Abatement Costs of SO2-Control Options in The Mexican Electric-Power Sector

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

APPLIED
ENERGY
Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Abatement costs of SO2-control options in the Mexican

electric-power sector
a,* b
Jorge Islas , Genice Grande
a
Centro de Investigacion en Energa, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Privada Xochicalco S/N,
Colonia Centro, Temixco, Morelos 62580, Mexico
b
Posgrado en Ingeniera de Sistemas, Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,
Ciudad Universitaria, D.F. 04510, Mexico
Abstract
Mexicos electricity-sector contributes over 75% of national SO2-emissions, causing economic and health damage. These
emissions come mostly from the combustion of fossil-fuels, whereas a minor share comes from biomass (wood fuel and
sugar cane) burning emissions as well as those produced by industrial processes. For this reason, this study assesses the
abatement costs of several SO2-control options (including ue-gas desulphurization technologies, hydrotreatment of fuel
oil, and the substitution of high-sulfur by low-sulfur content fuels). Likewise, this study has evaluated the implementation
of such options in 10 selected power-plantsthe main SO2 emitters in the Mexican Electric Power Sector (MEPS)with
the aim of suggesting solutions for SO2-emissions reduction and estimating the corresponding abatement, investment and
total costs during the analyzed period. Studys results indicate that the best SO2-abatement-costs route may account for a
reduction of 41% of MEPS SO2-emissions and would require investment and total costs of $841 and $477 million, respec-
tively. This means that an important reduction in the national SO2-emissions may be achieved with a relatively small eort.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: SO2-control technologies; Abatement costs; Mexican electric-power sector
1. Introduction
Several studies [14] have associated the sulfur-dioxide (SO2) emissions produced by the burning of fuel oil
and coal in electric generating facilities with potential harm to public health and water and forest ecosystem
damage, due to the acidication of soils and lakes.
This concern has attracted attention in Mexico in recent years. A study of the thermal-power plant in Tux-
pan [5], the largest emitter of SO2 among all existing power-plants in Mexico, shows that the pollutants emit-
ted just by this power plant may very well cause 30 deaths a year.
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +52 55 56229721.
E-mail address: jis@cie.unam.mx (J. Islas).
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2007.09.003
Please cite this article in press as: Islas J, Grande G, Abatement costs of SO2-control options in the Mexican ..., Appl
Energ (2007), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2007.09.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx
These emissions are linked to the considerable use of fuel oil and coal with high sulfur-content (from 3.3%
to 3.9% and 1%, respectively) for electricity generation in this country. The electricity generated in fuel oil-
red power plants accounted for 34.6% of the nations electric-power generation in AD 2004 [6], while
coal-red plants represented 14.1% [7], and both together accounted for 48.7% of electricity generation during
that year.
The use of these fuels for electricity generation in Mexico resulted in 1,802,000 tonnes of SO2 in being
emitted AD 2002, which represented 75% of the nations overall SO2-emission [8].
Some eorts have been made in order to lower these emissions. The Mexican Ocial Norm 085-ECOL-
1994 [9] set the allowable levels of SO2, NOx and particulate matter emitted by xed sources such as
electric-power plants.
However, it is important to point out that the power plants located within critical zoneshighly populated
and with an intensive industrial-activitydo not meet this norm. Paradoxically, those power plants located
outside of these zones comply with the same regulation even without SO2-emission controls.
There is a wide range of options to reduce SO2 emissions in electric-power plants. Several studies [1012]
have determined the best cost-eective options for SO2-emissions reduction in countries such as the United
States and Poland. Nonetheless, in the specic case of the Mexican electric-power sector (MEPS), there are
not similar studies available. Therefore, a technical, economic and environmental assessment of several
control-options for SO2 emissions, which are feasible for implementation in the Mexican power-plants, are
presented in this article.
The economic assessment consists in estimating the investment, operating and maintenance (O&M), fuel
and total costs of each analyzed option. Environmental eectiveness is evaluated in terms of the SO2-emissions
reduction, whereas the cost eectiveness of each option is evaluated in terms of the resulting abatement costs.
Lastly, the deduced results are discussed and conclusions are presented.
2. Mexican electric-power sector
According to the National Energy Balance [13], power generation in MEPS grew from 53 PJ/year in AD
1965 to 751 PJ/year in AD 2004. This represents an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 7%. In 2004, most
of this electricity (81%) was based on fossil fuels, mainly natural gas and fuel oil, while the remaining share
was based on renewable-energy sources, including large hydropower and nuclear-power plants (15% and
4%, respectively) [7].
During the same period, the power capacity grew by a factor of almost 10 from 4.2 GW to 43.7 GW. As
shown in Fig. 1, power-plant types have changed considerably in Mexico since AD 1965, when hydroelectric
50
Nuclear
40 Hydro and Geothermal
Fossil
30
GW
20
10
0
1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
YEARS
Fig. 1. Mexican electric-power-capacity evolution, 19652004 [13].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 3
Table 1
Existing power plants that account for up to 71.6% of SO2-emissions from the Mexican electrical-sector (MES) [9,14,20]
Power plant ID Name Location Capacity (MW) SO2 tonnes/year Emissions % Critical zonea
Fuel oil thermal power plants
TXP Tuxpan Veracruz 2100 251,029 14.67
TUL Tula Hidalgo 1500 150,823 8.82 X
MZNI Manzanillo I Colima 1200 125,544 7.34
SLM Salamanca Guanajuato 866 91,135 5.33 X
ALT Altamira Tamaulipas 800 86,238 5.04 X
MZNII Manzanillo II Colima 700 77,157 4.51
VR Villa de Reyes San Luis Potos 700 77,559 4.42
Dual-fuel thermal power plant
PTC Petacalco Guerrero 2100 214,669 12.55
Coal red thermal power plants
RE Rio Escondido Coahuila 1200 79,988 4.68
CRBII Carbon II Coahuila 1400 72,496 4.24
Total 12,566 1,226,638 71.6
a
According to the Mexican Ocial Norm NOM-085-ECOL-1994, critical zones are urban centres with a high density of population
and intensive industrial-activity.
and fossil-fuel power plants accounted for 52% and 48% of the nations installed power capacity, respectively.
By 2004, fossil-fuel power plants represented 71%, hydro and geothermal plants 26%, and the only
nuclear-power plant accounted for 3% of total capacity.
The MEPS is the second major user of fossil fuels after the transport sector, but the electricity sector uses
more polluting fuels, mainly high-sulfur fuel-oil (3.33.9% by weight). As a result, in AD 2000 fuel-oil red
power-plants emitted 77.6% of all SO2 emissions produced by the MEPS [14].
3. Methodology
This paper concerns the 10 power plants with the highest SO2-emissions in the MEPS (see Table 1), which
according to the Mexican Ocial Norm NOM-085-ECOL-1994 are located in zones named critical zones
and rest of the country.1 In AD 2000, these 10 power-plants represented 71.6% of all SO2 emissions from
MEPS [14]. It is important to mention that all 10 power-plants are owned by Comision Federal de Electricidad
(CFE), the main public-owned utility in Mexico.
A 15-year period was considered in this study. Therefore, a useful life of 40 years was assumed for all
selected power-plants, so that the remaining useful-life was included within this time period. This assumption
is based on the present CFE strategy of lowering the investment needs of the MEPS.
Table 2 shows the SO2-emissions control options considered in this study, which are further analyzed in
Section 4 and the selected power-plants to apply for each control option. The SO2 abatement cost was
calculated for every SO2 emission-control option and for each one of the selected power-plants. Future
unit-fuel priceswhich fall within the 15-years periodare shown in Fig. 2 and are taken from ocial
sources [1517].
The abatement-cost assessment is based on costs, benetswhen they existand SO2-emissions reductions
derived from a comparison between the abatement case and the base case. In this study, the abatement case
depicts a condition where a SO2-emission control option is applied to a selected power-plant.
The analyzed costs are investment, O&M and fuel costs related to the abatement case. Benets, if they exist,
represent the cost avoided when the base case is replaced by the abatement case. Costs, benetsat present
valueand SO2-emission reduction were estimated for each analyzed power-plant during the whole period.
1
The Mexican Ocial Norm NOM-085-ECOL-1994 sets the limits of SO2-emissions depending on the location of the xed source
and divides the Mexican Republic into 3 zones: (1) metropolitan zone (Mexico City), (2) critical zones and (3) rest of the country.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
SO2-emission control options
Option Control option Power plants with retrot
ID
1 Chiyoda technology TXP, MNZII, VR, PTC, MNZI, TUL, ALT,
SLM, RE, CRBII
2 Calider technology TXP, VR, MNZII, MNZI, TUL, ALT, SLM
3 Limestone forced-oxidation technology TXP, MNZII, VR, PTC, MNZI, TUL, ALT,
SLM
4 Lime spray dryer technology RE, CRBII
5 Hydrotreating fuel-oil 2% sulfur TUL
6 Fuel-oil substitution by natural-gas ALT, TXP, VR, SLM, TUL, PTC, MNZII,
MNZI
7 Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas (0.5 USD/GJ price ALT, MNZI, MNZII, PTC
dierence NG-LNG)
8 Fuel oil substitution by imported coal by sea with 0.7% sulfur content PTC
by weight
9 National coal substitution by imported coal by land with 0.7% sulfur RE, CRBII
content by weight
Natural Gas
6.5
Fuel Oil
5.5
National coal
Fuel Price (USD/GJ)
4.5
Diesel
3.5
Imported coal 0.7%

sulfur
2.5
Imported coal 0.7%
sulfur by land
1.5
Imported coal 0.7%
sulfur by sea
0.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Imported LNG
difference 0.5 USD/GJ
YEARS from Natural Gas price
Fig. 2. Future fuel prices [1517].
Then, the total abatement cost Cabatement was calculated with the purpose of evaluating the SO2-emission
abatement cost (ACemission) for each plant2 and obtained using the following procedure:
The Cabatement was expressed as an abatement annualized cost (ACabatement) (see Eq. (2)).
The average annual emission-abatement (AAEabatement) was calculated by dividing the total SO2-emission
reduction by the number of years in the considered period (see Eq. (3)).
The abatement cost (ACemission) was calculated by dividing the annualized costs in Eq. (2) by the average
annual SO2-emission reduction calculated in Eq. (3) (see Eq. (1)).
ACemission ACabatement =AAEabatement 1
2
Exceptionally, when there is a total benet, the SO2-emission abatement cost is zero.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Input data by SO2-control option [2131]
Parameter/option IDa 1 2 3 4 5 6c 7c 8 9
3
Investment unit cost (10 USD/MW) 216305 3043 229319 171180 412 134165 134152 0 0
O&M unit cost (USD/MWh)b 1.62.1 1.52.0 2.23.0 3.0 0 0
Sulfur-removal eciency (%) 95 50 95 90 44 99.96 99.96 64 3033
Energy-consumption increase (%) 4.2 0.5 2.1 2.1 0 5.76.5 5.76.0 0 0
a
See Table 2.
b
Include the concepts of variable and xed O&M costs.
c
Include NGCC power-capacity cost, but not gas-pipeline installation cost.
where
n
ACabatement Cabatement fi=1 1 i g 2
AAEabatement Emissionsbase Emissionsabatement =n 3
Cabatement = net present value of abatement total costs for each power plant; i = discount rate3 and n = 15
years.
4. Long-range energy-alternatives planning (LEAP), simulation procedure and input data
The LEAP model, developed by the Stockholm Environmental Institute at Boston (SEI-B), is a bottom-up
type accounting model that allows evaluation of the eects of dierent energy-policies on energy generation
and consumption (such as energy-ecient use, fuel substitution, and/or structure), including their correspond-
ing emissions [18].
In this work, the LEAP model was used to evaluate the abatement costs of selected control-options for
SO2-emissions reduction in the 10 most polluting power-plants in Mexico (see Tables 1 and 2). In order to
use the LEAP model, the following procedure was adopted: rst, AD 2000 was selected as the reference year
since all the required information was available. Secondly, the national energy-balance for AD 2000 was
reproduced successfully by the model.
Following this, a base case was built in LEAP by developing an electricity module where all power plants
had the same operating conditions as existed in AD 2000 (load plant factor, eciency, energy inputs, power
generation, emission factors, and power capacity) and these were assumed constant through the 15-year ana-
lyzed period. Similarly, the supply-and-demand structure for AD 2000 was assumed constant in the base case.
Finally, all analyzed SO2-control options were simulated as abatement cases in the LEAP model and then
compared with the base case.
The energy-information system SIGENEL [19] was used for data input to the base case in LEAP and con-
sists of the following databases:
Mexican energy sources: this database contains information about proven reserves of oil, natural gas, coal,
uranium and hydroelectric potential.
Technical information of Mexican electric-power sector: this contains data of the existing operating condi-
tions in all power plantspower capacity, eciencies, lifetime, fuel, location, among others, particularly in
the reference year and according to information provided by CFE [20].
Table 3 shows the investment, O&M costs4 as well as technical information such as SO2-removal eciency
and energy self-consumption during the operation of selected control-options [1517,2131]. It is important to
point out that all these data sets were considered for all abatement cases simulated in LEAP. Fuel prices
depicted in Fig. 3 were also introduced as input data in the LEAP model.
3
In this study, a discount rate of 10% was considered.
4
In this study, the costs are expressed in US dollars as at AD 1997.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 3. Abatement cost, cumulative investment and total cost, and cumulative SO2 using Chiyoda Technology control-option.
5. Selected SO2-control options
This section provides a brief description of the SO2-emission control options considered in this paper as
well as the main assumptions used for each abatement calculation.
5.1. Chiyoda technology
This process is a once-through post-combustion desulfurization technology [10]. According to Chiyoda Co.
[21], the Chiyoda ue-gas desulfurization (FGD) process is useful for SO2 absorption of a coal-red boiler
ue-gas or fuel oil-red boiler ue-gas. This process is an adaptation of the wet-limestone ue-gas desulfur-
ization process. The central feature of this process is the jet bubbling reactor (JBR), in which the ue gas is
blown into water, forming a ne-bubble bed, where SO2 is absorbed, oxidized by the injected air, and then
neutralized by the ground-limestone slurry. It was assumed, that the SO2-removal eciency is 95%, whereas
the energy self-consumption is 4.2% during operation of the Chiyoda FGD. Further data on Chiyoda FGD
were taken from the Reference Costs and Parameters Useful to Formulate Investment Projects 2002 [22] which
is used as an ocial document for elaborate investment projects in the MEPS by the public-owned utility
CFE. This option was considered for all 10 thermal-power plants (see Table 2). The range of costs for this
technology is shown in Table 3.
5.2. Calider technology
This process is a regenerative post-combustion desulfurization technology. According to Calider [23], in the
process, aqueous lime-slurry is injected into the ue gases as an atomized spray that reacts with the ue gases,
so reducing SO2 to a dry dust that is captured in a bag. This dust consists of calcium hydroxide (hydrated
lime), calcium sulfate (gypsum), and the original ash ow. With this simple system, it is possible to obtain
a 50% reduction of SO2. An electricity self-consumption of 0.5% of the gross power-production by a plant
was included to calculate the additional fuel-input. Calider technology was considered in eight fuel oil-red
power-plants (see Table 2). Table 3 shows the range of costs considered for this option.
5.3. Limestone forced-oxidation (LSFO) technology
Like Chiyoda technology, this process is also a once-through post-combustion desulfurization technology
[10]. The LSFO is based on a wet-limestone scrubbing process [24], in which the ue gas is ducted to a spray
ARTICLE IN PRESS
tower where the aqueous slurry of limestone is injected into the ue gas [10]. In a typical design, slurry is
pumped through banks of spray nozzles to atomize it to ne droplets and so uniformly contact the gas.
The droplets absorb SO2 from the gas, facilitating the reaction of the SO2 with limestone in the slurry. After
contacting the gas, the slurry is collected at the bottom of the absorber in a reaction tank. The slurry is agi-
tated to prevent settling [25]. In this technology, forced oxidation requires blowers, to add air to the reaction
tank, which oxidize the spent slurry to gypsum. The gypsum is removed from the reaction tank prior to the
slurry being recycled to the absorber. The recycled slurry has a lower concentration of gypsum, and scale for-
mation in the absorber is signicantly reduced. Gypsum can be commercially sold, eliminating the need for
land lling of a waste product [26]. In addition to scales control, the larger-size gypsum crystals formed in
the LSFO system settle and dewater more eciently, reducing the size of the by-product handling equipment.
However, LSFO requires additional blowers, which increase the capital and annual costs of the system [10].
Like Chiyoda, LSFO technology reduces SO2 emissions by 95% [26] and an electricity self-consumption of
2.1% [27] of the gross power production by a plant was included to calculate the additional fuel-input
required. Finally, this option was considered for eight power-plants (see Table 2). As for the previous control
option, the costs and parameters in the LEAP model are shown in Table 3.
5.4. Lime-spray dryer (LSD) technology
This process is a dry once-through post-combustion desulfurization technology [10]. This process is mostly
used by power plants that burn low-to-medium-sulfur coal [26]. In LSD technology, the ue gas is treated in
an absorber by mixing the gas stream cocurrently with atomized lime-slurry droplets. The lime slurry is atom-
ized through rotary-cup spray atomizers or through dual-uid nozzles. Some of the water in the spray droplets
evaporates, cooling the gas at the inlet from 150 C or higher to 7080 C, depending on the approach to sat-
uration and removal eciency. The droplets absorb SO2 from the gas and the SO2 reacts with the lime in the
slurry. The desulfurized ue-gas, along with reaction products, unreacted lime, and the y ash pass out of the
dry scrubber to a baghouse [28]. This technology reaches 90% for SO2 emissions reduction [26,27]. The elec-
tricity self-consumption considered for this technology was 2.1% [27]. This control option was evaluated for
two coal-red power-plants (Ro Escondido and Carbon II). Table 3 shows the range of costs considered for
this control option.
5.5. Fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization
This technology reduces the sulfur content in fuel oil. With this technology, it is possible to obtain a 1%
sulfur content but, in Mexico, this control option produces 2% sulfur content owing to both the existing pro-
cess conguration and a decient operation. This translates not only into high costs for lower sulfur-content
but also into an underperformance of the design production capacity [29]. According to ARPEL [30], this con-
trol option requires high heating temperatures in a pressurized hydrogen atmosphere and takes place in the
presence of a solid bimetallic catalyst. Sulfured organic compounds, contained in the fuel oil, are transformed
into hydrogen sulde (H2S), and reacted to yield elemental sulfur in a Claus unit: the sulfur is removed from
the process for its purication and commercial sale. This process requires very high hydrogen concentrations
which minimizes coke formation in the catalyzer and optimizes desulfurization. In considering the costs of
residual fuel oil desulfurization, several negative factors have to be taken into account. It requires installation
of hydrotreating desulfurization infrastructure and auxiliary equipment, including a hydrogen plant, exhaust-
gases treatment, and a Claus unit, as well as additional operating personnel. As mentioned previously, a high
concentration of hydrogen is needed. In this paper a Mexican hydrotreating desulfurization plantnamed
Planta Hidro de Residuales Tulasited in the Tula renery is assessed. The input capacity of this plant is lim-
ited to 50,000 barrels a day, and the maximum output capacity to produce low-sulfur fuel oil is 30,000 barrels
per day. This production is used to supply the 78% of the fuel-oil requirements at the Tula thermal-power
plant (1500 MW). In order to evaluate this control option, it was assumed, for calculation purposes, that this
plant operates at its maximum capacity. Furthermore, it was assumed that this technology achieves 44% SO2
emissions reduction [30]. The investment cost for this option amounts to $677 million [29]. Finally, the O&M
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Power plants with additional power capacity in NGCC for control options 6 and 7
Power plant ID Additional power capacity in NGCC (MW) Control option ID
ALT 203 6,7
TXP 630 6
VR 210 6
SLM 260 6
TUL 450 6
PTC 582 6,7
MNZ I, MNZ II 540 6,7
costs and the energy self-consumption produced by the implementation of this technology were not included
in this evaluation because the required information was not available.
5.6. Fuel-oil substitution by natural gas
Cost information published by CFE [31] was used to evaluate this option in eight selected power-plants (see
Table 2). This document contains data for power-plant conversion costs, including investment costs of fuel-oil
conversion to natural gas5 and installation of low-NOx burners, that can prevent up to 40% of NOx emissions.
Conversion of fuel-oil thermal-power plant into a natural-gas thermal-power plant implies reduction of 30% in
the eective power capacity due to a reduction in the steam generation thermal capacity and in the thermal
eciency of the process. In order to replace this power capacity loss, the construction of new natural-gas com-
bined cycle (NGCC) power plants of adequate plant-size were considered (see Table 4). In the capital-cost
breakdown of each plant, information of investment costs associated with new NGCC power plants was taken
from CFE [22]. In the case of Manzanillo I and Manzanillo II power-plants, an additional investment of $213
million was assumed and the fact that a gas pipeline6 (315 km long and 0.76 m diameter) is required [32]. Fur-
thermore, a reduction of 2% in the thermal eciency was assumed for each power-plant due to the conversion
to natural gas. However, this reduction was already included in the eective power-capacity reduction of 30%
mentioned above. Table 3 shows the additional fuel-consumption associated with this control option as well as
the range of costs considered in this case.
5.7. Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas
Four thermal-power plants (Altamira, Manzanillo I, Manzanillo II and Petacalco) were examined to eval-
uate the substitution of fuel oil by liqueed natural-gas (LNG). Additionally, three re-gasication stations
located in Altamira (in the Gulf of Mexico), Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas ports (in the centre-west of
the Mexican Pacic coast) were considered. As for the previous option, in addition to LNG costs, investments
costs were considered due to the conversion from fuel oil to LNG, the installation of low-NOx burners, and
the building of new NGCC plants to compensate for the 30% reduction in the installed power-capacity. The
cost of importing LNG to Mexican seaports ranged from $2.76 to $3.22/GJ in AD 2003 [33]. LNG prices
were less expensive when compared with Mexican natural-gas prices in the same year; generally between
$0.5 and $0.9/GJ. In this evaluation, the price scenario for imported LNG considers a dierence, from the
NG price, of $0.5/GJ (see Fig. 3).
5
Investment includes those for pipes, manifolds, control equipment and booths. In this case, booth is an infrastructure that contains the
control equipment and other auxiliary equipments used to manage adequately the feed and combustion of the natural gas in the boiler of
the power plant.
6
This investment includes that for a gas-compression station.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
5.8. Fuel-oil substitution by coal imported by sea and national coal substituted by coal imported by land
In the rst case, Mexican fuel-oil with 3.6% sulfur content [14] was substituted by 0.7% sulfur-content coal
(shipped by sea) in the Petacalco dual-fuel power-plant. In the second case, Mexican coal with 1% sulfur con-
tent [34] is substituted by 0.7% sulfur-content coal (conveyed by land) in two coal-red thermal-power plants,
namely Ro Escondido and Carbon II. In both cases, price scenarios were estimated with information from EIA
[17] (see Fig. 3).
6. Cost- eectiveness results for each SO2-control option
6.1. Chiyoda technology
Fig. 3 shows the cost-eectiveness results of Chiyoda technology. In this gure, the lower abscissa-axis rep-
resents the cumulative investment costs by analyzed power plant, whereas the upper abscissa-axis represents
the cumulative total-cost. Likewise, the left ordinate-axis represents the SO2-abatement costs, calculated by
power plant, whereas the right ordinate-axis represents the cumulative SO2-emission reduction with respect
to the SO2 emitted by the MEPS through the 15-years analyzed.
As the gure illustrates, when this control option is applied to the 10 most polluting power-stations, it can
reduce up to 67.8% of total SO2 emissions in the MEPS. However, the required cumulative investment and
total costs are high ($2.93 and $4.72 billion, respectively). The abatement cost varies between 216 and 449
USD/tonnes SO2. The low end of the range corresponds to the Tuxpan (TXP) fuel oil-red plant, while the
higher end of the range corresponds to the Carbon II (CRB II) coal-red power-plant.
Fig. 4 shows the results calculated for all of the selected control-options. In the following paragraphs, we
present only global results for each selected control option.
6.2. Calider technology
This technology produces a medium reduction in SO2 levels in the MEPS and it is estimated for seven
power plants. The cumulative investment is relatively low ($266 million), whereas the cumulative total cost
CUMULATIVE TOTAL COST FOR EACH SO2 CONTROL OPTION [106 USD]
CUMULATIVE SO2 -EMISSION REDUCTION
388 677 867 -1320 994 3239 4022 8641 4724

900 80%
[9] [5] [4] [8] [2] [7] [3] [6] [1]
800 70%
763
700 60%
619
USD/tonnes SO2
600 580 50%

500 498 461
460 488 449 40%
400 387
388 314 30%
300
200 180 225 216 20%
137 10%
100
0
0 0%
0
0 677 456 0 266 669 2481 1644 2933
CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT COST FOR EACH SO2 CONTROL OPTION [106 USD]
Abatement maximum cost Abatement minimum cost SO2 emission reduction
Fig. 4. Comparison of SO2-control options applied to Mexican power plants. [1] Chiyoda Technology, [2] Calider Technology, [3] LSFO
Technology, [4] LSD Technology, [5] fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization, [6] fuel-oil substitution by NG, [7] fuel-oil substitution by
liqueed natural-gas (LNG), [8] fuel-oil substitution by imported coal by sea and [9] National coal substitution by imported coal by land.
Cumulative SO2-emission reduction is expressed in this gure as a percentage of the overall emissions produced in the base case.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
is 3.6 times higher ($994 million). With regard to the SO2-abatement costs, the minimum value corresponds to
the Tuxpan power-plant (137 USD/tonnes SO2), whereas the maximum value corresponds to the Salamanca
power plant (180 USD/tonnes SO2). These abatement costs are in the low-level range category.
6.3. Limestone forced-oxidation (LSFO) technology
If this SO2-control option was applied to the eight selected power-plants, it would reduce by up to 59.5% of
the total SO2 emissions in the MES. The cumulative investment and total cost are high ($2.48 billion and $4.02
billion, respectively). Nevertheless, the SO2-abatement costs are in the medium-level range categoryfrom a
minimum of 225 USD/tonnes SO2 for the Tuxpan power-plant to a maximum of 314 USD/tonnes SO2 for the
Salamanca power-plant.
6.4. Lime-spray dryer (LSD) technology
The installation of LSD technology leads to a reduction of only 8% of SO2 emissions in the MEPS, because
it was applied only to two coal-red power plants (Ro Escondido and Carbon II). The cumulative investment
and total costs are $456 million and $867 million. This option has the highest abatement-costs (387 and 460
USD/tonnes SO2, respectively) in relation to the prior-scrubber technologies.
6.5. Fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization
This option generates a 3.5% reduction of SO2 emissions in the MEPS due to the fact that the existing pro-
duction capacity of fuel oil2% sulfur contentconsidered in this study is small. Nevertheless, the investment
cost is very high ($677 million). As a result, the abatement cost is also the highest among all control options
considered (763 USD/tonnes SO2). However, taking into account that this control-option can reduce sulfur
content by up to 1%, the SO2 reduction can be increased to 5.6% and the abatement cost can be lowered
to 469 USD/tonnes SO2i.e. close to the maximum abatement cost of the LSD technology.
6.6. Fuel-oil substitution by natural gas
This option allows SO2 emissions in the MEPS to be reduced by 63% when it is applied to eight selected
thermal-power plants. This SO2 control option requires a cumulative investment cost of $1.644 billion, where
$1.098 billion is for installation of 2844 MW of NGCC capacity. Nevertheless, the cumulative total-cost of
$8.641 billion is the highest among all analyzed control-options. Despite the magnitude of the SO2 reduction
achieved with this control option, the abatement costs are in the high-level range category, ranging from 488
to 619 USD/tonnes SO2. The Altamira power-plant has the lowest cost, whereas Manzanillo I and II power
plants have the highest.
6.7. Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas
This control option leads to a reduction of 29% of total SO2 emissions in the MEPS when it is used in four
selected thermal-power plants. The required cumulative investment cost of $669 million includes 1325 MW of
additional capacity distributed in four NGCC power-plants. In the LNG-prices scenariowhere there is a dif-
ference of $0.5/GJ with respect to the NG pricethe cumulative total cost is high ($3.239 billion). The abate-
ment costs range from 388 USD/tonnes SO2 (in the Altamira power plant) to 461 USD/tonnes SO2 (in the
Manzanillo II power plant). On the one hand, these abatement costs are higher than those for scrubber tech-
nologies, but on the other hand, they are lower than those for the fuel-oil substitution by natural-gas option.
6.8. Fuel-oil substitution by imported coal by sea and national coal substitution by coal imported by land
It was assumed that the substitution of fuel oil and Mexican coal by imported low-sulfur coal does not
require any investment. The substitution of fuel oil by 0.7% sulfur content coal (shipped by sea) option
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 5
Total (for investment, operating and maintenance) unit-cost average
Option ID Option 103 USD/GWh
1 Chiyoda technology 3.7
2 Calider technology 1.2
3 Limestone forced oxidation technology 4.0
4 Lime spray dryer technology 3.1
5 Hydrotreating fuel-oil 2% sulfur 5.7
6 Fuel-oil substitution by natural gas 8.6
7 Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas (0.5 USD/GJ price dierence NG-LNG) 6.9
8 Fuel-oil substitution by imported coal by sea with 0.7% sulfur content by weight 0.0
9 National coal substitution by imported coal by land with 0.7% sulfur content by weight 1.4
was applied to only one power plant: the Petacalco dual-red power plant. This option reduces the total SO2
emissions in the MEPS by only 7%. However, it produces economic benets that amount to $1320 million and,
consequently, doesnt have an abatement cost. These benets are derived as the dierence between the lowest
price per GJ of imported coal and the price per GJ of domestic fuel-oil. With regard to the substitution of
domestic coal by imported low-sulfur coal (shipped by land), this option reduces the total SO2 emissions in
the MEPS by only 3% when it is applied to the two Mexican coal-red power plants Ro Escondido and Carbon
II. The cumulative total costs are $388 million, and the abatement costs are in the high-level range category
(namely from 498 to 580 USD/tonnes SO2).
7. General results
Fig. 4 summarizes the results found in this study. The lower abscissa-axis represents the required cumula-
tive investment cost of implementing a SO2-control option in the selected power-plants. The upper abscissa-
axis represents the corresponding cumulative total-costs. The left ordinate-axis shows the range of SO2-abate-
ment costs found for each SO2 control option, whereas, the right ordinate-axis shows the cumulative reduction
of SO2 emissions. In this gure, all analyzed control options are ordered according to the magnitude of the
cumulative SO2-emissions reduction.
In terms of SO2-emissions reductions, there are three high-impact options for the selected power plants:
Chiyoda technology, fuel-oil substitution by natural gas, and LSFO technology. These SO2-control options
require high levels of investment and total costs, and reduce SO2-emissions by about 68, 63, and 59%, respec-
tively. The magnitude of total cost of the fuel-oil substitution by natural gas option is the highest of these three
options, and represents about twice the magnitudes of the total costs of each one of the other two options
($8641 vs. $4724 million for Chiyoda and $4022 million for LSFO). The fuel-oil substitution by natural-gas
option has the lowest cumulative investment cost, accounting for 5666% of the investment required for Chi-
yoda and LSFO options.
The investment intensity of the Chiyoda and LSFO technologies, in unitary terms, is higher than
that required for the fuel-oil substitution by the natural-gas option, according to Table 3. On the contrary,
in terms of the unitary total-cost (Table 5)7, these two scrubbers have lower costs than those incurred with
the natural-gas option (see Table 5). With regard to the abatement costs, the latter option and Chiyoda
technology (as implemented in coal-red power-plants) have costs in the high-level range category, but in
the case of Chiyoda (as implemented in fuel-oil red power-plants) and LSFO technologies, these costs are
in the medium-level range category.
Calider technology and fuel-oil substitution by LNG are two options that have a medium impact in terms
of the magnitude of the SO2 reduction achieved, i.e. 25% and 29%, respectively. The magnitudes of investment
and total costs of these two options are substantially lower in relation to the options discussed previously. In
the case of Calider technology, the magnitudes of the investment and total costs represent, respectively, 916%
and 1225% of those three options discussed in the preceding paragraph. In the case of fuel-oil substitution by
7
The unitary total costs in this work were calculated as average terms according to Table 5.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
LNG option, these magnitudes increase to 2341% and 3781%, respectively. In terms of abatement costs, the
Calider option has lower costs than those three options of the preceding paragraph. Nevertheless, the fuel-oil
substitution by LNG option leads to abatement costs in the high-level range category, which are also similar
to those found for the Chiyoda technologyas implemented in coal-red power plants. On the contrary, these
abatement costs are lower than those found for the fuel-oil substitution by natural-gas option.
The Calider-technology option requires about 40% ($266 million) of the investment cost for the fuel-oil sub-
stitution by LNG option ($669 million). A similar proportion of total cost is found when these two options are
compared ($994 vs. $2329 million, respectively).
The Calider technology requires small level of investmentin unitary terms, while this is at a medium level
for the LNG option, according to Table 3. Similarly, Calider has low unitary total costs but the LNG option
has a big value. By comparing the abatement costs, the LNG option has higher costs; roughly 2.52.8 times
those incurred with the Calider technology (388461 vs. 137180 USD/ton SO2, respectively).
The four low-impact options in terms of SO2-emissions reduction are: fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfuriza-
tion, fuel oil and national-coal substitution by imported 0.7% sulfur-content coal (either shipped by sea or
overland) and LSD technology. These options can reduce from 3% to 8% of SO2 emissions when implemented
in the selected power-plants. Because all these options were applied to few power plants, the percentage reduc-
tion in SO2 emissions is small. The fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization and LSD technology options have
similar magnitudes of investment costs with respect to the LNG and Calider options. With regard to the mag-
nitude of total costs, the fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization, the national-coal substitution by imported
0.7% sulfur-content coal and LSD options have similar magnitudes of total costs as incurred by the Calider
technology.
In terms of abatement costs, the fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization option has the highest cost of all ana-
lyzed SO2-control options (namely 763 USD/tonnes SO2). The LSD and the Chiyoda options (for coal-red
power plants) have similar abatement costs. Likewise, the national-coal substitution by imported 0.7% sulfur-
content coalshipped overlandand the fuel-oil substitution by natural-gas option have similar abatement
costs.
The fuel-oil substitution by imported low-sulfur coal option is a special case due to the fact that there are no
investment and total costs. On the contrary, it represents benets of $1320 million when this option is applied
to the Petacalco dual-fuel power plant and consequently this option does not have an abatement cost.
In terms of the magnitude of total costs, the LSD technology is the highest one from the group of the four
low-impact options for the SO2-emissions reduction. By comparing the abatement costs, the fuel-oil hydro-
treating desulfurization option has costs about 1.32.0 times higher than the costs of the national-coal substi-
tution by imported low-sulfur coal and the LSD technology options.
The investment intensity of the desulfurization option, in unitary terms, is higher than that of the LSD tech-
nology option, according to Table 3. The desulfurization option has larger unitary total costs than those of the
LSD option.
Table 6 shows the corresponding SO2-abatement cost for each SO2-control option and analyzed
power-plant. Fig. 5 was deduced using data contained in this table and shows a curve corresponding to the
Table 6
Abatement cost of SO2-control options in selected MES plants (USD/tonnes SO2)
Power plant ID Option ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TXP 216 137 225 509
MNZ II 237 152 246 619 461
VR 240 149 249 510
MNZ I 256 154 270 619 430
TUL 276 168 286 763 526
SLM 302 180 314 516
ALT 297 171 314 488 388
PTC 244 257 538 432 0
CRB II 449 460 580
RE 368 387 498
ARTICLE IN PRESS
CUMULATIVE TOTAL COST [106 USD]

-1320 -1143 -1059 -971 -827 -638 -528 -405 14 477
CUMULATIVE SO2 EMISSION REDUCTION

600 60%
PTC TXP VR MNZ II MNZ I TUL ALT SLM RE CRB II
[9] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [1] [1]
USD/tonnes SO2 500 50%
400 40%
300 30%
200 20%
100 Abatement cost 10%

Cumulative SO2 emission reduction
0 0%
0 64 85 106 146 197 231 266 532 841
CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT COST [106 USD]
Fig. 5. Best abatement cost route of SO2-emission control options. [1] Chiyoda Technology, [2] Calider Technology, [3] LSFO
Technology, [4] LSD Technology, [5] fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization, [6] fuel-oil substitution by NG, [7] fuel-oil substitution by
LNG, [8] fuel-oil substitution by imported coal by sea and [9] National coal substitution by imported coal by land.
lowest abatement cost found for each selected power-plant. Consequently, this gure represents the best
abatement-cost route for the selected power-plants. The abatement costs range from zero to 449 USD/tonnes
SO2 along this route. It starts at the point where the fuel-oil substitution by imported low-sulfur coal option is
implemented in the Petacalco dual-fuel power-plant and ends at the point where the Chiyoda technology is
implemented in the Carbon II coal-red power-plant. This cost route leads to a reduction of 41% of SO2 emis-
sions. This reduction can be achieved with an investment of $841 million. It is important to point out that
owing to the economic benets obtained with the fuel-oil substitution by imported low-sulfur coal option
in the Petacalco dual-fuel power plant, the total cost amounts to only $477 million during the 15-year period.
This, means a relatively small eort for the country to achieve a signicant reduction of the SO2 emissions
from the Mexican Electric Power Sector.
8. Conclusions
According to this studys results, the lowest SO2-abatement costs are found for the Calider technology
option, and ranges from 137 to 180 USD/tonnes SO2. However, the magnitude of reduction in total SO2-emis-
sions in the MEPS represents just 25%. Total required investment amounts to just $226 million, while total
costs are signicant, amounting to $994 million.
The abatement costs of the Chiyodaas implemented in fuel-oil red power plantsand LSFO technology
options are signicantly higher, varying between 225 and 314 USD/tonnes SO2 and between 216 and
302 USD/tonnes SO2, respectively. In contrast to the Calider technology option, the SO2-emissions reduction
achieved with the LSFO technologyor in feasible combinations with the Chiyoda technologyis high and
achieves 59%. Yet, the required amount of investment is also the highest and ranges between $2358 and $2481
million. Similarly, its total costs are also high and vary between $3841 and $4022 million.
The highest SO2-abatement costs are those incurred when implementing each of the following SO2-control
options: hydrotreatment of fuel oil (763 USD/tonnes SO2), fuel-oil substitution by natural gas (488619 USD/
tonnes SO2), substitution of domestic coal for low-sulfur content coal imported by land (498580 USD/tonnes
SO2), LSD technology (387460 USD/tonnes SO2) and Chiyoda technology in coal-red power plants (368
449 USD/tonnes SO2).
The substitution of fuel oil by natural gas is the one out of all analyzed options which has the most impact
on overall SO2-emissions reduction (63%). The total costs are the highest ($8641 million), although the invest-
ment costs are not so high ($1644 million).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The substitution option of national fuel-oil by imported low sulfur-content coal shipped by sea at the Pet-
acalco dual power plant, leads to important economic benets of $1320 million due to the dierence between
the lowest price per GJ of imported coal and the price of national fuel-oil. Because these economic benets are
higher than the total costs required for this option, there are no abatement costs.
When both economic benets and the lowest SO2-abatement costs of all analyzed power plants are consid-
ered, it is then possible to build a route that could achieve a reduction of 41% of SO2 emissions in the MEPS.
This requires an investment of $841 million and total cost of only $477 million. This means a relatively small
eort for the country to reduce by a signicant percentage the SO2 emissions from the Mexican Electric Power
Sector.
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out at the express request of Mexicos Ministry of Energy (SENER) and funded by
the World Resources Institute (WRI) (Project code 00142). The authors thank to Fidel Carrasco for his edi-
torial assistance.
References
[1] Markandya A. External costs of electricity: valuation of health impacts. Electricity, health and the environment: comparative
assessment in support of decision-making. Vienna: IAEA; 1996, p. 199214.
[2] Pawlowski L. Acidication: its impact on the environment and mitigation strategies. J Ecol Eng 1997;8:27188.
[3] Flues M, Hama P, Lemes M, Dantas E, Fornaro A. Evaluation of the rainwater acidity of a rural region due to a coal-red power
plant in Brazil. J Atmos Environ 2002;36:2397404.
[4] Discroll C, Discroll K, Mitchell M, Raynal D. Eects of acidic deposition on forest and aquatic ecosystems in New York State. J
Environ Pollut 2003;123:32736.
[5] Lopez M, Zuk M, Garibay V, Tzintzun G, Iniestra R, Fernandez A. Health impacts from power-plant emissions in Mexico. J Atmos
Environ 2005;39:1199209.
[6] SENER (Secretara de Energa). Prospectiva del sector electrico 20052014. Secretara de Energa, Mexico, D.F.; 2005.
[7] CFE (Comision Federal de Electricidad). Informe de operaciones 2004. Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, D.F.; 2005.
[8] INE-SEMARNAT (Instituto Nacional de Ecologa-Secretara de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales); 2006. Informes del
Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero 19902002. Mexico, D.F. <http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgicurg/
cclimatico/inventario3.html>.
[9] DOF (Diario Ocial de la Federacion). Norma Ocial Mexicana 085-ECOL-1994. Mexico: Secretara de Gobernacion; 1994.
[10] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Srivastava, R. Controlling SO2 emissions: a review of technologies. US-EPA/600/R-00/093.
Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 2000.
[11] Srivastava R, Jozewicz W, Singer C. SO2-scrubing technologies: a review. Environmental Progress 2001;20:21927.
[12] Kaminski J. Technologies and costs of SO2-emissions reduction for the energy sector. Appl Energy 2003;75:16572.
[13] Balance Nacional de Energa, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Mexico, DF: Secretara de Energa.
[14] SENER (Secretara de Energa). Personal communication, les sent by SENER to Centro de Investigacion en Energa, UNAM; 2003.
[15] CFE-COPAR (Comision Federal de Electricidad). Reference costs and parameters for project formulation in the electric sector 2003.
Generation. COPAR 2003. Gerencia de Evaluacion y Programacion de Inversiones, Mexico, D.F.: Comision Federal de Electricidad;
2004 [in Spanish].
[16] SENER (Secretara de Energa). Personal communication, les sent by SENER to Centro de Investigacion en Energa, UNAM; 2004.
[17] EIA (Energy Information Administration). Annual energy outlook 2004. DOE/EIA-0383; Washington, DC; 2004.
[18] Heaps, C. Long-range energy alternatives planning system (LEAP). Reference manual. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute
(SEI); 2000.
[19] Grande, G. Instrumentacion del modelo informatico LEAP para evaluacion de costos de mitigacion de SO2 en el Sector Electrico
Mexicano, Tesis de Licenciatura, Mexico: UAEM; 2005.
[20] CFE (Comision Federal de Electricidad). Informe de operaciones 2000. Mexico, D.F.: Comision Federal de Electricidad; 2001.
[21] Chiyoda Co. CT-121 FGD process; 2004. <http://www.chiyoda-corp.com/cgi-bin/chiyoda/frame-e.cgi?/biz/e/technology/index-
e.shtml>.
[22] CFE-COPAR (Comision Federal de Electricidad). Reference costs and parameters for project formulation in the electrical sector
2002. Generation. COPAR 2002. Gerencia de Evaluacion y Programacion de Inversiones, Mexico, D.F.: Comision Federal de
Electricidad; 2003 [in Spanish].
[23] Calider Co. SO2-emissions control. Grupo Calider, Monterrey, Mexico; 2004 [in Spanish].
[24] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Air-pollution control technology. Fact sheet (Flue gas desulphurization). EPA-452/F-03-
034. Washington, DC. USA: Environmental Protection Agency; 2002.
[25] Sargent and Laundy. Wet ue-gas desulphurization technology evaluation. Chicago, USA: National Lime Association; 2003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
[26] Srivastava R, Jozewicz W. Flue-gas desulfurization: the state of the art. Air Waste Manage Assoc 2001;51:167688.
[27] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Modelling applications using the integrated planning model. Documentation Report (V.2.1
Update); 2003. <http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/epa-ipm/#documentation2003>.
[28] Sargent, Lundy. Dry ue-gas desulphurization technology evaluation. Chicago, USA: National Lime Association; 2002.
[29] SHCP (Secretara de Hacienda y Credito Publico). Proyectos Prioritarios de Organismos y Empresas de Control Presupuestario
Directo de la SHCP, Mexico; 1998.
[30] ARPEL (Asociacion Regional de Empresas de Petroleo y Gas Natural en Latinoamerica y El Caribe). Impactos del cambio de
combustibles en las operaciones de las reneras y las emisiones atmosfericas. ARPEL, IRDC, Environmental Services Association of
Alberta, Montevideo, Uruguay; 1999.
[31] CFE (Comision Federal de Electricidad). Construction and investment programme to full new ecological standards. Mexico, D.F.:
Comision Federal de Electricidad; 1994 [in Spanish].
[32] SENER (Secretara de Energa). Natural-gas market prospective 20022011. Direccion General de Formulacion de Poltica
Energetica, Secretara de Energa; Mexico, DF. 2002 [in Spanish].
[33] SENER (Secretara de Energa). Gas Natural Licuado en Manzanillo o Lazaro Cardenas. Subsecretara de Planeacion y Desarrollo
Tecnologico, Unidad de Promocion de Inversiones; Mexico; 2004.
[34] Maycotte, J. Manejo de la Ceniza de Carbon en Ro Escondido, in Conferencia y Exposicion Mexico Power, October 810,
Monterrey, Mexico; 1996.

Abatement Costs of SO2-Control Options in The Mexican Electric-Power Sector

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Abatement Costs of SO2-Control Options in The Mexican Electric-Power Sector

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Abatement costs of SO2-control options in the Mexican

Keywords: SO2-control technologies; Abatement costs; Mexican electric-power sector

2 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

2. Mexican electric-power sector

40 Hydro and Geothermal

Fig. 1. Mexican electric-power-capacity evolution, 19652004 [13].

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 3

4 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

Imported coal 0.7%

Fig. 2. Future fuel prices [1517].

ACemission ACabatement =AAEabatement 1

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 5

4. Long-range energy-alternatives planning (LEAP), simulation procedure and input data

6 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

5. Selected SO2-control options

5.1. Chiyoda technology

5.2. Calider technology

5.3. Limestone forced-oxidation (LSFO) technology

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 7

5.4. Lime-spray dryer (LSD) technology

5.5. Fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization

8 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

5.6. Fuel-oil substitution by natural gas

5.7. Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 9

6. Cost- eectiveness results for each SO2-control option

6.1. Chiyoda technology

6.2. Calider technology

388 677 867 -1320 994 3239 4022 8641 4724

600 580 50%

200 180 225 216 20%

10 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

6.3. Limestone forced-oxidation (LSFO) technology

6.4. Lime-spray dryer (LSD) technology

6.5. Fuel-oil hydrotreating desulfurization

6.6. Fuel-oil substitution by natural gas

6.7. Fuel-oil substitution by liqueed natural-gas

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 11

12 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 13

CUMULATIVE TOTAL COST [106 USD]

CUMULATIVE SO2 EMISSION REDUCTION

100 Abatement cost 10%

14 J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx

J. Islas, G. Grande / Applied Energy xxx (2007) xxxxxx 15

S-ar putea să vă placă și