most cost-effective, so the global
players are adding alternatives.
We were the first company to develop and
produce in volume 1-MW gas-fired genera-
tors in 20-foot containers, and we now have
over 900 MW on rent in our Power Projects
businessfar ahead of any competitor, said
Shantaram. In the second half of 2013, gas-fu-
eled plants generated 35% of Aggrekos Pow-
er Projects rental revenue, having grown at a
compound growth rate of over 55% between
2007 and 2013. Utilities using our gas tech-
nology are enjoying all-in costs per kilowatt-
hour from our plants, which is often cheaper
than some of their permanent capacity, and far
below diesel-fueled power plants.
Aggreko has been investing heavily in the
development of temporary power generation
that can use natural gas and heavy fuel oil
(HFO). In 2010, Aggreko began looking for
a fuel that was cheaper than diesel but more
easily available than gas. The answer was
HFO, which is widely used for both power
generation and shipping, Shantaram said.
We overcame some significant engineer-
ing challenges to develop an engine capable
not only of running off HFO, but of doing
so inside a 20-foot container, and launched
our new product in March of 2013. Customer
reaction has been very favorable, as we are
able to save them millions of dollars in fuel
costwe believe that this product will be-
come a very important part of our portfolio
over the next five years.
Cummins has also delivered natural gas
and biogas turnkey power plants for dedi-
cated installations. The company has seen
increased demand for gaseous fuels over the
past five years, particularly natural gas and
biogas. As Duncan noted: Two factors influ-
ence the viability of this as an option; firstly,
there has to be a reliable source of fuel avail-
able locally, either via pipeline or through lo-
cal production. Secondly, the contract length
has to be long enough to justify any addi-
tional infrastructure investments required to
support these fuels.
There may be long-term potential in
dual-fuel technology, he said, which could
allow operators to minimize operating costs
by changing fuel substitution rates to most
effectively respond to fuel price economics.
4. Powering growth. This photo shows Altaaqas largest single temporary power plant,
95 MW, being installed in May 2014 in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia. Courtesy: Altaaqa
July 2014
|
Currently, up-front technology choices are
significantly influenced by capital cost, and
the economic viability of these options often
mean that substitution rates are constrained,
limiting potential fuel saving upside.
APR Energy has plants running on both
natural gas and diesel fuel. Rich said cus-
tomers choose and provide the fuel. As APR
Energys mobile turbines are dual fuel, they
can operate on either diesel or natural gas
with the ability to change at the flip of a
switch. We also offer power modules that use
either diesel or gas.
Fuel is the most expensive part of the
kilowatt-hour, Rich added. So fuel effi-
ciency improvement is the main focus. The
flexibility to operate with dual fuel is vital,
and in this market only the turbine can de-
liver that ability.
Both Supporting and Competing
with Grid Power
Estimating what percentage or capacity of
temporary power is grid-tied generation for
traditional utilities is difficult because of the
temporary nature of the market and because
plant deployments can change overnight.
However, its clear thatespecially in re-
gions with fast demand growth or unreliable
infrastructure or fuel supplytemporary
power can be an important utility partner.
One example is Uruguay, where the elec-
tricity sector is largely based on domestic
hydropower, leaving the country vulnerable
to seasonal rainfall patterns. To help bridge
the gap between supply and demand, APR
Energy supplies a total of 300 MW of mo-
bile turbine power for peaking and backup
generation. The semi-permanent plants (see
Figure 1) integrate seamlessly into national
utility UTEs existing infrastructure and uti-
lize demineralized water solutions to com-
ply fully with Uruguays strict emissions
standards.
Another is Saudi Arabia, where demand
increases significantly in the summer, it
becomes very difficult for the grid to cope
with that change, explained Keddis. On
an annual basis, Altaaqa re-enforces the
Saudi Arabian grid during the high season
with an average of 250 MW to 300 MW
in different parts of the country. In fact,
its largest project to date at a single site,
currently under development, is 95 MW in
Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia, for Saudi Electric
Co. (Figure 4).
And in May, Aggreko announced that it is
providing 30 MW of power to a hydro site
located 3,423 meters above sea level. That
project will provide continuous power to the
Santa Teresa Hydroelectric site, located in
the Cusco region 715 miles from Lima, Peru
(Figure 5). High altitudes affect generators
by reducing their output. According to Ag-
greko, the derating typically results in a pro-
duction loss of 10% for every 1,000 meters
of altitude. Aggreko says its engines provide
a minimum reduction of power at 3,400 me-
ters, with just 10% loss, according to a com-
pany press release. Aggreko says it mobilized
the equipment in just five days, using trailers
specially designed for loads of up to 26 tons.
Another factor behind the growth in the
power rental market that Cummins Duncan
mentioned is growing interest in microgrids
to meet temporary (and more permanent)
power needs. A microgrid consisting of
multiple distributed energy resources feed-
ing single or multiple electrical loads, and
operating as an autonomous/island grid can
provide its operator with the flexibility to
leverage different technologies with com-
plimentary characteristics. One example
is using solar power with diesel generators,
providing the fuel savings and emission
benefits associated with renewable energy,
but addressing the challenges of intermit-
tency and energy density by leveraging the
reliability and power density associated
with diesel generators.
Depending on who is contracting for the
microgrid, this scenario could either sup-
port a utility or steal potential load growth
from it.
Surmountable Challenges
As in the permanent power world, regula-
tory issues were the most frequently men-
tioned challenge. Aggrekos Shantaram
noted that even though the companys ex-
pertise is in working across borders, chal-
lenges can present themselves when having
to adapt to local regulations or require-
ments that differ from country to country.
However, with over 50 years experience
working in almost every country and in
every industry . . . we can obtain permits
whether it be in Mozambique, Romania,
USA, or Brazil.
APRs Rich noted that The nature of to-
days market is that our contracts are often in
developing countries, which typically makes
them challenging from the start, particularly
in terms of logistics, labor, and security.
GEs Kempf pointed out that in bridg-
ing solutions, the time required for power
purchase agreement negotiation in many
regions can create challenges to rapid de-
ployment. Fuel handling, transportation,
and other issues can also present chal-
lenges at times, but solutions are almost
always available.
Then theres weather. Temporary power
is often the only option in remote areas, and
those areas are often remote for obvious
reasons of climate or terrain. Temperature
extremes and poor or absent infrastructure
present challenges for logistics and opera-
tion. Luckily, temporary power plants are
mobile and modular, so any damaged equip-
ment can be replaced quickly.
Gail Reitenbach, PhD is POWERs editor
(@GailReit, @POWERmagazine).
5. Supporting hydro. A 30-MW project for a hydro site in Peru, shown here during de-
livery, was mobilized in five days using trailers specially designed for loads of up to 26 tons.
Courtesy: Aggreko
|
July 2014 50
Springerville Generating Station
Earns PRBCUG 2014 Honors
The Springerville Generating Station has been a work in progress since the first
unit entered service in 1985. The PRBCUG recently recognized Springerville
with its 2014 Plant of the Year award for implementing industry best practices,
continual improvements, and worker safety.
By Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
T
he presentation of the Powder River
Basin Coal Users Group (PRBCUG)
Plant of the Year award is always the
highlight of the PRBCUG Awards Banquet,
held the night before the kickoff of the Annu-
al Meeting held in conjunction with ELEC-
TRIC POWER Conference & Exhibition.
Each year, since 2000, the PRBCUG has
recognized one to two power plants for their
innovation and the implementation of best
practices and continual improvements in ar-
eas including safety, environmental perfor-
mance, coal handling, boiler and combustion,
and risk management for Powder River Ba-
sin coal (see sidebar). The selection is made
after an extensive review by the PRBCUG
Board of Directors. Membership of the PRB-
CUG is composed of users of PRB coals as
well as prospective consumers (generating
companies or industrial energy consumers).
This year, the PRBCUG 2014 Plant of the
Year was awarded to the Springerville Gen-
erating Station (SGS). SGS, located in the
high desert of northeastern Arizona near the
border with New Mexico, consists of four
units with different owners but a single op-
erator, Tucson Electric Power (TEP), a sub-
sidiary of UniSource Energy Corp. Units 1
and 2 are sister units, each 380 MW. Unit
1, owned by a consortium led by TEP, and
Unit 2, owned by TEP, were constructed in
1985 and 1990, respectively. Unit 3, rated at
417 MW, is owned by Tri-State Generation
and Transmission and entered commercial
service in the summer of 2006. Unit 3 is a
prior recipient of POWERs Plant of the Year
award (see Tri-State Generation and Trans-
mission Associations Springerville Unit 3
Earns POWERs Highest Honor in the Sep-
tember 2006 issue). Tri-State is a Denver-
based wholesale power cooperative with
member distribution systems in Colorado,
New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Unit
4, also 417 MW, was completed in Decem-
ber 2009 and is owned by Salt River Project,
which is the third-largest public power utility
in the U.S. (Figure 1).
All four units at SGS operate with an
excellent heat rate under 10,000 Btu/kWh,
and the plants 2013 net capacity factor was
80.3%, which ranks it as one of the best of
its class, according to PRBCUG. The plant
burns about 7 million tons/year of coal of
which 3.7 million tons is PRB coal burned
in Units 3 and 4. Units 1 and 2 burn coal
sourced from the El Segundo Mine in north-
west New Mexico. Coal is delivered by unit
train and unloaded with a rotary car dump.
The plant maintains seven separate coal piles
and uses 51 conveyors to stack, reclaim, and
move coal to each of the four units (Figure
2). Magnetic metals separation is also a re-
cent addition (Figure 3).
The plant has 350 employees, including
about 130 multi-skilled operators who are
also trained to perform non-intrusive preven-
tative maintenance (PM) evolutions that will
take less than two hours (about 27% of all
PM). SGS is very selective when it comes to
new employees. New operators are hired from
one of three sources: those completing a two-
year training program, those with experience
at other plants, or those with military expe-
rience. The plant also employs 120 contract
employees, of which about 90 are employees
of Southwest Energy Solutions, a TEP sister
company. This team is responsible for plant
housekeeping, ash handling, and mobile fleet
operation and maintenance activities.
Recent Accomplishments
The coal unloading and transfer system is, for
outage planning purposes, treated as a virtual
Unit 5, and is scheduled for an annual out-
age lasting between four and 14 days. This
approach allows SGS to plan, procure, and ex-
ecute coal handling upgrades at predictable pe-
riods of time each year rather than piecemeal.
Over the past few years, a number of upgrades
have been completed that have significantly
improved coal-processing operations:
Revised operation procedures reduced
equipment wear and tear as well as subse-
quent housekeeping chores. The contractu-
ally required train-unloading rate is six to
Benchmark Your PRBCUG Plant Against Industry Peers
The Powder River Basin Coal Users Group
(PRBCUG) was formed to promote the
safe, efficient, and economic use of Pow-
der River Basin coal by generating compa-
nies that currently use, or are considering
the use of sub-bituminous coal. One of
the objectives of the group is to identify
and establish industry best practices re-
lated to safe and efficient handling, burn-
ing, and using PRB coals.
Membership in the PRBCUG and attend-
ing the annual conference offers PRB coal
users the opportunity to network with
industry peers, learn from other operat-
ing plants, obtain access to industry best
practice guidelines, and increase safety
and risk awareness.
Every plant that burns PRB coal will
benefit to some degree from the insight-
ful case studies on successful deployment
of the right technology and industry best
practices presented at the PRBCUG annual
conference. Not every solution is appropri-
ate for every plant, but there is one best
solution for your particular challenge.
And where better would you find peers to
compare notes than with members of the
PRBCUG? Additional information on the
PRBCUG and its awards program is avail-
able at www.prbcoals.com.
July 2014
|
eight hours, but some operators would speed up feeders and conveyors
such that a train was being unloaded in significantly less time. Fast
is good, but only up to a point. Rapid unloading caused a significant
increase in wear and tear on the equipment and increased fugitive
emissions that overpowered the surfactant spray system, in addition to
causing coal spills that required an additional six hours of cleanup. A
simple operational change to limit the unloading feeder speed reduced
coal-handling system operating and maintenance costs.
Installation of wireless vibration monitoring on all large electrical
motors is expected to minimize unexpected catastrophic failures.
Standardized guarding around coal-handling equipment, convey-
ors, idlers, and tail pulleys were designed and installed. All the
conveyor belts were also standardized. Also, water drain lines on
the tripper decks and conveyors were increased in size to improve
water removal as part of housekeeping. Cleaning these areas was
problematic because water would not drain properly through too-
small drains or those with too many bends. The end result was that
housekeeping time for this task was reduced by 50%.
The housekeeping staff has been integrated into the safety culture
of the plant. The 10 or so members of the housekeeping staff on
duty at any time observe much of the plant everyday and report
safety and maintenance problems as part of their work responsi-
bilities. In addition, housekeeping staff are now assigned to a spe-
cific area of responsibility for two months rather than routinely
rotated. The result is workers taking ownership of a particular area
and better-maintained areas. One of the PRBCUG directors noted
in his trip report that the team that maintains the tripper gallery
takes great pride in maintaining its cleanliness. I saw no coal dust
on the walls nor on any exposed structural steel.
An Engart dust extractor replaced two existing baghouse dust collec-
tion systems to improve safety, lower maintenance, and provide bet-
ter dust collection efficiency. Winds that often exceed 60 mph at the
site have necessitated other process improvements, such as adding
dust suppression spray nozzles. Site drainage to the periphery of the
coal storage areas was also added. In addition, F500 extinguishers
were added around the entire coal storage area with training on how
to use the extinguishers scheduled every six months.
1. High desert operation. The Springerville Generating Station
is located in northeastern Arizona, close to the border of New Mexico,
at an elevation of 7,000 feet. The net power generation of the plants
four units is about 1,600 MW. Units 3 and 4 share a common stack.
Courtesy: Salt River Project, photograph by Matthew Ideler
UDI WHOS WHO AT ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
Enhanced PDF version now available
The 2014 UDI Whos Who Directory covers more than 4,500
U.S. and Canadian generating plants. The directory provides:
Nearly 8,100 plant management and support
contact names, titles, and primary job functions.
Basic plant operating statistics for more than 1,500
power stations, including:
Generation (MWh)
Availability (%)
Heat rate
Capacity Factor (%)
Power plant design characteristics
Choose which purchase option that best suits your needs:
Hardcopy Book
Enhanced Directory PDF (CD-ROM)
Mailing List (CD-ROM), Enhanced Directory PDF & Hardcopy Book
For more detailed information and a list of all available data, visit us online at UDIDATA.COM or contact the UDI Editorial team at UDI@Platts.com.
2014
|
July 2014 52
Permanent vacuum lines were installed for
areas that require routine cleanup. Also,
LED lights were installed in many work
areas. If you cant see it, you cant clean it.
SGS is located in the high desert7,000
feet high. Winter temperatures are often
below freezing, but many portions of the
plant building were not designed to keep
the heat in and the coal dust out. Portable
heaters now keep unheated buildings above
freezing and many conventional external
doors, dangerous to open in high winds,
have been replaced with sliding doors (de-
signed with emergency escape features)
that meet the life safety code. Elevated
grating was also installed throughout the
plant to improve traction when walking,
particularly in conveyor areas.
Safety Is Valued
The plants incident and severity rates (cur-
rently 1.5 and 0, respectively) are historically
well below the industry average and may also
be considered as best in class, according to
the PRBCUG. The plants safety organiza-
tion each year selects a volunteer to be the
plants Safety Rover. The Rovers role is to
spend the day where work is being performed
in order to be a resource to workers in identi-
fying and addressing potential hazards.
An employee-based safety program has
been rolled out to workforce to encourage
routine safety observations with immediate
feedback to fellow employees. The Southwest
Energy Solutions branch of SGS has achieved
over 75% employee participation since 2012,
while the TEP workforce implemented the
program in January 2014. The observations
are used to develop future safety education
programs, improve job hazard analysis, and
expand overall awareness of safety among
the plant staff. Employees complete a job
hazard analysis for each job prior to perform-
ing it. Signs are posted throughout the plant
reminding employees that everyone has the
authority, including contractors and visitors,
to call a Safety Time Out when an unsafe
work situation or act is observed.
The plants remote location requires self-
protecting emergency preparedness and
equipment. SGS houses onsite a stand-alone
communication system (trailer), industrial
fire brigade (advanced exterior and interior),
and EMTs and two paramedics. The plant
is equipped with trained personnel for fire,
emergency medical, technical rescue, and
hazardous materials, including specialized
equipment and apparatus, all housed in an
11,000-square-foot building. Emergency
Response Plans are in place, and drills are
conducted regularly. A modern enhanced
emergency notification system is intercon-
nected to the plants GAI-Tronics system and
communicates through four large speakers
strategically placed around the facility. The
emergency responders are embedded within
the workforce 24 hours per day.
Sustained, Superior Performance
Congratulation to the Springerville Generat-
ing Station for being named the 2014 PRB-
CUG Plant of the Year. The award recognizes
years of hard work by the plant staff and
major capital investment by the plant own-
ers to improve the performance and safety of
the plants operations and maintenance. Im
told the Fuels Group set an internal goal to be
named the PRBCUG Plant of the Year over
two years agoand reach that goal they did.
The plant staff has demonstrated that rela-
tively small, incremental improvements over
time will pay huge dividends. Congratula-
tions from POWER for a job well done.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWERs
consulting editor.
2. Automatic car unloading. A unit
train entering the rotary car dumper build-
ing is shown. The coal is then conveyed and
stored on one of the seven coal piles present
at the plant. Units 1 and 2 burn coal produced
by the El Segundo Mine in northwest New
Mexico. Units 3 and 4 burn PRB coal, so there
are separate coal storage piles for each coal.
Courtesy: Salt River Project, photograph by
Matthew Ideler
CORMETECH
CLEANER AIR THROUGH INNOVATION
SCR Catalyst Management Services
Regularly scheduled
Catalyst Performance Evaluations
and
Monitoring of SCR System Operations
are key indicators to the overall health of the SCR.
Contact us to discuss Cormetechs full range of
SCR catalyst management services and ensure
low ownership cost associated with the
SCR system.
Reliability. Delivered.
CORMETECH, Inc. 919-620-3000
5000 International Dr. www.cormetech.com
Durham, North Carolina 27712 USA sales@cormetech.com
3. Separating metals. A new magnetic
separator system was recently installed to
monitor the two 72-inch conveyor belts. This
system traps any metals early in the handling
system to prevent damage to equipment and
ignition of fires. Courtesy: Salt River Project
ANNUAL MEETING
HOST UTILITY:
FOUNDING MEMBERS:
Experience sessions addressing the safe, efcient and
economic use of sub-bituminous coals
Walk away with viable solutions to the issues you face
on a day-to-day basis
Take home information on services provided by
leading industry suppliers
Network with hundreds of generating company
industry professionals in one place
HEARD AT THE 2013 ANNUAL MEETING IN MALAYSIA...
This event had high value content that I could definitely implement.
Very good event.
AZMIR RIZAL ABDULBL, MANAGER, JIMAH O & M SDN. BHD
Very nice event. Very educating and informative.
ERNESTO U. QUEMQUEM, JR., SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
SOUTH LUZON THERMAL ENERGY CORP. - PHILIPPINES
Plan your trip early!
Conference registration and hotel reservations
at the Amari Watergate Bangkok Hotel are now available!
4
th
ANNUAL
OCTOBER 13 - PLANT TOUR
OCTOBER 14-16 - CONFERENCE
BANGKOK, THAILAND
www.asiansbcusers.com
REGISTER TODAY!
SAFETY. SOLUTIONS. SERVICES.
Gain insight, access solutions and network
with industry peers at this 4-day event.
|
July 2014 54
COAL
Does IGCC Have a Future?
Once touted as the savior of coal power and the future of clean coal generation, in-
tegrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology has seen its prospects
swamped by soaring costs and technological challenges. Though it remains
controversial, its proponents are not ready to give up.
Thomas W. Overton, JD
I
f youre an energy sector observer with an
interest in integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) generation, the last few years
have been much like attending a performance
of Samuel Becketts classic play, Waiting for
Godot, in which the performers spend two
acts tediously waiting for someone who never
appears. And, much like Becketts characters,
who are never quite sure if theyre waiting in
the right place or are unknowingly repeating
the same scene each day, the generators work-
ing on IGCC have been struggling for years to
find a viable path forward.
The newest operating IGCC plant in the
U.S., Duke Energys Edwardsport Generating
Station in Indiana, has struggled to maintain
consistent operations since coming online last
June (though it was still named a POWER Top
Plant for 2013). Duke stated at the time that
it planned to slowly ramp the plant up to full
operation, and in that at least, it has fulfilled
expectations. It reached 60% capacity in Au-
gust, only to suffer mechanical failures this
past winter that reduced output to a trickle
in January and February. Duke said things
improved later in the spring, but CEO Lynn
Good acknowledged in the companys first-
quarter earnings call, Edwardsport is a large,
complex project, and it has taken time to work
out technical issues.
Ballooning Budgets
Edwardsport reached commercial operations
two years late and about $1.5 billion over bud-
get, but that record fairly shines in compari-
son to Mississippi Powers Kemper County
project, which will be the first to incorporate
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology
(Edwardsport is CCS-ready but does not
have it installed). The Kemper County plant
has seen costs spiral from an initial estimate
of $2.2 billion to more than $5.5 billion in
the most recent revision in April. That update
again pushed out the plants in-service date
to May 2015, a year beyond the original plan.
Missouri Powers parent, Southern Com-
pany, blamed early miscalculations on the
type and amount of piping needed for many
of the problems. With the state having set a
cost cap of $3.87 billion, the overruns have
cost Southern about $1.6 billion.
None of this has stopped the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) and the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency from touting IGCC
with CCS as the future of coal generation.
I consider seeing this plant a look at the
future, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz said
at an event at Kemper County last Novem-
ber. Were going to need not 10, maybe 100
more of these plants across the country.
Yet only two other such plants are under
active development in the U.S., the Texas
Clean Energy Project (TCEP), near Odessa,
and Hydrogen Energy California, planned
for a site near Bakersfield; both are still in
search of financing despite years of work
(see Is Polygeneration the Future for Clean
Coal? in the March 2014 issue). Most re-
cently, in April, developer Summit Power re-
quested yet another extension from the DOE,
with financial closing now hoped for in June
2015. Director of Projects Laura Miller said
the companys goal between now and then is
to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from
the current $3.5 billion estimate.
These numbers are naturally a deterrent
to future investment. Jeff Phillips, manager
of the Electric Power Research Institutes
(EPRIs) Advanced Fossil, Carbon Capture,
Utilization and Storage research program,
told POWER, The combination of the sub-
stantial cost overruns at the two U.S. IGCC
projects built this decade and relatively low
natural gas prices present in North America
has dried up interest in IGCC among U.S.
power producers.
Mixed Record
Overseas, the picture is more nuanced.
According to the Gasification Technolo-
gies Council (GTC) database, there are only
six commercially operating coal-fired IGCC
plants worldwide, including Edwardsport. Of
those, four came online in the 1990s and one,
at Nakoso, Japan, in 2007 (Figure 1).
A seventh plant, Chinas GreenGen project
in Tianjin, has mostly completed the second
phase of its development in which the first,
250-MW unit has been successfully fired on
syngas, though it is not yet fully commis-
sioned. A second, 400-MW plant is under
development on the same site.
Worldwide, according to DOE and GTC
data, about a dozen coal-fired IGCC projects
are in various stages of active development,
though the commercial prospects for several
of these are doubtful. About five or six ap-
pear to be under construction, though reports
conflict. Nearly all of them seem to have ex-
perienced varying degrees of cost overruns,
delays, and doubts about their viability.
GreenGen, for example, was originally
planned for full operation in 2015, but com-
pletion has now been pushed out to 2020. The
cost overruns for the project are not publicly
known, but reports suggest they have been
substantial. (The developer, Huaneng Group,
is a state-owned firm.)
There are success stories, however. Mit-
subishi Heavy Industries thermal power di-
vision (now part of Mitsubishi Hitachi Power
Systems, MHPS) began developing the 250-
MW IGCC demonstration plant at Nakoso in
Fukushima Prefecture in the early 2000s, and
brought it online in late 2007 (when it was
named a POWER Top Plant). The plant uses a
single MHPS 701DA turbine that burns syn-
gas from an air-blown gasifier. It operates at
42% net efficiency and has achieved very low
SO
x
and NO
x
emissions of 1.0 ppm and 3.4
ppm, respectively.
MHPS is actively marketing its IGCC
technology and believes that efficiencies
over 48% are achievable with its advanced
G-series gas turbines operating at higher inlet
temperatures. Despite the high costs experi-
enced with current IGCC projects in the U.S.,
1. Trailblazer. The 250-MW IGCC dem-
onstration plant at Nakoso, Japan, owned by
Mitsubishi-Hitachi Power Systems, has been
operating successfully since 2007. Courtesy:
MHPS
July 2014
|
COAL
MHPS believes such plants can be competi-
tive with conventional coal generation.
According to Terry Fujino, project coordina-
tor and manager, boiler and IGCC engineering,
for MHPS, the Nakoso plant has met and ex-
ceeded all performance guarantees and targets
since it began initial operation. In April 2013,
it was transferred to commercial operation and
renamed as Unit 10 of Nakoso Power Station.
Based on the results at Nakoso, Tokyo Elec-
tric Power Co. has announced plans to build
two new coal-fired IGCC plants in Fukushima
Prefecture with outputs of approximately 500
MW each, using the same air-blown MHPS
gasification technology as the Nakoso plant.
Room for Progress
One thing on which there is agreement is
that IGCC is a technology with a lot of ef-
ficiencies and improvements remaining to
be captured. A 2012 report from EPRI lists a
number of areas in which IGCC plants can be
made more economical and productive:
Advanced air separation methods to im-
prove efficiency of oxygen firing.
Improved designs and materials to increase
gasifier component life and to allow larger
gasifier sizes and higher gasifier pressures.
Use of flue gas or other low-grade heat
sources to reduce costs and energy con-
sumption for coal drying.
Dry solids pumps or use of supercriti-
cal CO
2
instead of water for preparing coal
slurry.
Higher-temperature particulate removal
devices and hot gas desulfurization.
Advanced shift catalysts using less steam,
and membrane separation of CO
2
and H
2
.
Hydrogen-firing gas turbines, improved
aerodynamics, and materials advances
to allow higher firing temperatures and
larger blade sizes that improve efficiency
and output.
Research into all of these areas is ongo-
ing, though commercialization is closer for
some than for others. Recent improvements
in natural gasfired turbine performance are
also applicable to this field, and advanced
turbines optimized for IGCC are in develop-
ment by GE, Siemens, and MHPS. Gasifier
technology is also a robust area of research
and development.
Moving Forward
What happens next may depend in large part
on the success of the new Asian plants. If
those projects can avoid the large cost over-
runs that were encountered by the U.S. IGCC
projects, Phillips said, it will open the door
to more IGCC projects not only in Asia but
possibly elsewhere. If they cannot, it could
doom the technology.
The generators and manufacturers are so
far undaunted. Fujino said MHPS contin-
ues to move forward on IGCC and gasifica-
tion projects.
Duke Energys Good, for her part, was op-
timistic about Edwardsport in the same earn-
ings call. Since the in-service date we have
been monitoring our success by progress-
ing through GEs new product introduction
protocol, conducting detailed performance
testing and optimization procedures, and ob-
taining valuable operating experience with
the new facility, she said. All major tech-
nology systems have been validated and we
continue to focus on final performance test-
ing and optimization. We are on track to be
within the total revised project estimate of
$3.5 billion.
Stay tuned. Godot may yet put in an ap-
pearance.
Thomas W. Overton, JD is a POWER
associate editor (@thomas_overton,
@POWERmagazine).
EPECs Western Power Summit addresses strategic
issues at the rst annual conference in Las Vegas:
Energy imbalance markets
California's energy storage directive
Long-haul transmission to bring remote
renewable resources to load centers
Water-energy issues and regional cooperation
The Western Power Summit presented by EPEC (Electric Power
Executive Conference) is exclusively for executives and will provide an
environment to discuss challenges and explore a range of strategies that
address the rapid change impacting Western electricity providers.
Join us November 5 6, 2014 in Las Vegas
www.EPECevents.com
From the organizers of ELECTRIC POWER
EPEC's Western Power Summit will bring together corporate-level executives, senior policy makers, fnancial ex-
ecutives, senior consultants and other stakeholders to address the dynamic and fast-changing events impacting
Western electric power markets.
LAS VEGAS, NV
NOVEMBER 5 6, 2014
THE BELLAGIO HOTEL
Registration is open!
Visit www.epecevents.com today.
www.gbreports.com
Global Business Reports
July 2014
2
Global Business Reports // POWER BRITISH COLUMBIA
seeking to stem the inevitable tide of rate
increases for customers.
Under its current plans, BC Hydro plans to
spend C$1.7 billion per year over the next
10 years on capital improvements while
rates are expected to rise by 28% by 2019.
There is a direct, unassailable connec-
tion between investment in infrastructure
and rates, said Bill Bennett, BCs Minister
of Energy and Mines. The cost of infra-
structure is the main driving factor in deter-
mining rates. The Rates Plan was brought
about to bring certainty to electricity rates
for the residential, commercial and indus-
trial consumers of BC.
Even with the rate increases, BCs elec-
tricity will remain amongst the cheapest in
North America.
The plans fail, however, to clarify two very
important issues: the upcoming fnal deci-
sion for whether BC Hydros Site C, a long-
proposed 1,100 MW project on the Peace
River, is approved, as well as the develop-
ment of substantial gas reserves through
the construction of electricity-intensive
LNG export facilities.
The Last in a Legacys
Line: The Push for Site C
Site C is a project decades in the making.
There are dozens of ways in which the pro-
ject can be viewed, and a wide variety of
stakeholders, each with differing concerns.
If the project is approved, everyone in BC
from First Nations to ratepayers to envi-
ronmentalists to engineering, construction
and procurement frms (EPCs) to independ-
ent power producers will feel an impact.
Site C was originally proposed as the third
of four major dams on the Peace River
in the mid-twentieth century. Two other
dams, the 2,876 MW W.A.C. Bennett Dam
and the 700 MW Peace Canyon Dam, were
completed in 1968 and 1980 respectively.
In 1982 and 1989 the British Columbia Utili-
ties Commission, BCUC indefnitely tabled
proposals for developing Site C, but BC
Hydro announced plans for Site Cs resur-
rection in April 2010. The debate amongst
stakeholders has not ceased since.
Following the approval of the IRP in No-
vember 2013, BC Hydro is currently work-
ing on securing the next round of permit-
ting and social licenses for Site C. The
approved IRP contemplates that BC Hydro
would proceed with various processes and
stages to advance Site C to a stage that
would enable the government to make an
informed fnal decision on whether Site C
should proceed sometime in 2014 or 2015,
commented Charles W. Bois, a partner at
Miller Thomson LLP.
If approved in the aforementioned time-
frame, BC Hydro plans to bring the project
online by 2024. Site C is dispatchable
and it produces 1100 MW of frm capacity,
which makes it higher quality than run of
river or wind, which are both intermittent
resources, said Doug Little, vice president
of energy planning and economic develop-
ment at BC Hydro.
The government, meanwhile, is conscious
that rosy growth projections made at the
height of the commodities boom are un-
trustworthy. The resource-rich province re-
covered exceedingly well from the Global
Financial Crisis, posting GDP growth fg-
ures of 5.1% and 4.4% in 2010 and 2011
respectively. However, lower commod-
ity prices have partially been responsible
for the provinces slowed growth; the
Royal Bank of Canada estimates 2.1%
growth for 2014.
Although most indicators point towards
Site Cs approval in the coming months,
there are still some hurdles to overcome.
BCs independent power producers (IPPs)
are closely monitoring the situation. Con-
ditions have changed; I would not clas-
sify myself as an advocate of the [Site C]
project. It is my job to assess whether Site
C is the best way to generate 1100 MW
of electricity at the point in time when it
would be built and operating. Over the
last several months I have been busy try-
ing to develop alternative packages of ide-
as, combinations of generation that I can
take to the Cabinet and let them make the
choice whether to pursue Site C or another
option, commented Minister Bennett.
Stantec, BC Hydro 2L22 Emergency Rebuild
Project from the north side, Surrey, British
Columbia. Photo courtesy of Stantec.
www.gbreports.com
July 2014
4
POWER BRITISH COLUMBIA
with supplying LNG facilities with grid-based power according to
McTavish: Northwest BC [where the LNG sites are located] is
dependent on a single radial 500 kV transmission line from Prince
George to Terrace that is subject to numerous small outages dur-
ing the year. As the LNG sector moves forward, we will probably
see the industry rely on their own gas generation for their power
needs; so there is signifcant opportunity for gas generation and
renewables combined with local transmission and distribution up-
grades in and around Kitimat, Terrace and Prince Rupert. A lim-
ited transmission infrastructure in the north is also affecting the
construction of new industrial and IPP projects in much of BC.
The large costs and timelines required to interconnect into the
BC Hydro grid has signifcantly reduced the viability of some of
these projects.
As the Liberal government faced the realities of its LNG promotion,
BC has revised some of its ambitious efforts to reduce the prov-
inces greenhouse gas emissions. In 2012, the Clean Energy Act of
2010, which outlined an objective to generate at least 93% of the
electricity in British Columbia from clean or renewable resources,
was amended to allow for gas generation at LNG facilities to be
considered a clean source of energy. Certainly the decision to
label LNG as a clean fuel source and the upcoming decision on
whether or not to allow as-yet-to-be-built LNG export plants to
power inside the fence will have an effect on IPPs, commented
Jason Jones, business development director - power transmission
and distribution sector - environment practice, at Tetra Tech EBA.
Waxing or Waning?: The Role of IPPs
In the early 2000s, the Liberal government under Premier Gordon
Campbell took the view of developing IPPs to meet generation
demands. Although IPPs have had a presence in the province
since the 1980s, this strategy enabled private sector players
to make a signifcant impact in the market for the frst time.
Presently IPPs account for approximately 20% of BCs power
production.
In 2008, 27 electricity purchase agreements (EPAs) were award-
ed to IPPs in a Power Call put out by BC Hydro. Of these 27, 14
projects have come online or are expected to come online in
the near future. The rest have had their contracts terminated
or deferred by mutual agreement between BC Hydro and the
respective developer.
Glen Ichikawa, president of Kawa Engineering, a Vancouver-based
engineering frm specializing in work with IPPs, explains the at-
trition rate from the 2008 Power Call. The frst is fnancing;
some of these projects are millions (of dollars) over budget and
no one is making much money on them. Some companies have
gone belly up in the process. Lenders realize this and do not want
the exposure, so it is harder to get money. The other side is the
First Nation relationships; usually projects that fail have offended
bands at an early stage and thus the project is always fghting up-
hill. Third, are construction costs. Contractors have lost money in
the past, so they have raised prices to de-risk themselves when
someone cannot pay.
The project-developer model of British Columbias IPPs
has had mixed success. Some projects begun by smaller lo-
cal companies never made it off the ground, while other pro-
jects, such as GDF Suezs purchase of the Cape Scott wind farm
from Sea Breeze Power, were attractive M&A options for global
players. The provinces IPP sector has consolidated to fewer,
larger players; namely Innergex Renewable Energy, Alterra Power,
AltaGas, Brookfeld Renewable Power and Capital Power.
Compared to earlier power calls, John Carson, CEO of Alterra
Power, sees the attrition rate as a structural reality: The contract
structure of any power call will affect the number that succeed,
whether it is being more generous on dollars per MWh or the
times of year when certain revenue buckets can be flled. In the
2006 versus 2008 call for power, contracts were totally different.

www. g e a . c a
engineering hydropower
weirs intakes gates lake taps pressure tunnels
penstocks powerhouses
1 to 100 MW
5
July 2014
5
2006 was more developer-friendly showing a lower attrition rate,
2008 was tougher and had a higher attrition rate.
While M&A activity in the IPP sector was robust from 2010 to 2013,
most opportunities for a well-capitalized buyer to snatch a long term
EPA at an attractive price have passed, even with Site C on the hori-
zon. Site C should have little impact on M&A activity in respect of
current projects with EPAs, as the current IPPs are locked into EPAs
ranging from 25 years to 40 years, guaranteeing their cash fow, said
G. Henry Ellis, a partner at Gowling Lafeur Henderson LLPs
Vancouver offce.
As BC Hydro moves forward with Site C, it will likely dampen the
prospects of IPPs in the province according to Ellis: The bigger
issue is that as Site C progresses, BC Hydro will reduce its em-
phasis of engagement with IPPs, as it is confdent that Site C
will supply most of the incremental power required for the next
20 years. The governments focus on LNG, coupled with the re-
sults of existing power calls and BC Hydros current interest in can-
Lex Engineering design for a BC Hydro 69 kV, 25 MVA substation at
Langley, British Columbia. Photo courtesy of Lex Engineering.
celling some EPAs where the opportunity presents itself, suggests
that the government will place less emphasis in the future on con-
tribution from IPPs and greater reliance on Site C for the extra
required capacity.
Vancouver-based Alterra Power, which plans on delivering its 62
MW Jimmie Creek run of river hydro project in 2016, is in many
ways the quintessential example of an IPP navigating the cock-
tail of confusion in BC through geographic diversifcation and de-
risking its assets. However, the company has a desire to continue
its growth in BC if political decisions allow it. If there is a call for
more power input, Alterra is ready, commented Carson.
Regardless of the course of action for Site C, opportunities for IPP
developments, albeit small ones, remain under BC Hydros Standing
Offer Program, SOP. The SOP is designed to allow small projects a
streamlined, ad-hoc EPA process with BC Hydro, rather than having
to bid through a power call. Recently, the size of projects allowed
under the SOP was increased from 10 MW to 15 MW and the gov-
ernment is reviewing the program with the relevant stakeholders
to create a more impactful program. The IRP may have shut the
front door to IPPs; the side door is still open via First Nations op-
portunities, as well as the SOP, observed Michael Walsh, principal
and international managing partner at Midgard Consulting.
While the SOP will be an option for IPPs, it will be a niche market
and will take the right developer to execute the project according
to Mark Bohn, managing partner at Travelers Capital Corporation.
There are some mid-market developers that have the experience
www.gbreports.com
7
July 2014
7
skills, but we need a strong project
base in this province on which to build.
It is essential that we do not lose
the knowledge base that now resides in
our young engineers.
Although not an insurmountable challenge,
extreme weather conditions in the cen-
tral and northern parts of BC, with snow
lasting from November to March,
adds another layer of complexity when it
comes to infrastructure build. Guy Lemieux,
president of Lex Engineering that special-
izes in the design and build of substations
and transmission lines explains some of the
special adjustments needed for their
work in the province, Lex transmis-
sion line and substations are designed to
accommodate extreme temperatures
of minus 50 C and plus 40 C. Transmis-
sion line conductors are sagged to not over
tension at minus 50 C and to provide
the required vertical clearance at maximum
sag during full load at maximum ambient
temperature.
Engineering frms also tend deal with the
winter conditions by building as much of
the substation and transmission line com-
ponents at a manufacturing facility before
transporting it to the remote locations
where it is then assembled.
Infrastructure precedes development,
which makes getting it out a challenge.
Arguably, the biggest problem with
removing old infrastructure, especially
in the metropolitan areas, is that site
access conditions have signifcantly changed
since infrastructure installation. Historically,
transformers were moved by rail or
barge; rail sidings have since closed, and
barge sites have been replaced with
condominiums, commented David Stroud
of Apex Industrial Movers.
As BC Hydro and the IPP sector are both
active in developing projects, the provinces
logistics sector has seen an increased
workload as massive generation and
transmission components are imported
from around the world and often sent in-
land via rail, river and/or road. Our growth
has come from both BC Hydro and IPPs.
BC Hydro has been enacting system
upgrades, new sub-stations as well as
replacing old infrastructure. When work-
ing with IPPs, there are additional site is-
sues tending to be more in rugged remote
terrain and diffcult to access areas; BC
Hydros locations are easier to access,
being generally near major infrastruc-
ture, but BC Hydros equipment is usually
much larger, added John Brise of Apex
Industrial Movers.
Given BCs closer proximity to Asian manu-
facturing centers, it is surprising that much
of Western Canadas oversized indus-
trial components arrive in a port such as
Houston and are moved overland. Canadian
companies such as Apex, Triton Transport,
T-Lane Transportation and Amix Heavy
Lift are working to make British Columbia
Mobile hoppers being lifted onto Amixs Arctic Tuk barge. Photo courtesy of Amix Heavy Lift.
more accessible.
Amix Heavy Lift acquired a ringer-crane
in 2005 and placed it on its Arctic
Tuk barge in order to move heavy
equipment, including transmission
cable spools, and generation turbines of up
to 380 mt. Thereare substantial savings in
time and money; companies can import
straight into a British Columbian port,
utilize our services of heavy-lifting equip-
ment, and then truck the cargo to site,
said Clarke Longmuir, president of Amix
Heavy Lift.
|
July 2014 64
INDUSTRIAL SALES,
PROFESSIONAL SELLING POSITION
You love the idea of visiting multiple sites in a day
You are self disciplined and accept personal
responsibility
Big dollar amounts, long buying cycles, and
solution selling do not scare you
You can talk to strangers from all backgrounds
and levels
You can work in an organized manner with little
supervision
You can demonstrate and/or prove a track record
of high performance and the ability to manage
and grow a territory
Strong mechanical aptitude and basic computer/
technology skills are a plus
If this career path describes you, please send a
COVER LETTER and RESUME/CV to:
careers@wtlsales.com
CAREERS IN POWER
NAES Corporation is a leading provider of
3rd party O&M services to the Independent
Power Industry. As we continue to grow, we
have constant needs for power professionals
across the nation.
For more info, log onto:
www.naes.com/careers
Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance,
Project Engineering and Project Management,
Business and Project Development,
First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions.
Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:
POWER PROFESSIONALS
P.O. Box 87875
Vancouver, WA 98687-7875
email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com
(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292
www.powerindustrycareers.com
CONDENSER & HEAT EXCHANGER TOOLS
CLEANERS, PLUGS, BRUSHES
John R Robinson Inc.
PH # 800-726-1026
e-mail: jrrinc@earthlink.net
www.johnrrobinsoninc.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 200
Silo and Bin Cleaning
Services and Equipment
Call 800-322-6653 or visit
www.molemaster.com
NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK
Copper Power to 69KV; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor
Underground UD-P & URD, Substation Control Shielded
and Non-shielded, Interlock Armor to 35KV, Thermocouple
BASIC WIRE & CABLE
Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292
E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com
WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com
CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS
THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.
Easy to install, saves time and money.
ADJUSTABLE PLUGS- all rubber with brass insert. Expand it,
install it, reverse action for tight t.
PUSH PULL PLUGS-are all rubber, simply push it in.
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190 Fax:(203)881-0178
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com
OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD
1988 GENERAL ELECTRIC
TURBINE GENERATOR,
8 stage backpressure, 3600 RPM, 1325 psi inlet
steam, 475 psi extraction, 70 psi exhaust
20 MW air cooled Generator, 13,800 volt output
Call Melching Inc for more information at
616.837.1214
July 2014
|
PRODUCT Showcase
24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE
BOILERS
20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.
DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS
50 - 25,000 KW
GEARS & TURBINES
25 - 4000 HP
WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:
Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators
Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Valves Tubes Controls Compressors
Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators
847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279
WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com
FOR SALE/RENT
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090
POWER
EQUIPMENT CO. wabash
POWER PLANT
BUYERS MART
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
Ofce 1-800-286-6069
Ofce (281) 359-4006
PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com
Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.
Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems
BoilerCleaningDoctor.com
Turbine Controls
Woodward, GE, MHC
Parts and Service
TurboGen (610) 631-3480
info@turbogen.net
To Advertise in
POWER Classieds
CONTACT:
Diane Burleson
PHONE:
512-337-7890
FAX: 512-213-4855
dianeb@powermag.com
Tom Haarala
612-202-0765
thaarala@cdims.com
Todd Bradley
810-229-7900
tbradley@cdims.com
www.cdims.com
Layup Desiccant
Dehumidification
& Filtration Units
for long term layup
of power generation
equipment. For over
35 years of drying
solutions contact:
3905 Power Connect Classified_Power Connect Clas
Boiler Efficiency Gas Turbines
Steam Turbines Gas Expanders
Cooling Towers Chimneys
HRSG Insulation
Condensers Gas Compressors
Cogeneration Duct Design
Heat Exchangers Restriction Orifice
Fanno Flow Fans
Pipe Networks Flash Tanks
Gravity Drain Flow Pumps
Steam Heaters Psychrometrics
Steam Properties Desuperheaters
Space Heating Deaerators
Piping Pressure Loss
CU Services LLC
Ph 847-439-2303 or 858-270-4501
rcronfel@cuservices.net
www.cuservices.net
The Energy Analyst
Award Winning
Power Plant Software
|
July 2014 66
Iechni ca| art i c| es, coa| power news, b| os, opi ni on,
and i nf ormat i on.
Easy ret ri eva| of archi ved C0AL P0wER f eat ures.
| nst ant access t o our advert i sers f or more i nf ormat i on
about t hei r product s.
Ihe abi | i t y t o comment on st ori es and share your know| ede
wi t h t he coa| burni n power p| ant communi t y.
Vi si t t he on| i ne home of C0AL P0wER-www. power ma. com
|rom the edi tors of P0wER: Ihe enews| etter devoted to
the coa| fi red power enerati on i ndustry
POWER
Subscribe today: subscribe@coalpowermag.com
ADA-Carbon Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . 13
www.ada-cs.com
Applied Bolting Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . 7
www.appliedbolting.com
Baldor Electric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . 6
www.baldor.com
Belt Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . 9
www.belttech1.com
Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . . . 10
www.burnsmcd.com
Carver Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . 5
www.carverpump.com
Cormetech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. . . . . . . . 19
www.cormetech.com
Diamond Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . . 11
www.diamondpower.com
ExxonMobil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 4
www.mobilindustial.com
Insituform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. . . . . . . . 16
www.insituform.com
KIMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. . . . . . . . 20
www.kimae.de
MAN Diesel & Turbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. . . . . . . . 23
www.mandieselturbo.com
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 3 . . . . . 21
www.psa.mhps.com
MWH America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2
www.mwhglobal.com
Nol-Tec Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. . . . . . . . 14
www.nol-tec.com
Orion Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . 8
www.orioninstruments.com
Paharpur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. . . . . . . . 12
www.paharpur.com
Process Barron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. . . . . . . . 18
www.processbarron.com
Siemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2 . . . . . 1
www.siemens.com/energy
TerraSource Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 3
www.terrasource.com
URS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. . . . . . . . 17
www.urs.com
Zeeco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4 . . . . . 22
www.zeeco.com
ADVERTISERS INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Page
Reader
Service
Number Page
Reader
Service
Number
GENERATE
ideas.
NEW
connections.
NEW
opportunities.
NEW
resources.
NEW
SAVE THE DATE
APRIL 21-23, 2015
Donald E. Stephens Convention Center
ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS, USA www.electricpowerexpo.com
|
July 2014 68
COMMENTARY
As Clean Energy Accelerates, a
New Era of Choice Is Upon Us
Fred Krupp
T
hough our current power grid is more sophisticated and
reliable than when Thomas Edison designed it nearly a
century ago, it uses the same model: A company burns
fuel to create electricity, which is then sent hundreds of
miles along inefficient wires to customers who are given a
single energy choice: on or off. Now, finally, that is chang-
ing, as our energy system becomes a two-way flow of both
power and information in which customers both receive and
produce electricity.
The U.S. will spend a projected $2 trillion in the next 20 years
upgrading its power grid. We must make sure those investments
are not spent on replacing old, dirty infrastructure with more of
the same. The electricity systems we built in the last century,
and the regulations that govern them, are no longer adequate
to ensure reliability, fight climate change, or accommodate rapid
changes in both technology and consumer demand. We need new
rules, new ideas, and new approaches to overcome a century of
the carbon-based business as usual.
New Rules
The landmark Clean Power Plan proposed in June by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency is one crucial rule of the road
that will help ensure that we stay on the fast track to a clean
energy economy. Placing limits on power plant pollution is the
single most important thing we can do right now to avoid irre-
versible climate change. From 2005 to 2013, the U.S. reduced its
power sector carbon dioxide emissions by around 15%, thanks
in large part to advances in energy efficiency and fuel switching
from coal to natural gas. But to date, the power industry has had
no limits on the amount of carbon pollution it can emit, even
though power plants account for nearly 40% of U.S. carbon di-
oxide emissions from energymore CO
2
than all of our factories,
homes, and businesses combined. These common-sense limits on
carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants deserve to
be put in place straight away.
When adopted, these standards will be a landmark achievement
for climate stability and public health; they could also go down in
history for providing the tipping point in our nations transition to
a clean energy economy. Retiring the most highly polluting coal-
fired power plants presents a unique opportunity for clean energy
solutions to fill this gap in generating capacity.
Real-world deployment of clean energy technologies is dem-
onstrating that issues such as the variability of solar and wind
energy can be addressed affordably, in ways that make the grid
smarter, more efficient, and more reliable. Renewables are now
the fastest growing power generation sector, with more solar
panels installed in the U.S. over the last 18 months than the
previous 30 years. The costs of solar and wind energy are falling
rapidly, while electric vehicle sales are climbing, with 100%-
electric U.S. car sales up nearly 450% in 2013. Energy efficiency,
the lowest-cost electricity resource for utilities, can also sig-
nificantly reduce energy use. A recent report from the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy showed that energy effi-
ciency measures can slash carbon emissions from the U.S. power
sector by 26% with no net cost to the economy.
Energy Sector Innovation
American companies are also playing an important role in our
transition to clean energy by developing products and services
that people want to buy. Products like Googles Nest learning
thermostat allow homeowners to control appliances remotely to
help reduce peak load, while tools like demand response save
money by putting consumers in the drivers seat. Companies like
SolarCity, with its groundbreaking solar leasing approach, and
SCIenergy, with its innovative business model of providing en-
ergy efficiency as a service to commercial customers, are making
cleaner energy affordable today.
These companies and others are transforming the way we
make, move, and use energy. For example, in Austins Mueller
neighborhood, a living consumer energy lab run by nonprofit
Pecan Street Inc., some residents power their homes using little
to no electricity from the grid over the course of the year, simply
because theyve installed home energy management systems and
solar panels on the roofs of their houses.
This new reality requires a new business modelone that fair-
ly values efficiency and clean, renewable energy. This means re-
vising the current model, which measures success by the amount
of megawatts sold, to one that rewards utilities for generating
and selling energy more wisely, sustainably, and efficiently. After
all, the cleanest and cheapest megawatt is the one utilities dont
have to generate.
Perhaps most importantly, public support for clean energy is at
a record high. According to a 2013 poll by Yale University, 61%
of Americans said developing sources of clean energy should be a
high or very high priority for the president and Congress. People
care about energy because it touches everything that we do, and
Americans are tired of hearing sad, old myths about why we cant
move forward.
History and experience tell us that America can navigate this
transition without threatening our non-negotiable commitment
to safe, affordable, reliable energy. American ingenuity is second
to noneand it will be supercharged when the U.S. pioneers an
open, vibrant market for new, advanced energy that sparks pri-
vate capital and technological innovation. My colleagues and I
at Environmental Defense Fund look forward to working with our
partners in the power industry to meet the challenges and enjoy
the opportunities of this new era.
Fred Krupp is president of Environmental Defense Fund.
Keeping your plant efcient while
maintaining environmental compliance
Power Generation Products
Environmental Control Solutions
After Market Services
With over 50 years of experience and many successful projects around the world, Mitsubishi Hitachi
Power Systems America Energy and Environment is an industry leader in Power Generation and Air
Quality Control Systems. Our proven technologies include Fabric Filters, Enhanced All Dry Scrubbers,
Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization, SCR Systems, Catalyst, Low NO
x
Burners, and Coal-to-Gas Conversions.
Our Air Quality Control Systems signicantly reduce your emissions to comply with CSAPR, MATS,
and upcoming environmental regulations with minimum capital investment, low operating costs, high
reliability and no effect on unit operations like ramp rate or turndown.

Ask us about our total plant solutions. Visit us online to learn more about our world-class capabilities.
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems
America Energy and Environment, Ltd.
645 Martinsville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
1-908-605-2800
www.psa.mhps.com
power.info@psa.mhps.com
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc.
100 Colonial Center Parkway Lake Mary, FL 32746
1-407-688-6100
www.mhpowersystems.com
Make Ultra-Low NOx Retrots
Your New Standard Operating Procedure.
Experience the Power of Zeeco.
Boiler Burners Duct Burners Burner Management
Combustion Control Ignition Systems
Explore our global locations at zeeco.com
Zeeco, Inc.
22151 E 91st St.
Broken Arrow, OK 74014 USA
+1-918-258-8551
sales@zeeco.com
Zeeco, Inc. 2014
Fact is natural gas is the new standard to meet emissions regulations.
Let Zeecos talented engineering and design team take the anxiety out
of switching to or adding natural gas to your power facilitys fuel sources
with our low and ultra-low NOx boiler burners.
ZEECO
boiler burners are the logical choice to convert coal-red power

to natural gas, or add gas-red capability to existing burners that meet
all emissions and efciency targets. In a combined cycle facility,
ZEECO low-NOx duct burners also assist in meeting clean-air standards.
Its time you introduced the ultra-low emissions and fuel exibility that
keep power and steam generating for years to come.
Global experience. Local expertise.
ZEECO Free-Jet Boiler Burner
ZEECO Low NOx Duct Burner

PowMagazine 07 2014

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PowMagazine 07 2014

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

J

MagnaGear XTR speed reducers are

boiler burners are the logical choice to convert coal-red power

S-ar putea să vă placă și